On August 28, a Connecticut state trial court held oral arguments in Shafiq Abdussabur v Evans. The issue is whether the Plaintiff should be added to the Democratic primary ballot as a candidate for Mayor. The primary is next month. The candidate had enough valid signatures but the New Haven election board did not realize he had enough, so they left him off the ballot. The city argues that it is too late to add him to the ballot, even though the regular ballots have not been printed yet, although some absentee ballots have been printed. See this story.
AUTOMATIC REDO OF ILLEGAL ELECTIONS —
MUCH TOO DIFFICULT FOR EACH BRAIN DEAD REGIME.
ELECTIONS – ONE OF THE VERY FEW THINGS THAT *DEMOCRACY* REGIMES MUST DO CORRECTLY.
The 2020 election should be redone. Trump obviously won, but they Democrats stuffed the ballot box.
Bob, which state was called incorrectly, in your opinion?
Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, possibly Nevada. Filled with fraudulent ballots.
@RW,
There has never been an official review of the number of signatures.
The candidate, Shafiq Abdussabur, had filed as an independent candidate. Bizarrely in Disconnectedicut filing as an independent only required 127 signatures, vs. 1623 to get on the Democratic Primary ballot.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-arabia-reportedly-sentences-man-150545790.html
ANY TROLL CRITICS OF SA REGIME STILL ALIVE ???
@AZ,
This has what to do with the New Haven mayoral election?
I think I cracked the code. It’s related because Saudi Arabia has the same initials as Shafiq Abdussabur.
There no reason to print the names of any candidates on the ballot. No deadlines.
WFKW ITS BECUZ HIS NAME SOUNDS LIKE ONE THEM AYRAB OR ISLAMICAL TYPE FELLERS!!!
REAL DEMOCRACY VIA ELECTIONS VS MANY FOREIGN KILLER/ENSLAVER REGIMES WITH KILLER/ENSLAVER MONARCHS/OLIGARCHS – OFTEN SELF APPOINTED OR STONE AGE HEREDITARY.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-next-presidential-election-already-212127788.html
RUSSIA JOKE FRAUD ELECTION – PUTIN PUPPETS
DAILY BEAST IS THE REAL JOKE. TOTAL FAKE NEWS. AZ IS FAKE NEWS PUPPET.
IS AZ A SELF APPOINTED TROLL MORON IN CHIEF OR STONE AGE HEREDITARY ?????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Russian_presidential_election
WILL TRUMP RUN FOR RUSSIA PREZ AFTER ESCAPING FROM USA ???
NO, HE’S RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA, AND HE’S GONNA WIN. BIDEN MIGHT TRY TO ESCAPE TO CHINA THOUGH.
“The candidate had enough valid signatures but the New Haven election board did not realize he had enough, so they left him off the ballot. The city argues that it is too late to add him to the ballot, even though the regular ballots have not been printed yet.”
Sounds fishy.
For a site devoted to how the two-party duopoly unfairly shuts out competition, there sure are a surprising number of Democrats and Republicans commenting.
@WZ,
I don’t think there has been an actual finding that the candidate has enough signatures. He claims to have reviewed his petitions and found mistakes.
He has filed as an independent, which is actually easier. This may have confused RW.
@PGI the site touches on a lot of other subjects. Also, many of us are former third party supporters. We’ve supported Republicans when they ran good candidates (Goldwater, Reagan, Trump). We’ve supported third parties when they ran good candidates (George Wallace, John Schmitz, Lester Maddox, Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Bob Barr, Virgil Goode). The interesting thing about that list of candidates is that they were all active in major parties, in most cases as elected officials or candidates, before and after their third party forays.
Currently, a lot of us are loyal to Trump, but we’re not necessarily loyal to the GOP. You might note that Trump has not pledged to support the Republican nominee if it’s not him. He has explicitly held open the possibility of running as a third party candidate, and continues to do so. In 2000 he actually ran for the Reform Party nomination. Over the years he has been registered to vote as a Democrat, Republican, and independent or Independence Party supporter.
Similarly, George Wallace was a Democrat before and after his third party run; John Schmitz was a Republican before and after his; Lester Maddox was a Democrat before he ran as American Party, and I think he returned to one of the major parties after; Ron Paul was a Republican before and after he ran as a Libertarian; Ross Perot was not a politician, but supported Republicans before and after he ran as independent and Reform Party; Pat Buchanan and Bob Barr were Republicans before and after they ran as Reform Party and Libertarian, respectively; and Virgil Goode has been a Democrat, Republican, independent, and Constitution Party candidate.
