View Full Version : Gary Johnson polling at 15% (was 13%)
Johnson Polling at 11% with zero support from the main stream media nor at any of the major debates, etc. That would indicate people are by and large not happy with their choices and perhaps for the first time in in a long time, a third party candidate a viable alternative, especially if he can get some real traction. I can guarantee one thing: write ins for third party candidates will break records this coming election. This is worth a watch. Me, I find what's likely to be the choices for D/R like choosing between a brain tumor and liver cancer and both candidates at lowest approval ratings since they started tracking it.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/05/07/gary-johnson-gop-trump-alternative.cnn
write ins for third party candidates will break records this coming election. This is worth a watch. Me, I find what's likely to be the choices for D/R like choosing between a brain tumor and liver cancer and both candidates at lowest approval ratings since they started tracking it.
Voting third party is the exact reason Obama got "elected" and the same reason HRC has a good chance of being elected as well. It is HIGHLY unlikely that there will not be a third party president any time in the near future. Lesser of the two evils is the only way to go.
Voting third party is the exact reason Obama got "elected"
Source? Third party did cost Gore the win, and that's the only time I'm aware that a race was close enough for third party cost an election in recent history.
and the same reason HRC has a good chance of being elected as well. It is HIGHLY unlikely that there will not be a third party president any time in the near future. Lesser of the two evils is the only way to go.
One poll finds Johnson would be taking votes from HC, so you're making general assumptions that those potentially willing to vote for Johnson would otherwise vote for Trump. See also:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/
#FeeltheJohnson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435037/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-presidential-candidates-moment-now
Here is the Cliff Notes's:
Pros
1) Self-made millionaire who started his own construction company
2) At one point employed 1,000 people
3) Was a conservative govenor of a blue state
4) Balanced the budget, vetoed bills, created jobs
5) Won re-election in a landslide
6) Is a badass - runs Ironmans and has climbed the highest mountains in the world
Con
1) Pro Choice BUT disagrees with Roe v. Wade and would rerun it to the states
2) Likes pot, I mean a lot. Even has his own cannabis company.
3) Is weak on immigration and weaker than most Republicans on national defense.
Digital_Damage
05-09-16, 09:21
#FeeltheJohnson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435037/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-presidential-candidates-moment-now
Here is the Cliff Notes's:
Pros
1) Self-made millionaire who started his own construction company
2) At one point employed 1,000 people
3) Was a conservative govenor of a blue state
4) Balanced the budget, vetoed bills, created jobs
5) Won re-election in a landslide
6) Is a badass - runs Ironmans and has climbed the highest mountains in the world
7) Pro Choice BUT disagrees with Roe v. Wade and would rerun it to the states
Con
1) Likes pot, I mean a lot. Even has his own cannabis company.
3) Is weak on immigration and weaker than most Republicans on national defense.
Fixed it for you.
#FeeltheJohnson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435037/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-presidential-candidates-moment-now
Here is the Cliff Notes's:
Pros
1) Self-made millionaire who started his own construction company
2) At one point employed 1,000 people
3) Was a conservative govenor of a blue state
4) Balanced the budget, vetoed bills, created jobs
5) Won re-election in a landslide
6) Is a badass - runs Ironmans and has climbed the highest mountains in the world
Con
1) Pro Choice BUT disagrees with Roe v. Wade and would rerun it to the states
2) Likes pot, I mean a lot. Even has his own cannabis company.
3) Is weak on immigration and weaker than most Republicans on national defense.
Based on the above, he'd get my vote in a millisecond. He can smoke pot 'till it comes out of his ears for all I care as long as he does the job he was elected to do.
BoringGuy45
05-09-16, 09:36
#FeeltheJohnson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435037/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-presidential-candidates-moment-now
Here is the Cliff Notes's:
Pros
1) Self-made millionaire who started his own construction company
2) At one point employed 1,000 people
3) Was a conservative govenor of a blue state
4) Balanced the budget, vetoed bills, created jobs
5) Won re-election in a landslide
6) Is a badass - runs Ironmans and has climbed the highest mountains in the world
Con
1) Pro Choice BUT disagrees with Roe v. Wade and would rerun it to the states
2) Likes pot, I mean a lot. Even has his own cannabis company.
3) Is weak on immigration and weaker than most Republicans on national defense.
I don't think being pro-pot is a con.
All in all, I'd vote for him if I thought he had a chance. I voted for him in the last election, as I was in a deep blue state where the GOP had no chance anyway. I now live in a swing state, so I'll vote in such a way that I think would be best for beating Hillary.
Ross Perot had the best chance in recent history of a viable 3rd party candidate with a political climate similar to what we have now... and he gave us Bill Clinton.
And you want history to repeat itself?
I have nothing against Mr. Johnson... however, I can't fathom a worse situation than Clinton. We can survive a Trump presidency. I'm pretty sure with Billery we're all screwed.
One poll finds Johnson would be taking votes from HC, so you're making general assumptions that those potentially willing to vote for Johnson would otherwise vote for Trump. See also:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/24/libertarian-gary-johnson-double-digits-race-agains/
There are still some principled anti-war types in the Democratic party. Bet $ they're voting Johnson because they don't like Hillary's tendency to drop bombs every time the wind blows....
Ross Perot had the best chance in recent history of a viable 3rd party candidate with a political climate similar to what we have now... and he gave us Bill Clinton.
And you want history to repeat itself?
I have nothing against Mr. Johnson... however, I can't fathom a worse situation than Clinton. We can survive a Trump presidency. I'm pretty sure with Billery we're all screwed.
(1) do we have a source that enough people voted for Perot that it was a deciding factor in BC winning? The answer appears to be no:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy
If you have a more accurate source, feel free to supply it.
(2) There's polls finding a vote for Johnson is taking votes from HC. Why do you and others assume it's a vote taken from Trump? Again, please supply a source. So far, I'm finding it's either a wash, or it's actually a negative for HC.
If we continue to perpetuate mythology about third party voting per some above, how do we ever make progress in actual change? If anyone thinks it will ever come from the two parties we have now, who are fully intrenched and more interested in mainlining power than actually winning the White House, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell....Had Ran Paul not been systematically drummed out, he might have been our best hope for someone who would follow old school GOP leanings, but that aint what we got.
My personal position is, and has always been:
If you don't vote at all, that's throwing away a vote. Voting your conscience is not throwing away a vote in a democracy and ultimately the only method by which real change will happen short of the "nuclear option" and that might look like fun in the movies, but I'd really like to avoid it.
Gary Johnson and Rand Paul would make for a very interesting ticket.
Gary Johnson and Rand Paul would make for a very interesting ticket.
Boom! You read my mind sir. Best ticket this country has ever seen would be Johnson and Rand Paul. I think at this point, now that people on both sides of the D/R line realize what their choices will be if they don't act hits them, that ticket would have a legit chance of winning. First time in my life, I'd be willing to work at their campaign office for free to make calls, etc.
PatrioticDisorder
05-09-16, 11:40
Boom! You read my mind sir. Best ticket this country has ever seen would be Johnson and Rand Paul. I think at this point, now that people on both sides of the D/R line realize what their choices will be if they don't act hits them, that ticket would have a legit chance of winning. First time in my life, I'd be willing to work at their campaign office for free to make calls, etc.
Rand Paul endorsed Trump, I'll call that a clue.
Rand Paul endorsed Trump, I'll call that a clue.
A clue of what? He's gonna stick to his party and sure don't see him endorsing HC.
Third Party candidates have one thing in common - they NEVER WIN.
Outlander Systems
05-09-16, 11:51
This.
I've voted Third party in every presidential election since I was 18, and all I have to show for it is 8 years of "fundamental transformation."
Third Party candidates have one thing in common - they NEVER WIN.
PatrioticDisorder
05-09-16, 11:57
A clue of what? He's gonna stick to his party and sure don't see him endorsing HC.
Exactly my point, primaries are for "may the best ideas win", I probably agree with Gary Johnson more than anyone. He is not a real choice, the real choice in a general election is a binary choice. He should have ran in either the republican or democrat primary and had he won, he'd be a viable choice. 3rd party will never be successful in this country and for good reason. As Milton Friedman said, “I am a libertarian with a small 'l' and a Republican with a capital 'R'."
Doc Safari
05-09-16, 13:13
Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico when I worked in law enforcement. He endangered public safety through trying to privatize a number of law enforcement functions.
As far as I'm concerned he is nothing but a dope-smoking rich kid who thinks he knows something, when in reality he's got about the same intellect as a brain-dead hippy. I literally would not vote the man in as dog-catcher (because I'd feel sorry for the dogs).
EDITED TO ADD: No, that's not strong enough.
I wouldn't piss on him if his guts were on fire.
MountainRaven
05-09-16, 13:29
Third Party candidates have one thing in common - they NEVER WIN.
Except Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet in some states and he still won.
Just because something hasn't happened yet - or hasn't happened for a long time - doesn't mean it can't or won't happen (or happen again).
This is great news for Hilary supporters.
I really like the guy. Those cons do not look like cons to me, especially 1+2. The drug war has been an epic failure, and cost the country dearly. Pot especially is such a waste to outlaw, any one who drinks at all but thinks pot should be illegal is a huge hypocrite in my book. I'm pro choice as well. Statistically shit bags have the most abortions. I'd rather they not bring many more shit bag kids into this world. Abortion may be F'ed up, and I don't believe in 3rd trimester abortions. But again, I find many pro death penalty people are also pro-life, which to me is hypocritical.
But ultimately the issues are not the issue. The issue is that a vote not for trump is as good as a vote for Hilary. I don't like Trump, he is a douche, the guy has no class. I like Gary Johnson. But I'd rather vote for Trump and maybe not get Hilary as president than vote Gary Johnson so I can feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and definitely end up with Hilary as president.
The idea Gary Johnson has even the smallest chance of winning is preposterous. If the 2A was not on the line with this vote I'd vote Johnson all day, but the reality is the second most important right we have after free speech is on the line.
Except Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet in some states and he still won.
Yeah, I think we are kind of talking modern USA\, you know, since women and black have been allowed to vote.
brickboy240
05-09-16, 13:47
Many here are too young to remember that a 3rd party candidate is what gave us Hillary's hubby!
...hello!!!
Except Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet in some states and he still won.
Just because something hasn't happened yet - or hasn't happened for a long time - doesn't mean it can't or won't happen (or happen again).
