The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mountaineer on October 19, 2016, 03:33:16 pm
-
U.S. judge: Ban on transgender bathroom rule is national
Chuck Lindell American-Statesman (http://www.statesman.com/news/judge-ban-transgender-bathroom-rule-national/5qhjRp1emuDzGmew62B6XK/) Staff
9:50 a.m. Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2016 News
EXCERPTED
Clarifying an earlier ruling, a federal judge in Forth Worth said Wednesday that his injunction that barred the Obama administration from enforcing its school directive on transgender bathrooms applied to every state in the nation.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor also clarified that his temporary injunction, issued Aug. 21, applied only to the federal directive that schools allow transgender students to use the bathroom and locker room that conforms with their gender identity. It did not otherwise affect the government’s “core missions to combat discrimination based on race, national origin or disability,” he said.
Lawyers for the federal government had asked for the clarification to be issued before Thursday, when it faced a deadline to appeal the injunction. ...
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the clarification affirms the principle that Congress, not the president, writes the nation’s laws. ...
-
... It is clear from Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit precedent that this Court has the power to issue a nationwide injunction where appropriate. Both Title IX and Title VII rely on the consistent, uniform application of national standards in education and workplace policy. A nationwide injunction is necessary because the alleged violation extends nationwide," O'Connor wrote. "Should the Court only limit the injunction to the plaintiff states who are a party to this cause of action, the Court risks a 'substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective.'"
Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-upholds-ban-on-obamas-transgender-bathroom-rules/article/2604958)
-
'Bout durn time we had some good news.
-
Small bit a good news.
-
That's the thing about Hillary, you know what kind of judges she will appoint.
Maybe not with Trump... better to go with the devil you know or the one you don't? :shrug:
-
That's the thing about Hillary, you know what kind of judges she will appoint.
Maybe not with Trump... better to go with the devil you know or the one you don't? :shrug:
11513 :nono: :nono: :nono:
-
judges do not and should not have this kind of power
-
That's the thing about Hillary, you know what kind of judges she will appoint.
Maybe not with Trump... better to go with the devil you know or the one you don't? :shrug:
Why would you suppose one NYC liberal would be different from another NYC liberal?
-
Demon Rats, party of perversion, infanticide, immorality.
-
Why would you suppose one NYC liberal would be different from another NYC liberal?
I'm not supposing, that's the thing. I'm saying ones known and ones unknown. That's it.
-
Given:
hillary will nominate [for judicial positions] persons who are guaranteed to advance a far-left agenda using the court system.
Not known, but my guess:
Trump nominees will range from middle-of-the-road to conservative, some possibly very conservative (to the point of being strict constructionists).
We know what we're getting from hillary's picks.
The shaft. From each and every one of them.
With Trump, some picks may be good, some fair, perhaps a few poor.
I know which scenario I prefer!
-
(http://s21.postimg.org/kgwvqws1j/14606538_891926594270798_2730541106978229814_n.jpg)
-
judges do not and should not have this kind of power
The Federal judge should have the power to halt the executive branch any time it tries to make such a law. This is what the checks and balances are for. If that is going to be made law, it should come from the Congress so they can be voted out.
I'd like to see the ability to petition to recall any member of Congress, too (by their home district/state)
-
I'm not supposing, that's the thing. I'm saying ones known and ones unknown. That's it.
Both are pretty much known, if you pay attention to what Trump's said over the course of his adult life.
-
Both are pretty much known, if you pay attention to what Trump's said over the course of his adult life.
I don't think Trump knows anything about judges and will probably listen to his advisors on that issue. Which is a good thing.
-
I don't think Trump knows anything about judges and will probably listen to his advisors on that issue. Which is a good thing.
That would depend entirely on who is advising him. Yet another unknown.
-
That would depend entirely on who is advising him. Yet another unknown.
True, but which candidate is more likely to have an actual conservative advisor? We know how the Hilldebeaste will pick judges. With any luck, Trump would just say, "This stuff is really boring, you handle it, Mike Pence." :whistle:
-
Why would you suppose one NYC liberal would be different from another NYC liberal?
All due respect to Oceander (and that is great) the claim that there is no significant policy difference between the two principle candidates in this election has worn thin and become little more than an oft-repeated trope without substance. It doesn't stand up to rational scrutiny since Trump has already released his list of SCOTUS nominees (of course Hill-O-Lies has refused for the same reason that a dog licks its own organs of excretion).
Trump's SCOTUS nominees all score very high on conservative ratings from virtually every significant conservative group that offers them. If Mark Levin and Mike Pence are willing to take a chance on a nation with Trump as POTUS, that's good enough for me.
Anti-conservative fanatics have united into a cohesive voting block behind Hill-O-Lies. It would be refreshing if self-described conservatives and other normal people would set aside our own doctrinaire, moralistic, exclusionary proclivities and form an equally-cohesive counter-force in opposition to radical Statist socialism.
Refraining from voting is refraining from action - and all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.
-
That would depend entirely on who is advising him. Yet another unknown.
I'm still going for Castle, but he's picked Pence and he's not been reigning Pence in on pro life issues and such. Make of that what you will. I think with the terms limits etc he's throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. He has no history of conservative actions.
-
That's the thing about Hillary, you know what kind of judges she will appoint.
Maybe not with Trump... better to go with the devil you know or the one you don't? :shrug:
Trump will piss me off 80% of the time. Hillary will piss me off 100% of the time.
-
Trump will piss me off 80% of the time. Hillary will piss me off 100% of the time.
Well, you might want to look at the actual platform. if trump wants to be reelected, he will have to get the people who voted for him the first time happy, which means he has to get some of the things done that he has promised to get done.
Among the differences between he and Hill-O-Lies are;
- A commitment to strengthening the military - presumably that means building up the Navy again and relying on the Pentagon for use-of-force planning in foreign policy.
-Appointing more conservative justices to the SCOTUS- Since Hill-O-Lies has already signaled that she will send Marxists and only Marxists to Congress this is clearly a strong difference.
- Reducing government regulation - Reining in the EPA, BLM (hopefully both of them), Dept. of Education, HUD, Commerce Department etc. are on the agenda. Hill-O-Lies plans to expand those agencies massively.
-Tightening immigration controls - Trump's central policy has been to reduce immigration, particularly from nations with large numbers of muzz or poor they are trying to dump onto our own tax base.
- Getting government off the backs of Christians - Getting the Justice department cleaned out from the numerous anti-Christian rodents in the structure. Hill-O-Lies will go full speed ahead with the Eightball's anti-Christian policies and make them even more oppressive.
-Reducing corrupt, wasteful government subsidy programs - Larry Elder devoted almost an entire show once to this topic. A billionaire real estate developer has no strong ties to the farming industry or to the bureaucracy that supports it with billions in tax give-aways. Trump has a real chance of reforming this horribly wasteful government sector because he has little to lose by doing so - one of the first politicians to come along in a long time that doesn't.
