Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Northwoods on October 18, 2016, 11:48:52 AM
-
Filled out my ballot last night. Wrote in Opus and Bill the Cat for POTUS/VPOTUS. SWMBO wrote in SMOD.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction was also up. Both candidates were terrible, so we both wrote in Duke Pesta. Google him and watch some videos of his talks on the educational system. He'd actually be fantastic as the Superintendent, IMHO.
Voted against I-1491 of course. That's another big gun control voter initiative.
-
I'm sorry, but I won't give you the flaming you so obviously crave.
Unless the above counts.
-
I know we've had our differences about politics, but I'm pleased to see you helped Hillary Clinton with her election.
Was it worth calling me a flaming leftist so many times when you were going to vote for the worst authoritarian to run in United States history?
-
I hope you'll be happy with HRC's picks for SCOTUS.
-
I don't have a problem with the way you voted.
You voted for who you thought would do the best job.
For those that say he threw away a vote or is going to get Hillary elected because of it are full of *expletive deleted*it.
The only vote that is thrown away is the one not made, and that isn't always true.
As for getting Hillary elected it would depend on who is going to carry that state.
-
SWMBO wrote in SMOD.
If SMOD wins, how do we make it happen?
-
If SMOD wins, how do we make it happen?
Magnets
-
Did my absentee ballot a few weeks back. (Since I'll be a judge on election day.)
James Mattis- POTUS; Allen West -VPOTUS.
I voted for the Libertarian for both US Senate (against both Kirk and Duckworth) and US Rep. (Roskam went from a firebrand conservative to a quiet, content backbencher).
Voted against all the judges up for retention.
Voted against Tim Elliott for county board, (He was the lawyer for College of DuPage the last several years, when all the shenanigans were going on. He's like Jamie Gorelick. No way I could vote for him.)
Thinking back. I probably voted against more people then I ever have in past elections. Either I've become more curmudgeonly or (more likely) all the candidates totally suck donkey balls.
-
Thinking back. I probably voted against more people then I ever have in past elections. Either I've become more curmudgeonly or (more likely) all the candidates totally suck donkey balls.
You, like many people, are fed up and angry. This is unsurprising.
What we really need is a foreign enemy to carpet bomb DC so we can start over.
-
What we really need is a foreign enemy to carpet bomb DC so we can start over.
FTFY.
Yes, The simple fact is that the amount of corruption with Hillary is unfathomable. And the fact that she is in the race and has sooooo many people that unquestionably supporting her just proves how screwed up this country has become.
-
So, I was gonna start a sticky topic before this one got posted, but I figure here is as good a place as any.
ARMED POLITE SOCIETY.
Presidential elections are always sticky wickets around here. I only want to have to say this once: It doesn't matter how vehemently you may disagree with how someone here voted -- it is THEIR vote, and you WILL respect their right to choose their best candidate. Bill said it best: the only vote that is thrown away is the one not made.
If you don't like how someone voted (or they don't like how you voted), fine, that's your opinion. You can state your reasoning logically and politely. However, any direct attacks on individuals here because they didn't vote how you wanted them to vote will be shut down hard by staff.
ARMED POLITE SOCIETY.
-
So, I was gonna start a sticky topic before this one got posted, but I figure here is as good a place as any.
ARMED POLITE SOCIETY.
Presidential elections are always sticky wickets around here. I only want to have to say this once: It doesn't matter how vehemently you may disagree with how someone here voted -- it is THEIR vote, and you WILL respect their right to choose their best candidate. Bill said it best: the only vote that is thrown away is the one not made.
If you don't like how someone voted (or they don't like how you voted), fine, that's your opinion. You can state your reasoning logically and politely. However, any direct attacks on individuals here because they didn't vote how you wanted them to vote will be shut down hard by staff.
ARMED POLITE SOCIETY.
My post was tongue in cheek. (And I hope no one thinks I seriously want a country attacking our own. War is a terrible thing.)
However, there is research that suggests countries that lose (or suffer significantly) during war see much greater growth than countries that suffered no (or little) loss because the bureaucracy recovers more slowly than industries can. And honestly, I'm not sure how we are going to cut bureaucracy short of losing a war, at this point.
-
In general, I agree. A person's vote always counts. I joke about throwing away my vote, but a person's opinion in their own and they "owe" a vote to no one. That line of thinking is about a third of the country's problem out the gate[1].
[1] There's only one exception, of course. A vote for anyone but General Mattis for POTUS is a wasted. The only people who disagree are true scum of the earth.... Communists. Vegetarians. And people who do CrossFit...
-
[1] There's only one exception, of course. A vote for anyone but General Mattis for POTUS is a wasted. The only people who disagree are true scum of the earth.... Communists. Vegetarians. And people who do CrossFit... talk at the theatre.