Right… These guys won in a time when television and radio did not exist and literacy was at levels far bellow currant. Additionally this was at a time when only white men could vote. Times have changed. Sure a third party could win, but they would need to have been a viable candidate from the beginning, they need massive media support. Not happening now. Maybe if trump destroys the republican party we'll see a much needed divide and a third party will become viable, so far that is not whats happening.
Gary Johnson was governor of New Mexico when I worked in law enforcement. He endangered public safety through trying to privatize a number of law enforcement functions.
As far as I'm concerned he is nothing but a dope-smoking rich kid who thinks he knows something, when in reality he's got about the same intellect as a brain-dead hippy. I literally would not vote the man in as dog-catcher (because I'd feel sorry for the dogs).
EDITED TO ADD: No, that's not strong enough.
I wouldn't piss on him if his guts were on fire.
Interesting intel there. It's interesting how local experience/knowledge gives a very different POV. I don't think I felt quite as you do about Romney, but my view of him as the one time Gov of the state I lived in (that he was a total failure a his job and disliked) was very different than many had nationally. I'd still take Johnson over what will likely be the front runners, but that's me. Some felt Romney would be a better choice over Obama, but those local who had Romney as a Gov, not so much.
Third Party candidates have one thing in common - they NEVER WIN.
Except Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. Hell, Lincoln wasn't even on the ballet in some states and he still won.
Just because something hasn't happened yet - or hasn't happened for a long time - doesn't mean it can't or won't happen (or happen again).
The above. Nothing is as it was in the past and if there was ever a time a high enough % of people were willing to go outside the two parties they have been fed, this would be it.
This is great news for Hilary supporters.
.
I wish people would stop throwing that out as if there was any support for it at all. There's zero support for your statement and polls find he takes more votes from HC than Trump, or it's a wash at best. Why you and others think those who would vote for Johnson would otherwise vote for Trump I don't know, but it's not supported by reality on the ground... Discussion and direct link to poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gary-johnson-2016-race-real-opportunity-libertarian-party/story?id=38956151
Many here are too young to remember that a 3rd party candidate is what gave us Hillary's hubby!
...hello!!!
I'm not too young and it didn't happen if you see rest of thread. I supplied a link. If you have a better source, happy to read it. I think half the problem here is, mythology and faulty memories of third party effects, or lack there of, on POTUS outcomes.
...........and literacy was at levels far bellow currant.
Now that there is funny.
I have a few family members who are liberals. They keep spouting off that they are glad Johnson is polling so high and the GOP is likely to try and get a RINO to run 3rd party as it will split the R voters and HRC will win easily.
I fantasize about Rand Paul being the next President and what he could accomplish- but that's all it is; a FANTASY. Same thing with Johnson.
If you haven't figured it out by now it's either rally behind Trump to Keep Hitlery from winning, keep the facade going a bit longer and maybe buy some time, or not vote for Trump and watch Hilary unleash the four horseman of the apocalypse on this country.
I've tried talking sense into people about HRC- even if you support her; she's going to be the final nail in the coffin and her actions WILL ignite Civil War 2.0. I ask them if they are ready for that? If they believe they are on the right side of that scenario? If they come to me for help when it all goes down do they think I will provide help if they are the ones who voted for shit to go that way?
This election year (All of them really, but this one is the worst thus far) reminds me of Southpark- vote for a Shit Sandhich or a Giant douche.
Personally I'll vote Trump and eat the shit Sandwich, but would NEVER vote for Hitlery (OR abstain/go 3rd party and defacto give her my vote) the Giant Douche, she will for SURE rape the country and throw us into total chaos, be it very sooon or down the road- SCOTUS appointments are too important this cycle, WAY TOO IMPORTANT.
But, really who gives a damn, things aren't going to change until the shooting starts/ends anyways...and they likely won't change for the better either, likely for the worse; history being an indicator and all. **** it. Enjoy things while you can folks, and be ready for when shit goes sideways.
brickboy240
05-09-16, 14:48
Gary Johnson was not all that appealing the first time around.
Ok, he may be better, all around, than Trump but as awful as Trump is...Trump is still better than 4-8 years of Hillary.
With Hillary, we know the darkness that is coming.
I'd love to have better choices but the goal should be to keep Hillary and Bill away from that office again. We'll sort the rest of the mess out later on.
Another Ross Perot to elect another Clinton.
Man, this fight is over. Trump won. He's the guy. Now the fight is to stop Hillary. Period. Enough with the distractions…
As THCDDM4 elaborated above, you can get behind Trump now and try to stop Hillary and all her madness, or you can get behind your rifle when society as we know it ends.
MountainRaven
05-09-16, 15:05
Yeah, I think we are kind of talking modern USA\, you know, since women and black have been allowed to vote.
Right… These guys won in a time when television and radio did not exist and literacy was at levels far bellow currant. Additionally this was at a time when only white men could vote. Times have changed. Sure a third party could win, but they would need to have been a viable candidate from the beginning, they need massive media support. Not happening now. Maybe if trump destroys the republican party we'll see a much needed divide and a third party will become viable, so far that is not whats happening.
Never say never.
There are no impossibilities, there are only improbabilities: There is only that which has happened and that which has not yet happened.
Third parties crop up and then displace one of the two main parties. It has happened before, it will happen again.
Hell, from the 1900s through to the 1960s, the GOP and the Democratic parties were basically overtaken by what I'll call internal third-parties that essentially swapped their relative positions on the political axis, with the Democrats slowly rolling from conservative to liberal and the GOP going from liberal to conservative, with the final nail in the swap being the "defection" of the Dixiecrats.
In many ways, what I think we've been seeing since the 2000 elections (and possibly even earlier) is another series of efforts by internal third-parties - like the Tea Party and BlackLivesMatter - trying to pull the GOP and Democratic party in a myriad of directions: Tomorrow's GOP may share the same name as yesterday's GOP, but it may effectively represent a "third-party" to the Democratic and Republican parties of yesterday. Ditto tomorrow's Democratic party (which might make it a fourth party?).
IOW, this is not merely the natural evolution of a party over time, but instead of a third party arising and displacing one of the two major parties, one of the major parties is effectively taken over by what would have otherwise been a third party.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-09-16, 15:28
(1) do we have a source that enough people voted for Perot that it was a deciding factor in BC winning? The answer appears to be no:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy
If you have a more accurate source, feel free to supply it.
(2) There's polls finding a vote for Johnson is taking votes from HC. Why do you and others assume it's a vote taken from Trump? Again, please supply a source. So far, I'm finding it's either a wash, or it's actually a negative for HC.
If we continue to perpetuate mythology about third party voting per some above, how do we ever make progress in actual change? If anyone thinks it will ever come from the two parties we have now, who are fully intrenched and more interested in mainlining power than actually winning the White House, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell....Had Ran Paul not been systematically drummed out, he might have been our best hope for someone who would follow old school GOP leanings, but that aint what we got.
My personal position is, and has always been:
If you don't vote at all, that's throwing away a vote. Voting your conscience is not throwing away a vote in a democracy and ultimately the only method by which real change will happen short of the "nuclear option" and that might look like fun in the movies, but I'd really like to avoid it.
This.
I've voted Third party in every presidential election since I was 18, and all I have to show for it is 8 years of "fundamental transformation."
Many here are too young to remember that a 3rd party candidate is what gave us Hillary's hubby!
...hello!!!
Will. Your thread link is meaningless because it never talks about the Electoral Vote. Bush and Dole both lost Tenn when Al Gore couldn't carry it WHEN HE WAS RUNNInG FOR PRESIDENT. W was able to eck out a win in 2004, with everything going wrong. Bush41 and Dole in contrast to Bush43 all about Perot. 41 was a far more experienced leader and Dole was a better war hero and both lost while 43 won.
Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988
and then click on the next election arrow and watch the map. States ar GOP, go Dem and come back GOP. Hummm, wonder why that was. Places like TN, LV, LA, MO, KY, WV. Places where someone like Perot plays well.
I get sick and tired (not you Will) people trying to explain things to me (like this MSNBC piece) that I actually lived through.
These F-ing Millenial Hippsets and their 'skinny-jeansplaining' things to me when I can put together an analysis in 5 minutes better than they one they get paid to do.
Third party candidates are like hot chick's ugly friend. They screw stuff up and keep the good guys from winning.
Man, this fight is over. Trump won. He's the guy. Now the fight is to stop Hillary. Period. Enough with the distractions…
As THCDDM4 elaborated above, you can get behind Trump now and try to stop Hillary and all her madness, or you can get behind your rifle when society as we know it ends.
^^This^^
If you are a shooter and you dont vote for Trump you are voting to have your 2nd amendment rights taken away by hillary. I am a libertarian, but this time around there is only one choice and its Trump.
(1) do we have a source that enough people voted for Perot that it was a deciding factor in BC winning? The answer appears to be no:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy
If you have a more accurate source, feel free to supply it.
http://race42016.com/2011/04/20/did-ross-perot-elect-bill-clinton/
Those wanting to vote for GJ, I implore you to look at the 2013 Gubernatorial vote in VA. 55,000 votes separated the winner from the looser. The looser being a very conservative AG and the winner being a very liberal chump. A guy named Sarvis who was running independent and got much of his funding from Bloomberg collected over 100,000 votes. Nearly all of which would've been cast for the Red team had he not ran.
This is a fine and recent example of how voting for a third party will screw you. Unless it's a shoe in, don't Fn do it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
"VOTE FOR SHITBAGS TO STOP THE SHITBAGS 2016"
PatrioticDisorder
05-09-16, 17:26
"VOTE FOR SHITBAGS TO STOP THE SHITBAGS 2016"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/18/trump-plan-calls-for-nationwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/?postshare=7341462568706847&tid=ss_fb-bottom
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Trump wants national concealed carry reciprocity (it would be nice to thumb our noses at commie states when visiting), he opposes "assault weapons ban" or magazine bans, wants to allow military members the ability to carry on bases & at recruiting centers.
We can go on with other issues, I'm simply not getting where any hate for Trump is coming from. I agree with him on all the major platform issues he has laid out. I swear we on the right are often our own worst enemy.
Who said thats directed at Trump? Thats essentially been the campaign slogan of both political wings for the last quarter century.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/18/trump-plan-calls-for-nationwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/?postshare=7341462568706847&tid=ss_fb-bottom
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Trump wants national concealed carry reciprocity (it would be nice to thumb our noses at commie states when visiting), he opposes "assault weapons ban" or magazine bans, wants to allow military members the ability to carry on bases & at recruiting centers.
