Mr. Cruz officially drops out

[MechAg94]

You do realize that libertarian leaning people holding their nose is just incentive for the GOP to continue to put f *expletive deleted*faces in front of us, right?

Look where it got us with the last guy?




I'm done rewarding the Republican party with a vote they didn't earn. They can change, or they can keep losing. At this point, "stretching the glide path" is *expletive deleted*ed.

My flight instructor said that's how people stall, spin, and die.

Best to let the crash happen and recover. *expletive deleted*ck trump, and *expletive deleted*ck anyone who gives me *expletive deleted*it for "throwing my vote away"

This is 2016.  Not 2008 or 2012.  The presumptive nominee maybe be a hack, but he is not a GOP selected hack.  Neither was 2nd place guy.  It wasn't the GOP core voters that got him the delegates he has.  If you are going to bitch about the outcome, at least bitch accurately.  

[Fitz]

This is 2016.  Not 2008 or 2012.  The presumptive nominee maybe be a hack, but he is not a GOP selected hack.  Neither was 2nd place guy.  It wasn't the GOP core voters that got him the delegates he has.  If you are going to bitch about the outcome, at least bitch accurately.  

When I say GOP, i'm including the voters. I'm including the rampant amount of people that voted for a big government liberal based on rhetoric and "HE SAYS WHATS ON HIS MIND AND DOESNT LIKE DEM ILLEGALZ!"

[MechAg94]

When I say GOP, i'm including the voters. I'm including the rampant amount of people that voted for a big government liberal based on rhetoric and "HE SAYS WHATS ON HIS MIND AND DOESNT LIKE DEM ILLEGALZ!"

But you used the same language used last time when the race and outcome are decidedly different this time.  You can't say the voters weren't actually trying for a change.  Outsider candidates were leading once the race got serious.  If it was the same as 2008 and 2012, Bush would be the nominee.  The end result might be the same a few years from now, but you can't say voters weren't trying for something different. 

[Fitz]

But you used the same language used last time when the race and outcome are decidedly different this time.  You can't say the voters weren't actually trying for a change.  Outsider candidates were leading once the race got serious.  If it was the same as 2008 and 2012, Bush would be the nominee.  The end result might be the same a few years from now, but you can't say voters weren't trying for something different. 

 The only difference is, in their desperation for change, they are voting for a big government liberal


 I can't really apply to change when the change involves kicking yourself in the balls


 And trust me, the complaining will be the same as last time "those damn libertarians won't vote for who we nominated!"

[roo_ster]

I guess no one's surprised. Republicans will no longer accept a conservative Republican candidate.

Another "hold your nose and vote" election season, with all its attendant intra-conservative bickering. 

What is this "no longer accept a conservative Republican candidate" mess you write of?  There has not been a solidly conservative POTUS candidate from the GOP in decades.  Go on down the list:
RomneyCare author
McCain of the open border
GWB x2, the compassionate, not solid conservative
Dole, GOPe incarnate
GHWB, of "kinder, gentler" fame
Reagan, who might qualify, but in retrospect was not as conservative as his fanbois say.
Chevy Chase, the comedian that played at being a presidential candidate (Ford)
Nixon of EPA fame
Goldwater, who in 1964 I would say qualified as a sold conservative.

2016-1964=52 years

And the candidates before Goldwater were not conservatives until you go back to Calvin Coolidge in 1923.

I still want someone to explain how that in any way made Cruz look like a bad guy.

It was the Kasich/Fiorina tandem body blow to Cruz's credibility.  Kasich was GOPe embodied, a ­¡JEB! clone.  Fiorina was not better, especially since her position on the national question, immigration, placed her square in Obama/Hillary territory of open borders for all.

Kasich was a bad alliance, indicating Cruz was a GOPe cat's paw.  Fiorina showed he was lying about his immigration conversion.

A libertarian vote can make a positive change.

In what universe?  There is no large constituency for what the Libertarians are selling outside Objectivist clubs (http://www.oclubs.org/).