Fixed.
-
You know, I have "moved" recently but haven't had time to get my state of residence established and today was the cut off to register in Kansas for this coming general election, so I just decided to request an absentee ballot from Oklahoma.
I still have interest down there with the fact I still own the house and currently serving in the Oklahoma Army National Guard. Why shouldn't I vote?
-
For those that say he threw away a vote or is going to get Hillary elected because of it are full of *expletive deleted*it.
No, we're not.
He didn't throw his vote away, he effectively voted for Hillary by not voting for the candidate who just might have an outside chance of beating her -- if enough people will refrain from voting for Bill the cat.
-
This election prevents a good case for preference voting.
-
My deep seated philosophy is that voting should only be done by those who actually have a clue about why and who they are voting for. We sent in our absentee ballots a couple weeks ago. If you are over 65 among other reasons, you can vote absentee in Michigan. I have never been so disconnected (for want of a better word) with why I vote. Of course it's impossible to enforce whether someone is oblivious as to the why or not rather than just disjointed about it. Certainly, if one has an open mind, actually pays attention, the who part is reasonably discovered.
Having said all that, I decided that in this case I needed to vote for a man who is a capitalist, who has played both ends against the middle with respect to the political establishment because he understands, at his level of capitalism, how corrupt the system is and know how to play it. Further, he has a towering ego, but according to everything that I can find out about him, he seems to be a rather charitable person who treats most everyone half way decently if not overly decent. He's no angel of course and he does have enemies.
His ego will make him attempt to accomplish some of the things he has talked about with respect to his slogan of Make America Great Again. I'm not fooled into believing that he is some rescuing angel, but our country is divided badly and ruled by an oligarchy. The fact that the oligarchy obviously hates him with a burning passion, is a plus in my view. If he is able to convince enough elected officials to actually begin to honor their oath and begin to swerve our nation back toward the center that will be a plus.
As for our old enemies, China and Russia, we need to engage with them as an economic partner somehow. He seems to understand this, though China has other ideas, but with the state of affairs in the world today, might just keep moving in a direction that might be benign. We need to convince them that the 3 of our nations are more threatened by the stone age, tribalist Islamists;Daesh. Being economic partners might just trump (pun intended) expansionism that is not ideal. His opponent stands against all of this and is not a capitalist, and is more closely connected to the oligarchy. A good deal of that is the military industrial complex, among others. This says nothing about who she will appoint to the SCOTUS. That will not bode well for our Republic.
So we voted for Trump. We had good reasons to do so. Voting for other candidates, in our view, became less of a matter of conscience and more of expediency with respect to the opportunity or a chance to change our country's course. The opportunity to hope to change America back to what was decent, if even a bit, is more important than selfish self interest over the good of our people as a whole. We also voted for local judges who are not so far to the right. Strict law and order judges are sometimes troublesome given the economic system that has now replaced our legal system. Strictly liberal judges are not too evident around here at the moment. Then we voted for every Libertarian candidate for all the university boards. Exercise in futility there, but you never know. Things are better changed from the bottom up rather than the top down imho, and I feel we can risk making a statement at that level.
OK, that's enough propundiating for tonight.
-
No, we're not.
He didn't throw his vote away, he effectively voted for Hillary by not voting for the candidate who just might have an outside chance of beating her -- if enough people will refrain from voting for Bill the cat.
No. Only a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary.
100 people are voting in an election. 48 vote for Candidate A. 39 vote for Candidate B. 7 vote for Candidate C. 5 vote for candidates D-F. 1 votes for a write in because they can't stand A or B, and C-F are idiots, worse still than A and B, or are just as meaningless as the write in option but less satisfying personally. That person that voted for the write in candidate didn't effect the outcome of the election at all. No matter who they vote for Candidate A still wins. Even those that vote for Candidate C don't affect the outcome, as even if the write in and all C votes had gone to B, A still wins, albeit barely.
And those saying I should take some blame for Hilary's POTUS picks, realize that Trump can, and very well might nominate Garland or someone similar just like how all of his other positions have become flexible throughout the election season. I have ZERO faith that he'd nominate another Thomas or Alito, or even another Scalia. Best case, IMHO, is another Kennedy and likely is another Souter.
Besides, I could vote for Trump, or the Bill the Cat, 100,000 times and HRC would still win WA. She'll wind up taking the state by 10 points, easy.
-
"Besides, I could vote for Trump, or the Bill the Cat, 100,000 times and HRC would still win WA. She'll wind up taking the state by 10 points, easy."