We can go on with other issues, I'm simply not getting where any hate for Trump is coming from. I agree with him on all the major platform issues he has laid out. I swear we on the right are often our own worst enemy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/18/trump-plan-calls-for-nationwide-concealed-carry-and-an-end-to-gun-bans/?postshare=7341462568706847&tid=ss_fb-bottom
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Trump wants national concealed carry reciprocity (it would be nice to thumb our noses at commie states when visiting), he opposes "assault weapons ban" or magazine bans, wants to allow military members the ability to carry on bases & at recruiting centers.
We can go on with other issues, I'm simply not getting where any hate for Trump is coming from. I agree with him on all the major platform issues he has laid out. I swear we on the right are often our own worst enemy.
I share your thoughts all around, but let me just say how fun it would be to be a Californian, walking through the most left leaning city in the country with my Glock strapped on and a FL or UT CCW in my pocket, and be completely legal doing it! Then it won't matter if the stupid libs running this otherwise great state want to issue permits of not. Same for NY, NJ, etc...
Will, Street cred is worth something... Don't throw it away. Johnson polling at 11%... Yea right. 11% against who?
sevenhelmet
05-09-16, 18:40
Either way, we'll be getting a demagogue in office next year, and the trend toward authoritarianism will be complete.
If the 11% is true, it appears that Johnson is almost at the polling threshold of 15% to attend the debates. Interesting indeed.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview
I'm also not convinced that he takes only Trump. I can see a lot of marijuana college voters who currently support Bernie taking a hard look at Johnson...at least until they realize that he will not pay their college loans. But that could be a while depending on how much pot they've been smoking.
sevenhelmet
05-09-16, 20:03
What I find fascinating this election cycle is that both sides think that a 3rd party vote is a vote for their opposition Far from feeling smug, the majority of democrat discussions I've seen and heard seem to center around the assumption that Trump will find a way to win it all if they don't all hold their nose and vote for hillary. Both sides seem convinced that they have to vote for "their" candidate, despite not liking them, or else the opposition candidate will win. If true on a large enough scale, this could mean that a few pundits and prominent political bloggers could swing the whole election.
Either way, I predict the least popular president in US History.
One of the very, very few nice things about living in NY right now is that I can vote for whoever I want without having to worry about it being, "a vote for Hillary."
PatrioticDisorder
05-10-16, 12:32
One of the very, very few nice things about living in NY right now is that I can vote for whoever I want without having to worry about it being, "a vote for Hillary."
So having your vote not count & being ruled like you live in a tyrannical country is a nice thing? While I don't expect Trump to win NY, I wouldn't take it for granted he has no chance.
#FeeltheJohnson
Pros
1) Self-made millionaire who started his own construction company
2) At one point employed 1,000 people
3) Was a conservative govenor of a blue state
4) Balanced the budget, vetoed bills, created jobs
5) Won re-election in a landslide
6) Is a badass - runs Ironmans and has climbed the highest mountains in the world
7) Pro Choice BUT disagrees with Roe v. Wade and would rerun it to the states
8) Likes pot, I mean a lot. Even has his own cannabis company.
Con
1) Is weak on immigration and weaker than most Republicans on national defense.
He got my vote last time around. Getting it this time too.
If the 11% is true, it appears that Johnson is almost at the polling threshold of 15% to attend the debates. Interesting indeed.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=overview
I'm also not convinced that he takes only Trump. I can see a lot of marijuana college voters who currently support Bernie taking a hard look at Johnson...at least until they realize that he will not pay their college loans. But that could be a while depending on how much pot they've been smoking.
There are quite a few people on the Dem side that are almost as anti-HRC as they are anti-Trump. Almost. Which means if HRC gets the Dem nomination, they'll vote for HRC because it's not Trump.
If people could get over the "any vote for a 3rd party is a vote for (insert your political boogeyman here)," we might actually get a good President for once.
Edit: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gary-johnson-2016-race-real-opportunity-libertarian-party/story?id=38956151 says Johnson pulls more votes from HRC than from Trump.
Whiskey_Bravo
05-10-16, 12:44
If people could get over the "any vote for a 3rd party is a vote for (insert your political boogeyman here)," we might actually get a good President for once.
The problem comes down to money I would think. As much as I would love a 3rd party to come in and change things I just don't see it happening. I supported Perot and he was a billionaire and it didn't work. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on an election campaign and there isn't a 3rd party that can finance that at this point.
Eurodriver
05-10-16, 15:32
So having your vote not count & being ruled like you live in a tyrannical country is a nice thing? While I don't expect Trump to win NY, I wouldn't take it for granted he has no chance.
Hillary got 200,000 more votes than all of the Republican candidates combined in the NY Primary.
Might as well watch Christie Mack on Election Day if you live in NY.
PatrioticDisorder
05-10-16, 15:42
Hillary got 200,000 more votes than all of the Republican candidates combined in the NY Primary.
Might as well watch Christie Mack on Election Day if you live in NY.
It was a closed primary, I suspect the turnout numbers would have looked much different if it were an open primary... And don't misunderstand I'm not saying NY will be competitive, but I would not lose hope considering the circumstances this year.
So having your vote not count & being ruled like you live in a tyrannical country is a nice thing? While I don't expect Trump to win NY, I wouldn't take it for granted he has no chance.
That was mean to be tongue in cheek. Of course it's not nice living in a one party dictatorship. It is a one party dictatorship though, so she's going to win this state and easily. People claiming NY could be competive forget the fact that she got more votes, by far, than all the Republican candidates combined. They also forget that she moved here to be elected to the senate and was, easily.
Primus Pilum
05-12-16, 13:13
What I find fascinating this election cycle is that both sides think that a 3rd party vote is a vote for their opposition Far from feeling smug, the majority of democrat discussions I've seen and heard seem to center around the assumption that Trump will find a way to win it all if they don't all hold their nose and vote for hillary. Both sides seem convinced that they have to vote for "their" candidate, despite not liking them, or else the opposition candidate will win. If true on a large enough scale, this could mean that a few pundits and prominent political bloggers could swing the whole election.
Either way, I predict the least popular president in US History.
During his Presidency, Lincoln was the most hated man in the country. I'm talking worse than Bush43 hated.
Turned out that being popular and being a good president (not saying Lincoln was perfect) are not the same thing.
History will remember them for what they did, not how popular they are.
I don't think Lincoln was all that great.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
brickboy240
05-12-16, 14:51
Yeah well Dubya WILL be remembered for what he did.
Got us into a huge, unnecessary nation-building project and un-winnable war.
Does anyone really think that a candidate that was unappealing last go-round and polls at 11% has a chance?
Primus Pilum
05-12-16, 15:07
Dubya was a terrible president, Not disputing that. Granted he was the lessor of 2 evils but a horrible president non the less. Great guy but a lamb led by lions.
Voting for anyone but trump is voting for a democrat. Point, Blank Period.
If the right spent 1/10th the amount of effort against the Left as they have againt the Tea Party/Libertarian wing/ and even trump, then Obama would have never been elected.
They would rather lose elections and keep their money/influence racket going that give any of that up.
Whole system is rigged from head to toe.
Which is why Trump, despite his flaws, is such an attractive candidate. Voting traditional R or D is guaranteed to get to the same corrupt crony shit. Atleast with an outsider, there is a chance they will buck the system. Not to mention his son, JR. is about the PERFECT candidate on the issues most here care about. Jr aint going to let his dad go off the deep end. They are a close knit family and one thing trump has done is produced fantastic children. Say anything you will about him, but look at how great his kids turned out. All hard working, respectable business folks who were forced to earn what they have.
Doc Safari
05-12-16, 15:09
Dubya was a terrible president, Not disputing that. Granted he was the lessor of 2 evils but a horrible president non the less. Great guy but a lamb led by lions.
Voting for anyone but trump is voting for a democrat. Point, Blank Period.
If the right spent 1/10th the amount of effort against the Left as they have againt the Tea Party/Libertarian wing/ and even trump, then Obama would have never been elected.
They would rather lose elections and keep their money/influence racket going that give any of that up.
Whole system is rigged from head to toe.
Which is why Trump, despite his flaws, is such an attractive candidate. Voting traditional R or D is guaranteed to get to the same corrupt crony shit. Atleast with an outsider, there is a chance they will buck the system. Not to mention his son, JR. is about the PERFECT candidate on the issues most here care about. Jr aint going to let his dad go off the deep end. They are a close knit family and one thing trump has done is produced fantastic children. Say anything you will about him, but look at how great his kids turned out. All hard working, respectable business folks who were forced to earn what they have.
I may turn out to be totally wrong, but I think to a certain extent Trump has had a "come to Reagan" moment where he decided to be more conservative on some issues. Remember Reagan was a democrat before becoming more conservative.
brickboy240
05-12-16, 15:15
And for all his follies, don't many of you think 4-8 years of Al Gore would have been much worse?
I tend to think so.
McCain was not a person I was any sort of fan of back in 08 but I am pretty sure he would not have given us govt. run healthcare, even if he had a Democrat Congress.
So yes, Trump is less than lovely but still much better than 4-8 years of Hillary.
I'm going to be smug.
I live in a comfortably Red Confederate state that almost universally goes Republican. So I think I will vote for the Libertarian/Anarchist candidate.
I've preached about voting against Hillary and how 3rd Party loses but my state is so bitterly redneck that I can get away with it.
But everybody else, lol you're going to have to swallow a bitter pill come November
Perhaps that is low and hypocritical but well....I'm just turned off to everyone and have never voted 3rd party before and feel like partaking in a taboo.
Doc Safari
05-12-16, 15:19
And for all his follies, don't many of you think 4-8 years of Al Gore would have been much worse?
I tend to think so.
McCain was not a person I was any sort of fan of back in 08 but I am pretty sure he would not have given us govt. run healthcare, even if he had a Democrat Congress.
So yes, Trump is less than lovely but still much better than 4-8 years of Hillary.
The sad thing that people don't want to admit is that this country really has moved to the left. If a socialist like Bernie Sanders had tried to run in previous decades he would have gotten nowhere. In my dad's era, he would have been a pariah with no future in anything, much less politics. But now he actually beats what a lot of people consider a mainstream liberal (Hillary)?
The reality is that if Ronald Reagan were running today he wouldn't have a chance. So we need to be thankful that at least Trump gives lip service to being pro-2A and claims to be more conservative than his past statements would indicate. The day may come when we have a choice between the lesser of two liberals, with neither party fielding a pro-2A candidate.