Likewise, not all third party candidates are genuine outsiders. John Anderson, Americans Elect, No Labels, Gary Johnson, and William Weld are examples of globalist, establishment, insider, elitist, internationalist puppets running or mulling running as independents or third parties. This also extends to recent Libertarian national chairs Sarwark, Henchman, and Bilyeu. Their most recent presidential candidate, Jo Jorgensen, supported the Marxist burn loot murder (blm) movement, which is as unlibertarian as you can possibly get. Donald Trump is infinitely more libertarian than Gary Johnson, Bill Weld, Jo Jorgensen, Nicholas Sarwark, Joe Bishop Henchman, or Whitney Bilyeu.
What really matters is not what party is listed next to a candidate’s name but what they represent. If candidates like Mitt Romney, John McCain, the Bushes, Bob Dole etc take control of the GOP again, I would once again pull my support from them. Down ticket, I likewise support whoever is the best candidate for any office; it can be a Republican, independent, Libertarian, Construction Party candidate, etc. It can even be a Democrat, although that hasn’t happened lately; they have pretty much entirely been taken over by Fabian communist termites who want nothing more than to destroy the pillars of our Constitutional Republic, individual liberty, state and national sovereignty, and Christian and European heritage and civilization, human racial biodiversity, families and family values, our military and law enforcement, rule of law, borders, energy independence, balance of trade, freedom of speech and religion, Second Amendment rights, property rights, and even our manhood.
The left is evil, and must be defeated. Otherwise, you can kiss every vestige of freedom goodbye as they create a global panopticon totalitarian state with a global Luciferian religion, one blended mud race of drugged, brainwashed, mind controlled zombie slaves, total information control, and a living hell on earth forever. This needs to be resisted by any means possible, regardless of party.
Appreciate the background, thank you!
In my opinion, Trump is the least Libertarian Republican in my lifetime. Most Republicans are decently libertarian on economic issues (lower taxes, deregulations, freer trade) but authoritarian on social issues, with Democrats vice versa (private people free to make own decisions regarding marriage, sex, and what they put into their body).
Trump, with his steep tariffs and socialist industrial policy was authoritarian in both axes. And given his wealth, power, and privilege, he’s as establishment and elite as any politician. He’s very vested in the status quo, and thus he didn’t implement any reforms that would have actually made a difference. His biggest policy achievement was a corporate tax cut.
https://www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-reform-plan-explained/
Regarding BLM, as I said elsewhere, I’m a Libertarian because I agree with Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This means most government officials are corrupt — most especially the police. Two of the best checks on the corrupting influence of power are transparency (e.g., body cams) and accountability (e.g., no qualified immunity).
Libertarians would do well to remember this. Jo Jorgensen and Justin Amash do. And both of their economic stances are *far* more libertarian than Trump’s.
You are completely wrong. Demon Rats are more authoritarian all over the place (freedom of religion, freedom of speech, you name it). Trump is for less regulations and lower taxes. What you call free trade is globally managed trade and not at all free.
Burn loot murder is communist Marxist it’s not in any way whatsoever libertarian. Law and order is the bedrock of liberty. You’re also wrong about who is more libertarian. The real libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Walter Block support Trump. If Murray Rothbard was alive he’d be stumping for Trump.
Trump wealth is nothing compared with the trillions controlled by the globalist establishment he stands up against. He disrupts the broken status quo, which is why the establishment is throwing everything they got including one dirty trick after another against him. That’s why he wasn’t able to do more his first term. Now that he has learned how it actually works up there, he can achieve a lot more with his second. That said,he did a lot more than just tax cuts.
You are correct that Republicans are more libertarian on freedom of speech, but Democrats are more libertarian on freedom of religion (with Republicans often backing policies based on Christian values).
Free trade means no government restrictions on what people buy and sell. Every voluntary trade is a mutually beneficially exchange, or else it would not occur. A person only buys something if they value it higher than the money they part with. Likewise, someone only sells something if they want the money more than it. Any government restriction on voluntary trades reduces both liberty as well as quality of life.