So, I'll use the same tactic that is used by those who would vote for 3 or 4th tier candidates or write in some protest vote. If y'all didn't do that and actually voted for Trump (for example) Hillary would lose in a landslide. He's a known unknown. Better to take a chance there than a whistle in the graveyard. The rest of the field are the real clowns in my view.
-
My post was tongue in cheek. (And I hope no one thinks I seriously want a country attacking our own. War is a terrible thing.)
However, there is research that suggests countries that lose (or suffer significantly) during war see much greater growth than countries that suffered no (or little) loss because the bureaucracy recovers more slowly than industries can. And honestly, I'm not sure how we are going to cut bureaucracy short of losing a war, at this point.
Old thing is it seems that most of those countries that lost were rebuilt and grown with US tax dollars.
-
"Besides, I could vote for Trump, or the Bill the Cat, 100,000 times and HRC would still win WA. She'll wind up taking the state by 10 points, easy."
So, I'll use the same tactic that is used by those who would vote for 3 or 4th tier candidates or write in some protest vote. If y'all didn't do that and actually voted for Trump (for example) Hillary would lose in a landslide. He's a known unknown. Better to take a chance there than a whistle in the graveyard. The rest of the field are the real clowns in my view.
In this state, you could restrict the ballot to just 2, disallow write ins, force everyone that would have voted 3rd party or write in to actually cast a ballot, and HRC would still win by a significant margin.
-
In this state, you could restrict the ballot to just 2, disallow write ins, force everyone that would have voted 3rd party or write in to actually cast a ballot, and HRC would still win by a significant margin.
Just imagine all 50,000 people saying that in unison as they read out the 49,000 vote difference
-
I voted for GWB twice. As a thought experiment lets say he is running against Hillary this time around, pretending it's allowed.
In good conscience I could not vote for him. Knowing what I know now I realize he is as detrimental to our nation as Hillary. Nothing more than a globalist who wants to see the progressive agenda instituted more slowly than the Democrat timetable. I would have to either note vote or cast a protest vote. Bush was a disaster in my view and my having voted for him makes me feel partially culpable for that disaster. I could not vote for him even with the specter of a Hillary presidency as the alternative.
For weeks now I've been trying to rationalize a vote for Trump but I'm not there...yet. On paper Trump is just not qualified to be President and my fear is that with his shallowness of knowledge he could be led astray by wormtongue type advisers. On the other hand his instincts seem to be pretty good and he is surrounding himself with people that indicate he is serious about his main policy goals, goals I agree with.
Ultimately it is up to Trump to win over the fence sitters, not me.
-
I voted for GWB twice. As a thought experiment lets say he is running against Hillary this time around, pretending it's allowed.
In good conscience I could not vote for him. Knowing what I know now I realize he is as detrimental to our nation as Hillary. Nothing more than a globalist who wants to see the progressive agenda instituted more slowly than the Democrat timetable. I would have to either note vote or cast a protest vote. Bush was a disaster in my view and my having voted for him makes me feel partially culpable for that disaster. I could not vote for him even with the specter of a Hillary presidency as the alternative.
For weeks now I've been trying to rationalize a vote for Trump but I'm not there...yet. On paper Trump is just not qualified to be President and my fear is that with his shallowness of knowledge he could be led astray by wormtongue type advisers. On the other hand his instincts seem to be pretty good and he is surrounding himself with people that indicate he is serious about his main policy goals, goals I agree with.
Ultimately it is up to Trump to win over the fence sitters, not me.
I would agree with you on GW. The main point in favour of trump isn't what he says, it's who he answers to- his only constituency is voters, literally. The rest of the centres of power HATE him
-
So will I be throwing my vote away if I vote for Johnson?
-
I would agree with you on GW. The main point in favour of trump isn't what he says, it's who he answers to- his only constituency is voters, literally. The rest of the centres of power HATE him
Populists can be a double edged sword.
The groundswell of support for Trump as anti establishment candidate is encouraging.
I'm just not sure that what the majority of voters want really aligns with what I would consider best for the country. If the voters are mostly idiots and the populist is driven by their desires...
Breaking the death grip The Establishment has on the halls of power does seem worth the risks of electing Trump.
Trump is, to use an in vogue term, a disruption. The system desperately needs a disruption and Trump is the only one offering that as a possibility.
Of course he may get into office and it will just be business as usual, hard to tell how it will go down.
-
So will I be throwing my vote away if I vote for Johnson?
If the risks of a Trump presidency are the same or greater in your eyes than the risks of a Hillary presidency then I would say no.
I'm coming to terms with the idea that Trump may very well be a big disruption to the status quo and in some small fashion damage the system. That alone may be worth the risk and the vote.
If Trump gets elected and sticks to his guns I expect the establishment to kill him before he makes it through his first two years.
