Why do libertarians aid, and abet Obama?

[Pheonixops]

The funding perhaps?

Surprise: Obama Bundler Bankrolling Libertarian in VA Governor's Race - Katie Pavlich

Libertarian Candidate in Va. Gubernatorial Contest Bankrolled by Obama Bundler | National Review Online

Revealed: Obama Campaign Bundler Helping Fund Libertarian in Tight Va. Gubernatorial Race | TheBlaze.com

I'm not surprised that those sources you quoted only gave a skewed version of the total truth.

"Among the negative press Sarvis received was an Election Day article in The Blaze that reported the Libertarian Booster PAC – which gave in-kind donations totalling $11,454 to Sarvis, mostly for ballot petitioning – received $150,000 in January from Joe Liemandt, a wealthy Democratic donor who also gives to Libertarians.

[READ: Did Guns Help McAuliffe Win? Probably Not]

"The donor in question didn't donate to my campaign," Sarvis counters. "He donated to a Libertarian PAC well before I got into the race."

That $11,454 Sarvis received was from the Libertarian PAC and NOT from Liemandt. The way some of those sources present the story is bogus and they try to imply that he was "bankrolled" by a Democrat. Too funny!!!

Being bankrolled by a pac bankrolled by a Democrat is the same thing.

LOL, $11,454.00 (from a Libertarian PAC) out of $175,614 in campaign donations is hardly "bankrolling" anyone. That's totally a bogus assertion made by beck and the other republican lackeys who don't even have a Libertarian bone in their dishonest bodies.

 

[Pheonixops]

This demonstrates how bogus some republicans are, are you people now going to say that the Libertarian National Committee Executive Director is a "fake Libertarian"?




With Libertarian Sarvis — mission accomplished

In the wake of Republican Ken Cuccinelli's defeat in the race for Virginia Governor, speculation is running rampant in right-wing media that Libertarian Robert Sarvis was a Democratic plant designed to help Terry McAuliffe.



Libertarian National Committee Executive Director Wes Benedict issued the following statement:
"I realize that, no matter what I say, paranoid right-wingers will think I'm a sneaky operative trying to help Democrats beat Republicans. This message is for the rational people out there.

I founded the Texas-based Libertarian Booster PAC in late 2011. Its purpose was to recruit and assist Libertarian Party candidates for public office. You can read more about it here.

In 2012, the PAC focused solely on non-federal races in Texas. With satisfactory accomplishments, and no partisan election happening in Texas in 2013, I looked to expand to other states where permitted by law. Virginia was one of two states with a gubernatorial election in 2013 plus state legislative elections, so it was an obvious choice.

Back at the end of 2008, a man contacted me expressing interest in the Libertarian Party. It turned out he was a successful high-tech entrepreneur. One of his comments was along the lines of, "What could the Libertarian Party do if it had a million dollars?" Naturally, I contact this man whenever I think I have a good idea that needs funding.

I've raised $300,000 from this donor for the Libertarian Booster PAC. He has provided very little in the way of instruction or advice regarding use of the money. The one strong suggestion he made was that we should try to build the Libertarian Party by recruiting Hispanics. He thought Democrats were taking Hispanics for granted, and Republicans were often hostile, and perhaps a massive wave of Hispanics could be convinced to join the Libertarian Party since we have a pro-immigration platform."

According to The Blaze, "[Rush] Limbaugh said the Democrats enlisted a 'fake Libertarian candidate' who was 'bought and paid for by an Obama bundler.'" That's an outright lie, and Limbaugh should retract his claim.

My strategies and tactics have never been secret. They are common strategies in the Libertarian Party, and they are the same strategies promoted at the founding of the Libertarian Party. I try to publicize them any way I can. I've even written a book about them and included a chapter about PACs.

I want Libertarians to win elections. But I also want them to run for office even when they're unlikely to win. Why? To get the public to discuss and consider libertarian principles.

Our liberties will not be secure until Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians are all fighting over the best ways to implement libertarian principles.

If I wanted to hurt the Republican in Virginia, I would have supported a right-wing candidate who sounded like a Tea Partier — who only talked about cutting welfare, Obamacare, and how bad Democrats are. I would never have helped someone like Robert Sarvis, who talked a lot about social issues that appeal to liberal voters. As it turned out, polls show that if Sarvis weren't in the race, McAuliffe would probably have won by a slightly bigger margin.