Primus Pilum
05-12-16, 15:26
I may turn out to be totally wrong, but I think to a certain extent Trump has had a "come to Reagan" moment where he decided to be more conservative on some issues. Remember Reagan was a democrat before becoming more conservative.
Agreed. Reagan was a dem because it suited his BUSINESS/Private life
Same reason trump was a Dem. Say the right things, donate to the right people to better their life/company.
Sorry to say, but I don't blame trump or any other business man taking advantage of a corrupt system. If they don't someone else will. They are playing the game that has been setup.
What I do have a problem with, is when sworn officials of the US government, engage in the same corrupt shit to line their pockets.
The private business man did not swear on a bible to uphold the Constitution and laws of this nation, the Gov Official/Politician did. Most people cannot differentiate the two.
YUGE Difference. :jester:
Eurodriver
05-12-16, 15:37
The sad thing that people don't want to admit is that this country really has moved to the left. If a socialist like Bernie Sanders had tried to run in previous decades he would have gotten nowhere. In my dad's era, he would have been a pariah with no future in anything, much less politics.
This is not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.
He served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, was the Governor of Wisconsin, and was a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin from 1906 to 1925. He ran for President of the United States as the nominee of his own Progressive Party in 1924, carrying Wisconsin and winning 17% of the national popular vote.
La Follette's platform called for government ownership of the railroads and electric utilities, cheap credit for farmers, the outlawing of child labor, stronger laws to help labor unions, more protection of civil liberties, an end to American imperialism in Latin America, and a referendum before any president could again lead the nation into war.
His 17% is remarkable considering the Democratic candidate won 29% and there was a very popular incumbent in the White House.
Doc Safari
05-12-16, 15:40
This is not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.
His 17% is remarkable considering the Democratic candidate won 29% and there was a very popular incumbent in the White House.
Like I said, "My dad's era." That would have been the height of the McCarthy hearings. I rest my case, your Honor. :D
Eurodriver
05-12-16, 15:41
Like I said, "My dad's era." That would have been the height of the McCarthy hearings. I rest my case, your Honor. :D
Haha, have you seen most of the threads here? I can't be blamed for thinking the majority of this forum is in their 80s ;)
brickboy240
05-12-16, 15:44
Of course America has moved to the left. That is the biggest problem we face.
You have an aging white majority population that is not reproducing. You also have an ever-expanding influx of minority, lower class, uneducated peoples moving here. These people are not given any incentives to assimilate or even learn our history, language or culture.
Then, you have academia and most of big media pumping the younger people full of mush about how America was "stolen" from the brown-skinned peoples and how we are not really a great place.
What do you expect?
The idea that one of the major political parties can put up a hard line social conservative or evangelical type and win a national election with this person is a total fantasy.
I guarantee you that 99% of the people that have been motivated by Trump or that push for him, do so because of two things Trump talks about. First is doing something about illegal immigration and second is putting America first. A distant third might be how Trump has thrown political correctness out the window and he is saying things that many people are thinking but will not say in a crowd or out loud.
People are tired of the illegal immigrant problem and want a president that actually likes America and wants it to succeed. People also want to be able to say what is on their mind without extreme blow-back from some group that pretends to be offended.
It is really no more complicated than that.
Doc Safari
05-12-16, 15:49
Of course America has moved to the left. That is the biggest problem we face.
You have an aging white majority population that is not reproducing. You also have an ever-expanding influx of minority, lower class, uneducated peoples moving here. These people are not given any incentives to assimilate or even learn our history, language or culture.
Then, you have academia and most of big media pumping the younger people full of mush about how America was "stolen" from the brown-skinned peoples and how we are not really a great place.
What do you expect?
The idea that one of the major political parties can put up a hard line social conservative or evangelical type and win a national election with this person is a total fantasy.
I guarantee you that 99% of the people that have been motivated by Trump or that push for him, do so because of two things Trump talks about. First is doing something about illegal immigration and second is putting America first. A distant third might be how Trump has thrown political correctness out the window and he is saying things that many people are thinking but will not say in a crowd or out loud.
People are tired of the illegal immigrant problem and want a president that actually likes America and wants it to succeed. People also want to be able to say what is on their mind without extreme blow-back from some group that pretends to be offended.
It is really no more complicated than that.
You pretty much nailed it. You know Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and probably not even Cruz would promise to build a wall and intend to really do it. Trump may have just introduced that as a "far out demand" that he knows will be lost (as his book "Art of the Deal" would assert), but just the fact that he's SAYING it makes a huge difference.
Personally, I would make building a wall the LEAST I'd accept , but then again I'm not running for president.
Primus Pilum
05-12-16, 16:04
Nationalism vs Globalism.
Il always pick America first.
Yeah well Dubya WILL be remembered for what he did.
Got us into a huge, unnecessary nation-building project and un-winnable war.
Does anyone really think that a candidate that was unappealing last go-round and polls at 11% has a chance?
But WMDs in mobile trucks! Oh wait....
An interesting read in the Atlantic:
Is This the Libertarian Party's Moment?
To the uninitiated, which is to say, most everyone, the Libertarian Party has been a political nonentity. Sure, voters might know a few of the top-line principles—limited government, limited economic regulation, a lot of individual liberty—but chances are they have not given much thought to a party that has never put a candidate in Congress. Or nominated a presidential contender who is truly competitive nationally.
After a hostile primary season on the Democratic and Republican sides, though, Libertarians hope that might start to change. Especially the three candidates with the most viable chance for the nomination at the party’s convention later this month.
“It’s really a mixed bag,” said Gary Johnson, the former two-term New Mexico governor who was the party’s nominee last cycle, on his reaction to Donald Trump’s presumptive Republican nomination. “Sorry for America,” but it could give “the libertarian nominee a real shot.”
Latest from Politics
A third-party candidate winning a general election is pretty unlikely. But there are some small signs Americans have grown more interested in the Libertarian Party since Trump has caught fire. The conservative Breitbart News has noted “spasms” among libertarian-leaning Republicans since Trump won Indiana, and it encouraged “PANIC” over an uptick in Google searches for the party. The Washington Examiner reported on Wednesday that the Libertarian Party saw “a drastic increase in new donors as the primaries started and it became increasingly clear that Trump would be the nominee”; and online applications to the party jumped once Ted Cruz dropped out after the Indiana primary. Those figures are small—in the hundreds—but for a small party looking to make national change, they must be encouraging. And Libertarians got at least one high-profile nod last week: The Republican strategist Mary Matalin switched her party affiliation to Libertarian on Thursday, though she refused to acknowledge a connection between her move and Trump’s shoe-in nomination.
cont:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/libertarian-election-clinton-trump/481719/
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-15-16, 16:53
If the libertarians had any chance, this is going to be their best one for at least another generation.
The problem is even if they come in second place in every state and get a third of the vote they can still have no electoral votes.
Wat they need to do is get at least a couple of seats in the house and then show that they're capable of rational and organized thought. Eventually get enough libertarians in Congress so that you can then parlay that with the next largest party and have a say in give me a chairmanships.
The fact that you can't even carry a single congressional district with a libertarian candidate means that the party is doomed at a national level until you figure out how to actually gain power.
PatrioticDisorder
05-15-16, 17:21
If the libertarians had any chance, this is going to be their best one for at least another generation.
It's called a primary, general elections are a binary choice, always have been and always will be. Johnson is Mr. Open Boarders, the only reason he may be polling anything at all is because of some whine asses butthurt their guy couldn't beat Trump in the primary. Johnson will be at 1-3% come the general election.
It's called a primary, general elections are a binary choice, always have been and always will be. Johnson is Mr. Open Boarders, the only reason he may be polling anything at all is because of some whine asses butthurt their guy couldn't beat Trump in the primary. Johnson will be at 1-3% come the general election.
Polls find Johnson taking approx equal, or more votes from HC. There's a large % of people on both sides of the isle who find their choices something akin to a brain tumor vs liver cancer and so, people from both parties taking a hard look at an alternative to Dump or HC. So, your overly simplistic reason for his gaining some traction "whine asses butthurt their guy couldn't beat Trump" is not valid, or partially valid at best. Recall also, both major candidates run the lowest approval rating since they have been tracked, and the majority of people from either party don't like their choices at all. Lots of Dems don't like HC but could never vote for Dump and vise versa.
Hence, "If the libertarians had any chance, this is going to be their best one for at least another generation." is true.
However, people bluster and wine a lot in polls, and come general elections usually hold their nose and pull for who they think has a legit chance to win.
But, this is not a normal or typical election and so far, all manner of predictions of "usual" results have been wrong. I don't think anyone really has a handle on this one, and my prediction is a higher % of third party votes than ever seen before with approx equally pulling votes from both parties. Enough to win? Very unlikely but this election has been full of nothing but unlikely things happening no one predicted or predicted wrong.
One more term of anybody except Trump, and the Democrats will never lose an election again. It simply don't matter when the demographic game is rigged. It's close from election to election as it is. Add in a few more million illegals given voting rights + Muslims, and goodbye to the America you knew - forever. Adios. 2nd Amendment? No comprende.
PatrioticDisorder
05-15-16, 20:44
One more term of anybody except Trump, and the Democrats will never lose an election again. It simply don't matter when the demographic game is rigged. It's close from election to election as it is. Add in a few more million illegals given voting rights + Muslims, and goodbye to the America you knew - forever. Adios. 2nd Amendment? No comprende.
There is the paradox of the open boarders libertarian candidate. Even if we assumed the putz could actually win (and a snowball has a better chance in hell), he is an open boarders advocate. How ironic would it be to have a "Libertarian" president allow millions and millions of 3rd world people in the country that will never vote on libertarian or constitutional conservative principles, it's completely idiotic.
Btw, taking the isidewith quiz tonight (and they have candidates who dropped out in there) I got 92% agreement with Trump, 92% with Cruz, 87% with Austin Peterson (whoever that is), 85% with Kevin McCormick (whoever that is), 71% with Mr. Open Boarders Gary Johnson (might as well be zero with his open boarders position), 5% with Hillary Clinton, 4% with crazy Comrade Bernie Sanders.
Immigration policy aside, there are plenty of contrasting differences between Trump & Clinton including 2nd amendment position & tax policy to equate it to "brain cancer or lung cancer" or whatever the comparison was.