-
No matter who winds up winning, Hillary or Trump, nothing is going to change.
-
No matter who winds up winning, Hillary or Trump, nothing is going to change.
Will voting for Johnson make a difference?
-
I'm of the opinion that if a third-party candidate, be it Johnson or an independent, gets any electoral votes this election that it will make a difference for the next election. The difference being people starting to take "third-party" candidates more seriously. There's a chance an independent will do just that in Utah this year (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/17/utah-poll-independent-evan-mcmullin-ties-trump.html).
As for a vote for third party being a vote for Hillary, my lefty co-workers insist if I vote for a third party I'm voting for Trump.
-
As for a vote for third party being a vote for Hillary, my lefty co-workers insist if I vote for a third party I'm voting for Trump.
Depends on what state you are in. Here in Illinois, everyone says that a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Hillary.
-
By poll-data it's a just about a statistical 3-way tie in Utah between Trump (30%), McMullin (I) (29%), and Clinton (28%). Results will be interesting. I'm not voting for Clinton, I'm not voting for Trump.
I'm not 100% compatible with McMullin's views either, but it's a lot closer match for me than Johnson. In the meantime, I'll continue to smile and nod when one person tells me my vote is really a vote for Clinton, while another tells me it's really a vote for Trump.
As for "It's the Supreme Court, stupid!", that's far from a sure thing. This sums up some of my concern on that matter:
And Trump might, indeed, appoint someone better. Might. His list of potential Supreme Court nominees, released under duress in May, is promising, if hardly foolproof. But it is also provisional. There simply is no reason to believe that the same Trump who has contradicted himself on amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion, NATO, and much else, will stick to his assurances on this. Recall that this is the same man who — in February — suggested nominating his sister, who once wrote a decision defending partial-birth abortion.
I'll acknowledge that a Clinton presidency guarantees a liberal court, and a Trump one is at least moderately likely to be less liberal. But it's just not enough for nose-holding to be sufficient to give him my vote.
-
Depends on what state you are in. Here in Illinois, everyone says that a vote for 3rd party is a vote for Hillary.
I thought all votes in Illinois were for Hillary...
-
I thought all votes in Illinois were for Hillary...
She hasn't been pandering to the dead as much as she should. The recently-and-not-so-recently-deceased are a key demographic for Democrats in Illinois, but they're a neglected one. When's the last time they passed a bill favored by the dead?
-
I voted for GWB twice. As a thought experiment lets say he is running against Hillary this time around, pretending it's allowed.
In good conscience I could not vote for him. Knowing what I know now I realize he is as detrimental to our nation as Hillary.
Not a big fan of GWB, but think SCOTUS justice Sam Alito vs. (potential) SCOTUS justices Barack Hussein Obama or Chuck Schumer.
With Trump, there is a chance of getting a good SCOTUS pick. It's not a lock, it's not a sure thing, but it's a reasonable chance, especially with his published "short list" of potential nominees.
With Hillary . . . think of nominees who'd be right at home in the Soviet Politbureau.
-
Not a big fan of GWB, but think SCOTUS justice Sam Alito vs. (potential) SCOTUS justices Barack Hussein Obama or Chuck Schumer.
With Trump, there is a chance of getting a good SCOTUS pick. It's not a lock, it's not a sure thing, but it's a reasonable chance, especially with his published "short list" of potential nominees.
With Hillary . . . think of nominees who'd be right at home in the Soviet Politbureau.
Oh I get it, been voting that way my whole life. The GOP has been counting on me voting that way and even tossed guys like me a bone occasionally.
Illinois is a lost cause so my presidential vote is primarily symbolic.
I may still vote for Trump but I'm just tired of "owning" my votes for guys I despise because they're running against someone I despise more. Then there is the moral component. Bush really kicked off the depose, break and destroy the middle east and I helped put the guy in office. There's a lot of death and carnage we've brought to the region as well as to our troops. I'm still assessing the risk of a Trump presidency in that light.
-
Will voting for Johnson make a difference?
if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.
Hitting that magic threshold opens up automatic ballot access and FEC money.
That would cause them to have much greater resources to get support, and potentially shift the balance of power
-
if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.
Hitting that magic threshold opens up automatic ballot access and FEC money.
That would cause them to have much greater resources to get support, and potentially shift the balance of power
Though, do we really want to shift the balance of power towards a party that is basically mostly Democrats that want drugs legalized?
If the "L"ibertarian party were "l"ibertarian I could support them much more readily than now when they're really the Liberaltarian party.
-
If the "L"ibertarian party were "l"ibertarian I could support them much more readily than now when they're really the Liberaltarian party.
