Mediaboss Marketing

There are many ways you can vote in Indiana, including voting on Election Day or voting early by mail or by in-person absentee voting. Here is what you need to know. Wochit

The 5th Congressional District election to replace retiring Republican Congresswoman Susan Brooks is among the most-watched races in the country for Democrats, Republicans and political pundits alike, and is likely the Democrats'best shot of flipping a Congressional seat in Indiana.

Democrat Christina Hale, Republican Victoria Spartz and Libertarian Ken Tucker will face off in the Republican-leaning district thatstretches from Marion County to the city of Marionand includes theHamilton County suburbs.

IndyStar asked all three candidates where they stand on issues that matter to voters. Here's whatTucker said:

Christina Hale:Where the Democratic candidate for the 5th District stands on the issues

Victoria Spartz:Where the Republican candidate for the 5th District stands on the issues

24,000, and counting: Hamilton County begins mailing out absentee ballots for Nov. 3 general election

The responses havebeen edited for clarity.

How would you attempt to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus?

Personally, I have worn a mask, followed social distancing requirementsand utilized common sense. Politically speaking, I believe in science and the information provided by medical professionals. I will follow their guidelines moving forward. As a government official, I would have not denied science, been pragmaticand, at the very leastlistened, to the medical professionals. At no point would I have appointed (Vice President) Mike Pence to any position as it pertains to public health.

How would you address the economic impact of coronavirus?

I admit it has had a huge impact on our society. I believe a rent/mortgage freeze would have been a better use of government strength as opposed to just printing money and increasing our national debt.

Libertarian 5th Congressional District candidate Ken Tucker(Photo: Provided by Ken Tucker)

Do you believe systemic racism existsand, if so, what steps should be taken to address it?

Yes, I do believe those in power have and will do anything they can to maintain power including but not limited to instituting race and economic warfare to keep the general public in preordained boxes/classes. As far as addressing racism, I believe it begins at home. You cant legislate your way out of hatred and bigotry, but you can vote people into office that have a moral compass as opposed to those that have the most money.

How would you balance the need to ensure people can protest while protecting people and property from violence?

This pandemic has been testing the limits of social order and governmental control. I believe in and have participated in many peaceful protests. The people of America have preordained rights to the freedom of speech and assembly. However, spontaneous protests are different than planned and permitted ones. Either way, those that break the law and turn peaceful protests into violent confrontations against any human being(s) or personal property should be arrested.

Should any funding for police be redirected to other social services?

No.

Indiana's 5th congressional district.(Photo: Stephen J. Beard)

Should all K-12 schools be open for full-time, in-person learning despite coronavirus fears?

Yes, but not at 100% capacity. I believe the majority of school districts have done as good a job as could have been imagined going back to last March 14. As a former teacher, I know how difficult it is to teach online. Nothing can compare to in-person education. However, at this time, having schools at 100% capacity is not the best option for school safety. But, let's face it, schools function as child care for working class families. I believe all students have a right to a free public education. During this pandemic,I believe virtual learning should and is playing a major role in education.

Would you do anything to address college affordability and student debt?

Yes.

Do you support increasing the national minimum wage?

Yes.

Would you rescind any of President Trumps 2017 tax changes, or increase taxes for those who are wealthier?

I would not go to Washington to rescind any of the current administration's tax changes from 2017. I am in favor of taxing the wealthiest more than the poor and working class families of America.

Were Trumps tariffs an effective tool against China and other countries?

Yes.

What, if anything, would you do to lower health care costs?

If elected to office, I would work tirelessly to reign in prescription drug and health care costs across the board.

Do you support a Medicare for All system, a public health insurance option or the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid?

I believe all Americans need access to affordable and equitable health insurance.

Republican Victoria Spartz and Democrat Christina Hale, candidates for the 5th Congressional District.(Photo: IndyStar)

What would you change when it comes to the United States immigration policy?

Im a dreamer not a wall builder. I believe in a path to citizenship for all law-abiding people be they legal or illegal. Illegal immigration is a national security risk. Undocumented workers provide many industries with a cheap workforce. But, many times those workers live in fear and it ismodern-day slavery. This should be an issue to all of us in terms of general working conditions, as well as taking jobs away from those looking for honest work, and taking money away from local, state and the federal governments in terms of income tax collection.

Would you continue construction on the U.S.-Mexico border wall?

No. I think building a wall along our southern border is a stunt that has cost taxpayers way too much money. I feel a digital fortress, along with current and more innovative border patrol tactics, would be a more beneficial and cost effective way to tighten up our southern, northern, easternand western borders. Anyway people enter this country illegally be it by foot, on an ATV, by boat, through tunnels, hidden in container ships and vehicles, or low flying airplanes should be monitored and stopped. I believe technology is the answer.