Waste-reform - Lean / 6 Sigma training - Trump has been cozy with Newt Gingrich and may take some advice from him about applying a real effort to eradicate substantial waste from government programs by application of reorganization training used in the private sector and some sectors of the military.
- Supporting law enforcement- Trump has endorsements from LEO organizations and has pledged to support law enforcement by getting the Justice Department off their backs and letting them do their jobs of enforcing the laws on the books instead of suing them and shackling them with insanely anti-police consent decrees and Federal regulations.
-
That would depend entirely on who is advising him. Yet another unknown.
This is one case to go with the "Devil You Don't Know" over the "Devil You Know". At least with Trump you know he may occasionally get something right.
But even more important, who is more likely to get away with their shenanigans with a willing media? Clearly, that's Hillary. Trump will have to fight tooth-and-nail for everything with the hostile press. So at worst, we'll get Gridlock, which is preferable to what you get with Hillary.
-
This is one case to go with the "Devil You Don't Know" over the "Devil You Know". At least with Trump you know he may occasionally get something right.
But even more important, who is more likely to get away with their shenanigans with a willing media? Clearly, that's Hillary. Trump will have to fight tooth-and-nail for everything with the hostile press. So at worst, we'll get Gridlock, which is preferable to what you get with Hillary.
That is a good rational argument, which I note is wasted on many "anti-Trumpsters" as they describe themselves ( and which in itself says a lot about their psyches). I have noticed that for many of the most adamant opponents to Trump, rational arguments instantly devolve into expositions of and demonstrations of their own feelings, not the facts in evidence.
The argument always boils down to the fact that they personally have no faith in anything or anyone - that the whole primary and general election cycle has been so traumatic and disappointing to them personally that they have felt compelled to retreat into abject nihilism rather than to simply bite the bullet and admit that there is at least a small chance that Trump will be a significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies and rolling the dice.
-
This is one case to go with the "Devil You Don't Know" over the "Devil You Know". At least with Trump you know he may occasionally get something right.
But even more important, who is more likely to get away with their shenanigans with a willing media? Clearly, that's Hillary. Trump will have to fight tooth-and-nail for everything with the hostile press. So at worst, we'll get Gridlock, which is preferable to what you get with Hillary.
If there is going to be any gridlock, the press won't do it. They might gripe and howl, but they don't sign anything, they don't vote on anything, and they don't get to rule on whether or not a law is Constitutional.
Trump is used to being hostile with the press, so big deal.
He was the moving screen to keep other candidates from getting air time and to smear the one the Dems and GOP were really afraid of. Truly a stalking horse.
The people I want hostile to the Liberal agenda are the Congress.
They have the stroke to stop things from happening.
What I have not seen is that going on, even against the Democrat Disaster we have in the White House, so how on Earth am I to expect ANY resistance to a Trump off the rails from a GOP Congress? They'll suck up on Party Lines and every damnfool liberal idea he comes up with will get fast-tracked. His fans will cheer as the food is pulled from their table, their guns from their hands, and their jobs are sent elsewhere while tariffs raise the cost of everything. If we couldn't get people to see what a POS he is during the primaries and beyond, what makes you think his sycophants and worshipers won't ignore the very proclamations and enactments which bring ruin, even as the walls are collapsing on them?
I read the Party Platform, just like I read it every year since Reagan. If the Party won't follow the Constitution, how can we expect it to follow something so trivial as a set of campaign promises? Trump didn't write that stuff. If the Party had followed all the wonderful things it said it would do in the past, even with both houses of Congress and the White House, too, the "You are here" arrow would be on the right side of the map. It just hasn't done so, and don't bother looking for that little arrow there.
Nor do I have any faith that he will follow that platform either, especially after a Primary campaign full of lies and deceit, which apparently mirrors his business model. Fuhgeddaboutit.
It will be up to the GOP in Congress, provided they can retain control of at least one of the houses to stop Hillary. That's thin gruel to live on, but that's the future. Better push the down ticket races, because the Republic is going to need every friend it can muster in Congress.
As for reining in the EPA, the very first big promise Trump made was in Iowa, where he said he'd seek to increase the ethanol (Renewable Fuels) mandate, and he'd use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to enforce it. That sounds like he's going to let the agency get the bit in its teeth, not like it's going to be reined in.
Now either he was lying then, or he's lying now, either place to get votes. That says it all. He has a Liberal History, he will lie to get your vote. Period. You want to trust that, go for it.
Don't snivel to me if he gets elected and follows a different platform, you've been warned.
Me, I much prefer an enemy everyone can see is an enemy, whom everyone will fight from day one, to some one who claims to be a pal who'll stab us all in the back, even as people are singing his 'virtues'.
-
If there is going to be any gridlock, the press won't do it. They might gripe and howl, but they don't sign anything, they don't vote on anything, and they don't get to rule on whether or not a law is Constitutional.
Trump is used to being hostile with the press, so big deal.
He was the moving screen to keep other candidates from getting air time and to smear the one the Dems and GOP were really afraid of. Truly a stalking horse.
The people I want hostile to the Liberal agenda are the Congress.
They have the stroke to stop things from happening.
What I have not seen is that going on, even against the Democrat Disaster we have in the White House, so how on Earth am I to expect ANY resistance to a Trump off the rails from a GOP Congress? They'll suck up on Party Lines and every damnfool liberal idea he comes up with will get fast-tracked. His fans will cheer as the food is pulled from their table, their guns from their hands, and their jobs are sent elsewhere while tariffs raise the cost of everything. If we couldn't get people to see what a POS he is during the primaries and beyond, what makes you think his sycophants and worshipers won't ignore the very proclamations and enactments which bring ruin, even as the walls are collapsing on them?
I read the Party Platform, just like I read it every year since Reagan. If the Party won't follow the Constitution, how can we expect it to follow something so trivial as a set of campaign promises? Trump didn't write that stuff. If the Party had followed all the wonderful things it said it would do in the past, even with both houses of Congress and the White House, too, the "You are here" arrow would be on the right side of the map. It just hasn't done so, and don't bother looking for that little arrow there.
Nor do I have any faith that he will follow that platform either, especially after a Primary campaign full of lies and deceit, which apparently mirrors his business model. Fuhgeddaboutit.
It will be up to the GOP in Congress, provided they can retain control of at least one of the houses to stop Hillary. That's thin gruel to live on, but that's the future. Better push the down ticket races, because the Republic is going to need every friend it can muster in Congress.
As for reining in the EPA, the very first big promise Trump made was in Iowa, where he said he'd seek to increase the ethanol (Renewable Fuels) mandate, and he'd use the EPA to the fullest extent of the law to enforce it. That sounds like he's going to let the agency get the bit in its teeth, not like it's going to be reined in.