"We are 100% in support of civil rights for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, gender orientation, boxers or briefs, Chex or Rice Krispies, Tastes Great or Less Filling.
Unless you're not born yet. Then FU."
-
if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.
Even when the lib is a druggie with a running mate who has an anti-gun history?
I don't think so.
-
But the L's are for freedom! Freedom from borders and common culture!
Freedom to come into the United States illegally, unfettered.
Freedom to use our resources, take jobs, refuse to assimilate and bring third world banana republic voting patterns to our country!
Embrace the freedom of demographic destruction of your country!
Let freedom ring!
-
And honestly, I'm not sure how we are going to cut bureaucracy short of losing a war, at this point.
We don't need to lose a war. Just DC.
What happens if all 50 states secede?
-
Though, do we really want to shift the balance of power towards a party that is basically mostly Democrats that want drugs legalized?
If the "L"ibertarian party were "l"ibertarian I could support them much more readily than now when they're really the Liberaltarian party.
You're right. we should keep trying to shift the balance of power towards republicans that are basically democrats, instead
-
They're also the only ones still talking about drastic reductions in the size and scope of federal government.
But hey. Weed is bad so let's keep pushing for republicans that have betrayed us time and time again
And apparently, we will even support a big government liberal with a history of supporting the Clintons, as long as he says he'll build a wall
-
And apparently, we will even support a big government liberal with a history of supporting the Clintons, as long as he says he'll build a wall
A candidate that supported the Clintons is bad, but it's better than an actual Clinton, so...
-
A candidate that supported the Clintons is bad, but it's better than an actual Clinton, so...
you know what's even better than THAT?
A guy who wants to reduce the size of federal government but also likes weed.
-
you know what's even better than THAT?
A guy who wants to reduce the size of federal government but also likes weed.
I have to point out that it's generally not the weed that prevents many conservatives from voting libertarian. It is an "Oh and also" kind of issue, but the most important objections are either unfettered murder of the unborn and/or unfettered immigration (in the face of a massive welfare state).
-
I'm a alt radical conservative libertarian myself...
-
I have to point out that it's generally not the weed that prevents many conservatives from voting libertarian. It is an "Oh and also" kind of issue, but the most important objections are either unfettered murder of the unborn and/or unfettered immigration (in the face of a massive welfare state).
I agree that the latter two issues are more important, but I don't know if the issues are the most important obstacles. Aside from conservatives' reluctance to "throw my vote away," I still think Libertarians have an even bigger tendency to alienate and denigrate their (potential) conservative voter base than does the GOP. The Libertarians are more likely to insult or vilify us for supposedly hating homosexuals, imposing our morality on others, and generally being kill-joys. Not that I'm saying Libertarians must agree with us on everything before we'll vote that party. I do think there's a hostile tone that the libertarians could tone down a mite. But I've said all this before.
Also, brand loyalty is a big obstacle.
FWIW, I'm for legalizing all the drugs. I also don't get why prostitution is only legal if you film it...
-
Also, brand loyalty is a big obstacle.
That's a BIG part of politics. It's identity politics... for many many people it's not so much a matter of policy or ideology, but one of identity. Not that different to fealty to sports teams, or various subcultures identified by tastes in music or how one dresses.
And it also explains Trump from another viewpoint. Simply the GOP wasn't doing a heck of a lot for the people who identify with the GOP, or at least it seemed that way. And Trump either managed to tap into that identity and to a plurality of them represented it better, or perhaps he managed to create a similar, but new political identity people were willing to accept.
-
I have to point out that it's generally not the weed that prevents many conservatives from voting libertarian. It is an "Oh and also" kind of issue, but the most important objections are either unfettered murder of the unborn and/or unfettered immigration (in the face of a massive welfare state).
There's a fairly large contingent of pro life libertarians.
And, your parenthetical is the salient point. Libertarians are not for open borders without attacking the welfare state as well.
Then again, the current GOP candidate has evolved a few times on abortion, and also has some very Hillary-like positions on entitlements, student loans, minimum wage...
-
Let's all keep in mind that biggest thing keeping people from voting third party is that American politics is a de facto two-party system.
-
Let's all keep in mind that biggest thing keeping people from voting third party is that American politics is a de facto two-party system.
mostly because people continue to allow themselves to be betrayed every few years.
Looking forward to hearing about how libertarian voters forced trump to be awful and lose here in a month
-
mostly because people continue to allow themselves to be betrayed every few years.
Be that as it may, the point is that conservative reluctance to vote Libertarian has much more to do with pragmatics than policy.
It's all well and good to complain that people won't vote for a third party (not enough to turn that 3rd party into a main party). The question is, how do you accomplish that? It hasn't happened since the 1850s.