In what cases, if any, should abortions be permitted?

All. I believe in parental rights.

Which gun control policies, if any, would you support?

I support the Jake Laird Act, (otherwise known as the Red Flag Law). I believe in the second amendment. But, it is past time to admit that America has a gun problem. Moving forward I support universal background checks for all gun sales. I also support ending gun shows and internet loopholes as well as demanding some type of gun care, useand training class to obtain any type of carry permit.

Is climate change a primarily man-made problem and if so, should anything be done to stop it?

Climate change and the climate crisis pose one of the greatest existential threats to our planet. Whether it is primarily man-made isnt the point any more. Continuing to ignore this problem is not an option. We as a world leader should be at the forefront of any and all practices and legislation to combat this threat to ensure our overall existence and quality of life on this planet.

Call IndyStar reporter Kaitlin Lange at 317-432-9270. Follow her on Twitter: @kaitlin_lange.

Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/15/indiana-5th-congressional-district-libertarian-candidate-ken-tucker-stands-issues/5744507002/

Here is the original post:
Where 5th District candidate Ken Tucker stands on coronavirus, racism and other issues - IndyStar

Two months ago, I started a three-article series about the liberals ideas on immigration. I first reviewed the Biden plan. Then, I spoke with representatives of several immigrant rights organizations about their own expectations for reform. (Since then, the Biden campaign has received a unified 10-point immigration reform blueprint endorsed by no fewer than 173 immigrant rights organizations.)

It is now time for the last part of the series: an examination of the perspectives of the radicals who are not satisfied with amnesty for undocumented immigrants and higher immigration quotas, but rather push for a wholesale reconsideration of borders, citizenship and capitalism.

It is remarkably hard to get most liberal activists to discuss the subject of open borders, most likely because they dont want to play into the hands of Trump/Fox News with that kind of discourse, or because they themselves are uncomfortable with the idea of eliminating borders and letting everyone in. No surprise, then, that my first interview on the subject was with an open-borders libertarian, whose beliefs have never been shared by most people around him and who is therefore a lot less afraid now of intellectual ostracism.

Unlike many fair-weather, pick-and-choose libertarians, economist Nathan Smith is consistent in his beliefs that the market is the best mechanism for allocating resources in a society and that every individuals freedom should be maximized, as long as it doesnt impinge on someone elses freedom.

Crucially, when he invokes the utilitarian principle the most good for the greatest number of people, he does not exclusively define people as American citizens; he is concerned with the welfare of all people, everywhere.

Smith points out two dilemmas at the heart of the liberal program of immigration reform:

1) The more permissive the immigration policy (fewer deportations, amnesty, etc.), the more incentives for people to cross the border illegally. This problem cannot be wished away, and conservatives will never tire highlighting it. What happens if, a week after Biden gets inaugurated, a wave of caravans (real ones, this time, not imagined) from Central America start toward the U.S. border?

2) Theres a whole lot of very poor people in the world, Smith says. And a very large portion of them could improve their lot by coming to a country like the United States. And they might make their lives better by doing so, better than they were in their country of origin. But their lives would still not be as good as what we take for granted for even the poorest Americans. If we provide a social safety net to get people up to a certain level, lots of people in the world would love to come here just to get that. But thats not fiscally sustainable. And so, ultimately, theres this conflict between a welfare state on the one hand and open borders on the other.

For the libertarian, the calculus is simple: If a restrictive immigration policy is inhuman and extended welfare benefits are unmanageable, allow in as many immigrants as possible but dont give them access to the social safety net. Yes, such a policy would create even more inequality within the U.S., but globally it would be a net gain.

There are some immigrant rights organizations (not many) who share Smiths vision of open borders thus side-stepping the question of how to choose which immigrants to let in and how many. Nisha Toomey, of No One Is Illegal Toronto, points out that the logic of states with borders and citizenship rights was brought to North America by European settlers, and that an alternative vision of belonging could come from Indigenous peoples, who have other governance mechanisms for allowing people in.

But she takes exception to Smiths assumption that an influx of immigrants, however big, would make a universal safety net impossible.

I think theres a way to govern where we can share, where we can have equity. The planet has enough for all of the people on it, Toomey says. Its the way we are managing what we have that is the problem. Part of the mismanagement is this idea that there always needs to be competition between us because theres not enough resources. What I would advocate would be to tax the rich heavily. We can no longer have these elite classes of people who are just living with billions of dollars.