Now, there are a lot of “libertarians” who want a weaker federal government so that they can increase the power of local governments to trample upon the individual liberties of certain people that they dislike for whatever reasons. But anybody who wants to increase the power of government at *any* level isn’t really a libertarian in my book.
I see a lot of names thrown around, but people stand for a wide variety of things, and it’s unlikely that I’ll agree or disagree with every single thing. As I see it, the best way to tell the difference between a Libertarian and a “libertarian” is to ask where they stand on specific policies, and then examining those policies to see if they increase or decrease the size and scope of government.
What does free trade look like to you? What do you see as the best check on government police power?
Demonrats more libertarian on freedom of religion? LOL. They have zero regard for religious liberty for Christians. Globally managed trade is not free. Calling it free trade is just propaganda.
They have more regard for the liberty of Christians than Republicans have for those of other religions (e.g., Trump’s ban on flights from Muslim countries).
I notice you did not disagree on what I said about the best way to tell the difference between a Libertarian and a “libertarian.” If you want to avoid this discussion turning into a bunch of accusations about propaganda, let’s please keep the discussion about what policies we each support.
What does free trade look like to you? What do you see as the best check on government police power?
Not playing your stupid games. Trump was right about keeping terrorists out. Real libertarians back law and order, not burn loot murder, don’t support population replacement / White genocide, don’t support legalized baby murder, don’t support globally managed trade…your version of “libertarianism” is suicidal bowing and scraping to beltway Bolsheviks and to the Mau Mau Marxist and islamofascist enemies of America and freedom, never mind libertarianism.
Interesting that your argument is limited to saying negative things about people you hate, and that you consider policy-based discussion to be a “stupid game.”
The whole point of politics is to form policy. Anything else distracts from that goal.
“perfectlygoodlink” is a communist.
“Only government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with perfectly good ink and make the combination worthless.” – Milton Friedman
Friedman was Reagan’s economic advisor. Was Friedman or Reagan a communist?
Only a socialist or a statist supports big government policies that interfere with the free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor. Real Libertarians believe in individual liberty as the best way to solve a problem, not the government.
The ones that support big government immigration restrictions and stronger police are usually called conservatives or populists or nationalists. There’s nothing wrong with being a conservative, populist, or nationalist. Why do so many people here seem afraid of owning up to a more accurate term and seem intent upon coopting the Libertarian label while advocating for larger government?
I don’t hate people, I hate stupid and destructive ideas. People can be saved by repentance. I just refuse to carry out the discussion on your terms. I stand by everything I said. I understand the point of politics. Trump is a lot better at it than libertarians, both on issues and in terms of effectiveness.
Friedman was good on some things, not so much on others. Reagan was the best we could do at the time. I voted for him in the 1976-84 primaries and 1980-4 general elections. I voted for Trump in the 2016 and 2020 primary and general elections. And will again in 2024. Trump is better than Reagan. He deals in what’s possible in today’s reality, so we can do even better in the future.
Conservatives and nationalists are better than libertarians. However, a lot of libertarians, including the Mises Institute and Ron Paul among many others, are not suicidal on the immigration issue. You can read plenty of libertarian arguments about why importing a whole bunch of turd world immigrants is horrible for liberty in the long and short term. It’s easy to find them if you look, despite whatever software quirks or forum management tweaks keep them from being posted here.
I find that the best critiques of a policy proposal are those that are worded neutrally. When an undecided observer watches two people having a debate, the person who stays calm and professional (and avoids throwing shade whether at people or ideas) is more likely to be persuasive and convincing.
I’m an ideological relativist. Each person has their own personal views, and nobody’s view is more or less valid than anybody else’s. One of the worst things about politics and political discussions in the US is how much they resemble sports, and arguments between sports fans are doomed to be as unproductive as they are predictable. The interesting part about a person’s view about a policy or ideology is *why* they believe it.
In that vein, I think strict immigration is counterproductive in the long run. Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the native born and are more likely to start businesses than the native born. A lot of this is because they understand more fully the opportunity that they have here. Someone born here is a lot more likely to take their rights and liberties for granted than someone who lived through oppression and/or hardship and escaped that to come to the US.
I also see government power as inherently corrupting due to the sausage making of the political process where special and moneyed interests generally have an unfair say.