With Libertarian Sarvis ? mission accomplished | Libertarian Party

 

[Billy000]

These links give the true story! What libs don't want to hear!

I don't get it. Why should I be bothered by this? Who the hell cares if he did?

Because you would be whining right now if the opposite had been true. Cue the hypocrisy.

If the opposite were true? Lol um okay. Opposite as in how? If the libertarian was the one supporting Obama? Again, how would that bother me?

 

[FA_Q2]

A vote should be earned. Too many people spend their votes on the "lesser of two evils" instead. They are cheap whores, easily bought. They don't seem to understand that when you vote for the lesser of two evils, they are still voting for evil. This only results in more and more evil candidates from which to choose.

A vote is a message. It tells the receiver of the vote they are doing something right. So why in the ever loving FUCK would anyone would want to tell evil that it is doing the right thing is beyond me.

Better to abstain than to continue to reward evil.

Now...to address the OP. Not voting for the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as aiding and abetting Obama. The people who are aiding and abetting Obama are those in the opposition who are too chickenshit to put superior plans on the table, and who do nothing but whine and tremble and obsess over how many golf games Obama played or how many times he did or didn't say "God" today.

Jesus H. Christ, it's like he is opposed by a schoolyard of third graders!

Don't be blaming me if I can't stomach voting for those assholes. It is time to hold THEM accountable, ya dumb fuck.

LOL

When given the opportunity to get a lesser evil, I'll take the lesser evil and then throw up in a barf bag.

If I don't vote for the lesser evil, then the greater evil has a better chance of winning.

By your post, I'm part of the problem. I'd say you let the Greater evil in the door and didn't at least make sure the greater evil happened by hiding behind your BS post.

By voting for the lesser evil you have insured that the lesser evil will always continue to gain power. Essentially, the republicans are not going to change as long as people are voting for them, period. That is a simple fact. If a politician states that he is going to do X and then gets votes he/she is going to continue down that tract until it no longer gains them votes.

To put it another way, you cannot change politics or politicians by voting for them. You only change them by voting for the ones that represent that change. Keep voting for that ‘lesser evil’ but don’t you dare come back to me whining when that evil persists indefinitely and destroys the entire nation.

A pure Libertarian is different than a conservative. I believe that the Constitution has been murdered by Progressives, Liberals, and Rhino's over time. Especially going back to Wilson.

Now, they have taken us into a currency nightmare with no end in sight. And then tell us it isn't a problem. So we can't pay our bills already and increase the size of Gov't. More Debt and more currency manipulation.

So, our gov't's answer to previous failed policies is just to do more of the same. Perhaps we need to find out what they are smoking, so we can get some of it. Maybe then we could understand what has fried their brains.

And yet you continue to vote for them ENSURING that they will never change. See above statements, THAT is why you are part of the problem. I am surprised that you understand the problem but cannot see how you are abetting it. It is not a leap of logic to see why politicians continue to do what they do while they are still getting so damn many votes.

 

[FA_Q2]

There are also more libertarians within the Republican Party than the Libertarian Party, so it's simply silly to vote for the libertarians, because you are in affect, promoting the statist policies you claim to hate so much by aiding Obama, and the Democrat party.

So you keep stating. I guess we are to simply believe this tripe because you say that it is true. On the other hand, the actual libertarians here have shown you exactly why what you have stated here so far is unequivocally false. You might want to actually open your mind for a second and maybe you will understand the root of the problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

In fact both Ron and Rand Paul actually endorsed Cuccinelli instead of endorsing Sarvis. That's quite telling that though they both may have Libertarian leanings (the father more than the son in my opinion) , they are still Republicans and not Libertarians when it comes down to it.................... Here's a Libertarian who used to be a republican:
Gary Johnson endorses Sarvis for governor - Richmond Times-Dispatch

I think a lot of that (at least as far as Ron Paul goes) goes to the idea that the party is best changed from within. I believe that is Ron Paul’s thoughts on changing the political landscape because he has been a ‘republican’ but never really supported republican positions. He has always tried to change the party as an inside member.

