Even Libertarians should get this difference


Even Libertarians should get this difference.

But Oath Keepers National Chaplain Chuck Baldwin tells you to vote for Democrat John Lewis. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes called Mitt Romney an “oath breaker” and Denny Rehberg, 2012 Montana Republican candidate for US Senate, an “oath breaker”. As such, hypocritical leaders of Oath Keepers help create the very problems they claim they are against. By their works we shall know them.

3 thoughts on “Even Libertarians should get this difference”

  1. Ed why do you keep telling us to vote for Lewis. If Republicans had elected a better candidate then a liberal in Zinke, maybe they would have a better chance at winning. Zinke is another governor Mark R, who was also pretty liberal on the issues. Zinke has run a poor campaign as far as I can see with plenty of negative stories in the press. Zinke is even afraid to debate the Libertarian Candidate Mike Fellows and dropped out of the Billings debate. With Fellows in the race Zinke becomes even more liberal. This race comes down to voting for freedom or voting for authoritarians. Zinke and Lewis are more the latter.

  2. @1 Dear Jan, Where have I ever told you to vote for Lewis? Or have you mixed me up with Chuck Baldwin, God forbid?

    Now who are those "Republicans" who you say nominated Zinke? The people nominated Zinke were the people who voted for Rosendale. A vote for Rosendale was a wasted vote because he had no chance to win. Had Rosendale voters instead voted for Stapleton, as I suggested, Stapleton would have won.

    In the same way, should Lewis win this election then the people who will have elected him will be those who vote for Fellows.

    Don't complain that the "Republicans" nominated Zinke. Look in the mirror. Unless you voted for Stapleton, you nominated Zinke!

    On to your comments about Ryan Zinke. You have no evidence for your claims. Whether you believe Zinke has run a good campaign or not has nothing to do with how he would represent Montana in Congress.

    Ryan Zinke is no more afraid to debate Fellows than he is to arm wrestle him. Zinke's point is valid: Fellows is a total distraction to the race for Congress. Proof is that Fellows has distracted even you. Fact: Fellows has no chance to win the election so he is irrelevant and should not be allowed in the debates between the only two candidates who can win.

    "Authoritarians?" Are you joking? Zinke is not an "authoritarian". Where do you pick up such sound-bite nonsense?

    Do you realize if all people reasoned like you do, we would still be in the stone age? It took people who could reason logically to advance civilization to the point where we are communicating via a blog in the Internet.

    Do you realize if America's founding Fathers reasoned like you do, we would never have had a Constitution? It took people who could reason logically to create the Constitution and they had to choose the "lesser of two evils" all through the Constitution in order to reach a compromise on behalf of achieving our freedom.

    Now, in 2014, you are faced with a decision about who to vote for in Montana's Congressional race. And you can't separate reality from illusion. Reality is that either Lewis or Zinke will win. Illusion is thinking Fellows will win.

    If you reason logically, you will realize your only decision is who you prefer between Lewis and Zinke. Nothing else matters! So compare them.

    If you are a true Democrat, as I think you are, then you will vote for Lewis. But if you are a true conservative in any range of the conservative spectrum then you will vote for Ryan Zinke.

  3. Fellows will win because people will vote for him. The people who are fed up with voting for the lessor of two evils or those fed up with flipping the coin to the other side. If Fellows loses it's because false conservatives voted for Zinke. Same goes for the senate with Roots over Daines.

    I'm voting for the best man. Not just because they have a (R) after their name or for that matter a (D). BTW I attended that debate having all six. My mind was made up then. Any further debate omitting the Libertarian just reinforces my decision.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.