Honestly don’t care, as he is certainly is a piss-poor fit for conservatives. I’ll let the Libertarian Party base (all 2 of them, hah!) fight over him being Libertarian enough as the nominee of the Libertarian party (a bit late).
Oh, he’s terrible. Mainly I think the libertarians got caught off guard because they never expected to be taken seriously and nominated someone who wasn’t serious about the whole thing. But he also isn’t very libertarian.
I consider myself a mix of libertarian and conservative so Gary seemed like a logical choice at first. However,like DD said, his ticket is NOT very libertarian but he ran as a conservative leaning libertarian and his record in New Mexico showed as much so naturally conservatives who don’t like Trump would flock to him. Not a huge fan of him though.
On another note, I’m baffled (but not really) that he is stealing Clinton voters. He doesn’t represent them what so ever. Libertarian must be close enough to liberal to vote for him.
Hey Silyak. True. It’s not always easy to place freedom as a value over our personal morality. It’s a bit of a paradox since freedom is a fundamental principle of both my faith and this amazing country we love.
This is simplistic, but the church will generally take a stance against things that rob people of their freedom to act, through addiction. Interestingly, they have defended Native American’s right to smoke peyote as part of their religious observance. Freedom of Religion trumps the anti-drug stance there. They’ll opposed state sponsored gambling when they can, because addictions cause a loss of freedom, and gambling is effectively a regressive tax on the poor. You don’t see LDS people trying to bring back Prohibition, or taking a stand to outlaw tobacco, even though we don’t drink or smoke. I think some of this is just the pragmatism of a religious minority trying to coexist in a diverse society.
You can make the Libertarian argument that Jesus is never about compulsion or force. He doesn’t want obedience out of fear. He wants a broken heart and a contrite spirit, internal change and sincere intent, not a people who are coerced. In that sense, you could argue that it’s better to give people their freedom. “Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves.” Freedom is fundamental to the mortal existence. Evil is in the world, not because God is powerless, but so His children can learn to make choices. I think that would be the Christian Libertarian position.
Of course, we aren’t supposed to embrace evil. And we tend to want laws (and leaders) that seem just and good, according to our own moral compass. And there’s the rub.
Note, I have heard some very intelligent Libertarians argue the pro-life stance. Freedom for the individual extends to our unborn children. Judge Andrew Napolitano has made that argument. Of course, that isn’t a Libertarian platform position.
2 Likes
I imagine that if you are a socially liberal person who believes that Hillary has betrayed the public trust and does not have the integrity to be President, he’s a logical place to go
I can agree with that but why not Jill Stein? Or just write in Bernie. Same result. .
1 Like
I put the equivalent of US$ 100 on Trump when he was 5 to 1 underdog two weeks ago. He’s now down to 2 to 1 and dropping fast. Hillary is at 1,4 to 1 at the moment and rising.
5% goal. Johnson has a better shot at that than Stein or a write-in
2 Likes
Predictions–all bets are off: The Cubs won the World Series, their win was called by some high school Nostradamus senior in 1993, RLC posts “indictment likely”, dogs and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria!
2 Likes
Clinton in a landslide!
There is a reason the Senate gets to confirm Justices. If they were meant to just rubber stamp any nominee, then why bother? You can say they need to do their job, I say they are.
“In 1866, they proposed the Judicial Circuits Act, which passed the House 78-41 and was approved in the Senate on a voice vote. The act required that “no vacancy in the office of the office of associate justice of the supreme court shall be filled by appointment until the number of associate justices shall be reduced to six.” The Supreme Court, which then had ten seats (one of which was vacant) would be reduced with the death or retirement of each justice until it was down to six seats. Effectively, Congress ensured that Johnson would never have the opportunity to appoint a justice.”
Edit: If Congress not having a vote is your main point of discontent, would enacting legislation similar to the Judicial Circuits Act be “doing their job?”
1 Like
1 Like
I figure it’s more a case of NeverTrumpers that don’t really align with Clinton but don’t want to vote for Trump. They’re NeverTrumpers so in a two way horserace they go Clinton. But given other choices, they take them.
2 Likes
I really don’t think ActivitiesGuy is saying the Senate should just rubber stamp a nominee. It is; however, the Senate’s responsibility to advise and consent (or not consent) to a choice. Ignoring a nomination is not fulfilling the Senate’s article two responsibility.
He can speak for himself, but it seems to me he is just saying Congress should do their job, i.e., vote to give or not give consent on the nominee. If they vote down Garland or whoever HRC picks (assuming she wins) then so be it. That is them not consenting to the pick and fulfilling their duty.
1 Like
^100% correct.
Alrightmiami, you’re arguing against a straw man here. At no point have I said that the Senate should agree to just rubber stamp whoever Obama (or HRC) nominates. The fact that Congress has refused to confirm Supreme Court justices before is fine.
What is not fine is preemptively announcing that they will not even consider whoever the next President nominates if the next President is not a member of their party. “Doing their job” in this case does not mean they must confirm the new nominee. It means that they must…well, here it is:
I honestly can’t tell if you don’t understand the distinction here, or you’re just being disingenuous because it makes your position sound better.
Politically, it is easy to see why they passed on the vote.
They reject on party lines, O feeds an endless procession of ultra Libs, they reject, and MSM never takes ‘GOP obstruction’ off the headline. Election bloodbath for GOP.
As is, no one talking this because corruption, Russian, wimmenz.
Here is the flip side to head off Lib bitching. If rulings are coming from the several left leaning Appellate, they also are not being overturned or even reviewed at USSC.
1 Like
It would be interesting to see, as it relates to SCOTUS nominations, how this board would react if the Senate was to flip and Trump won the election.
2 Likes
Well, they wouldn’t have the same excuse the republicans have now. But that has happened back when obama, joe, and hilary all did the same thing and refused to confirm anyone who held different legal philosophies despite qualifications.
That it’s an election year, is that what you mean?
And I imagine many folks around here were blowing a gasket over what I’m almost positive would have been called obstructionism by the left.
I expect politicians to fulfill their duties regardless of their party affiliation or ideologues. Maybe I expect too much.
1 Like
yup.
You could probably search for it and see.
yes. You expect way too much.
1 Like