Discussion: Marc Scaringi or Sam Rohrer

[liberalnurse]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nsylvania_senate_republican_primary-1915.html

 

[HigherVision]

Well I guess if Rohrer has twice the votes that is a strong lead. Guess I might end up voting for him for pragmatic reasons. But he's definitely an inferior candidate to Scaringi.

 

[Shane Harris]

Well I guess if Rohrer has twice the votes that is a strong lead. Guess I might end up voting for him for pragmatic reasons. But he's definitely an inferior candidate to Scaringi.

this is how I feel.

 

[Shane Harris]

I don't know what to say other than he isn't Scaringi who courageously defends libertarians causes. Even if Rohrer is semi-liberty minded, he is not as libertarian as I want him to be. I want Scaringi. He is the best candidate I have ever seen run in PA... Ever. I'm going to support him and if there is no Libertarian party candidate for senate in PA I am writing Scaringi in. I'm tired, of BS. It's full on libertarian for me or no go on candidates nowadays.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't want that. I want a true libertarian in office not some quasi-tea party crap.

This is also how I feel tho.

 

[Shane Harris]

Well one big thing for me is that he wants to keep cannabis illegal. Scaringi wants to end the war on drugs, period. That's a libertarian.

very good point

 

[HigherVision]

This makes me less inclined to vote for Rohrer:

On Purim, Sen. candidate Sam Rohrer lauds Israel, notes history repeating itself

By Adam Taxin, Philadelphia Jewish Culture Examiner
Guest commentary by Sam Rohrer

Published Thursday, March 8, 2012, 11:25 AM



As the Jewish people celebrate Purim, I can’t help but note that history seems to be repeating itself, as the modern-day Persia – Iran – energetically seeks nuclear capability. Although she lived 2,500 years ago, Esther’s triumph over the genocidal Haman continues to inspire us to be courageous and wise, as Israel faces the contemporary Haman, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Today, we must embrace the truth that the security of Eretz Yisrael rests in the collective courage and wisdom of its people, leaders, allies – and a promise to "never forget."

Little does the world seem to recognize that more than one million Muslims live and worship peaceably within Israel’s borders. Yet, in modern times, there is no other nation that has, as Israel has, lived with palpable daily danger while managing to develop a culture of security, opportunity and tolerance for all those who respect its laws.

As the United States is a "shining city on a hill," Israel is a Mediterranean oasis with much to offer the world. Indeed, the two nations have a shared vision and shared values.

We share a vision for economic prosperity and the values that make it possible. Respecting private property, contracts and orderly markets, the United States and Israel are #1 and #2 in the world in attracting venture capital. Like that of the United States, Israel’s culture of innovation has led to stunning successes that have improved the human condition at home and around the globe. A strong and stable Israel will continue to enhance the economic well-being of the international community.

Fostering Israel’s strength and stability should be a priority for U.S. foreign policy. As Israel deals with the challenges of potential Palestinian statehood, securing its borders and calculating its response to Iran’s growing nuclear threat, the United States must respect Israel’s sovereignty and right to self-determination. Honoring each other’s independence will be difficult at times, as the two countries differ on how best to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. Where possible, we must work as partners in confronting Iran’s growing belligerence while encouraging those Iranians who share our vision and values. And let us never forget that, while leaders in Tehran describe Israel as “the little Satan,” they describe the United States as “the great Satan.” Until Israel is safe from the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran, neither are we.

Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that Israel will be a stronger and more independent nation if the United States were to gradually reduce its aid to Israel over the years – and I agree. In fact, Israel is likely to enhance its strength vis-à-vis its enemies if the U.S. were to concurrently decrease its aid to Israel’s enemies as well, which we may fund as much as 4:1 over Israel. And with the foreign aid issue off the table, Israel’s stature would strengthen when dealing with the United States. These two freedom-loving nations with shared vision and values would be equal partners – neither nation would be subservient to the other.

A stronger and more secure Israel, with the people and government of the United States as faithful allies, will prosper beyond its current inspirational level of success. A vibrant Israel is good for its people, the Middle East and the world. Since the heady days of the kibbutzim and Haganah, Israelis have demonstrated the courage and desire to live independently and peacefully among the peoples of the Middle East and the community of nations.

As we remember Esther’s courage in the face of today’s mounting threats, may US-Israeli relations be defined by wisdom that produces the springs of strength, peace and prosperity required to water the oasis of freedom that is the State of Israel.