Now either he was lying then, or he's lying now, either place to get votes. That says it all. He has a Liberal History, he will lie to get your vote. Period. You want to trust that, go for it.
Don't snivel to me if he gets elected and follows a different platform, you've been warned.
Me, I much prefer an enemy everyone can see is an enemy, whom everyone will fight from day one, to some one who claims to be a pal who'll stab us all in the back, even as people are singing his 'virtues'.
With all due respect (and that is great) strip away all of the peripheral information and logic from your post and you are left with a very simple choice - either one accepts that there is at least a small chance that some uncertainty exists as to whether Trump will be a significantly better president than Hill-o-lies (to claim that there is no chance at all is to claim to be able to see the future, which is to be detached from reality) and then having the moral courage to roll the dice by voting for that option. The only down side to voting for Trump is that he turns out to be as bad as he seems in the darkest, most pessimistic view, and one is then left with a candidate that by even that estimation, would likely be no worse than Hill-O-lies. The best scenario is that he turns out to be a significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies would surely be.
So one risks virtually nothing substantively by voting for Trump and much to gain on the up side.
On the other hand, by not voting for Trump, the worst scenario is that one helps to ensure that Hill-O-Lies is elected by refusing to vote based on refusal to accept even the small possibility that Trump would be a better president - with the all-but-inevitable result that significant damage will continue to be done to the nation and the world. If one believes that the evidence suggesting that Hill-O-Lies would be disastrous for the nation and the world are identical in strength to that which suggests the same for Trump, then there is nothing to debate.
Oddly the best and worst scenarios are identical in that case. Quite a difference in the best and worst scenarios of voting for either candidate.
So by all basic logic and reasonable conjecture, refusing to vote for Trump boils down to purely a matter of self-gratification and satisfying angry feelings, not any resolving any objective concern for what is potentially the best thing for the nation.
-
I don't think Trump knows anything about judges and will probably listen to his advisors on that issue. Which is a good thing.
That presumes that Trump will actually listen, which, based on his narcissism is highly unlikely.
Neither choice is a better choice for SC Justices. Both are liberal. Both believe in this "transgender" garbage.
Either way, we're screwed........
-
True, but which candidate is more likely to have an actual conservative advisor? We know how the Hilldebeaste will pick judges. With any luck, Trump would just say, "This stuff is really boring, you handle it, Mike Pence." :whistle:
Based on this election, I don't think depending on luck is going to work.
Not much luck involved in having Trump and Hillary as our two major party choices..... **nononono*
-
I seem to remember Trump being favor of using whatever bathroom fit what your opinion of your gender was on any given day.
I don't believe Trump would nominate judges that would then declare his policies such as touch-back amnesty and this paid family leave monstrosity as null and void.
-
That presumes that Trump will actually listen, which, based on his narcissism is highly unlikely.
Neither choice is a better choice for SC Justices. Both are liberal. Both believe in this "transgender" garbage.
Either way, we're screwed........
He already consulted with his advisors and submitted a list of likely candidates for the high court that was rated very highly by every conservative group that reviewed it. So there is no question of screwing or being screwed in point of fact. Hill-O-Lies on the other hand has already telegraphed that she will select Marxists and only Marxists for the high court.
-
This thread has shown me that conservatives: pro-trump, or never trumpers, really are not deep thinkers at all.
All the smart people are on the liberal side it seems.
-
Conservatives have no logic, it's all entirely emotion-based thinking. This was what conservatives accused liberals of for years.
They were wrong, big time.
-
I seem to remember Trump being favor of using whatever bathroom fit what your opinion of your gender was on any given day.
I don't believe Trump would nominate judges that would then declare his policies such as touch-back amnesty and this paid family leave monstrosity as null and void.
Not really ML! Trump is a populist in many regards (as opposed to being a principled conservative or a leftist ideologue). That means if most of the U.S. voters are opposed to something, he is likely to consider supporting it. Since the U.S. public is overwhelmingly opposed to transgender restrooms, a populist president will side with the People against them. So in the sense of this issue, having a populist president works to the advantage of the anti-transgender restrooms faction.
-
The rest of us will suffer the consequences, but we won't share in the guilt.
All due respect ( and that is great) in your post you speak a great deal about your feelings, and wrote nothing at all whatsoever about the best interests of the nation. You write that you will not share in the guilt but you will, regardless of what you try to convince yourself otherwise. You will have had a chance to act to prevent a worst scenario but allowed your strong fears and other feelings to overrule your intellect by rolling the dice on a candidate that might actually turn out to be a significantly better choice.
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice! - Rush "Freewill"
Voting is not a null process. By refusing to cast a vote, one is doing essentially the same thing as voting for the one who wins by refusing to impede them. So guilt remains, even though one denies it. I see this as being similar to the "good German" argument that one was just following orders, in this case, the one giving the orders are your own feelings, while the political war crime of the election of a monstrous lunatic to the presidency, Hill-O-Lies takes place unimpeded by you.
-
That is a good rational argument, which I note is wasted on many "anti-Trumpsters" as they describe themselves ( and which in itself says a lot about their psyches). I have noticed that for many of the most adamant opponents to Trump, rational arguments instantly devolve into expositions of and demonstrations of their own feelings, not the facts in evidence.
"Anti-Trumpster"? No, that would imply I am against his followers. Get it right, please I am "nevertrump" which means I would not vote for him at gunpoint.
I have not seen where any opposed to Trump have referred to themselves as "anti-Trumpsters", and I am not sure where you got the term. Link it please, if it is in more common use as a self-descriptive term than I am aware, because this is the first time I have seen it. You say those of us opposed to Trump refer to ourselves that way, so it should be easy enough to link. The small variation in terminology implies an entirely different outlook and would materially change the object of our opposition. Kindly be honest enough not to do that.
I pity most of his followers for having been suckered so badly they are hostile and abusive toward others who had the good sense not to back that charlatan in the primaries and who have the strength of character to remain unwavering in their opposition to Trump even now.
Facts: Trump lied. Lied repeatedly, lied when caught in a lie, and lied his way to the nomination. I have no faith in anything he says. Hillary has a long track record of lying, too. I have no use for liars.
If you want examples of his lies this site has them all over, and I'm not about to put the mileage on my carpal tunnels laying it out for you again. Seek, and ye shall find.
The guy I am voting for is a USMC veteran, and upholds the Constitution. What more could I want? He has not, to my knowledge lied to me, which puts him in a different league from Hillary and Donald, nor does he schmooze with either of them, though they have a history of schmoozing with each other. I believe I'll vote for him.
The argument always boils down to the fact that they personally have no faith in anything or anyone - that the whole primary and general election cycle has been so traumatic and disappointing to them personally that they have felt compelled to retreat into abject nihilism rather than to simply bite the bullet and admit that there is at least a small chance that Trump will be a significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies and rolling the dice.