For a more practical perspective on radical politics, I went to Jana Douglass, a former UMass student of mine from whom Ive learned a lot about a brand of progressivism that does not primarily look to friendly members of Congress for help. She agrees with Toomey that an anti-state approach to achieving justice for migrants would require discarding the capitalist-settler logic of perpetual competition. The alternative she offers is known as prefigurative politics.

What we put into practice now will grow into the tools that we need to fight for tomorrow, Douglass says. Radicals do not know exactly what a future without borders would look like, anymore than the rest of us do. What they are trying to do is build communities right now whose priorities and governing practices can become viable models for what is now just a utopia. Such practices include consensus decision-making, mutual aid initiatives, housing co-ops, alternatives to imprisonment, and, most importantly, the centering of people who have historically been marginalized.

We dont know if the Democrats will win the elections. If they do, we dont know whether theyll listen to the moderates or to the radicals. As far as Im concerned, Im happy both of these wings exist. One can do what they other cant, and they keep each other real.

Read the rest here:
Columnist Razvan Sibii: What's the progressive endgame on immigration? Part 3: The radicals' vision - GazetteNET

The Libertarian party nominated two respected former state governors for president and vice-president in 2016, and enjoyed its most successful election performance ever, winning nearly 4.5m votes.

To many, it seemed that the Libertarians were a genuinely relevant third party in US politics, which is overwhelmingly dominated by Republicans and Democrats. But in 2020, the party, which advocates for small government and civil liberties, has gone in a wildly different direction.

The Libertarian vice-presidential candidate this November is an internet talkshow host who ran for office alongside a man wearing a boot on his head, and who has promised the electorate free ponies, zombie power and the killing of baby Hitler.

Spike Cohen, who narrowly won the nomination at the partys virtual convention in May, will team up with Jo Jorgensen, a university lecturer and lifelong Libertarian who has spent years as a loyal party advocate and who is said to have expressed a preference for a more traditional running mate.

The partys method of choosing candidates each is voted for independently by party delegates allowed for the seeming extreme mismatch.

The candidates have seemingly got on with the job, holding separate bus tours around the country, but their stated goals in office could hardly be more different.

Cohen originally ran for the Libertarian vice-president post alongside the presidential candidate Vermin Supreme, a longtime political activist best known for turning up at protests or presidential primaries while wearing a rubber boot on his head.

During the campaign Cohens promises to the electorate were unusual. His 14-point platform included a Waffle House on every corner, legalizing recreational plutonium and developing bullets that instead of harming you do helpful things like clearing up headaches and relieving nasal congestion.

Impeaching every member of the supreme court and replacing them with a janitor, his name is Reginald, and he will be our king, Cohen said in a YouTube broadcast in December.

Youre probably thinking: What do you need a king for if we have a president and vice-president? But the thing is were gonna be time-traveling a lot and you know were not gonna be here all the time.

You know, were gonna be out killing lots of babies that eventually become tyrants. We go back in time and make right what once went wrong. Were not gonna have time to be here doing a bunch of stuff.

After winning the nomination at a virtual convention in May, Cohen said his campaign with Supreme had been fun satire to bring people in, which contradicts what he told ABC15News in January.

The Jorgensen-Cohen campaign did not respond to requests for an interview.

Jorgensen, a Libertarian party member for more than two decades who was the partys vice-presidential nominee in 1996 and who reportedly said she would vote for Cohens rival John Monds for vice-president, ran a more traditional campaign.

If elected president, Jorgensen said at the South Carolina Libertarian party convention in November: I would turn America into one giant Switzerland, armed and neutral, but enough forces to protect and defend American soil.

The Jorgensen-Cohen ticket comes after the Libertarian party won 3.3% of the vote in 2016, the partys best ever performance.

Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, who was also the Libertarian candidate in 2012, was the presidential candidate in 2016. His running mate was William Weld, a former Republican governor of Massachusetts who this year challenged Donald Trump for the Republican nomination.

Despite the promising electoral performance, Weld, in particular, was criticized by some party members as being Republican lite, which could have prompted the change of strategy this year.

While Cohen may have distanced himself from his promises of ponies, time travel and kings, however, some of his and Jorgensens choices as Libertarian candidates could still serve as a turn-off to voters.

In July the Guardian reported that Jorgensen had appeared on a podcast associated with the anti-government boogaloo movement. One of the interviewers runs a Facebook page laden with memes that appear to invoke white nationalism.