-
mostly because people continue to allow themselves to be betrayed every few years.
Looking forward to hearing about how libertarian voters forced trump to be awful and lose here in a month
I think the Libertarians are going to pick up more disaffected Bernie supporters than Trump/GOP ones this year.
And the Investor Business Daily poll that has been right and the most accurate the past few election cycles has Trump slightly ahead, but only in the four-way matchup, but not the head-to-head matchup with Clinton.
-
I think the Libertarians are going to pick up more disaffected Bernie supporters than Trump/GOP ones this year.
And the Investor Business Daily poll that has been right and the most accurate the past few election cycles has Trump slightly ahead, but only in the four-way matchup, but not the head-to-head matchup with Clinton.
Last I checked, it is a four-way matchup. Are both the L's and G's on the ballot in (just about) every state?
-
Last I checked, it is a four-way matchup. Are both the L's and G's on the ballot in (just about) every state?
The Libertarians are on the ballot for all 50 states (https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map), plus DC. The Greens are only on the ballot in 44 states, according to Jill Stein's website:
http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
-
Last I checked, it is a four-way matchup. Are both the L's and G's on the ballot in (just about) every state?
As far as I know they are.
The two polls with and without the Libertarians and Greens though indicate who might be "stealing" from who.
-
Be that as it may, the point is that conservative reluctance to vote Libertarian has much more to do with pragmatics than policy.
It's all well and good to complain that people won't vote for a third party (not enough to turn that 3rd party into a main party). The question is, how do you accomplish that? It hasn't happened since the 1850s.
a good start is having two completely unpalatable candidates.
so there's that
-
Only three parties on the Oklahoma ballot, R's D's and L's. Got my absentee ballot in the mail over the weekend.
-
I voted for GWB twice. As a thought experiment lets say he is running against Hillary this time around, pretending it's allowed.
In good conscience I could not vote for him. Knowing what I know now I realize he is as detrimental to our nation as Hillary. Nothing more than a globalist who wants to see the progressive agenda instituted more slowly than the Democrat timetable. I would have to either note vote or cast a protest vote. Bush was a disaster in my view and my having voted for him makes me feel partially culpable for that disaster. I could not vote for him even with the specter of a Hillary presidency as the alternative.
For weeks now I've been trying to rationalize a vote for Trump but I'm not there...yet. On paper Trump is just not qualified to be President and my fear is that with his shallowness of knowledge he could be led astray by wormtongue type advisers. On the other hand his instincts seem to be pretty good and he is surrounding himself with people that indicate he is serious about his main policy goals, goals I agree with.
Ultimately it is up to Trump to win over the fence sitters, not me.
I am with you regarding Bush(es). I don't want to see another one in political office. I voted against Jeb's son (George P) as Tx Land Commissioner for that very reason.
Lots of reasons to vote Trump. HRC seems to provide more every day. One big one to emerge after the conventions is HRC's and the globalists/cosmopolitans beating the war drums against Russia (and China). We know from history that a Clinton is not above "wagging the dog" to distract the electorate.
The best reason to vote Trump is that Trump will give Americans a bit more time before the collapse. He can't prevent it as it it is too far advanced, but his stated policies also won't accelerate it the way HRC's will.
I would agree with you on GW. The main point in favour of trump isn't what he says, it's who he answers to- his only constituency is voters, literally. The rest of the centres of power HATE him
That latter bit is key. The people with the greatest influence who have manipulated America and the global system to their advantage despise him. This indicates Trump may indeed upset their rice bowls and the rest of us might catch a few grains before being tread into the mud by swine.
By poll-data it's a just about a statistical 3-way tie in Utah between Trump (30%), McMullin (I) (29%), and Clinton (28%). Results will be interesting. I'm not voting for Clinton, I'm not voting for Trump.
I'm not 100% compatible with McMullin's views either, but it's a lot closer match for me than Johnson. In the meantime, I'll continue to smile and nod when one person tells me my vote is really a vote for Clinton, while another tells me it's really a vote for Trump.
As for "It's the Supreme Court, stupid!", that's far from a sure thing. This sums up some of my concern on that matter:
I'll acknowledge that a Clinton presidency guarantees a liberal court, and a Trump one is at least moderately likely to be less liberal. But it's just not enough for nose-holding to be sufficient to give him my vote.
McMullin exists only to be a Trump spoiler. Utah would have zero chance of going HRC without McMullin.
Also, McMullin manages to embody the absolute worst *let's not go there* tendencies.
if you live in a state where it's not close, it's dumb NOT to vote for the libertarian candidate.
Hitting that magic threshold opens up automatic ballot access and FEC money.