I am a Christian, so park your nihilism in your personal nothingness. To say those of us who believe in a set of standards, of principles, have no faith in anything or anyone is ludicrous.
We just don't have faith in the person you think is "the one" and it is telling that you would assign us to the category of those having faith in nothing or no one. Has the Donald become your 'all', your 'everything' to the point that those who deny them, in your mind, believe in "nothing and no one"? Is he that all encompassing in your world? Is he your world? Do you think I should have capitalized 'he' in the previous question when referring to Donald Trump?
Here, we stand on a series of personal beliefs, beliefs so deeply held that we will not waver in that belief to give so much as tacit approval to Trump, much less endorse his candidacy with our votes, and you would paint that as a "retreat into abject nihilism"? Hardly, when we are standing on those same principles we hold dear, expressing our belief consistently in The Almighty* from whose laws and guidance our principles are derived, at least for those of us who are of Jewish or Christian belief. Others who similarly embrace principle on whatever basis and stand on those principles are not people I would describe as either 'retreating' nor suffering from abject nihilism. (*who, incidentally, just happens NOT to be Donald Trump).
If you want to be fooled, you went to the right place. But, please, don't bother to come up with a whole wad of dime store shrinkology to try to analize those of us who won't vote for the person you regard as a saviour and whom many of us regard as simply another false prophet.
You tell us what he 'is going to do' while we show you what he has done.
Which is more credible, the reality of his past or the starry-eyed hope that somehow, just maybe, he might be better than the Democrat crook he is running against?
His history has been out there, for all to see if only they would look. The policies he embraced when no one was putting pressure on him over getting votes are a matter of record, when there were no suckers to woo, and they are all Liberal.
Just as Hillary's are. Neither one is someone I find acceptable for the job. I wouldn't hire an unacceptable employee, I won't vote for either of them. Projections that he will be any better than her are just wishful thinking.
As for a small chance that Trump would make a better president than Hillary, sure. Make that "significantly" better, and aside from a subjective modifier, leaving room for debate on what constitutes "significantly", anything is possible. I buy the occasional Powerball ticket because of the fact that there is always some infinitesimal chance I could win. I'm not planning on buying a big ranch in Wyoming just yet, nor am I quitting work because of it.
If I sacrifice my principles to vote for Trump, only one thing would be sure.
I would have put my stamp of approval on a man who has a track record of screwing people over on business deals, renting influence from politicians (because they just won't stay bought), a serial adulterer, a molester of women, an incontinent prevaricator, who has embraced freely liberal positions and politicians in the past when he had no gain in appearing to be someone he was not, with the exception of his image of unmitigated success (marred by numerous bankruptcies).
There is no guarantee he would fulfill so much as one promise he has made from behind the podium. None.
But, frankly, I would have diminished my self and all I have stood for in my personal life and business dealings by placing any stamp of approval on behaviour in which I would not engage.
I refuse to vote for him based on that. I do not approve of the man as a Candidate for nor for the office of President of the United States of America. I don't approve of Hillary either, and she will not get my vote.
Which leaves me scouring the various 70+ political parties in the US, looking for someone I can endorse, and I found a candidate who credibly fits that bill. He will get my vote. I'm voting my conscience, after all, and have faith that if elected that man would be a better President than either Trump or Hillary.
Hope that clears things up for you.
-
"Anti-Trumpster"? No, that would imply I am against his followers. Get it right, please I am "nevertrump" which means I would not vote for him at gunpoint.
Hah hah well, I understand and respect your passion. With all due respect ( and that is great) Nicolo Machiavelli would laugh at your post and your self-righteous insistence that voting has anything whatsoever to do with morality.
I offer instead as a compromise that the Buckely Rule could be modified to fit your moral compass to include, "voting for the most moral, honest candidate WHO CAN WIN."
See, to me and likely to most who support him, Mr. Trump is only "the one" in the sense of being the one WHO CAN WIN - i.e., the one who has a realistic chance of stopping Hill-O-Lies.
-
This thread has shown me that conservatives: pro-trump, or never trumpers, really are not deep thinkers at all.
All the smart people are on the liberal side it seems.
You are free to believe what you will.
I am sure the liberals will tell you they are the smart ones. :thud:
It's endemic among that group (telling you how smart they are).
As for being pro-trump and being "conservative", that is debatable.
It might be more honest and fair to separate the gradations into:
Pro-Trump! (in the bag, worshipful of the ground he walks on, 'pro' and think he will shrink the government build the wall, evict illegals everywhere, restore prosperity, make the oceans drop and the waves subside, and will pay off the national debt out of his 'stash'.)
Pro-Trump (recognizing that he is the GOP candidate and will be voted for on party lines.)
Reluctant Trump (disappointed to horrified that Trump is the GOP candidate but see him as the only way to deny Hillary, whom they dislike or fear even more, the possibility of a 'win')
Grudging Trump: (deeply ticked off that he is the most viable alternative to Hillary, highly skeptical that he is any better, voting in prayerful hope that he will be even a little better and not a complete disaster)
NeverTrump: (Have previously voted GOP in efforts to deny the office to the Democrat, but just can't bring themselves to do it this time, for religious, moral, or political reasons, the latter including the damage that a Trump victory will bring to the labels "Republican" and by popular association "conservative", the latter to them representing a framework of beliefs and principles which will suffer incredible damage by electing someone so antithetical to those beliefs. Often voting third Party or write in.)
Somewhere in there, principle is the overwhelming deciding factor.
The rest is 'hope and change' rebranded, relabeled, new fragrance, concentrated, and with a couple ounces free (even though the jug is smaller than the old one).
-
You are free to believe what you will.
I am sure the liberals will tell you they are the smart ones. :thud:
It's endemic among that group (telling you how smart they are).
As for being pro-trump and being "conservative", that is debatable.
It might be more honest and fair to separate the gradations into:
Pro-Trump! (in the bag, worshipful of the ground he walks on, 'pro' and think he will shrink the government build the wall, evict illegals everywhere, restore prosperity, make the oceans drop and the waves subside, and will pay off the national debt out of his 'stash'.)
Pro-Trump (recognizing that he is the GOP candidate and will be voted for on party lines.)
Reluctant Trump (disappointed to horrified that Trump is the GOP candidate but see him as the only way to deny Hillary, whom they dislike or fear even more, the possibility of a 'win')
Grudging Trump: (deeply ticked off that he is the most viable alternative to Hillary, highly skeptical that he is any better, voting in prayerful hope that he will be even a little better and not a complete disaster)
NeverTrump: (Have previously voted GOP in efforts to deny the office to the Democrat, but just can't bring themselves to do it this time, for religious, moral, or political reasons, the latter including the damage that a Trump victory will bring to the labels "Republican" and by popular association "conservative", the latter to them representing a framework of beliefs and principles which will suffer incredible damage by electing someone so antithetical to those beliefs. Often voting third Party or write in.)
