If you can factually disprove one word of what I posted, please do.
That's utter nonsense. You are inferring evil motive because someone disagrees with your position. That excludes the possibility that they are simply wrong on the facts, and are making an honest, if misguided, error. Therefore, it is up to you to prove that it is impossible for anyone to be making an honest mistake of fact. Good luck with that.
So by all means. FACTUALLY and with EVIDENCE show where I was wrong in my statements.
On top of that, your statements weren't even facts -- they were opinions, or at best, inferences you drew from facts. For example:
What you are doing -now- is damaging the future of conservatism in America and America itself by electing, intentionally, a mentally unstable liberal.
I also would be keeping
from office a mentally stable, intelligent, aggressive liberal who would have the full backing of a powerful political party, as well as control of the courts. That is a "fact" as well. You cannot fairly evaluate the consequences of my vote without considering
all of the consequences. In light of that, whether or not my vote "damages the future of conservatism" is opinion, not fact.
Trump will lose and still you refuse to plant the seeds for 2020 by empowering a third party today.
First, "Trump will lose" is a prediction, not a fact, and therefore cannot be either proven or disproven until election day.
Second, your statement contains an unproven, unargued assumption/inference -- that there is a reasonable possibility for a third party to win in 2020. That can be neither proven nor disproven since it is a prediction of a future event. Personally, I think there is a better chance of Zombie Reagan rising from the dead than for a third party to be successful. I'd give two reasons:
1) There has never been a successful third party Presidential movement since the widespread adoption of the primary system. The reasons for that are obvious -- any candidate who is within the mainstream of politics can compete for, and win, the nomination of one of the two major parties. Any candidate whose views are so extreme that they could not successfully compete in such a primary would, by definition, not have enough support to win the general election. To the extent candidates at any level have had success, it is because such campaigns were based around a single, charismatic
candidate who chose not to run for the nomination of either party. Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura did not achieve the degree of success they did because they were members of the Reform Party -- the Reform Party achieved the success it did because of
them. Therefore, the goal shouldn't be to find another party, but simply to find better candidates.
2) The likelihood of illegals being granted legalized status (approved by the Supreme Court through executive action rather than by Congress), and the rapid extension of the franchise to those millions of progressive-leaning voters, will make future electoral success by any non-progressive candidate virtually impossible. The packing of the electorate likely will be accompanied by a reversal of []iCitizens United[/I], and a resulting clampdown on independent expenditures by conservatives trying to be heard. That may well be accompanied by a revival of the Fairness Doctrine that would further limit the dissemination of views anathema to the progressive government. In such an environment, not only would the GOP be at a major disadvantage, but third parties likely would be squeezed out completely.
In other words, even my Zombified Reagan won't have a chance in 2020 if Hillary gets in.
So, for me, when I combine 1) and 2), I conclude that advocacy of a third party must be part of a left-wing masterplan to further fracture any possible opposition to the progressive powers. A splintering of any significant number of conservatives would be the final nail in the coffin to any opposition to the progressive establishment. Which, I suppose, makes
you the liberal.
But I don't believe you actually are a liberal. I just think your predictions are wrong, for the reasons stated.