 

[HigherVision]

I don't know, I guess it's good that he wants to decrease foreign aid. I just don't like this 'working together to confront Iran' business. Maybe I'm being too reactive though, he did put the emphasis more on decreasing aid and respecting other countries' sovereignty as opposed to a military strike. Good is better than nothing if that's what we're gonna get by voting for Scaringi. And this is really good from Rohrer: Pa. Senate hopeful opposed licensing, registration

 

[tbone717]

I don't know, I guess it's good that he wants to decrease foreign aid. I just don't like this 'working together to confront Iran' business.

I read that more as being an ally in advice, trade, diplomacy, etc as opposed to leaving them to totally fend for themselves. I think it is reasonable for libertarians to have varying opinions on the potential threat posed by Iran, provided that we deal with any situation Constitutionally.

 

[HigherVision]

There is no potential threat from Iran, let's be serious. If anything the real threat is coming from the country Rohrer is 'lauding' in that article as well are our own military industrial complex. But like I said I'm trying to be pragmatic & Rohrer sound a lot better than the establishment.

 

[tbone717]

Wow from the article HigherVision linked.

"A Pennsylvania Republican candidate for U.S. Senate argued in 2006 that the state has no legal authority to require people to get driver's licenses and register their cars.Sam Rohrer wrote that driver licensing and vehicle registration should be abolished, saying the state Vehicle Code only applies to commercial traffic. He also compared the requirements to slavery because both restrict an individual's freedom to travel."

And can someone explain to me how this guy is not a libertarian?

 

[tbone717]

There is no potential threat from Iran, let's be serious. If anything the real threat is coming from the country Rohrer is 'lauding' in that article as well are our own military industrial complex. But like I said I'm trying to be pragmatic & Rohrer sound a lot better than the establishment.

Again though, that is an opinion as to the severity of the threat. Some say there is none, some say it is a small threat, some say it is a great one. I have no problem with someone that sees Iran as a threat to some degree, provided they wish to follow through on anything Constitutionally.

 

[Shane Harris]

Again though, that is an opinion as to the severity of the threat. Some say there is none, some say it is a small threat, some say it is a great one. I have no problem with someone that sees Iran as a threat to some degree, provided they wish to follow through on anything Constitutionally.

Its more than just going to war constitutionally for many of us, its about going to war only in defense. The congress could still pre-emptively declare an aggressive war and have it be constitutional.

 

[tbone717]

Its more than just going to war constitutionally for many of us, its about going to war only in defense. The congress could still pre-emptively declare an aggressive war and have it be constitutional.

And that is fine to have a complete anti-war opinion. I share that view myself. However, we cannot demonize those who feel there may be times where a strike is in our best interest, provided that the issue is debated on the floors of Congress and done constitutionally. Rohrer is not the type to be careless with any sort of military action, he simply says he does not want to take the option off the table. I believe he has also clarified that the only reason he feels where war is just is if we are attacked or if there is a real threat to our national security. That is the same as Paul's positions essentially. I view Rohrer's statements on the issue to be ones more of avoiding absolutism rather than ones of military aggression.

 

[HigherVision]

Well if he's the only decent candidate that has a chance then that's the best we can do.

 

[tbone717]

Well if he's the only decent candidate that has a chance then that's the best we can do.

I'd say he is beyond decent. The guys on that radio show said they agree with Scaringi 100%, and Rohrer 99%. Honestly, I would prefer Rohrer's approach to things better. I like his answers to foreign aid - that we need to decrease it with a goal of eliminating it. I am not a big fan of cutting everything off immediately, and prefer a reasoned incremental approach to issues like this. The way I see it, it took us 100 years to get in this mess and we can't undo it all overnight.

 

[HigherVision]

Sure we could. Just a matter of voting people in who will do it. But w/e, agree to disagree. As I said I'll be voting for Rohrer unless Scaringi really surges.

 

[liberalnurse]

How fortunate are we to have 2 great liberty candidates in Sam and Mark? Sam has the clear advantage when it comes to taking Casey down. Gee, it's not like we would be voting for the lesser of two evils, or holding our nose and pulling the lever. My priority is getting Casey out and Sam is our best shot.

 

[69360]

So Rohrer is polling 16 and Scaringi is polling 8? Hmm.

I like Scaringi the most, but Rohrer is really decent, I've voted for him before. This is tough. I'm fine with either as my Senator.

I see the value in voting for Rohrer because he has a real chance to win. I was going with Scaringi, but could go back to Rohrer.

 

[tbone717]

Also consider that we have a known track record with Sam and he is incredibly consistent

 

[pahs1994]

http://www.makeschiffhappen.com/nominate

i suggested Peter Schiff take a look at Sam and give him his make schiff happen test.