Tell me again what two issues essentially made Trump?  Immigration & trade.  The Libertarians are on the unpopular side of both issues.  And Libertarians were handmaidens of the politically correct World War G and World War T, which did not make them any so-con friends.  "Our list of allies grows thin..."  Yep, especially after the Libertarians kick them in the jimmy, repeatedly.

Let us face it, the Libertarian Party is to politics what masturbation is to sex: a pathetic, solitary, and self-pleasuring act destined never to bear fruit.

I'm not bothered in the least.  Many folks (especially here) have advocated for dumping those of us who are considered "socially conservative" from the party.  Congrats.  You get you wish.  I too shall be pulling the "L" lever this November.   Let me know how that works out for ya....

The Libertarians tossed the so-cons to the sharks long ago, around about GWB's first term.  They blow as a protest vote for a so-con.  The Constitution Party is much friendlier to so-cons:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/seven-principles/

When I say GOP, i'm including the voters. I'm including the rampant amount of people that voted for a big government liberal based on rhetoric and "HE SAYS WHATS ON HIS MIND AND DOESNT LIKE DEM ILLEGALZ!"

OK, well, the CAPZ! and creative spelling convinced me.  Sign me up for the Libertarian Party.

[Fitz]

Interesting that libertarianism is worthless, until after the GOP loses an election and then suddenly they're  the voting block that caused the loss.

 You can justify voting for a big government liberal all you want, I won't do it

If it makes you feel better to believe otherwise about Trump, you're entitled to that belief

[Balog]

Interesting that libertarianism is worthless, until after the GOP loses an election and then suddenly they're  the voting block that caused the loss.

 You can justify voting for a big government liberal all you want, I won't do it

If it makes you feel better to believe otherwise about Trump, you're entitled to that belief

You can call the Libertarians useless, and still not vote for Trump.

[Fitz]

You can call the Libertarians useless, and still not vote for Trump.

I was alluding to all the screaming after mitt lost about how the libertarians spoiled the election, same with the Virginia governor's race

[Balog]

I was alluding to all the screaming after mitt lost about how the libertarians spoiled the election, same with the Virginia governor's race

It has been hilarious in a "eat at Arby's" kind of way to see all the establishment shills who screamed the loudest about the need for folks like us to vote for Mitt/McCain/GW etc etc etc now throwing a shtfit and pledging #neverTrump.

[Ben]

You can call the Libertarians useless, and still not vote for Trump.

I've been thinking that it's not libertarian, or third party, but total votes not going to Rs or Ds. What has the average percentage been that's gone "off the reservation" in the last couple of decades? Maybe 5-10% total? I'd be curious what the fallout would be if the numbers this year were around 33r/33d/33 third party, write-in, etc. Whether it's Trump or Clinton winning, they'd be going into office with 2/3 of the country against them.

It could be a wake-up call for both Rs and Ds. I can't recall what the fallout was when Ross Perot got his 19% in '92. It was apparently the highest third party percentage in nearly 100 years.

[Pb]

I hope the Trump voters enjoy President Hillary.

Oh not really.  I hope they regret their vote every second of her 4+ years in office.

[TechMan]

[Perd Hapley]

I've always heard it was us evangelicals that are to blame for 2012. (I wrote in another candidate, but not for religious reasons.)

I've googled this "eat at Arby's" thing, but to no avail. I see there is a nihilist Arby's thing going around, but it doesn't seem to apply.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I had Cruz pictured as being that speed bump on the way to the abyss.

Oh, I care.  Grandkids and all that.

Yea if I didn't have kids I would head into the woods and wait

[Hawkmoon]

• Last but not least, don't you want to see all those celebrities like Whoopi leave for Canada if Trump get's elected? I mean, come on, that alone will help make America great again!

I endorse the above statement. Please forward information on subscribing to your newsletter.

[Hawkmoon]

It has been hilarious in a "eat at Arby's" kind of way to see all the establishment shills who screamed the loudest about the need for folks like us to vote for Mitt/McCain/GW etc etc etc now throwing a shtfit and pledging #neverTrump.