Somewhere in there, principle is the overwhelming deciding factor.
The rest is 'hope and change' rebranded, relabeled, new fragrance, concentrated, and with a couple ounces free (even though the jug is smaller than the old one).
There is a lot of truth in your post. 'Not sure where WTF is coming from. I thought he was a conservative so I'll have to ponder it more.
You seem an analytical sort of person. Believe me when I tell you that Niccolo Machiavelli has already considered your argument placing morality as paramount in politics and discarded it as (please forgive me) vanity and self-indulgence. If you find that offensive, I am sorry. No offense intended. But the first casualty of fanaticism is often realism. And face it brother - you are as fanatical about morality (as am I sometimes) as the leftists are about imposing radical Marxist-socialist Statism on an unwilling nation. In your view, there must be an overriding consideration of minimum morality involved in allowing someone to be chief executive of a government.
Politics is a brutally reductionist affair, and more often than not voting decisions have less to do with morality than they do with public policy directions mediated by finances, businesses (corporations) ideology and are almost universally 100% relative. That means when choosing leaders of nations, the one that is the least barbaric is often the only choice worth selecting.
So if you are intending to wait until you have a truly moral leader to vote for as a major candidate who can win, you may wait a very long time. Candidates are really much more like machines who dispense policy decisions that anger the least numbers of people (who count). By that standard, what they do when they are not making decisions has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of their decision-making.
You might enjoy Machiavelli's "The Prince", which was actually a satire of the administration of dominion by a power-obsessed family (the infamously brutal Borgias, who ruled in his time), not a guidebook for tyranny. It is however, somewhat cynical because it deals merely with what is possible, not what is moral. Morality is inclusive, but only in the context of how a moral man may rule in the real world that is fully of immorality, treachery and deceit.
-
You seem an analytical sort of person. Believe me when I tell you that Machiavelli has already considered your argument and discarded it as vanity and self indulgence. If you find that offensive, I am sorry. No offense intended. But the first casualty of fanaticism is often realism. And face it brother - you are fanatical about morality. In your view, the there must be an overriding consideration of minimum morality involved in allowing someone to be chief executive of a government.
Politics is a brutally reductionist affair, and more often than not voting decisions have less to do with morality than they do with public policy directions mediated by finances, businesses (corporations) ideology and almost universally relative. That means when choosing leaders of nations, the one that is the least barbaric is often the only choice.
So if you are intending to wait until you have a truly moral leader to vote for as a major candidate who can win, you may way a very long time. Candidates are really much more like machines who dispense policy decisions that anger the least numbers of people who count. By that standard, what they do when they are not making decisions has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of their decision-making.
You might enjoy Machiavelli's "The Prince", which was actually a satire of the administration of dominion by an imperator (the infamously brutal Borgias, who ruled in his time), not a guidebook for tyranny. It is however, somewhat cynical because it deals merely with what is possible, not what is moral. Morality is inclusive, but only in the context of how a moral man may rule in the real world.
Some of us just aren't wired that way. See tagline.
-
With all due respect (and that is great) strip away all of the peripheral information and logic from your post and you are left with
a much shorter post, with neither logic nor peripheral information. ... a very simple choice - either one accepts that there is at least a small chance that some uncertainty exists as to whether Trump will be a significantly better president than Hill-o-lies (to claim that there is no chance at all is to claim to be able to see the future, which is to be detached from reality) and then having the moral courage to roll the dice by voting for that option.
"A small chance that some uncertainty exists as to whether Trump would be a significantly better president than Hillary." No, there is a huge chance that uncertainty exists that he would be a better president than Hillary. There is an incredibly enormous chance that uncertainty exists that he would be significantly better.
The probability decreases as the belief in magnitude of any improvement increases. I think you have the curve backward. The highest probability that a lifelong liberal would be better falls into the 'marginally better, at best' part of that spectrum, by the time we get to 'significantly better', that probability decreases with the increase in the margin of improvement (probability is inversely proportional to the magnitude of the improvement), especially considering the positions taken on issues when there was nothing to be gained by taking positions other than what the candidate believed (back in the 'bad old days' when he was a typical New York Liberal Billionaire and not running for office as a populist Republican.)The only down side to voting for Trump is that he turns out to be as bad as he seems in the darkest, most pessimistic view, and one is then left with a candidate that by even that estimation, would likely be no worse than Hill-O-lies. The best scenario is that he turns out to be a significantly better president than Hill-O-Lies would surely be.
This estimation leaves out a significant and salient factor. By the very nature of our Government, the Congress has the ability to limit or enhance the capability of the President by embracing the policies he proposes or by fighting them at every opportunity. If the Congress is controlled by members of the same political Party as the President, little opposition is to be anticipated, even to bad policy or legislation, as the vote will be on Party lines. Thus bad policy proposed by Trump would be fast-tracked by a GOP Congress or meet little resistance and almost certainly be made into law.
Someone once said 'no freedom is safe when the legislature is in session', and Congress is no exception.
Sometimes, gridlock is better.
Possible scenarios include:
A Dem president with a Dem Congress=doom.
A Dem President with a GOP Congress= (Ideally) gridlock.
A GOP President with a Dem Congress= (ideally) gridlock.
A GOP president with a GOP Congress=?
Why a "?" Because the GOP Congress didn't fight the Dem last time.
Instead they caved, almost religiously, to the Dem in the White House. They spent us into $10 trillion more debt in 8 years.
How can that lot be counted on to oppose bad policy proposals from a Dem (that's the longshot, here), much less bad policy proposals from another (alleged ) member of the GOP? So the outcome would not be based on the policy itself, but solely on the source.
At least with a Dem in the White House, the GOP can be held to task for not fighting tooth and nail and maybe we can primary out some of those rat-bastards who promised one thing and got 'beltway fever' as the votes were counted. I reserve any anger for that fiasco.
It's a long term strategy, to clean out the GOP. The only guarantees are death and taxes. Frankly, I am hedging my bet and voting for a Third Party candidate to get another organization waiting in the wings for when the GOP implodes.
So one risks virtually nothing substantively by voting for Trump and much to gain on the up side.
The only guarantee is that I would have sacrificed the very principles by which I have lived my life to back Trump. I'm just a small fry, but I have made six figure deals on a handshake, and have a reputation for honesty and integrity. No thanks. I will not so self-denigrated as to support someone who buys politicians and screws the help.On the other hand, by not voting for Trump, the worst scenario is that one helps to ensure that Hill-O-Lies is elected by refusing to vote
What? Refusing to vote? Oh no, not me, I'm just not voting for either of those two. I'm voting for a USMC vet who is running for a Party with a platform based on the Constitution of the United States. Better yet, he is an attorney who has likely even read the Constitution, and as part of his enlistment oath has sworn to defend it. I think he's make a significantly better president for this Republic than Donny and Hillary blended together with all their bad parts strained out. ...based on refusal to accept even the small possibility that Trump would be a better president - with the all-but-inevitable result that significant damage will continue to be done to the nation and the world.