This month, the party involved itself once again with the boogaloo movement, when Cohen spoke at a gun rights rally co-hosted by a self-described boogaloo boy in Richmond, Virginia. Cohen used his speech to argue relaxing gun laws could end police violence.

If you want to have your gun rights defended, if you want to have an end to police brutality because people have more guns, Cohen said at the rally.

In a country dominated by Republicans and Democrats, there is evidence that Americans want a third option.

A 2018 Gallup poll found 57% of Americans believe a third major political party is needed a belief that has more or less held steady for the past 10 years.

Whether Cohens promises of ponies and zombies and time travel fill that need remains to be seen.

Read this article:
The Libertarian party was up and coming in 2016. What happened? - The Guardian

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire says it has cleared an important hurdle in its effort to have its candidates appear on the general election ballot Nov. 3.>> Download the FREE WMUR appWednesday was the deadline under state law for local supervisors of the checklists across the state to tell the LPNH and independent candidates if the nomination papers they submitted in early August were valid and were certified.LPNH vice chair and spokesperson Richard Manzo said Thursday afternoon that the various checklist supervisors certified 1,058 petitions in each congressional district. The fact that the number was the same in each congressional district was a coincidence, Manzo said.The number in each district surpasses a reduced threshold of 975 petitions in each district set by a federal judge in July. That number applies to statewide candidates for president, governor and U.S. Senate and for U.S. House candidates in each district. The requirements for down ballot candidates are fewer.The judge made the ruling reducing the requirement after hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by the LPNH against Gov. Chris Sununu asking for relaxed ballot requirements. The LPNH cited the difficulty it was having collecting, in person, the required number of nomination papers due to the Stay at Home and Safe at Home orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Normally, Libertarian candidates would have been required to obtain 1,500 signed nomination papers in each of the states two congressional districts. But the judge cut that requirement by 35 percent.The next step is for Secretary of States Office to verify the findings of the supervisors no later than Wednesday, Sept. 2. Manzo said party officials and candidates will deliver the certified petitions to the Secretary of States Office at 9 a.m. that day.Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said his office will then do its own count of the petitions certified by the supervisors and verify that they meet the threshold. Once they hit the number, we will stop counting and their candidates will appear on the general election ballot, Scanlan said.Although the Libertarians may have met the threshold, it appears many of their nomination papers did not pass muster. Manzo told WMUR in early August that the party submitted 2,400 petitions in the 1st Congressional District and 1,600 in the 2nd District.Many nomination papers are routinely thrown out because the people filing them out are not actually registered voters in the town or ward they list as their address or their nomination papers are ruled illegible. But Manzo had said the party expected a 75 percent validity rate, far higher than the 44 percent rate apparently achieved in the 1st District and the 66 percent rate achieved in the 2nd District.Still, the bottom line, Manzo said, is that the party is pleased that it appears to have surpassed the necessary threshold.Thanks to the hard work of party volunteers, candidates, and their staff, the Libertarian candidates will appear on the ballot as Granite Staters have come to expect, Manzo said. Were grateful to the judge for his thoughtful and ultimately accurate ruling reducing our petitioning requirement, and to our attorney, Jon Meyer, who handled this uniquely challenging case with the skill and attention needed for a favorable ruling. Manzo said attending the Wednesday event to deliver the nomination papers to the Secretary of State will be eight Libertarian candidates: Justin ODonnell, U.S. Senate; Darryl W. Perry, governor; Zachary Dumont, U.S. House 1st Congressional District; Andrew J. Olding, U.S. House 2nd Congressional District; Manzo, Hillsborough County Treasurer; Nicolas Sarwark, Hillsborough County Attorney; Robert Daniel, state representative in Hillsborough County District 11; and Tobin Menard, state representative for Sullivan County District 9.If the statewide threshold is met, the Libertarian president candidate, Jo Jorgensen, will also appear on the ballot.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire says it has cleared an important hurdle in its effort to have its candidates appear on the general election ballot Nov. 3.

>> Download the FREE WMUR app

Wednesday was the deadline under state law for local supervisors of the checklists across the state to tell the LPNH and independent candidates if the nomination papers they submitted in early August were valid and were certified.

LPNH vice chair and spokesperson Richard Manzo said Thursday afternoon that the various checklist supervisors certified 1,058 petitions in each congressional district. The fact that the number was the same in each congressional district was a coincidence, Manzo said.

The number in each district surpasses a reduced threshold of 975 petitions in each district set by a federal judge in July. That number applies to statewide candidates for president, governor and U.S. Senate and for U.S. House candidates in each district. The requirements for down ballot candidates are fewer.

