The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: SirLinksALot on July 27, 2016, 06:48:47 pm
-
SOURCE: RED STATE
URL: http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/07/27/parties-lose-disaffected-voters-gary-johnson-wins/ (http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/07/27/parties-lose-disaffected-voters-gary-johnson-wins/)
by: Brandon Morse
The exodus continues from both parties in such large numbers that pollsters are making it a point to take note of it.
The latest polls from a combined WaPo/ABC poll show that people are leaving the Democratic party in droves due to the treatment of Bernie Sanders at the hands of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC.
But while they're leaving the party, they aren't necessarily going with Trump. As WaPo states, that occurrence is actually quite rare. Only 9% of the ex-Sanders vote is going to Trump.
No, like former Republicans, most of the voters departing from Clinton are heading to the proverbial political frontier to seek the 3rd party options, and waiting for them there are the Libertarians and Green party by a whopping 21%.
According to the WaPo/ABC poll, the Libertarian and Green parties are neck in neck in picking up Sanders' wayward supporters by a 10% to 11% margin, with the Green party just ahead by 1%.
The Green Party being so close to the progressives in ideas, it's not a wonder that the Green party candidate, Dr, Jill Stein, is eking out a victory when it comes to picking up former Dem voters. However, that lead disappears when the apostate Republican vote is added.
Those leaving the GOP due to Trump's nomination are heading toward Johnson in large numbers. According to the poll, 17% is heading away from the Republican party, and 13% of that is finding their new political home with Gary Johnson. Compare that to only 4% going to Stein.
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-27-at-10.52.18-AM.png)
Source: Combined data from June and July Washington Post-ABC News polls
The bad news for Stein in the Green Party is that they won't be on the ballot in all fifty states come November, including important swing states. But Johnson and the Libertarian party will.
As far as 3rd parties go, the Libertarian party is poised to be this election season's dark horse.
-
Our local LP chair can't keep bumper stickers and signs in stock in our little Texas town. She is seeing record people signing up and volunteering. Even the former Young Republican Club chair and most of the members have switched. In our very Conservative town, I've seen one Trump bumper sticker, about a half dozen Hillary ones, and dozens of Johnson or LP stickers. A lot of this has to do with the local Republican precinct chair does not like Trump so she isn't distributing anything for him.
-
Isn't 20% the threshold for debate inclusion.
-
Isn't 20% the threshold for debate inclusion.
15%
Of course, the two major parties will fight tooth and nail to keep him out.
-
15%
Of course, the two major parties will fight tooth and nail to keep him out.
Bernie must be really kicking himself now. He could have been a bona fide kingmaker. His supporters need to be told what to do.
Cruz's supporters like me bristle at the notion of taking orders. That's why Ted was smart to not endorse Trump. He knew that we would take umbrage at such direction.
-
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-27-at-10.52.18-AM.png)
Source: Combined data from June and July Washington Post-ABC News polls
I don't think Johnson is a good candidate, but I'd like to see him do well, to "keep the major parties honest". As it stands, Trump and Hillary are acting like there's no threat.
-
I don't know why anyone needs to vote Losertarian to get their signature platform items implemented.
Open borders we have NOW. Most of us know it's a disaster unfolding.
Marijuana legalization we also have, in some places under the subterfuge of "medicinal." Pot use is exploding off the charts; and so is clamor for socialism. Coinky-dink?
The LP platform and method are not serious. Granted, they will not win; but even in a protest vote I feel a need to dispense it responsibly.
-
Vote for the pro-choice LPs if one wants. Where's folks principles now?
Hang me before I conside it.
Yes, we know, Trump isn't pro-life, well Gary Johnson sure is nothing compared to Mike Pence. Pro-life record proven.
-
So called "conservatives" going to LP Johnson is a joke, since his positions are mostly very liberal.
But while their lack of critical thinking might have previously been up for discussion, it is now openly displayed.
Here is an LP platform refresher for Jmerlyfuller, from memory:
--open borders
--abortion on demand
--same sex marriage
--reduce military spending 43%
-
I don't know why anyone needs to vote Losertarian to get their signature platform items implemented.
Open borders we have NOW. Most of us know it's a disaster unfolding.
Marijuana legalization we also have, in some places under the subterfuge of "medicinal." Pot use is exploding off the charts; and so is clamor for socialism. Coinky-dink?
The LP platform and method are not serious. Granted, they will not win; but even in a protest vote I feel a need to dispense it responsibly.
Exactly, the Liberaltarians.
I heard talk they are looking at 5% at best. 1% for Jill Stein.
-
So called "conservatives" going to LP Johnson is a joke, since his positions are mostly very liberal.
But while their lack of critical thinking might have previously been up for discussion, it is now openly displayed.
Here is an LP platform refresher for Jmerlyfuller, from memory:
--open borders
--abortion on demand
--same sex marriage
--reduce military spending 43%
FTA....
According to the WaPo/ABC poll, the Libertarian and Green parties are neck in neck in picking up Sanders' wayward supporters by a 10% to 11% margin, with the Green party just ahead by 1%.
How very telling. And not surprising. Libertarianism appeals to wackie Bern voters.
I've never respected liberaltarians.
-
So called "conservatives" going to LP Johnson is a joke, since his positions are mostly very liberal.
But while their lack of critical thinking might have previously been up for discussion, it is now openly displayed.
Here is an LP platform refresher for Jmerlyfuller, from memory:
--open borders
--abortion on demand
--same sex marriage
--reduce military spending 43%
Let's correct a few things.
--open borders Elimination of welfare programs that attract illegal aliens here to leech the system. That's the biggest draw for the criminal class. Easier legal immigration resulting in reducing crime associated with illegal immigration. Result, those coming here won't be coming illegally to leech the system but legally for mutual financial benefit.
--abortion on demand Returning the issue to the States. Not the best position, but fighting it on the federal level has failed for 30 years.
--same sex marriage Actual platform is to take government out of the marriage business entirely.
--reduce military spending 43% That doesn't necessarily mean weaker. This can be accomplished though wiser spending, reducing waste, and improving technology. No more $500 hammers.
-
So called "conservatives" going to LP Johnson is a joke, since his positions are mostly very liberal.
Bullspit.
But while their lack of critical thinking might have previously been up for discussion, it is now openly displayed.
Here is an LP platform refresher for Jmerlyfuller, from memory:
--open borders
--abortion on demand
--same sex marriage
--reduce military spending 43%
See AbaraXas's response above. What's important is that Johnson is the ONLY candidate who favors limited, liberty-centric, Constitutional government. What's just as important is he's NOT TRUMP and NOT HILLARY.