That depends on an electorate which has already failed a critical discernment test. It depends on keeping the feet of elected office holders to the fire at all levels, and it may depend on replacing some or many of those same officials, no matter who is elected.
The stage is already set for some serious economic and other setbacks, no matter who gets in. You can only kick the can down the road so far, and it has been filling with rocks the whole way.
If Hillary wins, we can blame the Democrats.
But buckle up, because no matter who gets elected, we're in for one hell of a ride. If one believes that the evidence suggesting that Hill-O-Lies would be disastrous for the nation and the world are identical in strength to that which suggests the same for Trump, then there is nothing to debate.
You get it after all. I'm relieved. Finally.
Oddly the best and worst scenarios are identical in that case. Quite a difference in the best and worst scenarios of voting for either candidate.
Here, I thought you couldn't predict the future. But, lets look at the board:
We are 1.5 times GDP in debt, and our economic situation has been regulated by the Fedgov into the dirt. Both candidates have expressed support for the very agency which has done most of that damage.
Our military (God bless them!) will still be involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the smallest navy we have had in a long time, with weapons programs still not off the ways, and stuffed full of social programs and experimentation with force composition and rules of conduct and engagement which are costing lives now and will be only worse in the future. Mission capability will be compromised if this continues. Both candidates have expressed sympathy for the most damaging policies or their proponents and neither has one day behind a weapon in the service of this nation, much less as commander of any military unit.
Our borders aren't secure, and the one candidate who garnered votes early on based on a strong policy has walked that stance back.
Our economy looks good in the gimmicked numbers game that is official statistics, but is far from being prosperous, in an environment where small business was crushed under the ACA and other regulations, where work force participation is at historical lows, and industry has been crushed by the very agencies both candidates have promised support.
So by all basic logic and reasonable conjecture, refusing to vote for Trump boils down to purely a matter of self-gratification and satisfying angry feelings, not any resolving any objective concern for what is potentially the best thing for the nation.
By that logic voting for Trump is a matter of self-gratification bordering on orgasmic.
Trump's entire shtick has relied on capturing the angry feelings and fear of an electorate which felt betrayed by the GOP, which failed to do what it had generally promised to do vis-a-vis thwarting Obama. Considering the amount of impassioned discussion praising or extolling the Trump, "mass debate" seems to fit.
Those of us opposed to Trump have repeatedly laid out that we are not going to vote for a compulsive liar. We have often laid out very simple and logical reasons for not doing so.
We are not going to give the job of being the standard bearer of the free world to a man who has repeatedly in the past embraced values and behaviour antithetical to our core principles. To do so would give his behaviour the approval of those of us who do not approve.
His demonstrated behaviour is rash, vindictive, and self-serving.
[When the Make America Awesome PAC ad came out, published by Liz Mair's Marco Rubio supporting PAC, Trump jumped to the conclusion that Cruz had done it, despite Cruz disavowing the ad. (The image was on the cover of GQ Magazine in Europe, and should have been no surprise to either the model featured or the person who married her.) As a result of jumping to conclusions, Trump viciously attacked Heidi Cruz, who had nothing to do with the ad. When it came out that Cruz had nothing to do with the ad, Trump lied about that, and redoubled his attacks on Heidi Cruz.
Do you want to take 'misidentified attacker', retaliated against innocent party, found out party was innocent and lied to cover his ass rather than admit mistake and issue apology, and then attacked innocent party again, repeatedly, to DEFCON1?
Hillary doesn't want to nuke anyone, it's bad for the Foundation.]
Either way, the down side is very down. The up side is either a longshot or a stalemate.
Some games you can't win.
Frankly, I will vote for someone I can support.
-
There is a lot of truth in your post. 'Not sure where WTF is coming from. I thought he was a conservative so I'll have to ponder it more.
You seem an analytical sort of person. Believe me when I tell you that Niccolo Machiavelli has already considered your argument placing morality as paramount in politics and discarded it as (please forgive me) vanity and self-indulgence.
Niccolo is dead. I don't know how that is working out for him, but I am hopeful of an eternity without that fire and brimstone stuff underfoot. If you find that offensive, I am sorry. No offense intended. But the first casualty of fanaticism is often realism.
Yes, those of us who did not support Trump in the primaries noticed that. And face it brother - you are as fanatical about morality (as am I sometimes) as the leftists are about imposing radical Marxist-socialist Statism on an unwilling nation.
No, there is a significant and salient difference. My morality involves choice, and the freedom to choose, and my choice is for me. YMMV, that's your right. Marxists want to IMPOSE their worldview on you (or they'll imprison or kill you if you speak out against it.). In the realm of who acts how, my very presence here on this forum relates to Trump supporters who would brook nothing less than the worship of their god. Any who posted any disagreement with them were purged. You are free to follow whatever folly you wish, such is your Right--unless and until it interferes with my Right to conclude whatever I will from the available evidence. I'm not the one flinging poo all over this thread claiming that people who have extensively posted logical reasons for not trusting and not supporting Trump are illogical or somehow emotionally damaged. In your view, there must be an overriding consideration of minimum morality involved in allowing someone to be chief executive of a government.
Yes. In a word, there is.
As John Adams said,
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
and, to quote a relative, Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Signer of the Declaration of Independence
Politics is a brutally reductionist affair, and more often than not voting decisions have less to do with morality than they do with public policy directions mediated by finances, businesses (corporations) ideology and are almost universally 100% relative. That means when choosing leaders of nations, the one that is the least barbaric is often the only choice worth selecting.
So you would contend it is better to have the government which will rape you but not put it all the way in? Why not select the Government which will respect your person, rights, and property as your won and inviolate instead? Moral relativism is not morality, except in the sorriest sense. Therein lies the problem, a departure from the very fundamental concepts of Right and Wrong. That somehow it is less wrong to give a contractor part of their fee and screw them out of the rest of the bill than it is to screw them out of all of it? Either way is theft.
If the American people cannot trust a leader to be forthright (otherwise why would there be so much questioning of what Trump would do if elected), better to have someone we can trust to be a crook and fight them at every turn. Without that fundamental trust, who would you have lead you through a minefield? In business? counsel you on legal matters? Babysit your daughter? Care for your health? If you couldn't trust a leader at all of those levels, why would you trust them with a Country? You truly strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.
So if you are intending to wait until you have a truly moral leader to vote for as a major candidate who can win, you may wait a very long time. Candidates are really much more like machines who dispense policy decisions that anger the least numbers of people (who count). By that standard, what they do when they are not making decisions has almost nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of their decision-making.