To me it has been more than mildly amusing to have been receiving hundreds of e-mails from the GOP national office, from Cruz's campaign, from Kasich's campaign, and from other R-affiliated groups ALL calling for party unity in the fight to defeat Hillary, yet now that there is a clearly identified candidate around/behind to unify ... I'm still seeing the GOP apparatus continuing with the #neverTrump rhetoric.

I guess I gave up my principles some time ago, because I won't have any problem checking the box for whoever is running against Hillary. A couple of decades ago I vowed not to cast any more "against" votes, and I've been pretty true to that. This year is the exception. Trump may be an unknown, but Hillary is a known, and what's known about her is all I need to know to know that I have to vote for whoever is running against her.

[roo_ster]

Interesting that libertarianism is worthless, until after the GOP loses an election and then suddenly they're  the voting block that caused the loss.

 You can justify voting for a big government liberal all you want, I won't do it

If it makes you feel better to believe otherwise about Trump, you're entitled to that belief

The Libertarian Party is _practically_ worthless.  It still has some value as a (philosophy of) consolation club for some and as a whipping boy for others.

You're gonna have to be a bit more specific, as every candidate who spent time on the debate stage--for both parties--was a big gov't liberal.  To include Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.  If you voted for anyone on the GOP or Dem POTUS primary ballot, you already voted for a big gov't liberal.

[RocketMan]

And Kasich is out. Suspended his campaign late this afternoon.  Unless there are serious shenanigans at the GOP convention, it will be Trump vs. HRC in the general.

[MechAg94]

To me it has been more than mildly amusing to have been receiving hundreds of e-mails from the GOP national office, from Cruz's campaign, from Kasich's campaign, and from other R-affiliated groups ALL calling for party unity in the fight to defeat Hillary, yet now that there is a clearly identified candidate around/behind to unify ... I'm still seeing the GOP apparatus continuing with the #neverTrump rhetoric.

I guess I gave up my principles some time ago, because I won't have any problem checking the box for whoever is running against Hillary. A couple of decades ago I vowed not to cast any more "against" votes, and I've been pretty true to that. This year is the exception. Trump may be an unknown, but Hillary is a known, and what's known about her is all I need to know to know that I have to vote for whoever is running against her.

Yeah, call it what you want, but I don't want Hilary in the White House.  You just think Obama was anti-gun.  I think she takes it a bit further.  I'll vote my gun rights if nothing else.

IMO, I am afraid that Trump's worst enemy might be the belligerent Trump supporters who seem to think this election is some sort of sports tournament and everyone who lost has to stay home.  They may not understand that they might need Cruz supporters to vote for their guy in November.

[MechAg94]

I've always heard it was us evangelicals that are to blame for 2012. (I wrote in another candidate, but not for religious reasons.)

I've googled this "eat at Arby's" thing, but to no avail. I see there is a nihilist Arby's thing going around, but it doesn't seem to apply.

The 'blame the libertarians' angle was just an easily identifiable target they didn't like.  Two things stick out in my mind:

1.  Romney was just a weak candidate who was so liberal he couldn't present a distinct alternative to Obama and he was unable to act conservative.

2.  The Republican Establishment seems to be completely incapable of throwing a bone to the various groups that vote Republican to keep their support.  The Democrat Party is made up of dozens of different groups and they manage to appease most of them to get their support.  Why the Republican can't seem to grasp that strategy is beyond me.  Letting Ron Paul participate in the convention would have helped.  Not sure it would overcome #1.

[MechAg94]

Interesting that libertarianism is worthless, until after the GOP loses an election and then suddenly they're  the voting block that caused the loss.

 You can justify voting for a big government liberal all you want, I won't do it

If it makes you feel better to believe otherwise about Trump, you're entitled to that belief

And that is where I start disagreeing.  I don't like the All or Nothing thinking.  There are no perfect candidates.  Staying home until a perfect candidate shows up will mean you will always stay home.  If Reagan were running, he would probably be considered a well spoken big govt, liberal Republican.  If you think you have a perfect candidate, you probably just don't know him well enough. 

