[Lnc-business] Current motions and thoughts

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Okay you convinced me.



On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 9:12 AM <john.phillips at lp.org> wrote:

> I am 100% with that plan, that I am going to say I told you so on - not
> directed at you.
>
> That does not address the concerns of my state chairs, nor do i think it
> requires rescinding ..., that is a functional adaptation that is actually
> within by laws as it is basically how we would do it in person.
>
> That would merely require us to direct that type of procedure.
>
> I would co sponsor a well written motion to that affect so fast heads
> would spin.
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> On May 14, 2020 9:25 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>
> Mr Phillips, at this point I just want to do what we need to to let the
> state chairs ballot and give us their results.
>
> I dint care right now if we have to sacrifice a goat to Zeus to make it
> happen
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 8:00 AM john.phillips--- via Lnc-business <
> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> First, doing this in a separate thread because the threads on the original
> motions are already muddied and confused.
>
> 1. Mrs Harlos and Ms Mattson.  I appreciate that you think rescind is the
> correct procedure.  I am sorry that is not enough for myself or my states,
> we need to know WHY.  Amending the motion previously adopted seems a much
> simpler procedure and less risky of losing the progress we have made.  To
> support rescinding I will need a clear explanation of WHY.  And not just
> why we should, but why we HAVE to.  Those are 2 distinct things.  There are
> many cases where just a little flexibility can greatly ease the journey and
> get us where we need to be.
>         My state chairs are currently overwhelmingly in favor of not
> rescinding.  They do not trust us to not screw it up worse, and honestly
> who can blame them.  I do not, heck I agree with them.
>
>
> 2.  I have said before I think the option with 10.14 or whatever the
> number is better, and was indeed one I floated long ago, as did others.  If
> it is possible to push that one as an amendment I will consider it and take
> it to them.
>
> 3.  As I understand it the latest issue is the current solution's
> inability to seat all 1046 delegates - in addition to the other issues that
> already existed.  I find this issue compelling.  Rather than scrap the
> whole motion tho, could we not make direction to solve that problem? I know
> the state chairs group has ideas.
>      I understand that trust is low, mine is about gone, so I understand
> that trusting that would happen is questionable. So present a viable
> alternative.
>
> In conclusion, sell me on it.  The rescind is a very scary option, and I
> am not sold on it.  I think the proposed change could help, and also allows
> us to use other means more easily in order to allow full participation in
> the potus/vp selection process, but I do not know that I can in good
> conscience support taking us all the way back to square one at this point.
>
>
>
> John Phillips
> Libertarian National Committee Region 6 Representative
> Cell 217-412-5973
>
> --
>
> *In Liberty,*
>
> * Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
> (part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
> communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
> found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
> pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *
>
>
> --

*In Liberty,*

* Personal Note:  I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome
(part of the autism spectrum).  This can affect inter-personal
communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas.  If anyone
found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux
pas), please contact me privately and let me know. *