There is the paradox of the open boarders libertarian candidate. Even if we assumed the putz could actually win (and a snowball has a better chance in hell), he is an open boarders advocate. How ironic would it be to have a "Libertarian" president allow millions and millions of 3rd world people in the country that will never vote on libertarian or constitutional conservative principles, it's completely idiotic.
Btw, taking the isidewith quiz tonight (and they have candidates who dropped out in there) I got 92% agreement with Trump, 92% with Cruz, 87% with Austin Peterson (whoever that is), 85% with Kevin McCormick (whoever that is), 71% with Mr. Open Boarders Gary Johnson (might as well be zero with his open boarders position), 5% with Hillary Clinton, 4% with crazy Comrade Bernie Sanders.
Immigration policy aside, there are plenty of contrasting differences between Trump & Clinton including 2nd amendment position & tax policy to equate it to "brain cancer or lung cancer" or whatever the comparison was.
I think you're referring to borders. Boarders are people who are supplied regular meals.
Libertarians have often been socially liberal with the exception of guns.
Polls find Johnson taking approx equal, or more votes from HC. There's a large % of people on both sides of the isle who find their choices something akin to a brain tumor vs liver cancer and so, people from both parties taking a hard look at an alternative to Dump or HC. So, your overly simplistic reason for his gaining some traction "whine asses butthurt their guy couldn't beat Trump" is not valid, or partially valid at best. Recall also, both major candidates run the lowest approval rating since they have been tracked, and the majority of people from either party don't like their choices at all. Lots of Dems don't like HC but could never vote for Dump and vise versa.
Hence, "If the libertarians had any chance, this is going to be their best one for at least another generation." is true.
However, people bluster and wine a lot in polls, and come general elections usually hold their nose and pull for who they think has a legit chance to win.
But, this is not a normal or typical election and so far, all manner of predictions of "usual" results have been wrong. I don't think anyone really has a handle on this one, and my prediction is a higher % of third party votes than ever seen before with approx equally pulling votes from both parties. Enough to win? Very unlikely but this election has been full of nothing but unlikely things happening no one predicted or predicted wrong.
Consider this:
“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
― George Washington
Is is not amazing how right he was.
So, we have now become so entrenched in our parties that people will cast a vote in favor of the antithesis of their values to stop the candidate from the opposing party? Are we not essentially saying that our own values are then determined by what we see as the opposition - accepting anything if it beats that boogeyman on the other ballot. What results from that line of thinking is that decency and humility are cast away as we accept ever more indignity to stop the opposition. It a race to the bottom of society that the opposition will win, but only barely.
The sole purpose of your vote is not to stop the boogeyman on the other side of the ballot. Doing so divorces values from the equation and results in the very erosion that Washington feared. There has to be some balance between electability and values, and the divide between the two varies with each individual. Some hit that divide in 2012 with Romney; others are hitting it now with Hillary and Trump. Sometimes, there is no candidate who meets that individual standard and voters decide that contributing to the election of someone who is the antithesis of their values is worse than allowing the boogeyman on the other side of the ballot to win.
And for those who still think that a 3rd party vote is thrown away, consider this: A Trump or Hillary win by the slimmest of margins with 30% of likely voters telling both parties to fu<k off is much different than a landslide victory with 95% of likely voters participating. Those 30% who chose "Fu<ck Off" sent a clear message to the winner that the midterms and re-election may not be so pretty...
Consider this:
Is is not amazing how right he was.
He was also the only president ever to win as a third-party candidate
So, we have now become so entrenched in our parties that people will cast a vote in favor of the antithesis of their values to stop the candidate from the opposing party? Are we not essentially saying that our own values are then determined by what we see as the opposition - accepting anything if it beats that boogeyman on the other ballot. What results from that line of thinking is that decency and humility are cast away as we accept ever more indignity to stop the opposition. It a race to the bottom of society that the opposition will win, but only barely.
The sole purpose of your vote is not to stop the boogeyman on the other side of the ballot. Doing so divorces values from the equation and results in the very erosion that Washington feared. There has to be some balance between electability and values, and the divide between the two varies with each individual. Some hit that divide in 2012 with Romney; others are hitting it now with Hillary and Trump. Sometimes, there is no candidate who meets that individual standard and voters decide that contributing to the election of someone who is the antithesis of their values is worse than allowing the boogeyman on the other side of the ballot to win.
And for those who still think that a 3rd party vote is thrown away, consider this: A Trump or Hillary win by the slimmest of margins with 30% of likely voters telling both parties to fu<k off is much different than a landslide victory with 95% of likely voters participating. Those 30% who chose "Fu<ck Off" sent a clear message to the winner that the midterms and re-election may not be so pretty...
Voting with your conscience is never a throw away vote. Not voting is a throw away vote.
He was also the only president ever to win as a third-party candidate.
Geo Washington was a Federalist (although some sources claim he didn't belong to a party); so was Adams. Three won as Whig, one National Union, and four were Democratic-Republican. Democratic-Republican was anti-Federalist, anti-Constitution, founded by Thomas Jefferson.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-16-16, 08:24
He was also the only president ever to win as a third-party candidate
Voting with your conscience is never a throw away vote. Not voting is a throw away vote.
Voting third party is like a tree falling in the forest and it actually doesn't make a sound.
Voting third party is like a tree falling in the forest and it actually doesn't make a sound.
Were you saying that in 2012? Be honest...you'd be amazed what one can find with the seach function and the right combination of key words. ;)
Voting third party is like a tree falling in the forest and it actually doesn't make a sound.
It sure screwed up Al Gore and George Bush (Sr.).
Voting third party is like a tree falling in the forest and it actually doesn't make a sound.
Think Gore would agree? Not so much...
brickboy240
05-16-16, 15:32
If 30% decide to "send a clear message" and Hillary winds up winning...what does that really mean?
Sent a message....to whom? Hillary? The left? The media? Well....they surely won't care. They will see a win (even by a thin margin) as a mandate and proceed with the leftist agenda as if nothing changed. They will then advance things that make gay marriage and the tranny bathroom legislation look moderate! LOL
Sending a message to the RNC? Well...they care about as much as Hillary and the left! Hasn't the "lets send a message" bunch sent the RNC/establishment PLENTY of messages so far? Umm...yeah. How did THOSE messages get across? Two huge mid-term blow outs and Trump and the establishment STILL does not learn a damn thing. Mostly because they don't want to change any part of the current system.
I am sorry but we need to keep our goal at keeping Hillary out of office. We can fix everything else a bit at a time but if she gets in...it is curtains for America that we grew up in.
If 30% decide to "send a clear message" and Hillary winds up winning...what does that really mean?
Sent a message....to whom? Hillary? The left? The media? Well....they surely won't care. They will see a win (even by a thin margin) as a mandate and proceed with the leftist agenda as if nothing changed. They will then advance things that make gay marriage and the tranny bathroom legislation look moderate! LOL
Sending a message to the RNC? Well...they care about as much as Hillary and the left! Hasn't the "lets send a message" bunch sent the RNC/establishment PLENTY of messages so far? Umm...yeah. How did THOSE messages get across? Two huge mid-term blow outs and Trump and the establishment STILL does not learn a damn thing. Mostly because they don't want to change any part of the current system.
I am sorry but we need to keep our goal at keeping Hillary out of office. We can fix everything else a bit at a time but if she gets in...it is curtains for America that we grew up in.
Only message I'd like to get sent is enough people have had enough of the BS of the current leaders in the two parties to vote them out and someone else in with a clue. It's not a complicated concept, but I fully agree with others comments, not very likely. Not likely is not = impossible however and thus, it deserves attention and discussion and does appear to be getting some traction in the media and others who are starting to wake up to what the choices will be come the general election.
Polls currently have HC winning over Dump in a GE. A great many people, including many Dems, neither like or trust HC, but I suspect the "anyone but Trump" camp will be larger than the "anyone of Hillary" camp and if HC wins the WH, the fault will fall with (yet again) a horrible choice of GOP candidate.
Ergo, the "anyone but Romney" camp was larger than the "anyone but Obama" camp, even though Obama's rating on his second election was very low at the time.
Only message I'd like to get sent is enough people have had enough of the BS of the current leaders in the two parties to vote them out and someone else in with a clue. It's not a complicated concept, but I fully agree with others comments, not very likely. Not likely is not = impossible however and thus, it deserves attention and discussion and does appear to be getting some traction in the media and others who are starting to wake up to what the choices will be come the general election.
Polls currently have HC winning over Dump in a GE. A great many people, including many Dems, neither like or trust HC, but I suspect the "anyone but Trump" camp will be larger than the "anyone of Hillary" camp and if HC wins the WH, the fault will fall with (yet again) a horrible choice of GOP candidate.
Ergo, the "anyone but Romney" camp was larger than the "anyone but Obama" camp, even though Obama's rating on his second election was very low at the time.
So how does voting for GJ help keep HRC out of the WH?
A lot of "ifs" involved in this whole voting independent thing. I've been here, done this. I get that everyone hates the GOP, but sending a message just sends this country further into libtard land.
Will, you're an intelligent guy. I get what you're saying, id love to see an independent win. I just don't think this election is the one to cast in a direction that won't win. If the she devil gets into the WH, we are ****ed.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-16-16, 23:41
Were you saying that in 2012? Be honest...you'd be amazed what one can find with the seach function and the right combination of key words. ;)
Of all my trails on the internet, I think my 3rd party stance from 4 years ago is the least of my worries...
It sure screwed up Al Gore and George Bush (Sr.).
Think Gore would agree? Not so much...
Ross Perot was far more similar to GW Sr.- or didn't share much with many dem supporters- and did we end up with something that was probably more agreeable with most Perot supporters or less?
If Ralph Nader cost Gore the race, did Nader supporters get something closer or further away from their viewpoints?
The efficacy of a third party vote is if it furthers your viewpoint and gets more candidates elected with the views you want. In that the Perot and Nader campaigns were abject failures.
Even in this election cycle, with all this distrust of the DNC/GOP machines, it is doubtful a third party candidate could carry even one state. As spoilers in other races, they end up helping candidates with the views least like the third party voters. That is just an absolute fact.
Polls currently have HC winning over Dump in a GE.
Actually the polls are narrowing quite a bit, especially in "battleground" states. Within the margin of error. Not to say HRC won't win the GE, but if the polls are this close this far out with Sanders still in the game, unless everyone has a huge hangover moment in the fall ("I slept with who??"), things will be very tight until the end.
sevenhelmet
05-17-16, 08:57
Actually the polls are narrowing quite a bit, especially in "battleground" states. Within the margin of error. Not to say HRC won't win the GE, but if the polls are this close this far out with Sanders still in the game, unless everyone has a huge hangover moment in the fall ("I slept with who??"), things will be very tight until the end.