GO JOHNSON/WELD!!
-
FTA....
According to the WaPo/ABC poll, the Libertarian and Green parties are neck in neck in picking up Sanders' wayward supporters by a 10% to 11% margin, with the Green party just ahead by 1%.
How very telling. And not surprising. Libertarianism appeals to wackie Bern voters.
I've never respected liberaltarians.
I once considered them worth looking at. But after 9-11-2001 their candidate Harry Browne blamed America, and that did it for me. Looking further, I learned they are mostly "attention seeking political hobbyists."
It is an appealing option if one decides to "get involved" with politics, to go to 3rd and 4th party meetings, since they are small and you get attention.
And one of my favorite guys Larry Elder dumped libertarianism them at the same time, and has not gone back.
-
I once considered them worth looking at. But after 9-11-2001 their candidate Harry Browne blamed America, and that did it for me. Looking further, I learned they are mostly "attention seeking political hobbyists."
I'm just going to leave that there so people can smell the irony.
-
Bullspit.
See AbaraXas's response above. What's important is that Johnson is the ONLY candidate who favors limited, liberty-centric, Constitutional government. What's just as important is he's NOT TRUMP and NOT HILLARY.
GO JOHNSON/WELD!!
Weren't you for Kasich, two weeks ago? Forever grasping at straws, it seems.
-
Steve Deace @SteveDeaceShow 2h2 hours ago
For first time in history of Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans said party's convention made them less likely to vote Republican.
198 retweets 200 likes
-
Bullspit.
See AbaraXas's response above. What's important is that Johnson is the ONLY candidate who favors limited, liberty-centric, Constitutional government. What's just as important is he's NOT TRUMP and NOT HILLARY.
GO JOHNSON/WELD!!
I think a lot of people look at LP issues from the surface and through the glasses of the two major parties definitions of what they mean and the result. The LP isn't perfect in the least, but what they offer is a pendulum swing towards limited government and maximizing individual liberty- even if some of the issues associated with that draw the ire of the alt-Right Conservatives. The latter are seeing just the individual issue but are glad to have government grow and grow and grow to become their own hammer. When it gets down to it, at this point the Republicans and Democrats both want to grow the government for their own purposes and are both leading down a path of centralized authoritarian control.
Immigration is the perfect example. On the left, you have open borders and open welfare. On the right, you have a police state. The Libertarian approach is to cut off the welfare magnet that attracts the leeches and criminal class and make legal immigration easier. This means you would have fewer if any coming in for criminal reasons- immigration would return to a mutually beneficial arrangement where we would get people willing to work, not leech the system, for businesses who need them. There wouldn't be this underground, almost slave economy of illegals.
To use the old water leak analogy.
Democrats would open the faucet and let more water in.
Republicans would duct tape the water leak then bail the water. This doesn't actually fix the problem of a broken pipe, it just adds a temporary patch, but what is drawing them is still in place and will continue until the next pipe breaks.
Libertarians would cut off the water main (what supplies the water in the first place) and replace the pipe with one that works.
-
So, In the "Make America Great Again" world, what is the zeitgeist of a vote for Gary Johnson? Is it a vote for Hillary or a vote for Trump?
-
So called "conservatives" going to LP Johnson is a joke, since his positions are mostly very liberal.
But while their lack of critical thinking might have previously been up for discussion, it is now openly displayed.
Here is an LP platform refresher for Jmerlyfuller, from memory:
--open borders
--abortion on demand
--same sex marriage
--reduce military spending 43%
I disagree with most of the libertarians on border security. Fine, but Trump's position is totally unworkable with regard to deportation. He would grant amnesty whether or not "the wall" is built and the 12 million illegals will never be forced to pass through his big, beautiful door. It is a pointless exercise. Abortion? There will never be a federal ban on abortion. If you want to restrict access, it is best to follow the tenth amendment a la Gary Johnson. Same sex marriage? Again, the regulation should take place at the state level. Most Americans believe in equality for gays. You aren't going to see a federal ban on gays from anything in your lifetime. Military spending? We pay a ridiculous price for defense, and we are now $20 trillion in debt. The budget will never be balanced without trimming the DOD.
-
So, In the "Make America Great Again" world, what is the zeitgeist of a vote for Gary Johnson? Is it a vote for Hillary or a vote for Trump?
Well, Trump supporters say if you vote for anyone but him, that's a vote for Hillary.
Clinton supporters say if you vote for anyone but her, that's a vote for Trump.
So, I guess that doubles my power by not voting for either of them, I am voting twice, voting for both of them.
-
Well, Trump supporters say if you vote for anyone but him, that's a vote for Hillary.
Clinton supporters say if you vote for anyone but her, that's a vote for Trump.
So, I guess that doubles my power by not voting for either of them, I am voting twice, voting for both of them.
After being told that I have to vote for the lesser evil I just might vote for Johnson.
-
So, In the "Make America Great Again" world, what is the zeitgeist of a vote for Gary Johnson? Is it a vote for Hillary or a vote for Trump?
A play for "attention" in the anonymous online world. "Look at me. Do you notice?"
-
A play for "attention" in the anonymous online world. "Look at me. Do you notice?"
Oh, I see. He scares the hell out of you.
-
I'm just going to leave that there so people can smell the irony.
"my I.Q. is one of the highest...", begs the question...
in my family???
in my carpool???
in my golf foursome???
in the men's room???
Feel free to add!!!
-
Bullspit.
See AbaraXas's response above. What's important is that Johnson is the ONLY candidate who favors limited, liberty-centric, Constitutional government. What's just as important is he's NOT TRUMP and NOT HILLARY.
GO JOHNSON/WELD!!
No Johnson/Weld are not Hillary or Trump -- but really folks, has anyone done a shred of research on these two? They are FOR OPEN BORDERS, FOR ABORTION, AGAINST EXPANDING MILITARY. FAVOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE ... so how exactly is the Libertarian party offering candidates that are any better? The only solid positive (at least that I can tell) is that they are PRO GUN. Also, the Libertarian party as of now, has not qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
Secondly, would they appoint conservative or liberal justices to SCOTUS?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
I would hope that if anything, conservatives would be flocking to the Constitution Party. As of now, they also have not qualified to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
-
No Johnson/Weld are not Hillary or Trump -- but really folks, has anyone done a shred of research on these two? They are FOR OPEN BORDERS, FOR ABORTION, AGAINST EXPANDING MILITARY. FAVOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE ... so how exactly is the Libertarian party offering candidates that are any better? The only solid positive (at least that I can tell) is that they are PRO GUN.