Wow, and here I thought we'd make it through an entire season without hearing the old 'electability' thing. But if candidates are free to lie on the campaign trail and aren't to be held accountable for those lies when in office, what's the point?
The way someone conducts themselves privately relates specifically to their ability to be trusted. Would you trust someone to keep a lesser promise when they routinely break a greater one? What is more sacred than the vow, taken before The Almighty, to 'forsake all others' 'in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer', etc.? I didn't see any opt out clause for gaining a few pounds or getting a wrinkle here or a sag there, or the part about until I decide to trade you in on a newer model. That basic marriage vow is probably the most universally made (and any more, broken) vow in the country.
If you can't stay faithful to a spouse when things get tough or temptation comes along, how are you going to stay faithful to a country? These things don't happen in a vacuum, people who are people of character in their private lives tend to carry that over into their public life. People who aren't to be trusted in private matters similarly carry that over into public places.
You might enjoy Machiavelli's "The Prince", which was actually a satire of the administration of dominion by a power-obsessed family (the infamously brutal Borgias, who ruled in his time), not a guidebook for tyranny. It is however, somewhat cynical because it deals merely with what is possible, not what is moral. Morality is inclusive, but only in the context of how a moral man may rule in the real world that is fully of immorality, treachery and deceit.
Machiavelli wasn't being sarcastic, he was taking notes. The book is all about the ruthless acquisition, consolidation, and preservation of power. It is a how-to manual. It is also the quintessential treatise on situation ethics, and the 'ends justify the means' philosophy found all too often in our culture. It was, after all, required reading for many of us old farts, before 'Johnny Got His Gun' and Portnoy's Complaint' became the next big thing for the literati.
-
Late for Lunch wrote:
"The only down side to voting for Trump is that he turns out to be as bad as he seems in the darkest, most pessimistic view, and one is then left with a candidate that by even that estimation, would likely be no worse than Hill-O-lies."
One more thing for the ne'ertrumpers to consider:
Suppose ... just suppose... that he turns out to be as bad a president as you claim he will be and does something so egregious and outrageous that he gets himself impeached.
Chances are, every democratic senator will vote for conviction, and a good number of Republican senators may do so as well.
So, he gets removed from office.
Who becomes president then?
DISCLAIMER:
I -will be voting for- Trump (and the rest of the Republican candidates) on November 8. Unfortunately, my vote won't help much because I'm in Connecticut, where no Republican can win anything other than local (and a few state) offices.
But at least I can go to the polls and say "I tried".
The ne'ertrumpers just want to give it all up and leave the rest of us in the lurch with hillary and her broomstick...
-
But at least I can go to the polls and say "I tried".
The ne'ertrumpers just want to give it all up and leave the rest of us in the lurch with hillary and her broomstick...
This is an outright lie, @Fishrrman. I really thought more of you than this. Trump has changed you too......... and not for the better.
If you voted for Trump in the primary, you didn't try. You contributed to a Hillary victory.
THAT is the truth.
-
Late for Lunch wrote:
"The only down side to voting for Trump is that he turns out to be as bad as he seems in the darkest, most pessimistic view, and one is then left with a candidate that by even that estimation, would likely be no worse than Hill-O-lies."
One more thing for the ne'ertrumpers to consider:
Suppose ... just suppose... that he turns out to be as bad a president as you claim he will be and does something so egregious and outrageous that he gets himself impeached.
Chances are, every democratic senator will vote for conviction, and a good number of Republican senators may do so as well.
So, he gets removed from office.
Who becomes president then?
DISCLAIMER:
I -will be voting for- Trump (and the rest of the Republican candidates) on November 8. Unfortunately, my vote won't help much because I'm in Connecticut, where no Republican can win anything other than local (and a few state) offices.
But at least I can go to the polls and say "I tried".
The ne'ertrumpers just want to give it all up and leave the rest of us in the lurch with hillary and her broomstick...
I will go to the polls in ND, where likely my vote for Castle will not change anything except to help put a conservative party (Constitution Party) on the rolls next time.
At least I can go to the polls and say "I tried".
The Trumpsters want to keep us all on the GOP Plantation, chained to whatever they spew out as a candidate, no matter how liberal, no matter how unacceptable, out of fear of the alternative. Enough is enough. I will not vote for either evil. I will vote my conscience.
-
I will go to the polls in ND, where likely my vote for Castle will not change anything except to help put a conservative party (Constitution Party) on the rolls next time.
At least I can go to the polls and say "I tried".
You are making two classic mistakes. First, concerning The Prince, you are rescripting one of the more common errors made by academics and others who are shallow in their grasp of the context in which Machiavelli was writing. Although the popular interpretation of Machiavelli's Prince is that he was advocating tyranny, he was actually more-likely subtly satirizing it. Since his more-significant work is generally considered to be about the Roman Empire, tltled "Discourses on Livy" (or to scholars simply The Discourses) and it strongly advocates for principled republicanism, not tyranny, the label that has stuck to him as a fascist is almost certainly not deserved. In fact, the quote that you used is very possibly not even rightly attributable to him or to his writing.
This is similar to the popular misconceptions about Fredrick Nietzsche and his infamous , "God is dead" quote. Although Nietzsche was likely an atheist or at best an agnostic, the comment quoted is not a positive declaration of the non-existence of God, but an opinion that the previous "conception of God" as an idea and all of its essential elements needed to be revitalized. The far left has glommed onto Nietzsche and tried to claim him as their own patron saint of a sort - despite the fact that he would have likely have scoffed at any notion of endorsing radical socialism and even more-certainly any form of Statism (since he was an avowed non-conformist and "outsider" for his entire life, for the most part).
The second mistake you make is in assuming that a vote for a third party candidate has any long term value in to paraphrase you - "establishing the party". Unless a party gets at least 15% of the popular vote, the votes cast in the election are utterly, totally and completely wasted as if they had never been cast.
So in the final analysis, as I stated in the initial post, a vote for a third party is purely and totally an exercise in feeling better without a shred of value for the nation or its best interests. I have no quarrel with your entitlement to do it and I will not condemn you for it - indeed, you seem to be a man I could gladly call a friend. But I will not allow you or anyone else to indulge in a fantasy that by voting for someone other than the two principle candidates you are changing or affecting anything other than your own feelings about yourselves.
-
You are making two classic mistakes....
Getting into a land war in Asia?
-
Getting into a land war in Asia?
hah hah That was ah goo d'wahn in the language of my people! But are you quoting MacArthur or Vizzini?
-
hah hah That was ah goo d'wahn in the language of my people! But are you quoting MacArthur or Vizzini?