I think the key is that Sanders is still in the game. When the liberals have nowhere else to go, they'll vote for HRC. The same for the republicans who have jumped ship, which points to a Trump loss in November.
Conservatives are a prickly bunch. Until there is leader who can unite the mainstream, the moderates, and the "Everybody who disagrees with me is a RINO" crowd, the GOP is going to have a problem putting up quality candidates.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 08:59
President-elect Hillary Clinton plans to focus on gun confiscation during her first 100 days as president.
That headline should be repeated like a mantra in the mind of anyone who thinks some third-party candidate is a "way to send a message".
Agreed. Especially anyone on this forum
I think the key is that Sanders is still in the game. When the liberals have nowhere else to go, they'll vote for HRC. The same for the republicans who have jumped ship, which points to a Trump loss in November.
Conservatives are a prickly bunch. Until there is leader who can unite the mainstream, the moderates, and the "Everybody who disagrees with me is a RINO" crowd, the GOP is going to have a problem putting up quality candidates.
Maybe, maybe not. The left has as many pro-Bernie/anti-HRC loons as the right has anti-Trump folks. Until the DNC gets all that sorted at their convention everything we think is just tossing chicken bones and reading tea leaves. Nothing anyone has predicted six months ago has borne true and this election cycle is screwing up everyone's prognostications.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 09:10
Maybe, maybe not. The left has as many pro-Bernie/anti-HRC loons as the right has anti-Trump folks. Until the DNC gets all that sorted at their convention everything we think is just tossing chicken bones and reading tea leaves. Nothing anyone has predicted six months ago has borne true and this election cycle is screwing up everyone's prognostications.
What if Sanders is deliberately being set up to be Clinton's VP? That would instantly placate all the Sanders supporters who plan to switch to Trump.
There has to be a reason he's staying in the race even though the superdelegates are pledged to Clinton. I smell a fix and he's in the race for reasons other than what is apparent on the surface.
What if Sanders is deliberately being set up to be Clinton's VP? That would instantly placate all the Sanders supporters who plan to switch to Trump.
There has to be a reason he's staying in the race even though the superdelegates are pledged to Clinton. I smell a fix and he's in the race for reasons other than what is apparent on the surface.
This would be the kiss of death for anyone-but-Clinton. Hopefully her paranoid, myopic, selfishness doesn't see it.....
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-17-16, 09:54
President-elect Hillary Clinton plans to focus on gun confiscation during her first 100 days as president.
That headline should be repeated like a mantra in the mind of anyone who thinks some third-party candidate is a "way to send a message".
Is that an actual headline from somewhere?
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 09:57
Is that an actual headline from somewhere?
Yes, it's from the future, right around February 2017. :fie:
brickboy240
05-17-16, 10:19
I know!
Everyone is sitting around here saying THEY are going to "send a message" to the RNC/establishment by not voting at all this November.
Well..its a free country but the RNC has already made it VERY clear they don't give a shit about our "messages" that we have been sending. Wasn't the whole damn Tea Party movement one big "message" to the GOP establishment? I believe it was!
Second, the REAL message this sends is "I don't care and Hillary can waltz right in to office and do as she pleases."
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 10:20
I know!
Everyone is sitting around here saying THEY are going to "send a message" to the RNC/establishment by not voting at all this November.
Well..its a free country but the RNC has already made it VERY clear they don't give a shit about our "messages" that we have been sending. Wasn't the whole damn Tea Party movement one big "message" to the GOP establishment? I believe it was!
Second, the REAL message this sends is "I don't care and Hillary can waltz right in to office and do as she pleases."
NAILED IT.
brickboy240
05-17-16, 11:47
Well to those that say, "Trump is no different than Hillary" they are just not being honest.
Listen, I was hoping for a better choice but unless Trump gets replaced with some South American dictator in the next month or so...he is still better than Hillary.
Also, if you stay home in November, you could miss out on some important down-ballot votes for Reps, Judges or others that could help in turning the tide.
Taking one's crayons and staying home is just childish. We are never going to get exactly what we want in a candidate...be an adult and realize this...ok?
I know!
Everyone is sitting around here saying THEY are going to "send a message" to the RNC/establishment by not voting at all this November.
Well..its a free country but the RNC has already made it VERY clear they don't give a shit about our "messages" that we have been sending. Wasn't the whole damn Tea Party movement one big "message" to the GOP establishment? I believe it was!
Second, the REAL message this sends is "I don't care and Hillary can waltz right in to office and do as she pleases."
Hence, why they lost the last POTUS (and it was there for the taking) and they have Trump as the front runner of the party. One can vote Trump if they feel he's likely to be less worse than HC, or they can vote their conscience and see where the chips fall. I'm not saying one is defacto the better choice than the other but personally, but not going to be strong armed into voting for Trump if I can't find a lesser-of-two-evils-he-sucks-less thing.
PatrioticDisorder
05-17-16, 13:42
Hence, why they lost the last POTUS (and it was there for the taking) and they have Trump as the front runner of the party. One can vote Trump if they feel he's likely to be less worse than HC, or they can vote their conscience and see where the chips fall. I'm not saying one is defacto the better choice than the other but personally, but not going to be strong armed into voting for Trump if I can't find a lesser-of-two-evils-he-sucks-less thing.
So just to clarify, you like Gary Johnson's open borders policy opposed to Trump's proposal to end illegal immigration? Trump is far more conservative on the issues than what many here are giving him credit for, describing him as a "lesser of two evils" option. On the issues, I liked Trump & Cruz about equal but favored Trump because he focused on the most important issues. For the first time since I was 18 (during the 2000 election and didn't know any better), I will be proudly voting for presidential candidate (Trump) and not a lesser of two evils like I did in 2004, 2008 & 2012.
I remember seeing a meme a year or so ago, a guy was holding a watering can & watering a tree which happened to have a rope attached to one of it's branches with the other end a noose around the man's own neck. So called "libertarians" who favor open borders can best be described with that meme. You can ride the high horse all you want about constitutional principles, but you'll be a tiny fringe minority after the invasion of 3rd world immigrants into the country who do not wish to assimilate and who do not share your views of the constitution.
So just to clarify, you like Gary Johnson's open borders policy opposed to Trump's proposal to end illegal immigration? Trump is far more conservative on the issues than what many here are giving him credit for, describing him as a "lesser of two evils" option. On the issues, I liked Trump & Cruz about equal but favored Trump because he focused on the most important issues. For the first time since I was 18 (during the 2000 election and didn't know any better), I will be proudly voting for presidential candidate (Trump) and not a lesser of two evils like I did in 2004, 2008 & 2012.
I remember seeing a meme a year or so ago, a guy was holding a watering can & watering a tree which happened to have a rope attached to one of it's branches with the other end a noose around the man's own neck. So called "libertarians" who favor open borders can best be described with that meme. You can ride the high horse all you want about constitutional principles, but you'll be a tiny fringe minority after the invasion of 3rd world immigrants into the country who do not wish to assimilate and who do not share your views of the constitution.
If you can "proudly" vote for Trump, a guy who makes Romney look steadfast in his positions and beliefs, than there's really no middle ground we will find on this particular topic. I can only concede he may be less terrible than HC, and that's as far as I can get or ever will get.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 13:55
How's this for some incentive?
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-supreme-court-wrong-second-amendment/
“So I’m going to speak out. I’m going to do everything I can to rally people against this pernicious, corrupting influence of the NRA,” Clinton could be heard saying.
“And we’re going to do whatever we can. I’m proud when my husband took them on and we were able to ban assault weapons but he had to put a sunset on it so, 10 years later, of course, Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them.
“We’ve got to go after this,” Clinton vowed.
“Here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment and I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
Go to the link if you want to hear the witch speaking in her own voice.
Now, is Trump really all that bad compared to THIS?
How's this for some incentive?
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/hillary-supreme-court-wrong-second-amendment/
Go to the link if you want to hear the witch speaking in her own voice.
Now, is Trump really all that bad compared to THIS?
On that single issue? Probably not, but I'm not a single issue voter and at least she's been consistent! Trump has done a 120 to a 180 on virtually every major issue. How anyone could give him a pass on that ( sure as hell was not going to give Romney a pass on that...) because they so desperately don't want to see HC as POTUS, is mind numbing and incomprehensible to me. There's a collective denial with Trump born of seeing what people wanna see. What he wrote in his own book:
"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record." - The America We Deserve,
Bad as HC on that issue? No. But I tend to trust two faced types, BSers, people willing to alter their views on major issues to get elected, etc even less so than those who have been consistently D bags from day one. Your mileage may vary.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 15:13
On that single issue? Probably not, but I'm not a single issue voter and at least she's been consistent! Trump has done a 120 to a 180 on virtually every major issue. How anyone could give him a pass on that ( sure as hell was not going to give Romney a pass on that...) because they so desperately don't want to see HC as POTUS, is mind numbing and incomprehensible to me. There's a collective denial with Trump born of seeing what people wanna see. What he wrote in his own book:
"It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. After a tragedy like the massacre at Columbine High School, anyone could feel that it is too easy for Americans to get their hands on weapons. But nobody has a good solution. This is another issue where you see the extremes of the two existing major parties. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record." - The America We Deserve,
Bad as HC on that issue? No. But I tend to trust two faced types, BSers, people willing to alter their views on major issues to get elected, etc even less so than those who have been consistently D bags from day one. Your mileage may vary.
So with Hillary you know you're screwed, but you don't want to vote for Trump on the off-chance you might be screwed?
At least that's how I read your post. I can't imagine another issue where Hillary's stance on it would be so in line with a gun owner's beliefs that they would choose her over Trump knowing she wants to ban, tax, and restrict everything and he "might" not be as pro-2A as we'd like, or "might" have changed his mind, or "might" waffle, etc.
So with Hillary you know you're screwed, but you don't want to vote for Trump on the off-chance you might be screwed?
At least that's how I read your post. I can't imagine another issue where Hillary's stance on it would be so in line with a gun owner's beliefs that they would choose her over Trump knowing she wants to ban, tax, and restrict everything and he "might" not be as pro-2A as we'd like, or "might" have changed his mind, or "might" waffle, etc.