Secondly, would they appoint conservative or liberal justices to SCOTUS?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Exactly!!! Completely unacceptable to me. Just one more #Never to add to my list.
#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary
#NeverJohnson
-
No Johnson/Weld are not Hillary or Trump -- but really folks, has anyone done a shred of research on these two? They are FOR OPEN BORDERS, FOR ABORTION, AGAINST EXPANDING MILITARY. FAVOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE ... so how exactly is the Libertarian party offering candidates that are any better? The only solid positive (at least that I can tell) is that they are PRO GUN.
Secondly, would they appoint conservative or liberal justices to SCOTUS?
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
I'll repeat my comments above into one. The LP position can't be viewed through the glasses of how the traditional parties frame the issues.
Let's correct a few things.
--open borders Elimination of welfare programs that attract illegal aliens here to leech the system. That's the biggest draw for the criminal class. Easier legal immigration resulting in reducing crime associated with illegal immigration. Result, those coming here won't be coming illegally to leech the system but legally for mutual financial benefit.
--abortion on demand Returning the issue to the States. Not the best position, but fighting it on the federal level has failed for 30 years.
--same sex marriage Actual platform is to take government out of the marriage business entirely.
--reduce military spending 43% That doesn't necessarily mean weaker. This can be accomplished though wiser spending, reducing waste, and improving technology. No more $500 hammers.
I think a lot of people look at LP issues from the surface and through the glasses of the two major parties definitions of what they mean and the result. The LP isn't perfect in the least, but what they offer is a pendulum swing towards limited government and maximizing individual liberty- even if some of the issues associated with that draw the ire of the alt-Right Conservatives. The latter are seeing just the individual issue but are glad to have government grow and grow and grow to become their own hammer. When it gets down to it, at this point the Republicans and Democrats both want to grow the government for their own purposes and are both leading down a path of centralized authoritarian control.
Immigration is the perfect example. On the left, you have open borders and open welfare. On the right, you have a police state. The Libertarian approach is to cut off the welfare magnet that attracts the leeches and criminal class and make legal immigration easier. This means you would have fewer if any coming in for criminal reasons- immigration would return to a mutually beneficial arrangement where we would get people willing to work, not leech the system, for businesses who need them. There wouldn't be this underground, almost slave economy of illegals.
To use the old water leak analogy.
Democrats would open the faucet and let more water in.
Republicans would duct tape the water leak then bail the water. This doesn't actually fix the problem of a broken pipe, it just adds a temporary patch, but what is drawing them is still in place and will continue until the next pipe breaks.
Libertarians would cut off the water main (what supplies the water in the first place) and replace the pipe with one that works.
-
I'll repeat my comments above into one. The LP position can't be viewed through the glasses of how the traditional parties frame the issues.
Let's correct a few things.
--open borders Elimination of welfare programs that attract illegal aliens here to leech the system. That's the biggest draw for the criminal class. Easier legal immigration resulting in reducing crime associated with illegal immigration. Result, those coming here won't be coming illegally to leech the system but legally for mutual financial benefit.
--abortion on demand Returning the issue to the States. Not the best position, but fighting it on the federal level has failed for 30 years.
--same sex marriage Actual platform is to take government out of the marriage business entirely.
--reduce military spending 43% That doesn't necessarily mean weaker. This can be accomplished though wiser spending, reducing waste, and improving technology. No more $500 hammers.
I think a lot of people look at LP issues from the surface and through the glasses of the two major parties definitions of what they mean and the result. The LP isn't perfect in the least, but what they offer is a pendulum swing towards limited government and maximizing individual liberty- even if some of the issues associated with that draw the ire of the alt-Right Conservatives. The latter are seeing just the individual issue but are glad to have government grow and grow and grow to become their own hammer. When it gets down to it, at this point the Republicans and Democrats both want to grow the government for their own purposes and are both leading down a path of centralized authoritarian control.
Immigration is the perfect example. On the left, you have open borders and open welfare. On the right, you have a police state. The Libertarian approach is to cut off the welfare magnet that attracts the leeches and criminal class and make legal immigration easier. This means you would have fewer if any coming in for criminal reasons- immigration would return to a mutually beneficial arrangement where we would get people willing to work, not leech the system, for businesses who need them. There wouldn't be this underground, almost slave economy of illegals.
To use the old water leak analogy.
Democrats would open the faucet and let more water in.
Republicans would duct tape the water leak then bail the water. This doesn't actually fix the problem of a broken pipe, it just adds a temporary patch, but what is drawing them is still in place and will continue until the next pipe breaks.
Libertarians would cut off the water main (what supplies the water in the first place) and replace the pipe with one that works.
No thanks. To be honest, that is too similar to the excuses Team Trump puts out. I am not going with the "ignore all these bad things because of this one thing..." argument.
-
No thanks. To be honest, that is too similar to the excuses Team Trump puts out. I am not going with the "ignore all these bad things because of this one thing..." argument.
That's cool. I'm a strong believer in vote your conscience, vote your values. If that doesn't fit your values, there is absolutely no reason you should vote for it. No guilt tripping here. Your vote is your vote.
-
If I want to get involved in a conversation, by the way, I'll invite myself. Until then, unless you have a legit reason to bring me into it that doesn't involve trolling, leave me out of it. Thank you.
Carry on.
-
I'll repeat my comments above into one. The LP position can't be viewed through the glasses of how the traditional parties frame the issues.
Let's correct a few things.
--open borders Elimination of welfare programs that attract illegal aliens here to leech the system. That's the biggest draw for the criminal class. Easier legal immigration resulting in reducing crime associated with illegal immigration. Result, those coming here won't be coming illegally to leech the system but legally for mutual financial benefit.
--abortion on demand Returning the issue to the States. Not the best position, but fighting it on the federal level has failed for 30 years.
--same sex marriage Actual platform is to take government out of the marriage business entirely.
--reduce military spending 43% That doesn't necessarily mean weaker. This can be accomplished though wiser spending, reducing waste, and improving technology. No more $500 hammers.
I think a lot of people look at LP issues from the surface and through the glasses of the two major parties definitions of what they mean and the result. The LP isn't perfect in the least, but what they offer is a pendulum swing towards limited government and maximizing individual liberty- even if some of the issues associated with that draw the ire of the alt-Right Conservatives. The latter are seeing just the individual issue but are glad to have government grow and grow and grow to become their own hammer. When it gets down to it, at this point the Republicans and Democrats both want to grow the government for their own purposes and are both leading down a path of centralized authoritarian control.