Vizzini of course. :laugh:
-
You are making two classic mistakes. First, concerning The Prince, you are rescripting one of the more common errors made by academics and others who are shallow in their grasp of the context in which Machiavelli was writing. Although the popular interpretation of Machiavelli's Prince is that he was advocating tyranny, he was actually more-likely subtly satirizing it. Since his more-significant work is generally considered to be about the Roman Empire, tltled "Discourses on Livy" (or to scholars simply The Discourses) and it strongly advocates for principled republicanism, not tyranny, the label that has stuck to him as a fascist is almost certainly not deserved. In fact, the quote that you used is very possibly not even rightly attributable to him or to his writing.
This is similar to the popular misconceptions about Fredrick Nietzsche and his infamous , "God is dead" quote. Although Nietzsche was likely an atheist or at best an agnostic, the comment quoted is not a positive declaration of the non-existence of God, but an opinion that the previous "conception of God" as an idea and all of its essential elements needed to be revitalized. The far left has glommed onto Nietzsche and tried to claim him as their own patron saint of a sort - despite the fact that he would have likely have scoffed at any notion of endorsing radical socialism and even more-certainly any form of Statism (since he was an avowed non-conformist and "outsider" for his entire life, for the most part).
The second mistake you make is in assuming that a vote for a third party candidate has any long term value in to paraphrase you - "establishing the party". Unless a party gets at least 15% of the popular vote, the votes cast in the election are utterly, totally and completely wasted as if they had never been cast.
So in the final analysis, as I stated in the initial post, a vote for a third party is purely and totally an exercise in feeling better without a shred of value for the nation or its best interests. I have no quarrel with your entitlement to do it and I will not condemn you for it - indeed, you seem to be a man I could gladly call a friend. But I will not allow you or anyone else to indulge in a fantasy that by voting for someone other than the two principle candidates you are changing or affecting anything other than your own feelings about yourselves.
But there you err. For me, I will be able to look at the 'winner' and know full well I opposed them. I will be able to look myself in the mirror, others in the eye, and bear no shame for the disaster coming, regardless of which of those pukes wins. I will have voted for a party platform based on Constitutional principles. You just can't buy that sort of freedom.
As for the future, it won't be built over night. This year is a foundation to build on. Organizations are to be built at State and local levels, and getting the name of the Constitution Party, and what the Party stands for out in the limelight won't make that wither but grow.
From the point of view of a farmer, you clear the land/bust sod, you till it, you plant in season, the harvest is later. But if you never plow, nothing will happen. Only by throwing up our hands and wailing about how it won't make any difference do we ensure our long term status on one of the major party Plantations or that we have no mechanism by which we can seek relief from either of those entities. If we are to challenge them, we have to start somewhere.
-
Vizzini of course. :laugh:
Yep. MacArthur had B-29s and forward deployed nukes...Just not Truman's backing.
-
So by all basic logic and reasonable conjecture, refusing to vote for Trump boils down to purely a matter of self-gratification and satisfying angry feelings, not any resolving any objective concern for what is potentially the best thing for the nation.
Oh really now. I am not voting for either candidate by reason that what I don't do today is potentially the best thing for the nation. Apply the Butterfly Effect. I flap my tiny wings in protest now and my grandkids have a better life.
-
In other news my wife has no problem cruising into the bathroom when I am standing in there. I try that on her and every time I get 22222frying pan. Hey! maybe if I closed the door first....
-
But there you err. For me, I will be able to look at the 'winner' and know full well I opposed them. I will be able to look myself in the mirror, others in the eye, and bear no shame for the disaster coming, regardless of which of those pukes wins. I will have voted for a party platform based on Constitutional principles. You just can't buy that sort of freedom.
As for the future, it won't be built over night. This year is a foundation to build on. Organizations are to be built at State and local levels, and getting the name of the Constitution Party, and what the Party stands for out in the limelight won't make that wither but grow.
From the point of view of a farmer, you clear the land/bust sod, you till it, you plant in season, the harvest is later. But if you never plow, nothing will happen. Only by throwing up our hands and wailing about how it won't make any difference do we ensure our long term status on one of the major party Plantations or that we have no mechanism by which we can seek relief from either of those entities. If we are to challenge them, we have to start somewhere.
With all due respect, (and that is great) the net result not voting for one is a de facto vote for the other. A vote represents applying a minute but potentially significant few electrons to a current passing through a circuit which lights up green for one of two candidates, not three, not four, not five - two. Voltage applied to any other circuit goes to ground and is swallowed up by the universe as if it had never been. Other than the way it makes people feel when they do it and afterward, there is zero effect of a third party vote. Every election cycle one may hear the same claims made by people who choose to waste their voting power, and every time the proof that it is wasted is renewed. Ross Perot had the largest number of votes of any third party candidate in modern history and you can see how that affected the world after - aside from arguably helping to get Bill Clinton elected and setting up his bitch to be president, the effect of a vote for Ross Perot was absolute zero.
-
With all due respect, (and that is great) the net result not voting for one is a de facto vote for the other. A vote represents applying a minute but potentially significant few electrons to a current passing through a circuit which lights up green for one of two candidates, not three, not four, not five - two. Voltage applied to any other circuit goes to ground and is swallowed up by the universe as if it had never been. Other than the way it makes people feel when they do it and afterward, there is zero effect of a third party vote. Every election cycle one may hear the same claims made by people who choose to waste their voting power, and every time the proof that it is wasted is renewed. Ross Perot had the largest number of votes of any third party candidate in modern history and you can see how that affected the world after - aside from arguably helping to get Bill Clinton elected and setting up his bitch to be president, the effect of a vote for Ross Perot was absolute zero.
To me the only waste of voting power is to vote for someone I consider completely unfit for the position. With that in mind, I cannot vote for either the Republican or the Democrat candidate for president. I'm not charging the batteries of evil to refuse to send electrons their way.
The net result of not voting for either one is a de facto repudiation of a broken system, a refusal to continue to participate in a false dichotomy choice, made even more false by the convergent evolution of the candidates' basic philosophies and contempt for the very foundation of this Republic. If you wish to lend legitimacy to a broken system, that is your Right. It is my Right to withhold my fundamental consent as one who would be governed by that system should it prevail with the electorate--which it will do, so long as too few have the courage to stand up and express their dissent. You claim I would enable the person who is running against your candidate, that my vote otherwise would be the problem, yet you and others like you, for whatever reason or motivation are voting to support the continued dysfunction of the Federal Leviathan, to the detriment of the Republic and all who are in it. You and your vote are the problem, not me and mine.
-
You and your vote are the problem, not me and mine.
Ya know ya know you know Joe that people are born in a box--height--width--depth in a box universe with their boxed up brains in a boxed up head. Thinking their thinking is logical--ordered--reasoned, and it is, height--width--depth. Even tangential or perpendicular to the plane the thinking is plain and you cannot explain that sometimes to see plainly you have to think trippindicular to the plain.
-
In other news my wife has no problem cruising into the bathroom when I am standing in there. I try that on her and every time I get 22222frying pan. Hey! maybe if I closed the door first....
You must have left the toilet seat up.