[Fitz]

And that is where I start disagreeing.  I don't like the All or Nothing thinking.  There are no perfect candidates.  Staying home until a perfect candidate shows up will mean you will always stay home.  If Reagan were running, he would probably be considered a well spoken big govt, liberal Republican.  If you think you have a perfect candidate, you probably just don't know him well enough. 

I never said I was staying home

[Scout26]

And that is where I start disagreeing.  I don't like the All or Nothing thinking.  There are no perfect candidates.  Staying home until a perfect candidate shows up will mean you will always stay home.  If Reagan were running, he would probably be considered a well spoken big govt, liberal Republican.  If you think you have a perfect candidate, you probably just don't know him well enough.  

Which is why I supported Ted Cruz.  To expand upon what Larry Correia posted on FB yesterday:

Well, we're boned. It's going to be huckster fraud democrat against lying criminal democrat.

Half the GOP hates the jackass. Question now is what percentage of us stay home or make a 3rd party protest vote. All those crossover democrats who voted for that orange half wit in the primaries will go back to voting democrat in the general election. He thinks young Bernie voters are going to vote for him? Fool.

I've voted republican in every election of my adult life. I've volunteered and donated money. I can't in good conscience vote for this vile populist demagogue. If even a few percentage points of the GOP feels the same way, that's it. He's toast in the general.

So he energizes the democrats, so they'll feel like they are fighting tyranny (now comes the great part where all the fawning media coverage turns on him) and he demotivates the republican base.

All the kid glove BS from this season is over. Every vile nasty stupid thing he has ever done will be covered 24/7. By November he will be the most laughed at and despised candidate in history. Because he makes it too easy.

So the classless boor probably loses to the sea hag. Not that it matters too much, since they'd both govern as authoritarian democrats, only one has more nationalist rah rah thrown in.

Spare me the nonsense about lesser evils and SCOTUS judges. He won't make it that far. And by some miracle, like Hillary has a stroke, this rambling ignoramus wins, he would still screw that up somehow in his one term. Big question is does he suck enough to take the GOP with him?

And if you think he is going to actually build a wall, you are a sucker.

Did I love Cruz? No. Because I was hiring an employee, not a god. He was the least likely to rape the Constitution. Instead we get an authoritarian, who is either lying, or made it to 70 before understanding basic American principles about liberty.

You ignorant low information bastards. Motivated by fear and anger, you overlooked every gain made over the last few cycles, and traded it in to a lying huckster democrat for some magic beans. So you could stick it to the establishment, by electing the *expletive deleted*it bird who funded them.

Edit to add, don't bother posting to argue. We are past that. Now we batten down the hatches and get ready for the suck. If you want to gloat, you are an idiot who doesn't realize what you have wrought. If you feel disrespected, good. You should.

Let point that out again:

Did I love Cruz? No. Because I was hiring an employee, not a god. He was the least likely to rape the Constitution.

That right there.  I want someone who understands the employee manual (aka the Constitution) and won't use his phone and pen to re-write the parts that he doesn't like and feels "constrains" him.   An employee who almost might get the other employees to follow the g-ddamn handbook, and perhaps get rid of some of the deadwood.   Was Ted perfect ?  Hell No.  Far from it in fact.  but he was (is) closest to what I want to see in a President this cycle, hell in fact in a long time.   I was NOT looking for a drinking buddy or bestest friend.  I wanted someone that would follow the rules that were laid down over 200 years ago.

[Andiron]

I guess I gave up my principles some time ago, because I won't have any problem checking the box for whoever is running against Hillary. A couple of decades ago I vowed not to cast any more "against" votes, and I've been pretty true to that. This year is the exception. Trump may be an unknown, but Hillary is a known, and what's known about her is all I need to know to know that I have to vote for whoever is running against her.

This,  well said.

No more Clintons.

(I'd have pulled a Sanders lever in a second against Trump as a general *expletive deleted*ck you gesture to the GOP for being dumb enough to run him)

[Balog]

I've googled this "eat at Arby's" thing, but to no avail. I see there is a nihilist Arby's thing going around, but it doesn't seem to apply.

If nihilism is an appropriate response to anything it's this election cycle.