Immigration is the perfect example. On the left, you have open borders and open welfare. On the right, you have a police state. The Libertarian approach is to cut off the welfare magnet that attracts the leeches and criminal class and make legal immigration easier. This means you would have fewer if any coming in for criminal reasons- immigration would return to a mutually beneficial arrangement where we would get people willing to work, not leech the system, for businesses who need them. There wouldn't be this underground, almost slave economy of illegals.
To use the old water leak analogy.
Democrats would open the faucet and let more water in.
Republicans would duct tape the water leak then bail the water. This doesn't actually fix the problem of a broken pipe, it just adds a temporary patch, but what is drawing them is still in place and will continue until the next pipe breaks.
Libertarians would cut off the water main (what supplies the water in the first place) and replace the pipe with one that works.
Very well said, AbaraXas. I like the libertarian position because it's liberty-centric on both social and economic issues. The Dems want the state out o the bedroom, but want it crawling all over the boardroom. A lot of conservatives want the state be a social nanny.
Besides, Johnson and Weld represent more governmental executive experience - by far - than Clinton and Trump combined.
Given the alternatives available, how is Johnson/Weld not the obvious choice for a thinking American conservative? I don't see why Johnson/Weld, with media and money, couldn't pull off the scheme that was posited the other day - pick off a few deep red states like Utah and get the damn election kicked to the Congress.
-
Very well said, AbaraXas. I like the libertarian position because it's liberty-centric on both social and economic issues. The Dems want the state out o the bedroom, but want it crawling all over the boardroom. A lot of conservatives want the state be a social nanny.
Besides, Johnson and Weld represent more governmental executive experience - by far - than Clinton and Trump combined.
Given the alternatives available, how is Johnson/Weld not the obvious choice for a thinking American conservative? I don't see why Johnson/Weld, with media and money, couldn't pull off the scheme that was posited the other day - pick off a few deep red states like Utah and get the damn election kicked to the Congress.
The obvious choice for a thinking American conservative is to either write in Cruz or vote Castle of the Constitution party. I see a lot wrong with Johnson and as a conservative do not want to give away the sovereignty of our country by granting amnesty and allowing our borders to remain open. With the rise of ISIS and the threat of Sharia law already in our country; open borders and reducing our military is a recipe for disaster and sheer insanity.
I don't agree with means testing on social security nor the 23% national sales tax!!
I don't agree with the immediate withdrawal of troops from the Middle East as it will only further allow the spread of ISIS -- we are now living the result of Obama's troop withdrawal in the region.
Perhaps the most concerning; calls himself classical liberal; others prefer libertarian. Really? As a 'thinking' conservative, I should vote for him why???
#NeverTrump
#NeverJohnson
#NeverHillary
-
The obvious choice for a thinking American conservative is to either write in Cruz or vote Castle of the Constitution party. I see a lot wrong with Johnson and as a conservative do not want to give away the sovereignty of our country by granting amnesty and allowing our borders to remain open. With the rise of ISIS and the threat of Sharia law already in our country; open borders and reducing our military is a recipe for disaster and sheer insanity.
I don't agree with means testing on social security nor the 23% national sales tax!!
I don't agree with the immediate withdrawal of troops from the Middle East as it will only further allow the spread of ISIS -- we are now living the result of Obama's troop withdrawal in the region.
Perhaps the most concerning; calls himself classical liberal; others prefer libertarian. Really? As a 'thinking' conservative, I should vote for him why???
#NeverTrump
#NeverJohnson
#NeverHillary
Because this election is practically already lost and if you're going to throw away your vote, I think the best move would be to do it in a way that makes an impact.
If you want to vote for Castle, go ahead. He's running, but I don't see him having much of an impact. As I said before, writing in Cruz or any other non-candidate is simply going to get ignored.
At least Johnson and the Libertarian Party have some things in common with us, and most of what we do not have in common, the courts have already decided against us. If we're going to make progress on conservative ideals as reducing the size, scope and power of the central government, the Libertarians can be strong allies. Johnson also has the largest supporter base outside of Clinton or Trump, and I know that that kind of argument isn't the end-all and be-all, but it matters.
-
Because this election is practically already lost and if you're going to throw away your vote, I think the best move would be to do it in a way that makes an impact.
If you want to vote for Castle, go ahead. He's running, but I don't see him having much of an impact. As I said before, writing in Cruz or any other non-candidate is simply going to get ignored.
At least Johnson and the Libertarian Party have some things in common with us, and most of what we do not have in common, the courts have already decided against us. If we're going to make progress on conservative ideals as reducing the size, scope and power of the central government, the Libertarians can be strong allies. Johnson also has the largest supporter base outside of Clinton or Trump, and I know that that kind of argument isn't the end-all and be-all, but it matters.
I am not going to dismiss my key issues just because the courts have overreached. No white flags here. Libertarians are unrealistic, they miss the core point made by the framers that liberty would only work if the people put restraints on themselves through morality and religion. Liberty is not licentiousness. Ordered liberty gives all people the basic rights so that they can make their case to their fellow citizens, they can move if they must to locations with laws they prefer. A free-for-all puts chains on all according to the lowest common denominator. It cannot be sustained.
I respect those whose conscience informs them that voting Johnson is best for them. For me, #NeverJohnson.
-
... the core point made by the framers that liberty would only work if the people put restraints on themselves through morality and religion.
@RAT Patrol
Do you assert that morality and religion are the realm of, and to be guided by, government?
Or are they the responsibility of the individual?
The Libertarian Party asserts the latter.
-
15% in polls gets Johnson in the debates. He will steal 5%, 10%, ? of Burnies bail outs and swing a potential close race to donnie. They are experts in close race recount wins but that will work only in very close races.
As much as I hate donnie, I hate the Klintons worse.
Johnson has gotta get a 15% plus though to make it stick.
-
@RAT Patrol
Do you assert that morality and religion are the realm of, and to be guided by, government?
Or are they the responsibility of the individual?
The Libertarian Party asserts the latter.
I assert this:
"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty." --Fisher Ames
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God, able men, men of truth, hating covetousness. It is to the neglect of this rule that we must ascribe the multified frauds, breaches of trust, and embezzlement of public property which tarnish the character of our country and disgrace government. When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country." Noah Webster, 1823
...inasmuch as we know that by His Divine law, nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?... - Abraham Lincoln -
"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites--in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity;--in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;--in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite is placed somewhere: and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- Edmund Burke
"[A] good moral character is the first essential in a man... and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous." --George Washington
"Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them." --Joseph Story
"Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness." -- President George Washington, 1753
"Can the liberties of a nation be sure when we remove their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God?" -- Thomas Jefferson.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams
"The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, 1819.