Glad you like the Mises Institute. Here’s an example of what they have to say on immigration, and it’s pretty typical for a true Libertarian as well as anyone who has learned about the economic benefits of international trade.
https://mises.org/wire/more-protectionism-and-regulation-wont-fix-economy
“On April 20, Trump announced… he was unilaterally suspending all immigration to the United States….
…
As a response to the economic calamity, the immigration suspension was ludicrous. Americans lost their jobs not due to an influx of immigrants, but because of government-imposed lockdowns in response to COVID-19. Obviously, companies forced to shut down are not in the business of hiring anyone.
For those companies that are hiring, an immigration suspension would only make it more difficult to provide vital products. Agricultural firms, such as farms and meat-packing plants, rely on immigrant labor. Immigrants also make up a disproportionate share of healthcare workers; nearly thirty percent of all physicians in the United States are foreign born. In the middle of a pandemic, what sense would it make to prevent the healthcare industry from recruiting more migrant doctors?
…
[T]he administration’s ban does not bode well for the future of immigration policy. Tepid though it might be, by stripping American businesses of the right to hire whom they please, the ban represents a major step toward granting the federal government more control over the labor market.”
You can word things your way, and I’ll word them mine. I think I expressed mine well enough. You can disagree. Other people can take from it what they want. I like the Mises institute better than I like some other libertarians. I don’t agree with them on everything either. For that matter they don’t always agree with each other at the Mises group. Clearly they are not unanimous on immigration. You cherrypicked something they published I do not agree with, just like your sources cherrypicked data to reach the erroneous conclusion that we have less crime as a result of the illegal invaders.
Sources were already mentioned to correct that and your other misconceptions based on cherrypicked data. Repeating the same things endlessly adds nothing.
Peruse as many articles here as you like. It should become clear that the example I presented was far more representative than you imply.
https://mises.org/topics/immigration
Hmmm ok. Not my experience with them.
Don’t mix up the Mises Caucus with the Mises Institute. The former is engaged primarily in politics, particularly the Paleolibertarian strategy of appealing to social conservatives to recruit them from the Republican Party. The latter is staffed with scholars that aim to further the ideas of the Austrian School of economics.
Anybody who studies economics (including Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard) well understands the gains of free trade and that the free flow of labor strongly resembles this.
I’m pretty familiar with Austrian Economics because I attended a FEE seminar on it, and it was also emphasized by SJSU’s econ department when I went to grad school there (when Lydia Ortega was chair — Matt Holian has since changed it to focus more on data, which I do think is a good move in light of the empirical revolution in the field).
Indeed, I recall that one of my SJSU classmates designed the “Enemy of the State” Murray Rothbard T-shirt that I still have today.
https://twitter.com/perfctlyGoodInk/status/1326296869081788416
I’ve been reading LewRockwell and antiwar regularly since the 1990s, been to a number of their seminars in Alabama and Texas, volunteered on Ron Paul campaigns in 2008 and 2012, and corresponded with many of them, especially back when I used f***book. I did vote for Libertarian presidential candidates twice, in 1988 and 2008, and a few other times for local office. I don’t mix them up.
Nice this system lets you put up links, but memoryholes my comments if I just put a dotcom on lewrockwell and antiwar.
I can only guess that it’s because the Mises Institute has a better reputation for factual accuracy and scholarly research than Lew Rockwell’s sites (neither of which I follow). I voted for Ron Paul as well and I also donated to his campaign. I remain a fan of his despite that hubbub over those newsletters (that Rockwell likely wrote).
https://reason.com/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/
I obviously disagree with Paul on immigration and also on the Paleolibertarian political strategy, but I think all that is outweighed by his speaking the truth about the Iraq War at the GOP debates.
Anyway, like I said, you are more than welcome to peruse the immigration category of the Mises Institute for yourself. Let me know my characterization of them is inaccurate.
Sorry, that should have said, “Let me know *if* my characterization of [Mises} is inaccurate.”
Also, I will note that, to the best of my knowledge, neither Ron Paul nor Lew Rockwell have a background in economics beyond being friends with Austrian economists.
I have only voted for one Democrat (Bill Clinton), one Republican (John McCain), and I voted for the Libertarian candidate every other time.
Well, except for the one that was all about cigarettes (forget who, Badnarik?). I wrote in GMU economist Tyler Cowen that year (of https://marginalrevolution.com/ fame).