Comment: Progressives helped Paul...

(See in situ)

Progressives helped Paul...

The whole point of this post is to talk about whether or not Libertarians would be better represented, and if the issues that are important to us, would be served by helping Jones get into office over Kelly (the Democrat).

Yes, Paul gave an option to opt-out. That was his campaign position. I'm trying to point out that that position is a compromise. A lot of "progressives" voted for Paul despite disagreeing on some issues (such as environmental regulations, and abortion). The reason why many progressives backed Paul was that overall, even with the disagreements, his election would have been better for Progressives than the re-election of Obama.

What I am asking is if Libertarians can see the same in candidates like Jones.

We don't elect Kings. We don't elect Barons. We elect representatives to a "checked-and-balances" system. It is about stirring in the right direction and having people in office that can think.

Think about the Gun Rights issue; Jones is against the Assault Weapon ban and support concealed weapons laws. If he is the best Gun Rights candidates running in that election, would a Gun Rights libertarian see past his positions on issues such as taxation of the rich (which you won't avoid by letting Kelly get into office), in favor of at least getting someone in office that agrees with a number of your positions?

Jack Wagner