The twin pillars of libertarianism is essentially sex and drugs. They believe no lines should be drawn in those areas at all. No thanks. I believe freedom does not thrive that way, rather it would be eventually destroyed for all but the most corrupt among us. Reread the first quote. No I am not advocating legislating religion. But as morality and religion informs the individual, it affects their judgement of who they pick as their representatives and what laws they support. No theology. No violation of basic God given rights. But neither does liberty mean unchained from moral law (See Thomas Jefferson above -- they are independent of all but moral law).
-
Vote for the pro-choice LPs if one wants. Where's folks principles now?
Hang me before I conside it.
Yes, we know, Trump isn't pro-life, well Gary Johnson sure is nothing compared to Mike Pence. Pro-life record proven.
Constitution Party is the only non-trump/Hilary choice.
Or not vote top of the ticket.
-
Because this election is practically already lost and if you're going to throw away your vote, I think the best move would be to do it in a way that makes an impact.
If you want to vote for Castle, go ahead. He's running, but I don't see him having much of an impact. As I said before, writing in Cruz or any other non-candidate is simply going to get ignored.
At least Johnson and the Libertarian Party have some things in common with us, and most of what we do not have in common, the courts have already decided against us. If we're going to make progress on conservative ideals as reducing the size, scope and power of the central government, the Libertarians can be strong allies. Johnson also has the largest supporter base outside of Clinton or Trump, and I know that that kind of argument isn't the end-all and be-all, but it matters.
I understand what you are saying and agree that they have commonalities such as reducing the size and scope of government and giving back power to the states and indeed that is very much needed. The more critical and in fact crucial concern is at the federal level. Reducing our military and withdrawing troops in conjunction with leaving our borders open and granting amnesty to millions is absolutely insane. Take a look at Europe; Germany is a complete mess with numerous rapes and murders by immigrants and refugees and a priest was just beheaded over in France by ISIS. This election is going to either open the door for the same to happen here or close the door. There are of course other critical issues such as the Supreme Court, but IMHO, if we reduce our military and leave our borders open we won't have to worry about giving power back to the states or placing conservative justices...we will have lost our country. God willing we will maintain our majority in the house and senate and hopefully place a few more conservatives in Congress.
Unfortunately, the reality is it's a roll of the dice to vote for Johnson, Castle or write in Cruz. The way I see it voting for any of those three is the only way that there may be a very very slim chance of denying Trump or Hillary the majority, especially since neither the Constitution party or the Libertarian party is on the ballot in all 50 states.
Cruz stood before God, country and whole lot of Trump supporters and spoke out in the name of freedom. He was booed, jeered at and denied access into a suite after his speech! All because he spoke of freedom and told people to vote their conscience and down ballot. I still stand with Cruz and will write him in on the ballot.
-
Exactly!!! Completely unacceptable to me. Just one more #Never to add to my list.
#NeverTrump
#NeverHillary
#NeverJohnson
Not for me. At this point I am for burning down the system. I'm voting for Johnson because it may just be enough to send this election into the House. Then a whole new hell opens up. Love the idea.
-
So, In the "Make America Great Again" world, what is the zeitgeist of a vote for Gary Johnson? Is it a vote for Hillary or a vote for Trump?
Excellent point.
-
Drew Clark: The conservative case for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, not Donald Trump and Mike Pence (http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865658214/The-conservative-case-for-Gary-Johnson-and-Bill-Weld-not-Donald-Trump-and-Mike-Pence.html?pg=all)
These are among the issues in which the Johnson-Weld campaign put forth positions starkly different from those of their rivals:
•They have a real appreciation that the Constitution imposes limits upon the powers of the executive.
•They support policies that welcome immigrants instead of deporting them.
•They support term limits for all elected leaders.
•They believe that free trade is the engine of the free market, and that our economy will suffer from 35 percent tariffs or from managed trade.
•They want to cut the federal budget by at least 20 percent. They will do this by turning a skeptical eye toward any proposal spending your tax dollars.
Yes, but what about Gov. Johnson's support for marijuana and for same-sex marriage?
Gov. Johnson believes that each state should have the right to legalize and regulate marijuana, just as is currently the case with alcohol. As governor of New Mexico, Johnson supported legalization of marijuana in 1999, and a majority of the country now supports this position. As with alcohol today, our nation is better served if this decision is left to the states.
A central premise of libertarianism is that individuals should be free to live their lives without coercion from the state. This is why laws against consenting sexual behavior of adults are inappropriate.
Respect for individual liberty. Respect for free markets. Respect for federalism. Respect for the Constitution. That ought to be appealing to a conservative, don't you think?
-
So called "conservatives" going to LP Johnson is a joke, since his positions are mostly very liberal.
But while their lack of critical thinking might have previously been up for discussion, it is now openly displayed.
Here is an LP platform refresher for Jmerlyfuller, from memory:
--open borders
--abortion on demand
--same sex marriage
--reduce military spending 43%
Hey!!!!!
(http://www.themudflats.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/garyjohnsn.jpg)
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/07/26/14/369AB9DD00000578-3708811-image-a-5_1469541493317.jpg)
-
Drew Clark: The conservative case for Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, not Donald Trump and Mike Pence (http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865658214/The-conservative-case-for-Gary-Johnson-and-Bill-Weld-not-Donald-Trump-and-Mike-Pence.html?pg=all)
Respect for individual liberty. Respect for free markets. Respect for federalism. Respect for the Constitution. That ought to be appealing to a conservative, don't you think?
Of course respect for the Constitution. However, I am NOT for insanity; open borders, amnesty and a reduced military.
-
Of course respect for the Constitution. However, I am NOT for insanity; open borders, amnesty and a reduced military.
No, couldn't go there either. I think its a sit it out election.
-
No, couldn't go there either. I think its a sit it out election.
Vote down ballot.
-
Vote down ballot.
Yes
-
Trump is not only not losing voters, he is rapidly gaining them. Contrary to the title of this thread. He has hit 47, 48, and 51 percent totals in 3 of the most recent new polls. Those numbers are unprecedented for him until now, demonstrating the growing share of the electorate that is moving his way.
-
@RAT Patrol
Do you assert that morality and religion are the realm of, and to be guided by, government?
Or are they the responsibility of the individual?
The Libertarian Party asserts the latter.
And as they have done that - they have abandoned ALL moral absolutes that the States and the FedGov had in place that protected the family. Laws and policies that benefitted you and me. And that benefitted the states and the nation.
Libertarians sided with liberals as they denounced that marriages have any place in our government. As a result - Families have been harmed and the Welfare State has flourished. Libertarians sided with liberals as they denounced that marriages have any place in our government. As a result - Families have been harmed and queer marriages are not only legal, but are replacing fundamental and Constitutional freedoms of religion.
