Tag: Larry Sharpe For Governor

Larry Sharpe Excluded from NY Gubernatorial Debate

By Ryan Lau | @agorisms

The New York race for governor has been a vicious battle thus far. Democrat incumbent Andrew Cuomo defeated challenger Cynthia Nixon in a recent primary. Now, he faces off against a number of opponents: Republican Marc Molinaro, Libertarian Larry Sharpe, Independent Stephanie Miner, and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins. However, only Molinaro will get to debate live with Cuomo.

A Lack of Name Recognition

The Monday night move comes after a number of polls showed that the third-party candidates have very low name recognition. Specifically, a whopping 84 percent of voters had not heard of Larry Sharpe. Figures were similar for Miner and Hawkins, at 77 and 86 percent, respectively. Of the voters who had heard of Sharpe, one-third of them had a positive opinion.

As of now, polling shows a relatively secure lead for Cuomo in the state. In recent polls, he averages over 50% in the five-way race. In a strong second, Molinaro has a recent average of 35%. Most of the polls excluded the third-party candidates entirely, but in those that did not, none performed particularly well. Sharpe’s performance in a Gravis Marketing poll was the highest of the three candidates: even so, he received only 13% in this poll.

Prior Exclusion

Third parties, such as the Libertarian Party, have faced exclusion from debates in the past. Most notably, the 2016 Presidential debates did not feature Gary Johnson, who then launched a major lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates. He and Green Party nominee Jill Stein later lost this case. Johnson now is running for New Mexico Senate.

Sharpe took to Twitter Monday, condemning the media’s decision to exclude the third-party candidates. He strongly believes that with fair coverage, he could win the race.

Monday night’s debate, which will be live on Tuesday night at 7 P.M. EST, is the only scheduled discourse between the two candidates before the election. Thus, Sharpe and the other third-party candidates have lost a key opportunity to increase their low name recognition.


Get awesome merch. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

New Yorkers can Fight Corruption by Voting Larry Sharpe

By Trey Johnson | United States

Larry Sharpe (L) is a Bronx native, a Marine Corps veteran, an entrepreneur, and a management consultant. He moreover has 15 years of experience mentoring international executives, entrepreneurs & salespeople. He is also a teacher and has served as a guest instructor for business management and leadership at institutions such as Yale University, Columbia University, Baruch College and John Jay College.

In a recent poll, when pitted against the incumbent, Larry Sharpe was the closest competitor. The Republican candidate fell short where Larry came close, gaining 49% of the non-Cuomo votes. He thus truly believes this is a three-way race where a third party candidate has the opportunity to make a run for the office.

Like Democrats, Larry believes voter apathy is the reason why citizens enable incumbents like the current Governor of New York. He is asking for New Yorkers to get out and vote: not for a corrupt Democrat, nor the try-hard Republican, but for a fresh new party moving up in the ranks of American Politics.

Libertarian thinkers have a higher IQ on average than any other set of beliefs. Libertarian principles are, of course, rooted in the revolutionary American ideals that created this great country. American voters have come to the realization that money in politics is the root of corruption. And, Larry Sharpe promises to decrease the amount of money available to corrupt individuals to choke their supply of power.

A View for the Future

Sharpe went on the Joe Rogan podcast where expressed his plan for New York state and how he intends to bring sanity back to the governorship. As a former teacher, he has a plan to reform the education system in New York. He believes empowering local teachers and Parent Teacher Associations is the key to saving New York’s failing education system.

Larry wants to save New York. If New Yorkers vote Democrat or Republican, the incumbent will win the election and nothing will change. Without a doubt, the state deserves a leader who is not corrupt and will not lead the state down the same unchanged path. New Yorkers deserve Larry Sharpe.


Get awesome merchandise and help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy by donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Larry Sharpe Is Wrong-There Should Be No Compromise Between Baker and Gay Couple

Kaycee Ikeonu | United States

In an interview on the Rubin Report, talk-show host Dave Rubin, and Libertarian candidate for New York Governor Larry Sharpe discussed whether a baker should be compelled by law to bake a cake for a customer. The conversation sprung up due to the fact that Gary Johnson, a libertarian and good friend of Larry Sharpe, stated in his presidential candidacy that the baker should be forced to bake the cake.

Such a position, as one would assume, would be quite unpopular among libertarians and lovers of liberty. Larry Sharpe, however, insisted that Gary Johnson was misunderstood and went forth to give his case for why he thinks the baker should bake the cake. His argument is as follows:

“What he was trying to get at (addressing Gary Johnson), which is my policy, is to find a good, solid middle-ground. I do not want a baker to make a cake for someone who he doesn’t want to make a cake for. That’s his labor…that’s wrong, should never happen. Here is the good compromise: if a baker, or anyone creates a product and put it in to the retail market, whether that be online or a shelf on a store, if a person creates a product and puts it there, he must allow anyone who has the currency that he wants to purchase that product”.

In response to the arguments put forth by libertarians who believe that a business owner has the right to discriminate, Sharpe responded by saying:

“They are theoretically correct but realistically wrong. And if they don’t accept the compromise, they’re going to get worse… If you don’t take that first step you would get nothing—and just not nothing—those people who keep voting are going to keep voting our rights away.”

Prior to this statement, Mr. Sharpe alluded to past injustices faced by marginalized groups, thus, why he thought there ought to be a “compromise.” Moreover, Sharpe concluded that such clauses should only apply in retail, therefore, a customer cannot force a baker to bake a cake in a particular way outside the products that are on the shelves.

Among the multiple flaws in this argument, there are two specifically I would like to address: first, the fact that Mr. Sharpe uses past injustices as a levy for his argument in favor of government involvement in private businesses; second, how government involvement in private business, no matter how minute, would inevitably lead to the destruction of freedom in private enterprise.

In regards to the past injustices– and perhaps current injustices faced by some groups today– most reasonable people would acknowledge that such injustices are immoral, unfortunate and ought to be stopped as soon as possible. However, the problem arises when a duty is imposed on a third party who had nothing to do with the case, in an effort to correct for the past. Such line of reasoning has been used to justify affirmative action and quotas, all which seek to correct for past injustice by facilitating new injustices in our own times. Two wrongs don’t make a right. As Thomas Sowell put it:

“The past is a great unchangeable fact. Nothing is going to undo its sufferings and injustices, whatever their magnitude . . . . Neither the sins nor the sufferings of those now dead are within our power to change”.

Aside from Larry Sharpe’s references to past injustices, he specifies that compulsion to provide a service would only apply to retail, and only retail. A question that could be asked is what guarantees such confidence that bureaucrats would strictly adhere to those conditions? After all, it is very much in their interest to expand such laws. As James Buchanan said in his writings in Public Choice: Politicians, just like businessmen and independent individuals, have every incentive to pursue their own self-interest– which in this case would be to gain more power for themselves, create new legislation and expand current ones. Moreover, such a decision, to use the words of Scot Bixler, is just an “arbitrary decision”. Why interfere in retail and not customer service? Why a cake shop and not a hospital? If Larry Sharpe justifies the government making a minute compromise on this issue, then it follows that the government can interfere in every industry for the same reasons.

The role of government should be restricted to the protection of individual rights, and that only. If room is left for compromise, it would only lead to a slippery slope, one that we have today, of the government legislating every single aspects of our lives.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source