 

[FA_Q2]

2) Not murdering someone just involves not committing the act of murdering them. Not having an abortion means she is required to carry the baby to term. What other law does government not only tell you what you can't do (e.g., shoot someone, take drugs, steal), but what you must do (continue to carry the baby)?

Obamacare.
*snicker*

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't get it. Why should I be bothered by this? Who the hell cares if he did?

Because you would be whining right now if the opposite had been true. Cue the hypocrisy.

If the opposite were true? Lol um okay. Opposite as in how? If the libertarian was the one supporting Obama? Again, how would that bother me?

Opposite as in a republican (well use the Koch Brothers here) donated cash to the Green Party candidate and that candidate took 6%, the dem took 46%, and the rep won with 48%. That would be the opposite and you would likely scream bloody murder based on your many posts here.


You should not care in either situation but I have doubts (as Templar apparently does) that you would be so uncaring if the above scenario were the actual case. Oddly enough, this is not the first time that this has played out anyway. There have been claims exactly like this on both sides before.

 

[Billy000]

Because you would be whining right now if the opposite had been true. Cue the hypocrisy.

If the opposite were true? Lol um okay. Opposite as in how? If the libertarian was the one supporting Obama? Again, how would that bother me?

Opposite as in a republican (well use the Koch Brothers here) donated cash to the Green Party candidate and that candidate took 6%, the dem took 46%, and the rep won with 48%. That would be the opposite and you would likely scream bloody murder based on your many posts here.


You should not care in either situation but I have doubts (as Templar apparently does) that you would be so uncaring if the above scenario were the actual case. Oddly enough, this is not the first time that this has played out anyway. There have been claims exactly like this on both sides before.

Um, no I still wouldn't care.

First off, it needs to be said that all three of the sources of this story have a huge conservative bias so they are likely spinning this story to fit an agenda.

Second, I must say the hypocrisy of this thread is complete bullshit. For the sake of argument, let's just say this actually is an unbiased story and Obama really did directly pledge support for this libertarian. You cons are always complaining that Obama is so uncompromising and so radically far left, yet when there is evidence like this to the contrary of that claim, you say "man, what a hypocrite!" rather than giving him credit for making an effort to be centrist.

Come on, where is the praise for Obama in light of this evidence? Where is the concession that Obama has made an effort to reach across the aisle? (This would be far from the first instance of that, anyway).

This thread is proof that USMB cons intentionally avoid giving Obama credit for anything good that he does. You would rather buy into the Fox News narrative that he is a complete failure as a president rather than accepting facts for what they are. It's immature, really.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the opposite were true? Lol um okay. Opposite as in how? If the libertarian was the one supporting Obama? Again, how would that bother me?

Opposite as in a republican (well use the Koch Brothers here) donated cash to the Green Party candidate and that candidate took 6%, the dem took 46%, and the rep won with 48%. That would be the opposite and you would likely scream bloody murder based on your many posts here.


You should not care in either situation but I have doubts (as Templar apparently does) that you would be so uncaring if the above scenario were the actual case. Oddly enough, this is not the first time that this has played out anyway. There have been claims exactly like this on both sides before.

Um, no I still wouldn't care.

First off, it needs to be said that all three of the sources of this story have a huge conservative bias so they are likely spinning this story to fit an agenda.

The accuracy of the story has already been addressed regardless of the source. The fact that you are completely unaware of that is telling about how much you actually bothered to read. Nor does it have any relation to the hypothetical that was brought up and you still completely don’t understand.

Second, I must say the hypocrisy of this thread is complete bullshit. For the sake of argument, let's just say this actually is an unbiased story and Obama really did directly pledge support for this libertarian. You cons are always complaining that Obama is so uncompromising and so radically far left, yet when there is evidence like this to the contrary of that claim, you say "man, what a hypocrite!" rather than giving him credit for making an effort to be centrist.

More idiocy. Obama has nothing to do with the situation mentioned one bit. The issue in question was about the bundler NOT Obama. Further, this is an accusation of election rigging and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ‘reaching across the aisle.’ I would suggest that, before you go around making such asinine claims and charges, you bother to read and understand what the actual situation is here. It is clear that you offered nothing more than a cursory glance at any of the posts here at all. You complete and total misunderstanding of the subjects at hand make such crystal clear.