I think I have been very clear I wouldn't choose either of them at this time (hence the entire thread and OP) and the RNC has no one to blame but themselves for having a front runner in their own party they cant stand, and no one to blame but themselves if HC wins the WH.
One can vote the lesser of two evils (if they can find one...)
One can vote for someone they feel is in line with their vision of the country as close as possible/vote their conscience
Or not vote at all
I only consider the last one not acceptable and large part of the problem.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 15:30
I think I have been very clear I wouldn't choose either of them at this time (hence the entire thread and OP) and the RNC has no one to blame but themselves for having a front runner in their own party they cant stand, and no one to blame but themselves if HC wins the WH.
One can vote the lesser of two evils (if they can find one...)
One can vote for someone they feel is in line with their vision of the country as close as possible/vote their conscience
Or not vote at all
I only consider the last one not acceptable and large part of the problem.
I agree the RNC deserves every negative thing they've brought on themselves: "Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch."
But what I don't understand is that Hillary is the Princess of F***ing Darkness and you worry Trump might not be the Angel of Light?
That is the part that doesn't make sense.
Hillary will finish destroying what Obama didn't and Trump might not save us.
That's a pretty clear choice in my book. Certain death versus maybe not getting any better.
I think I have been very clear I wouldn't choose either of them at this time (hence the entire thread and OP) and the RNC has no one to blame but themselves for having a front runner in their own party they cant stand, and no one to blame but themselves if HC wins the WH.
One can vote the lesser of two evils (if they can find one...)
One can vote for someone they feel is in line with their vision of the country as close as possible/vote their conscience
Or not vote at all
I only consider the last one not acceptable and large part of the problem.
If Hilary wins the election the blame will fall on people like you choose not to use their vote against her.
You need to have priorities. If the 2A is lower down your list, your stance is reasonable. If you fear losing or diminishing of your gun rights a vote for anything other than Trump is paramount to non-support of the second amendment.
From no candidate ever in the past has the anti gun rhetoric been stronger than with Hilary.
I understand why the bible thumpers hate trump, but why do you hate him? Is a vote for Trump really worse to you than the diminishing of your 2A rights?
Its one thing to not like trump (and not vote for him) and be pro 2A, its a whole other world to be pro 2a and actively campaign against trump this late in the game the way you do. You are past not voting for him, you are actively trying to stop others from doing so.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 16:16
If Hilary wins the election the blame will fall on people like you choose not to use their vote against her.
You need to have priorities. If the 2A is lower down your list, your stance is reasonable. If you fear losing or diminishing of your gun rights a vote for anything other than Trump is paramount to non-support of the second amendment.
From no candidate ever in the past has the anti gun rhetoric been stronger than with Hilary.
I understand why the bible thumpers hate trump, but why do you hate him? Is a vote for Trump really worse to you than the diminishing of your 2A rights?
Its one thing to not like trump (and not vote for him) and be pro 2A, its a whole other world to be pro 2a and actively campaign against trump this late in the game the way you do. You are past not voting for him, you are actively trying to stop others from doing so.
I have to heartily agree.
Anyone on this forum who won't try to stop a proudly open anti-gun candidate just by voting for their opposition should seriously examine how seriously they value their rights.
As for me, I could never respect or do business with such a person.
So with Hillary you know you're screwed, but you don't want to vote for Trump on the off-chance you might be screwed?
At least that's how I read your post. I can't imagine another issue where Hillary's stance on it would be so in line with a gun owner's beliefs that they would choose her over Trump knowing she wants to ban, tax, and restrict everything and he "might" not be as pro-2A as we'd like, or "might" have changed his mind, or "might" waffle, etc.
The only difference between Trump and the Clintons is that the Clintons are MORE honest and consistent. Let me remind you of Trump's record:
1) Supported the TARP bailout
2) Supported the Stimulus
3) Supported the auto bailout
4) Supported a single payer (i.e. The federal government) health system as recently as 2004; said in 2015 he favors a federal plan to cover the 30 million uninsured.
5) Supported the 1994 AWB and called for waiting periods as recently as 2000
6) Called for a 14% government raid of trust and personal accounts more than $10M to erase the debt
7) Donated to democrat campaigns as recently as 2012 including: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton (in 2008), John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, Elliott Spitzer, Charlie Rangel, and Harry Reid just to name a few.
8) Did the customary pro choice to prolife flip-flop
9) Is on the record opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security
10) Supports NSA metadata collection
11) Supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors
12) Referred to Bill de Blasio, who ran on race baiting and socialism, as a "smart guy" and someone who would make a "good mayor of NYC...maybe a great one." He said this LESS THAN 3 YEARS AGO. This alone should tell you that the man is a pandering idiot.
THAT IS HIS RECORD. All of his "new" positions came about largely in the past decade when he realized that the Republican Party was his ticket to the White House.
I have survived 8 years of Obama. I will survive 4-8 years of Hillary. I may not survive the lifelong transformation that Trump proposes for the conservative movement. Thus, I will vote Third Party.
The only difference between Trump and the Clintons is that the Clintons are MORE honest and consistent. Let me remind you of Trump's record:
1) Supported the TARP bailout
2) Supported the Stimulus
3) Supported the auto bailout
4) Supported a single payer (i.e. The federal government) health system as recently as 2004; said in 2015 he favors a federal plan to cover the 30 million uninsured.
5) Supported the 1994 AWB and called for waiting periods as recently as 2000
6) Called for a 14% government raid of trust and personal accounts more than $10M to erase the debt
7) Donated to democrat campaigns as recently as 2012
8) Did the customary pro choice to prolife flip-flop
9) Is on the record opposing cuts to Medicare and Social Security
10) Supports NSA metadata collection
11) Supported the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, giving public authorities the right to seize private land for economic development by private investors
12) Donated to the following liberal politicians: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton (in 2008), John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and Nancy Pelosi just to name a few.
13) Referred to Bill de Blasio, who ran on race baiting and socialism, as a "smart guy" and someone who would make a "good mayor of NYC...maybe a great one." He said this LESS THAN 3 YEARS AGO. This alone should tell you that the man is a pandering idiot.
THAT IS HIS RECORD. All of his "new" positions came about largely in the past decade when he realized that the Republican Party was his ticket to the White House.
I have survived 8 years of Obama. I will survive 4-8 years of Hillary. I may not survive the lifelong transformation that Trump proposes for the conservative movement. Thus, I will vote Third Party.
Now matter how many times you/we say it, the response seems to be the 'net equivalent of putting fingers in ears and going "la la la I don't wanna here that, anyone but HC" and around we go. Trump is the ultimate Trojan Horse for those who refuse reality of who and what Trump really is because they consider HC "Princess of F***ing Darkness" and other hyperbole. I too, at this point, will vote my conscience.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 16:51
I just can't believe you guys! You know that at the end of Hillary's administration we are not likely to have a Second Amendment AT ALL, yet you won't do the thing that is most likely to stop her: vote for Trump.
I won't sit here and tell you that Trump is a "great" candidate. I suspect he will be "left of center" when it all comes down to it.
But you KNOW Hillary brings death and destruction to the 2A. How can people be so willing to let that happen just to "prove a point?"
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 16:52
Now matter how many times you/we say it, the response seems to be the 'net equivalent of putting fingers in ears and going "la la la I don't wanna here that, anyone but HC" and around we go. Trump is the ultimate Trojan Horse for those who refuse reality of who and what Trump really is because they consider HC "Princess of F***ing Darkness" and other hyperbole. I too, at this point, will vote my conscience.
Yet, you also won't allow for the possibility that Trump may have become more conservative like Reagan did?
If Hilary wins the election the blame will fall on people like you choose not to use their vote against her.
You need to have priorities. If the 2A is lower down your list, your stance is reasonable. If you fear losing or diminishing of your gun rights a vote for anything other than Trump is paramount to non-support of the second amendment.
From no candidate ever in the past has the anti gun rhetoric been stronger than with Hilary.
I understand why the bible thumpers hate trump, but why do you hate him? Is a vote for Trump really worse to you than the diminishing of your 2A rights?
Its one thing to not like trump (and not vote for him) and be pro 2A, its a whole other world to be pro 2a and actively campaign against trump this late in the game the way you do. You are past not voting for him, you are actively trying to stop others from doing so.
Oh brother. Actively campaign against trump? An adult discussion on the topic RE other candidates is far from a campaign against anyone and no one twisting your arm or anyone else to be in this thread. Me, if HC wins, I'll be blaming like you for allowing Trump to get as far as he did literally forcing enough people to vote for HC (who polls show most don't like at all) due to the alternative. That falls on Trump supporters.
Now, if polls show third party voting cost Trump the election in a close race (and to repeat yet again, polls find HC and Trump losing approx same % to third party at this time) than yes, you can blame it on those who (gasp) actually voted their conscience.
Finally, I'm not decided yet as to how I will vote, and some of that will depend on how things develop, such as who they choose for VP, how say Johnson continues to do, etc. etc. I'm not locked into anything at this time.
Yet, you also won't allow for the possibility that Trump may have become more conservative like Reagan did?
I'm not even gonna touch that one, thanx.
BoringGuy45
05-17-16, 17:02
So, how is not voting or voting for someone who we all has no chance helping the country? In what way will this help get the country on the right track? If that's not possible and we're doomed, now what do we do? How do we do our part to better at least something in this world?
I just can't believe you guys! You know that at the end of Hillary's administration we are not likely to have a Second Amendment AT ALL, yet you won't do the thing that is most likely to stop her: vote for Trump.
I won't sit here and tell you that Trump is a "great" candidate. I suspect he will be "left of center" when it all comes down to it.
But you KNOW Hillary brings death and destruction to the 2A. How can people be so willing to let that happen just to "prove a point?"
No, we know she'll try. Obama was quite possibly the best gun salesmen who ever lived. His outright attack on the 2A did nothing but back fire on him and every metric we have supports that because most people were not having it and they let their reps know, and their reps by and large, already disliked Obama. They love Obama compared to HC... There's no letting our guard down and vigilance the price of Liberty, but if you think Congress et al didn't like Obama, you aint see anything yet. Me, I'm simply discussing candidates such as Paul, Johnson, etc who genuinely do and would support the 2A at a level not seen in our life times. And we are the crazy ones?
So HC, you get more grid lock and nothing done and more BS until people finally have enough. Trump you get well, how did that Trojan Horse thing end again? Oh ya...
sevenhelmet
05-17-16, 17:13
So, how is not voting or voting for someone who we all has no chance helping the country? In what way will this help get the country on the right track? If that's not possible and we're doomed, now what do we do? How do we do our part to better at least something in this world?