The judge made the ruling reducing the requirement after hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by the LPNH against Gov. Chris Sununu asking for relaxed ballot requirements. The LPNH cited the difficulty it was having collecting, in person, the required number of nomination papers due to the Stay at Home and Safe at Home orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Normally, Libertarian candidates would have been required to obtain 1,500 signed nomination papers in each of the states two congressional districts. But the judge cut that requirement by 35 percent.

The next step is for Secretary of States Office to verify the findings of the supervisors no later than Wednesday, Sept. 2. Manzo said party officials and candidates will deliver the certified petitions to the Secretary of States Office at 9 a.m. that day.

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said his office will then do its own count of the petitions certified by the supervisors and verify that they meet the threshold.

Once they hit the number, we will stop counting and their candidates will appear on the general election ballot, Scanlan said.

Although the Libertarians may have met the threshold, it appears many of their nomination papers did not pass muster. Manzo told WMUR in early August that the party submitted 2,400 petitions in the 1st Congressional District and 1,600 in the 2nd District.

Many nomination papers are routinely thrown out because the people filing them out are not actually registered voters in the town or ward they list as their address or their nomination papers are ruled illegible. But Manzo had said the party expected a 75 percent validity rate, far higher than the 44 percent rate apparently achieved in the 1st District and the 66 percent rate achieved in the 2nd District.

Still, the bottom line, Manzo said, is that the party is pleased that it appears to have surpassed the necessary threshold.

Thanks to the hard work of party volunteers, candidates, and their staff, the Libertarian candidates will appear on the ballot as Granite Staters have come to expect, Manzo said. Were grateful to the judge for his thoughtful and ultimately accurate ruling reducing our petitioning requirement, and to our attorney, Jon Meyer, who handled this uniquely challenging case with the skill and attention needed for a favorable ruling.

Manzo said attending the Wednesday event to deliver the nomination papers to the Secretary of State will be eight Libertarian candidates: Justin ODonnell, U.S. Senate; Darryl W. Perry, governor; Zachary Dumont, U.S. House 1st Congressional District; Andrew J. Olding, U.S. House 2nd Congressional District; Manzo, Hillsborough County Treasurer; Nicolas Sarwark, Hillsborough County Attorney; Robert Daniel, state representative in Hillsborough County District 11; and Tobin Menard, state representative for Sullivan County District 9.

If the statewide threshold is met, the Libertarian president candidate, Jo Jorgensen, will also appear on the ballot.

Read more:
Libertarian Party says it has enough certified petitions for its candidates to appear on Nov. ballot - WMUR Manchester

This may be a bigger political gamble than conservatives appreciate. Survey research strongly suggests that Americans still support open markets. In July 2019, the Pew Research Center found a solid 65 percent of Americans saying that free-trade agreements have been a good thing for the United States, up from 45 percent just before the 2016 election. So during President Trumps protectionist first term, support for international commerce has robustly increased.

Last September, Gallup found that 87 percent of Americans have a positive view of free enterprise and 70 percent think business can do things more efficiently than government can. These results hold regardless of party affiliation, but theyre stronger on the political right. Only 7 percent of Republicans said there was too little government regulation of business and industry, for example, compared with 46 percent of Democrats.

Could it be that the 2016 upset was attributable to something other than a wholesale rejection of limited-government principles among the Republican base?

To be clear, I am not predicting that the libertarian moment has finally arrived. One 2017 study suggested that people who want the government to stay out of your bedroom as well as your pocketbook (as the saying goes) make up an almost vanishingly small share of the voting population. But within the Republican coalition, there is a genuine constituency for economic freedom.

Proponents of big-government conservatism point to a crisis of stagnant wages, a labor-force exodus, too many unstable families and crumbling communities caused, they believe, by the unwillingness of American elites to protect working-class jobs from foreign competition. The dream of a family supported by a single breadwinner is increasingly out of reach, they say, especially for men without college degrees.

Yet some scholars have questioned the data underpinning this narrative. Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, for example, notes that the wages of nonsupervisory workers have increased by 33 percent, accounting for inflation, since 1990; when taxes and transfers as well as inflation are considered, incomes in the lowest quintile of households rose by 66 percent over the same period.

To the extent that the cost of living can seem to be spiraling out of control, the phenomenon is overwhelmingly driven by health care, higher education and housing three sectors that have long been heavily regulated and wildly subsidized. And thanks to global capitalism, even the least among us today have access to an ever-improving array of food, medicine, technology, entertainment and more.

Read the original here:
Republicans Are Ripping Out the Very Heart and Soul of Their Party - The New York Times