Libertarians are not just foolish and naïve as they seek to deconstruct God from our government; they are as evil as any liberal, communistic, Marxist Obamatron.
-
Not for me. At this point I am for burning down the system. I'm voting for Johnson because it may just be enough to send this election into the House. Then a whole new hell opens up. Love the idea.
Chaos and Anarchy. The true hallmarks of Libertarians!
Woo Hoo!
blij26
-
If God's message resonates, then it should be able to do so without the help of the state.
The government's job is to maintain the conditions for the exercise of religious liberty - nothing more, nothing less.
-
If God's message resonates, then it should be able to do so without the help of the state.
The government's job is to maintain the conditions for the exercise of religious liberty - nothing more, nothing less.
Sure, but when libertarians allowed (and even encouraged) the removal of God and morality from our laws - then they are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the lack of religious liberties we have today.
Or were these libs too stupid to think that there would be any consequences to removing the State from marriages?
-
As Ted Cruz suggested I'm listening to my conscience and its NOT whispering to me to vote Johnson. Way too socially liberal for my taste. I'm not a Libertarian, but I have read that many of them also look at him as being a poor represenative of their party.
-
As Ted Cruz suggested I'm listening to my conscience and its NOT whispering to me to vote Johnson. Way too socially liberal for my taste. I'm not a Libertarian, but I have read that many of them also look at him as being a poor represenative of their party.
I've never prioritized social issues when voting for President. Presidents impact economic policy and foreign policy, and are obliged to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. Presidents don't impact the culture, or shouldn't.
-
Sure, but when libertarians allowed (and even encouraged) the removal of God and morality from our laws - then they are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the lack of religious liberties we have today.
Or were these libs too stupid to think that there would be any consequences to removing the State from marriages?
Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on my marriage or yours. If God disapproves, then that's His business. The issue I care about is the equal protection of the law. If the state affords valuable rights, benefits and obligations to couples who marry, then civil marriage must be available on the same basis to both me and my neighbors. If you disagree, then the solution is as Gary Johnson suggests - get the government out of the marriage business.
-
Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on my marriage or yours. If God disapproves, then that's His business. The issue I care about is the equal protection of the law. If the state affords valuable rights, benefits and obligations to couples who marry, then civil marriage must be available on the same basis to both me and my neighbors. If you disagree, then the solution is as Gary Johnson suggests - get the government out of the marriage business.
Upthread you said... "Presidents don't impact the culture, or shouldn't."
Naïve, much? Look at what Obama has done to our culture and our Country. And if you cared about "the equal protection of the law" then you would care that marriage has been devalued and the unlawful and unconstitutional results ( Obergefell v. Hodges )
Leaving religion out of the equation for a moment - consider that traditional marriages benefit the state. And when the state gets out of the marriage business - the Welfare State and all the sickening liberal aftershocks (gay civil marriages) takes over. Which financially and socially HARMS us, our culture and our Nation.
I get that Libs are often Godless. I do. But using their tactics to thwart the Constitution and the intentions of the Founding Fathers only serves to support the liberal agenda.
-
Gay marriage has no impact whatsoever on my marriage or yours. If God disapproves, then that's His business.
Here's the problem -- this is NOT TRUE.
The government is making it THEIR BUSINESS to FORCE people of faith to CELEBRATE what they consider is a PERVERSION of marriage.
Just ask Kim Davis, Christian Photographers, Bakers, Lodge Owners, etc.
In fact, I worry for my nephew, who spent several years in the Navy, left, studied to be a Pastor in Seminary and was recently made Navy Chaplain.
He is a devout Christian who adheres and teaches Scripture.... the obvious next question is this --- what will happen to him if he refuses to officiate in a gay Navy wedding?
-
Leaving religion out of the equation for a moment - consider that traditional marriages benefit the state.
I agree - and more to the point, they benefit the community, by providing a platform for two people to share their lives and fortunes, to care for each other in sickness and in health, and to raise children.
I don't want the government out of the marriage business - I want the institution to continue to be supported by the state just as it is now. It is a positive good. And that's why I support marriage equality - I'd rather allow my neighbors to marry and get the same government-provided benefits as I do, then to deny those benefits to all.
Don't forget that millions of us have married without the involvement of any church - it is a CIVIC institution, and as such is subject to the equal protection of the law.
-
Here's the problem -- this is NOT TRUE.
The government is making it THEIR BUSINESS to FORCE people of faith to CELEBRATE what they consider is a PERVERSION of marriage.
Just ask Kim Davis, Christian Photographers, Bakers, Lodge Owners, etc.
In fact, I worry for my nephew, who spent several years in the Navy, left, studied to be a Pastor in Seminary and was recently made Navy Chaplain.
He is a devout Christian who adheres and teaches Scripture.... the obvious next question is this --- what will happen to him if he refuses to officiate in a gay Navy wedding?
This is a complicated issue, because one person's right to marry may conflict with another's exercise of religious liberty. I suggest that the vast majority of reasonable people can work things out without making a federal case out of it.
-
I suggest that the vast majority of reasonable people can work things out without making a federal case out of it.
Very easy to say... what if the gay "couple" ( note the quotes) files a lawsuit as they have already done?
They could have gone to another baker or photographer but they INSIST on making it an issue.
Christians did not start this war... the gay activists did.
-
Chaos and Anarchy. The true hallmarks of Libertarians!
Woo Hoo!
blij26
There's no hell that breaks loose if the election were to go to the House...which has zero chance of happening. But if it were, the process is pretty straightforward...the top 3 vote getters are on the ballot and both parties vote along party lines for their parties nominee. No chaos. No anarchy. Just a party line vote. Not sure why anyone finds that to be some critical chaotic event...it would be unprecedented and newsworthy, but the voting itself would be simple and unsurprising in all cases. Whichever party holds the majority of states, wins the vote.
-
That's cool. I'm a strong believer in vote your conscience, vote your values. If that doesn't fit your values, there is absolutely no reason you should vote for it. No guilt tripping here. Your vote is your vote.
What a refreshing idea!
You actually believe in freedom. What a concept in this day and age! :smokin:
-
But the real question is: Can Gary Johnson win a State?
-
Vote down ballot.
Absolutely.
-
Libertarians are largely self-serving pot-head sex addicts who want what they want when they want it and are destined to develop harmful addictions because the bent of mankind is toward corruption. Without restraints within there must be restraints from government. They see any restraint as slavery, missing entirely that "their passions forge their fetters."