That would cause them to have much greater resources to get support, and potentially shift the balance of power
The humor of upper-case-L Libertarians seeking the government cheese is evergreen. You can't make this stuff up.
I have to point out that it's generally not the weed that prevents many conservatives from voting libertarian. It is an "Oh and also" kind of issue, but the most important objections are either unfettered murder of the unborn and/or unfettered immigration (in the face of a massive welfare state).
Ayup, but don't forget the contempt. Hard to ally with folk who are so blatantly contemptuous of one's sort.
That's a BIG part of politics. It's identity politics... for many many people it's not so much a matter of policy or ideology, but one of identity. Not that different to fealty to sports teams, or various subcultures identified by tastes in music or how one dresses.
And it also explains Trump from another viewpoint. Simply the GOP wasn't doing a heck of a lot for the people who identify with the GOP, or at least it seemed that way. And Trump either managed to tap into that identity and to a plurality of them represented it better, or perhaps he managed to create a similar, but new political identity people were willing to accept.
ALL Democrat Party politics is identity politics. The only thing that holds the coalition of the fringes together (its KKKrazy Glue) is hate for whitey, the desire to milk whitey of resources, and grind whitey's face into the muck. The GOP and most white folks have been fighting an identitarian struggle with weak ideological weapons. Muh Constitution, the non-aggression principle, peaons to MLK & color-blindness, and appeals to Russell Kirk are a surefire way to lose.
Trump simply does not explicitly despise white folks and want to seem them abased. All else is of lesser importance.
There's a fairly large contingent of pro life libertarians.
And, your parenthetical is the salient point. Libertarians are not for open borders without attacking the welfare state as well.
Then again, the current GOP candidate has evolved a few times on abortion, and also has some very Hillary-like positions on entitlements, student loans, minimum wage...
The pro-life libertarians are as powerless in the L party as pro-life Democrats are in the Dem party.
Nope, the L party is perfectly suicidal regarding open borders. They would let in folk by the millions who will never hold L values. The L party ensures its other preferences will never come to pass.
Indeed, Trump has made gestures toward the GOP base, indicating he does not hold them in contempt. He proposes some very un-GOP policies, but manages to keep his contempt for the socons under wraps (if he has contempt for them). The L party not so much.
-
FEC money is voluntarily given. The only people who find it humorous are the ones who are desperately trying to rationalize their choice of a big-gov liberal
-
FEC money is voluntarily given. The only people who find it humorous are the ones who are desperately trying to rationalize their choice of a big-gov liberal
The L party is developing quite the talent for sucking on the gov't teat with one side of its mouth whilst simultaneously calling for fewer gov't teats with the other.
-
The L party is developing quite the talent for sucking on the gov't teat with one side of its mouth whilst simultaneously calling for fewer gov't teats with the other.
Did you miss the voluntary part?
There's nothing incompatible with taking money that's voluntarily given
It's also a pretty goddamn funny criticism coming from a Republican and a Trump supporter
-
Did you miss the voluntary part?
There's nothing incompatible with taking money that's voluntarily given
It's also a pretty goddamn funny criticism coming from a Republican and a Trump supporter
Did you miss the government program part? Or the part where the checkoff is voluntary, but the $3 is part of non-voluntary income taxes?
The L party is seeking a cut of people's income taxes, plain and simple. Savor that gov't teat.
About as freakishly humorous as piglets sucking on a cow's teat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-H1Ukbg7S8&feature=youtu.be&t=123
Next thing, we'll see the L party supporting the use of gov't violence to enforce marital arrangements and undermine freedom of association. (Whoops, too late, the L BTDT already!)
-
You're a warped dude
It's really no wonder your party is dying
-
You're a warped dude
It's really no wonder your party is dying
'Cuz the GOP would be fine, if it weren't for all those Trumpsters, right?
-
'Cuz the GOP would be fine, if it weren't for all those Trumpsters, right?
It's not just the trumpeters, but the people in the GOP who created The situation that created the Trump movement
-
Did you miss the government program part? Or the part where the checkoff is voluntary, but the $3 is part of non-voluntary income taxes?
Ummmm, checking (or not) checking those boxes for you and the misses doesn't change your refund or amount you owe.
-
Ummmm, checking (or not) checking those boxes for you and the misses doesn't change your refund or amount you owe.
So? Still taxpayer dollars taken under threat of violence that the L party is seeking to suck on. Just another part of the hilarity that has been this election season. Akin to the Green Party coming out "Nuke the Gay Whales for Jesus and Profit."
The L party degenerating into a retirement home for geriatric pothead gun-grabbing GOP policritters and a gov't-subsidy-seeking entity will, hopefully, put the nail in the coffin of L party utopian aspirations.
