The Liberty Caucus

[California8429]

I would like to join this epic piece of freedom.

[Scam of God]

Sign me up.

[Psychic Octopus]

I nominate Dallasfan for Chairman.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

This was Dallasfan's initiative and so it makes sense to make him to be the chair, though I believe Giovanni would also do a fine job. I nominate them both and plan to formally abstain from the vote.

[tmthforu94]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

[Scam of God]

I nominate Giovanni for co-chairman.

[k-onmmunist]

Part of fighting for liberty is fighting to end the idiotic war on drugs, and therefore, I have posted the following bill:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg2384212#msg2384212

[Scam of God]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

Why? Didn't you vote against the Reasonable Military Funding Act? Aren't you generally a populist, our political opposite? I hate to propose a litmus test - I think we ought to go out of our way to attract members of the libertarian left - but you definitely seem out of place.

[tmthforu94]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

Why? Didn't you vote against the Reasonable Military Funding Act? Aren't you generally a populist, our political opposite? I hate to propose a litmus test - I think we ought to go out of our way to attract members of the libertarian left - but you definitely seem out of place.

I generally lean with your party on taxes. I also support ending the death penalty. I voted against the Reasonable Military Funding Act after discussing it with SoEA HappyWarrior. My main problem with it was it cut money for foreign aid. I also found it silly that we were cutting money from anything when we don't even have a budget (yet).

[Scam of God]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

Why? Didn't you vote against the Reasonable Military Funding Act? Aren't you generally a populist, our political opposite? I hate to propose a litmus test - I think we ought to go out of our way to attract members of the libertarian left - but you definitely seem out of place.

I generally lean with your party on taxes. I also support ending the death penalty. I voted against the Reasonable Military Funding Act after discussing it with SoEA HappyWarrior. My main problem with it was it cut money for foreign aid. I also found it silly that we were cutting money from anything when we don't even have a budget (yet).

You just generally don't seem like you belong here. You're quite authoritarian on social issues and you support higher military spending than we incline to. I leave it up to other members to confirm you, but as for me, I am opposed.

[tmthforu94]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

Why? Didn't you vote against the Reasonable Military Funding Act? Aren't you generally a populist, our political opposite? I hate to propose a litmus test - I think we ought to go out of our way to attract members of the libertarian left - but you definitely seem out of place.

I generally lean with your party on taxes. I also support ending the death penalty. I voted against the Reasonable Military Funding Act after discussing it with SoEA HappyWarrior. My main problem with it was it cut money for foreign aid. I also found it silly that we were cutting money from anything when we don't even have a budget (yet).

You just generally don't seem like you belong here. You're quite authoritarian on social issues and you support higher military spending than we incline to. I leave it up to other members to confirm you, but as for me, I am opposed.

Well, okay. If the bill had been for lowering military aid, I would have supported it. But the way it was written, it would also lower foreign aid, and wouldn't allow us to send as many supplies like water, food, and medical items.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm inclined to join such a group, but I'm not sure how you all would accept me. I don't want to have to eat lunch in the bathroom stall alone.

[Scam of God]

I'm inclined to join such a group, but I'm not sure how you all would accept me. I don't want to have to eat lunch in the bathroom stall alone.

You, on the other hand, I should think perfectly acceptable.

[President Mitt]

I nominate Einzige for Chairman. If he's on the ballot, I won't accept any votes for Chairman, I will accept for Vice Chairman.

[Sewer]

I will join.

[Scam of God]

I nominate Einzige for Chairman. If he's on the ballot, I won't accept any votes for Chairman, I will accept for Vice Chairman.

I couldn't win, so I'll respectfully decline your nomination. If this Caucus does need a whip, however, I'd be more than happy to resume my duty from the ARC.

[Sewer]

I nominate Mechaman for Chairman and Giovanni for Vice Chairman.

[Daniel Adams]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

Why? Didn't you vote against the Reasonable Military Funding Act? Aren't you generally a populist, our political opposite? I hate to propose a litmus test - I think we ought to go out of our way to attract members of the libertarian left - but you definitely seem out of place.

I certainly hope this isn't going to become a doctrinaire "libertarian left" outfit. That's not what I understood from the introductory post. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I say let Tmthforu94 join.

And Daniel Adams, I don't believe Einzige speaks for anyone but himself.

[Mechaman]

Okay, I'll join. Though I have to disagree with you on some social issues, I do agree with a large part of your message.

Why? Didn't you vote against the Reasonable Military Funding Act? Aren't you generally a populist, our political opposite? I hate to propose a litmus test - I think we ought to go out of our way to attract members of the libertarian left - but you definitely seem out of place.

I certainly hope this isn't going to become a doctrinaire "libertarian left" outfit. That's not what I understood from the introductory post. 

Oh no, if you genuinely believe in the cause of liberty (ie against government encroachment on civil liberties) you should be allowed in. Your PM score might be of some concern, but Useful Idiot also has a weird PM score and I would gladly let him join so I figure why not? There is no such thing as a perfectly legit libertarian party, if we used dogmatism to dictate who we accept into this caucus we would get nowhere. We must find someway to create a big tent organization of liberty leaners. Tmthforu is a very nice kid who while I may disagree with some of his views I view it as a supporter of the non-aggression principle to allow him into this club, because chances are he feels a calling in his heart to hear the message of liberty and change some of his nonliberty views. Welcome to the club.

To those of you who feel like I've been a douche in the past, I apologize. Believe me when I say that in this caucus (as well as in the Populares) I don't want to strike up any more animosities or divide this movement anymore than it might be already.
And while I will accept nominations for Chairman or Vice Chairman, I would like to take this time to nominate Dallasfan (who created this caucus in the first place) for the Chairmanship and Giovanni for the Vice Chairmanship.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Part of fighting for liberty is fighting to end the idiotic war on drugs, and therefore, I have posted the following bill:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=39557.msg2384212#msg2384212

     I approve of the attempt to extend drug legalization, but slapping it with a 35% federal sales tax? I could see a black market for the stuff surviving its legalization with such a steep tax on it.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

I'm not King and don't plan on acting like it, but I also think tmth should be allowed to join. I find it a bit interesting myself, but he opposes HAEV, a key plank, and this caucus will not be used as a vehicle to advance a socially authoritarian agenda. As far as I know, Duke doesn't stand for anything eggregious, so why not allow him aswell?

I feel, that pretty much anyone coming forth and agreeing with this body's message should have the benefit of the doubt, until they've royally erred against what this stands for.

[Sewer]

and this caucus will not be used as a vehicle to advance a socially authoritarian agenda

So why let Dan Adams in?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

and this caucus will not be used as a vehicle to advance a socially authoritarian agenda

So why let Dan Adams in?

Because this isn't going to advance a socially authoritarian agenda.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Ballot

Chairman

[ ] Giovanni
[ ] Dallasfan65
[ ] Mechaman
[ ] NOTA (Chuck Norris aka Freedom aka Jbrase)

Vice-Chairman

[ ]Giovanni
[ ] NOTA (Chuck Norris aka Freedom aka Jbrase)

Voting will continue for 48 hours. Note that a vote for NOTA is not a vote for Jbrase (it's simply a gag.)