I'm sorry that you know so few libertarians, and that you are such a slave to your passions that you feel you need the government to keep them in check.
Just know that's not the experience of many of your compatriots, and there's no need for the State to take on that role.
-
Libertarians are largely self-serving pot-head sex addicts who want what they want when they want it and are destined to develop harmful addictions because the bent of mankind is toward corruption. Without restraints within there must be restraints from government. They see any restraint as slavery, missing entirely that "their passions forge their fetters."
I'm sorry that you know so few libertarians, and that you are such a slave to your passions that you feel you need the government to keep them in check.
Just know that's not the experience of many of your compatriots, and there's no need for the State to take on that role.
With great freedom comes great responsibility. Because libertarians reject personal and social responsibilities on a moral, economic and cultural level, they are useless.
-
But the real question is: Can Gary Johnson win a State?
Here's the sad reality -- YOU STILL NEEDED MONEY TO BUY ADS to win.
We might all wish this were not so but it is.
Where's the Libertarian Convention like the RNC and the DNC COnventions?
You need those on primetime TV so that people will know Gary Johnson, what he stands for and what the party stands for.
If not, Johnson ought to be part of the presidential debate.
Otherwise, the reality is this --- it still all boils down to either Trump or Hillary.
-
But the real question is: Can Gary Johnson win a State?
If enough people will quit playing the uniparty game and vote for him you bet!
-
If enough people will quit playing the uniparty game and vote for him you bet!
He has to stand for something, first.
Something reasonable.
-
Libertarians are largely self-serving pot-head sex addicts who want what they want when they want it and are destined to develop harmful addictions because the bent of mankind is toward corruption. Without restraints within there must be restraints from government. They see any restraint as slavery, missing entirely that "their passions forge their fetters."
I'm sorry that you know so few libertarians, and that you are such a slave to your passions that you feel you need the government to keep them in check.
Just know that's not the experience of many of your compatriots, and there's no need for the State to take on that role.
With great freedom comes great responsibility. Because libertarians reject personal and social responsibilities on a moral, economic and cultural level, they are useless.
I'll echo Suppressed - you obviously don't know many of us who support getting the government out of both the bedroom and the boardroom.
-
If enough people will quit playing the uniparty game and vote for him you bet!
Preach it, brother!
We've been given a choice been a corrupt socialist and a deranged fascist.
I'll take door number three - two successful Republican governors who balanced budgets and cut taxes and gained re-election in states with diverse populations. And who don't treat the Constitution as something to wipe one's arse with.
-
First of all, there is zero chance of Johnson even winning a state much less the election. The idea should be to support him enough in all polls so that he exceeds the 15% threshold to get into the presidential debates. Once he does that the "Burney Babies" will see the dope smoking nut case as somebody they can vote for denying Hillary 5%, 10% or more of the popular vote per state providing donnie the victory. Face it, the winner will be donnie or piano legs, period. Perot did it to pappy Bush in 92 giving us the first nightmare installment of the Klintons.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.
-
A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.
So you're recommending I vote for Hillary, I presume?
-
A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.
Or a vote for Billary.
In this case, again, it's either-or. The little support the johnson gets, will come from BOTH sides.
And the typical argument - that the third-party spoiler helps the major-party candidate least like him - doesn't apply, since they're grotesquely similar.
-
I'll never vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Johnson,
Black children 5 times more likely to be aborted than white. This is true racism. The Democratic party champions it.
-
I'll never vote for a pro-abortion candidate like Johnson
But you'll vote for a flip-flopping fascist like Trump?
You do know that Trump's current stance on abortion is as phony as a three dollar bill?
-
But you'll vote for a flip-flopping fascist like Trump?
You do know that Trump's current stance on abortion is as phony as a three dollar bill?
Voting for Trump IS voting for a pro-abortion candidate.
Any failure to recognize that is deliberate self-deceit.
-
First of all, there is zero chance of Johnson even winning a state much less the election. The idea should be to support him enough in all polls so that he exceeds the 15% threshold to get into the presidential debates. Once he does that the "Burney Babies" will see the dope smoking nut case as somebody they can vote for denying Hillary 5%, 10% or more of the popular vote per state providing donnie the victory. Face it, the winner will be donnie or piano legs, period. Perot did it to pappy Bush in 92 giving us the first nightmare installment of the Klintons.
A vote for Johnson is a vote for donnie.
At this point in time, I don't really assume anything. In the onset of this election I thought we were going to see Hillary facing off with Bush. I knew Cruz had support, but I didn't realize how much. I certainly didn't think Trump would be our nominee. Johnson or Castle may very well win a state or maybe more. Perhaps Cruz write-in may be overwhelming. Who knows what's going to transpire surrounding Hillary or Trump. The likely best case scenario with Johnson, Castle or Cruz write-in is that cumulatively they deny Hillary and Trump the majority. I think we will see a much larger 3rd party or write-in vote than we saw with Perot.
To NOT vote one's conscience in this election is foolish.
-
But you'll vote for a flip-flopping fascist like Trump?
You do know that Trump's current stance on abortion is as phony as a three dollar bill?
Trump's current stance on every issue is as phony as a three dollar bill. He is a fraud.
-
Battle ground states that could be close we would lose on any recounts so to deny her any possibility of majorities in those states votes need to be siphoned from her. The way to do that is vote Johnson or any other 3rd party. The facts are in and the Libertarian and Green Parties are getting overwhelming new registrations from Bernies babies. Whether they do vote for either is another story but that may be the only way to win close battlegrounds.
I absolutely cannot stand Trump but I hate him less than Hillary and if it was necessary to do in my state I would easily vote for Johnson if it represented a better chance of defeating Hillary. I think Trump can easily cruise to the win here in Texas but other states it will be different.
You people that cannot see the finish line because of pride should realize you are not voting for Johnson, an abortion lover, but will be casting your vote with the most effective method leading to the defeat of Hillary, leaving us time to figure out what the heck we are going to do in 4 more years.
Tactical battle plans sometime require non-traditional methods in order to win the strategic war.
-
Pardon, multiple phone calls have interrupted.
For this to work requires Johnson to get into the presidential debates in order to convince enough of the vindictive bernie babies to vote non-hillary. He is the only one of the 3rd parties to even have a whisker of a chance to make the debates.
-
Marcus Hawkins @HawkinsUSA
I think I'm being pretty generous. By voting Johnson, you only need 1 voter to offset that loss. Keep pushing me to Hillary, and you need 2.