Come on, where is the praise for Obama in light of this evidence? Where is the concession that Obama has made an effort to reach across the aisle? (This would be far from the first instance of that, anyway).

Read above. This is not only completely separate from Obama but has nothing to do with being ‘centrist’ unless you think the centrist thing to do is attempting to rig elections.

This thread is proof that USMB cons intentionally avoid giving Obama credit for anything good that he does. You would rather buy into the Fox News narrative that he is a complete failure as a president rather than accepting facts for what they are. It's immature, really.

The post is proof that you are unwilling to read the posts that you respond to and instead fill in that gap with preconceived notions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Billy000]

Opposite as in a republican (well use the Koch Brothers here) donated cash to the Green Party candidate and that candidate took 6%, the dem took 46%, and the rep won with 48%. That would be the opposite and you would likely scream bloody murder based on your many posts here.


You should not care in either situation but I have doubts (as Templar apparently does) that you would be so uncaring if the above scenario were the actual case. Oddly enough, this is not the first time that this has played out anyway. There have been claims exactly like this on both sides before.

Um, no I still wouldn't care.

First off, it needs to be said that all three of the sources of this story have a huge conservative bias so they are likely spinning this story to fit an agenda.

The accuracy of the story has already been addressed regardless of the source. The fact that you are completely unaware of that is telling about how much you actually bothered to read. Nor does it have any relation to the hypothetical that was brought up and you still completely don’t understand.

More idiocy. Obama has nothing to do with the situation mentioned one bit. The issue in question was about the bundler NOT Obama. Further, this is an accusation of election rigging and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with ‘reaching across the aisle.’ I would suggest that, before you go around making such asinine claims and charges, you bother to read and understand what the actual situation is here. It is clear that you offered nothing more than a cursory glance at any of the posts here at all. You complete and total misunderstanding of the subjects at hand make such crystal clear.

Come on, where is the praise for Obama in light of this evidence? Where is the concession that Obama has made an effort to reach across the aisle? (This would be far from the first instance of that, anyway).

Read above. This is not only completely separate from Obama but has nothing to do with being ‘centrist’ unless you think the centrist thing to do is attempting to rig elections.

This thread is proof that USMB cons intentionally avoid giving Obama credit for anything good that he does. You would rather buy into the Fox News narrative that he is a complete failure as a president rather than accepting facts for what they are. It's immature, really.

The post is proof that you are unwilling to read the posts that you respond to and instead fill in that gap with preconceived notions that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Well all that considered, why exactly should i care? You still haven't given me good reason to.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well all that considered, why exactly should i care? You still haven't given me good reason to.

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well all that considered, why exactly should i care? You still haven't given me good reason to.

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming he is reading anything other than his posts.

 

[Billy000]

Well all that considered, why exactly should i care? You still haven't given me good reason to.

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

Yeah i didn't even open the links.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well all that considered, why exactly should i care? You still haven't given me good reason to.

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

Yeah i didn't even open the links.

I am done with anything you have to post on the forums as you have exemplified stupidity to a level that I am no longer willing to deal with. That admission is so asinine that I can’t even believe you took the time to post it.

Why bother saying anything at all if you are not even going to read the topic.

Well all that considered, why exactly should i care? You still haven't given me good reason to.

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming he is reading anything other than his posts.

Yes, I did. Mistake noted and rectified. I shant be making that mistake again.

 

[Billy000]

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

Yeah i didn't even open the links.

I am done with anything you have to post on the forums as you have exemplified stupidity to a level that I am no longer willing to deal with. That admission is so asinine that I can’t even believe you took the time to post it.

Why bother saying anything at all if you are not even going to read the topic.

Reading compression fail.

Go back and read my statements. At this point you are not worth engaging in as you have no concept of what the topic is, the points of the debate or even the positions that you are directly quoting.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming he is reading anything other than his posts.

Yes, I did. Mistake noted and rectified. I shant be making that mistake again.

Lol you're a tad over dramatic. Okay if you fear argument that much than I suppose I can't hold it against you.

 

[American4Americ]

Liberals are never worth arguing with.