November election ?

[U.S. Patriot]

This upcoming election is for Senate and Congress correct? I know who I'm going to vote for Congress. I was just curious who some are going to vote for Senate. I understand if you do not want to say.

 

[G_Stines]

Rebecca Sink-Burris has appealed to me the most so far...

 

[UncleMike]

No one with a "D" after their name.
Come to think of it, I may not vote for one of the "R" guys either.

 

[G_Stines]

No one with a "D" after their name.
Come to think of it, I may not vote for one of the "R" guys either.

Why do you think I went far right, past the R all the to L.

 

[Ramen]

Rebecca Sink-Burris.

I swore I wouldn't vote for Coats the second he was cherry picked by Washington to continue their big government extravaganza.

Just remember, it doesn't matter to Washington, D.C. who wins this election, as long as it is someone with an R or D next to their name. Both of them want more federal government.

 

[Lex Concord]

Sink-Burris

 

[Joe Williams]

Refuse to vote for Coats, or any other RINO gun grabber the party keeps foisting on us. Simply being Republican isn't enough, he's no conservative.

Not going to vote for Sink-Burris. Open borders, pro-drugs, pro-abortion... Can't vote for that.

Ellsworth is the least unpalatable, but I'm not interested in voting for him.

I'm writing my son in. Literally. Unless some other candidate is out there that doesn't stand for things I cannot vote for.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, for the Senate I'll cast a ballot for Rebecca.

 

[mrjarrell]

As usual, Joe, you've misrepresented Rebecca's positions. I have never seen her state a position on abortion so, unless you're a mind reader you don't know what her position is. I would be willing to bet she's against any federal or state funding for it, tho.

She is NOT a proponent of open borders.
Immigration & Homeland Security | Rebecca Sink-Burris - U.S. Senate (IN)

And she's not stated a position on drugs, altho I would wager she is against the War on Some Drugs, as many people are. That does not equal pro-drugs.

 

[Joe Williams]

As usual, Joe, you've misrepresented Rebecca's positions. I have never seen her state a position on abortion so, unless you're a mind reader you don't know what her position is. I would be willing to bet she's against any federal or state funding for it, tho.

She is NOT a proponent of open borders.
Immigration & Homeland Security | Rebecca Sink-Burris - U.S. Senate (IN)

And she's not stated a position on drugs, altho I would wager she is against the War on Some Drugs, as many people are. That does not equal pro-drugs.

She's a Libertarian, so since she won't state a position, I will assume she'll follow their precepts on issues including abortion. They will not outlaw it, so they are pro-infanticide. As for drugs, pro-drug is what the Libertarian platform is. Talk around it all you want, it is what it is. Your claims about the Open Borders position of both Sink-Burris and the Libertarian Party is just as specious. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, it is an open border stance.

 

[88GT]

As usual, Joe, you've misrepresented Rebecca's positions. I have never seen her state a position on abortion so, unless you're a mind reader you don't know what her position is. I would be willing to bet she's against any federal or state funding for it, tho.

She is NOT a proponent of open borders.
Immigration & Homeland Security | Rebecca Sink-Burris - U.S. Senate (IN)

And she's not stated a position on drugs, altho I would wager she is against the War on Some Drugs, as many people are. That does not equal pro-drugs.

She certainly doesn't seem to be a strong advocate of tightly guarded ones though. All I can read between the lines from that write up is that by changing the motivations that encourage immigration (legal or not), we can change the problems associated with immigration (legal or not). I respectfully call BS.

Border security and immigration are separate issues though the current spin in media coverage of illegal immigration likes to make them seem synonymous. They are linked inasmuch as illegal immigration is either helped or hindered by the level of border security, but they are not the same thing.

As far as I can tell, she advocates open exchange of humans across geopolitical boundaries (we call that open borders in spirit if not in fact in my household) hoping against hope (and reality) that we can somehow maintain the good side of immigration, avoid the bad, and never address border security at all.

And one more point that gets lost in discussions of this nature: border security isn't just about the immigrant Mexican farm workers coming across the Rio Grande. Border security is about controlling who enters. Period. She addresses current legal visa holders, but says nothing about limiting undesirable elements. If we have to have the courage to deport the unlawful, we need to have the courage to refuse entrance to the high-risk. And I don't give flying fart if that offends anybody.

I DON'T see her addressing this aspect of immigration/border security at all. And what I do see suggests that her position ignores it altogether.

Not a candidate I can support given the state of the world right now.

(On a side note: I think she's changed the text of that particular issues page. Her approach to the immigration/border security topic shortly after the primaries more closely mirrored the national Libertarian platform than the current page does.)

So I don't know who will get my vote. Ellsworth is out from an accounting standpoint. I can't reconcile handing the opposition party a majority for any reason. Even if he happened to be the better candidate in the local races. There is a bigger picture here. I oppose Coats for several reasons, not the least of which is that I don't think he's the candidate he's portraying himself to be. It's easy to look like he's far to the right of a socialist when that the only other party to whom he's being compared. But throw the drapes open and put him up against the others who didn't make the cut and it becomes painfully obvious how conservative he isn't. I've already discussed my concerns with S-B. Sad, too. I want to vote for her. And I don't have a problem with voting for a candidate that doesn't share 100% of my views. But, dangit, she's coming up short for one of the big ones. And I can't overlook that. It looks like it will come down to a vote for her or a write-in or simply not voting. I don't think I can bring myself to vote for Coats or Ellsworth.

 

[88GT]

She's a Libertarian, so since she won't state a position, I will assume she'll follow their precepts on issues including abortion. They will not outlaw it, so they are pro-infanticide. As for drugs, pro-drug is what the Libertarian platform is. Talk around it all you want, it is what it is. Your claims about the Open Borders position of both Sink-Burris and the Libertarian Party is just as specious. Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want, it is an open border stance.

I'd like to think that on issues of abortion and drugs, the Libertarians just haven't figured out how to invoke the 10th.

But let's do be honest. Opposition to federal control is not the same thing as support for it ("it" being the issue--drugs, abortion, etc).