-
A Judeo-Christian social order actually serves to limit government because it reduces the need for welfare and other social services and it results in a less dependent electorate and in lower crime rates and fewer social ills of all sorts. So painting our heritage of supporting the natural family and having laws against things like homosexual behavior and illicit drug use and polygamy, etc., as expanding government is not really accurate. It is the only way to really appropriately limited government and enjoy ordered liberty under law. The libertarian perspective of unlimited social choices results in social chaos and an expanded reach of government overall. It cannot be sustained long term. It will inch its way back into big big government as we try to fix all the problems created by things like drug abuse, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution and all the other things libertarians want legalized.
Well said, @RAT Patrol , and absolutely correct.
Abiding by the standards set up by Judeo-Christian ethics results in smaller government, and a more decent, responsible society.
The Founders knew it, but most Americans have forgotten that a representative Republican requires a moral people to survive.
-
But you'll vote for a flip-flopping fascist like Trump?
You do know that Trump's current stance on abortion is as phony as a three dollar bill?
How is Trump a Fascist--specifically???
-
How is Trump a Fascist--specifically???
He has no power - yet. So we don't know.
We DO know that he's obsessed with acquiring power - "By Any Means Necessary." That's the Leftist technique. Conservatives, like Americans all throughout our history, wanted - with some exceptions - power to further their principles and policy aims. Sometimes general; sometimes more narrow, as in Western expansion.
Of the original forefathers, only Aaron Burr revealed himself as desiring power for the sake of having power. An attempt to make the Louisiana Purchase territory the Kingdom of Burr, failed miserably - and Burr, having killed Hamilton in a duel, was a wanted man with a warrant for homicide in New York.
Burr failed because he couldn't control himself. Trump cannot control himself, either - but that no longer seems to matter to today's Reality TV voter.
-
How is Trump a Fascist--specifically???
Well, he's certainly a demagogue, and his appeals echo those of historic fascist movements.
He employs ethnic stereotypes, and appeals to voters on the basis of their fears and prejudices. He insists that the nation is in catastrophic decline and pins the blame on "others" that must be demonized and cast out.
Most fascist movements have relied on the trope of national decline by reason of nefarious outside or traitorous forces, that can be only be solved by placing faith in a Strongman. Mussolini famously boasted that he'd make the trains run on time, almost promising to do so by force of will alone. Trump's acceptance speech was filled with the theme that only He, and He alone, could solve our problems. (If he admonished his followers to vote for the rest of the GOP ticket, for Congress on down, I must have missed it.)
Most fascist movements are centered around a cult of personality. That describes Trump and his uncritical followers to a tee. To fan that cult, he flies to gatherings on a helicopter, his name plastered on the side, and otherwise uses the same sorts of fascist tropes that are intended to project power and authority not based on ideas but on the narcotic of placing one's faith in One Man. He cheers when protesters at his rallies are silenced and removed. He encourages a "brownshirt" mentality on the part of his followers, an attitude that excuses thuggishness is a virtue in support of their Dear Leader.
And did you see how he'd jut his jaw out and tug at his lapels with both hands while soaking in the applause at his acceptance speech? Classic Mussolini.
I understand the source of Trump's appeal. The economic recovery has been historically weak, and U.S leadership generally is both weak and dysfunctional. Who doesn't want to see the trains run on time, the villains routed, and respect for the "forgotten man" restored? But at what cost? Are things really so bad that we will all be checking our consciences and common sense at the door to vote for this narcissistic man and his siren song? Because, "fascism" aside, Trump's personality - his megalomania, his temper, his refusal to listen to counsel, his impetuousness, his vindictiveness - are exactly the wrong traits for a President to have in a perilous world. And the latest jolt, of course, is his apparent ties to Russia. If his businesses are propped up by shade Russian money, isn't that simply an unacceptable conflict of interest for a job that will require dealing with that adversary nation?
I had been counseling that the GOP should accept parts of Trump's messenger, but reject the messenger himself as too unstable and dangerous. That hope is done now - Trump's the nominee and we must all deal with the facts as they are. For me, I must confront the reality of voting against my own self-interest and long-time loyalties to try to stop a man who threatens the safety and prosperity of us all.
-
At this point my only real objective in this election is to stop HRC from becoming POTUS. I have so far withheld support from Trump because I do not yet accept that Trump is a viable vehicle for stopping Hillary Clinton, or that Trump is the ONLY vehicle for defeating her. It looks to be evolving that way, but there remain avenues open, including the possibility that Gary Johnson emerges as the primary challenger.
Imagine this. Johnson's support grows to over 15 percent and he gets included in the debates. Then Romney, Cruz, Bush, Kasich, Sasse and several other notable disenchanted Republicans endorse him and help him get financed. Then Trump makes a major gaffe. It could happen. There is already media speculation that Romney is getting on board with Johnson.
So for me, I am just keeping my powder dry. I try to avoid bashing Trump, unless he does something particularly egregious (such as supporting the minimum wage). I sit in my recliner with my popcorn and I watch and wait to see how things evolve in my state. If here in Pennsylvania it appears that Trump is viable, and he is the only way to stop Clinton, then I will probably vote for him. But I am certainly not going to make the decision, or commit one way or the other, until election day.
-
At this point my only real objective in this election is to stop HRC from becoming POTUS. I have so far withheld support from Trump because I do not yet accept that Trump is a viable vehicle for stopping Hillary Clinton, or that Trump is the ONLY vehicle for defeating her. It looks to be evolving that way, but there remain avenues open, including the possibility that Gary Johnson emerges as the primary challenger.
Imagine this. Johnson's support grows to over 15 percent and he gets included in the debates. Then Romney, Cruz, Bush, Kasich, Sasse and several other notable disenchanted Republicans endorse him and help him get financed. Then Trump makes a major gaffe. It could happen. There is already media speculation that Romney is getting on board with Johnson.
So for me, I am just keeping my powder dry. I try to avoid bashing Trump, unless he does something particularly egregious (such as supporting the minimum wage). I sit in my recliner with my popcorn and I watch and wait to see how things evolve in my state. If here in Pennsylvania it appears that Trump is viable, and he is the only way to stop Clinton, then I will probably vote for him. But I am certainly not going to make the decision, or commit one way or the other, until election day.
I can imagine, too. I'm supporting Johnson at this point, but I'm also a Pennsylvania resident, perhaps this year's most crucial swing state. If the polls here are close, I'll do what I have to do to maximize the utility of my vote.
-
I'm thinking Bernie voters don't even show up.
-
Cruz's supporters like me bristle at the notion of taking orders. That's why Ted was smart to not endorse Trump. He knew that we would take umbrage at such direction.
I prefer to believe that Mr. Cruz took a principled stand, as opposed to the sort of cynical play you're suggesting here.