-
McMullin exists only to be a Trump spoiler. Utah would have zero chance of going HRC without McMullin.
Also, McMullin manages to embody the absolute worst *let's not go there* tendencies.
Every single person I know that is planning to vote for McMullin (and there are many) was never planning to vote for Trump or Hillary before McMullin put his name in the pot. They were going to leave it blank, write in Mickey Mouse, or make some other protest vote. Not one of them expects McMullin to win, it's a protest vote.
I'll vote for "the lesser of two evils" to a point. Though Hillary is worse, Trump's well past it. He manages to embody the absolute worst amoral identitarian tendencies.
-
Every single person I know that is planning to vote for McMullin (and there are many) was never planning to vote for Trump or Hillary before McMullin put his name in the pot.
Don't eff with the narrative.
If you don't vote for the big NY liberal to defeat the other big NY liberal, you're destroying the country ersumshit
After all, it's not a candidate's job to EARN votes. It's our DUTY to support the candidate put in front of us by the Great Parties
-
Every single person I know that is planning to vote for McMullin (and there are many) was never planning to vote for Trump or Hillary before McMullin put his name in the pot. They were going to leave it blank, write in Mickey Mouse, or make some other protest vote. Not one of them expects McMullin to win, it's a protest vote.
I'll vote for "the lesser of two evils" to a point. Though Hillary is worse, Trump's well past it. He manages to embody the absolute worst amoral identitarian tendencies.
On what planet is trump running an identity campaign? He could not be more different and personally unable to fake it for his voters.
It's his issues that got him votes, plain and simple. Identity has cost him dearly because many people know his policies are better than the alternative, but just can't stand a loud NYC player getting ahead
-
Supporting traditional American concepts of national identity, tradition and culture is racist.
If you are opposed to the demographic replacement of the traditional people of our country through unfettered immigration you are a racist.
Traditional European whites in the United States are not allowed to have a distinct American/European culture, that's racist.
If you don't support the polyglot amoral consumer culture you are a racist.
If you believe in national borders and choosing who emmigrates into the country you are a racist.
-
On what planet is trump running an identity campaign?
You're up the wrong tree, Do some Googling on Identitarianism, then come back, but not too much it's only a part of my issues with Trump.
Supporting traditional American concepts of national identity, tradition and culture is racist.
. . .
Assuming you're responding to me calling Trump an identitarian, it's a matter of degrees and motivations. I don't necessarily oppose any point listed, but Trump's rhetoric on many of them is beyond what is right. I'm for an American social identity, I'm against it being social priority #1. I'm against unchecked entry, but I'm also against banning all people of a given religion from entering the country, for instance.
-
I'm against unchecked entry, but I'm also against banning all people of a given religion from entering the country, for instance.
But have you even stopped to ponder what could happen if we let the rest of the Baha'i in?
-
Completely Non-Statistically Valid Observation:
Our church is an early voting location from Monday this week up until the (Friday?) before the election.
Holy Hopping Hula Dancers, the Trump voters are out in force. The early voting during the primaries was thick, but Monday was Krazytown. Will be back this PM to check it out again.
-
But Trumps such a lousy campaigner ... :rofl:
I can't believe any of the thousands of people that attend his rallies would vote for him .... :facepalm:
:angel:
-
Completely Non-Statistically Valid Observation:
Our church is an early voting location from Monday this week up until the (Friday?) before the election.
Holy Hopping Hula Dancers, the Trump voters are out in force. The early voting during the primaries was thick, but Monday was Krazytown. Will be back this PM to check it out again.
That's why I'm a little reluctant to vote early, even tho' voting on election day will be a real PITA because I'm working the election in another precinct. I'm afraid the boxes of absentee ballots will mysteriously get misplaced if they lean too far Trump. (our Secretary of State is a democrat again)
-
Completely Non-Statistically Valid Observation:
Our church is an early voting location from Monday this week up until the (Friday?) before the election.
Holy Hopping Hula Dancers, the Trump voters are out in force. The early voting during the primaries was thick, but Monday was Krazytown. Will be back this PM to check it out again.
Well I did the early voting thing at church.
First time all week the line let up was Sunday around 5pm, which is when I made my move. I was helping dismantle our little school fundraiser/carnival when the wife of a fellow parishioner came up, "Hey, there's no line to vote. Hurry up and get your votes in!" Trump & Sessions got my vote. Most of the rest of the races I voted Libertarian. George P Bush wasn't running, but I voted against him in my heart. I have spoken to quite a few of the Texas Libertarians and they lean closer to Texas Nationalists than L-party liberaltarian.
-
I'm still hoping Hillary grounds to third and gets thrown out at first by a snap play.
-
{deleted by Speedy because it was inappropriate} >:D