We raise our kids right, take responsibility for our own actions, be active and positive members of our own communities, and refuse to give up on people. And we try to cast informed and thought-out votes in November and beyond. All while being prepared for things to go sideways. It's a lot of work, but IMO beats the hell out of sitting around and bitching about how bad things have gotten in politics. That solves nothing.
Personally, I think the President has gained far too much power which undermines the checks and balances our federal government is supposed to uphold. We shouldn't care who is POTUS any more than we care who is Mayor, or Governor. Which is to say we should absolutely care, but one official shouldn't be so central to the perceived future of the state.
Just my $0.02.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 17:15
No, we know she'll try. Obama was quite possibly the best gun salesmen who ever lived. His outright attack on the 2A did nothing but back fire on him and every metric we have supports that because most people were not having it and they let their reps know, and their reps by and large, already disliked Obama. They love Obama compared to HC... There's no letting our guard down and vigilance the price of Liberty, but if you think Congress et al didn't like Obama, you aint see anything yet. Me, I'm simply discussing candidates such as Paul, Johnson, etc who genuinely do and would support the 2A at a level not seen in our life times. And we are the crazy ones?
So HC, you get more grid lock and nothing done and more BS until people finally have enough.
All right. I'll give you that: if she wins the fight will be on. I don't think she has the coattails to bring in a democrat congress. But I lived through the Clinton years under Bill, and it seemed like the guy stayed awake at night thinking of new gun controls to implement the next morning. I literally would buy something from a gun shop and the next time I went in be told that "Clinton stopped any further importation." I'm betting HRC will be worse!
Trump you get well, how did that Trojan Horse thing end again? Oh ya... I just don't see that. I see a guy who played both sides of the political field to get where he got as a businessman. In other words, if being pro choice meant another $10 million for his casinos then he was all for it. I just don't think the man ever had much of a political bone in his body until recently, and when he really thought about it decided to be conservative on a lot (maybe not even most) things.
But the point is I would trust him all day long over Hellary Rotten Clinton with regard to gun control and the Second Amendment. Just her statement that the "Supreme Court is wrong" about 2A is enough for me to vote for ANYONE ELSE.
I won't sit here and tell you that Trump is a "great" candidate. I suspect he will be "left of center" when it all comes down to it.
YES! That! That right there! Thank you.
That is why I do not want a Trump presidency. The LAST thing we need is a REPUBLICAN moving the country further left. I will take another AWB and abortions being performed from the White House Rose Garden before I vote for a Republican who is going to move the needle further left of our current "center." I've got enough weapons to last 5 life times. That is meaningless if Republicans are going to help make America look like Greece.
PatrioticDisorder
05-17-16, 17:16
Now matter how many times you/we say it, the response seems to be the 'net equivalent of putting fingers in ears and going "la la la I don't wanna here that, anyone but HC" and around we go. Trump is the ultimate Trojan Horse for those who refuse reality of who and what Trump really is because they consider HC "Princess of F***ing Darkness" and other hyperbole. I too, at this point, will vote my conscience.
Trump was not a politician when he made such statements, they carried as much weight as anyone else's position. He was blowing smoke up the asses of those who held power, the kind of power that could have had a significant adverse effect on his bottom line.
Let's look at Trump the politician & his platform positions.
1. Ending illegal immigration & building a wall (at this point, this should be the number one position for anyone who loves the USA & it's constitution and has a brain). Trump is the Republican nominee largely because of this position.
2. No new gun control & a push for national carry reciprocity. A position that has him diametrically opposed to Hitlery. This position alone should have him with 99.999% support on M4C.
3. Tax reform, Trump's top proposed tax bracket will pay 25%, down from 39.6%. Frankly, I've always supported lower taxes & I always believed it was unfair to punish hard workers & high achievers. I will be finishing my residency training June 30th and for the first time in my life I will actually be in a tax bracket that would benefit from this proposal. I could certainly use that tax break, if for no other reason but to pay my student loans off (which are not tax deductible for me). Without a doubt this alone will help get the economy moving, Reagan and JFK demonstrated that when they cut taxes. Also worth noting is Trump's apparent carrot & stick approach to US companies that outsource jobs, the carrot is Trump's plan to lower corporate tax rates.
4. Repeal of ACA & healthcare reform, Trump has promised to repeal Obamacare & loosen regulations on healthcare. Check out his website if you want to see the details, I'm totally in favor of his proposals here.
5. Trump wants to strengthen the US military while avoiding nation building. If you disagree with this policy, you might be a NEOCON or Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps you disagree with the 5 Trump positions I just laid out, in that case I suggest pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton. You'd have to wear one hell of a tinfoil hat to believe Trump has been promoting these conservative policy positions but will do a 180 once he is in office. You have to ask yourself why a man as accomplished as Trump would run for office at age 69 to get dragged through the mud by leftists after espousing conservative positions only to flip flop to leftist positions once in office, he'd go down in history as the worst president ever, something I highly doubt he wants for a legacy. It literally makes no sense & doesn't jive with reality. A vote for Johnson is 1/2 a vote for Clinton, you have 2 real choices, Trump or Clinton. Primaries are for voting for the best candidate, general elections are voting for 1 of 2 choices.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 17:18
YES! That! That right there! Thank you.
That is why I do not want a Trump presidency. The LAST thing we need is a REPUBLICAN moving the country further left. I will take another AWB and abortions being performed from the White House Rose Garden before I vote for a Republican who is going to move the needle further left of our current "center." I've got enough weapons to last 5 life times. That is meaningless if Republicans are going to help America look like Greece.
Uh....America will be Greece no matter what. And just because a person has five times the weapons he needs doesn't mean that he won't have to register them or turn them in.
Now matter how many times you/we say it, the response seems to be the 'net equivalent of putting fingers in ears and going "la la la I don't wanna here that, anyone but HC" and around we go. Trump is the ultimate Trojan Horse for those who refuse reality of who and what Trump really is because they consider HC "Princess of F***ing Darkness" and other hyperbole. I too, at this point, will vote my conscience.
Being an adult conversation and all please tell me about its hyperbole that Hilary is the most anti gun candidate in history.
As far as you campaigning against trump, you started a thread promoting the voting for a third party candidate who has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. You actively in this thread advocate voting Johnson over trump.
It would honestly be better for the second amendment and the election for people like you to spend that energy being pro Bernie. I'd take Bernie over Clinton all day long. A Bernie vs trump election is to me way better than Clinton vs trump.
And how was another republican candidate going to do better in a general election than trump? The people spoke and they don't want any of the other gop offerings. The people overwhelmingly supported trump by a huge margin. The same support for trump in the primaries will be there in the general election.
Doc Safari
05-17-16, 17:26
Being an adult conversation and all please tell me about its hyperbole that Hilary is the most anti gun candidate in history.
As far as you campaigning against trump, you started a thread promoting the voting for a third party candidate who has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. You actively in this thread advocate voting Johnson over trump.
It would honestly be better for the second amendment and the election for people like you to spend that energy being pro Bernie. I'd take Bernie over Clinton all day long. A Bernie vs trump election is to me way better than Clinton vs trump.
And how was another republican candidate going to do better in a general election than trump? The people spoke and they don't want any of the other gop offerings. The people overwhelmingly supported trump by a huge margin. The same support for trump in the primaries will be there in the general election.
Agree. Ted Cruz couldn't excite a Viagra addict. And then he had the gall to show the American public that he was willing to go behind the scenes and try to "flip" delegates. Bad...bad strategy. Any fool can see this is the year of "the status quo don't go" and he couldn't see that would be perceived as stealing votes? I couldn't see electing someone who isn't any smarter than that.
Frankly, I guess I should have stayed away from a thread that promoted Gary Johnson. There's already something wrong with that premise. I worked under "governor" Gary Johnson during his entire regime and he just came across as the guy who wanted to shake things up "just because", without regard to the lives it might disrupt. I'm all for reform as long as it doesn't endanger public safety or cause hardship. He tried to go after changes like a raped ape and caused near chaos, at least from my position. Had he been responsible enough to maybe "try out" his policies a little at a time I might have given the guy some credit, but a bull in a china shop is a bull in a china shop and I couldn't ever, EVER, vote for Gary Johnson.
Getting the thread back on track, here is an interesting perspective on why Johnson may not be the answer for conservatives in November:
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/05/17/libertarian-party-safe-haven-conservatives/
Trump was not a politician when he made such statements, they carried as much weight as anyone else's position. He was blowing smoke up the asses of those who held power, the kind of power that could have had a significant adverse effect on his bottom line.
Let's look at Trump the politician & his platform positions.
1. Ending illegal immigration & building a wall (at this point, this should be the number one position for anyone who loves the USA & it's constitution and has a brain). Trump is the Republican nominee largely because of this position.
2. No new gun control & a push for national carry reciprocity. A position that has him diametrically opposed to Hitlery. This position alone should have him with 99.999% support on M4C.
3. Tax reform, Trump's top proposed tax bracket will pay 25%, down from 39.6%. Frankly, I've always supported lower taxes & I always believed it was unfair to punish hard workers & high achievers. I will be finishing my residency training June 30th and for the first time in my life I will actually be in a tax bracket that would benefit from this proposal. I could certainly use that tax break, if for no other reason but to pay my student loans off (which are not tax deductible for me). Without a doubt this alone will help get the economy moving, Reagan and JFK demonstrated that when they cut taxes. Also worth noting is Trump's apparent carrot & stick approach to US companies that outsource jobs, the carrot is Trump's plan to lower corporate tax rates.
4. Repeal of ACA & healthcare reform, Trump has promised to repeal Obamacare & loosen regulations on healthcare. Check out his website if you want to see the details, I'm totally in favor of his proposals here.
5. Trump wants to strengthen the US military while avoiding nation building. If you disagree with this policy, you might be a NEOCON or Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps you disagree with the 5 Trump positions I just laid out, in that case I suggest pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton. You'd have to wear one hell of a tinfoil hat to believe Trump has been promoting these conservative policy positions but will do a 180 once he is in office. You have to ask yourself why a man as accomplished as Trump would run for office at age 69 to get dragged through the mud by leftists after espousing conservative positions only to flip flop to leftist positions once in office, he'd go down in history as the worst president ever, something I highly doubt he wants for a legacy. It literally makes no sense & doesn't jive with reality. A vote for Johnson is 1/2 a vote for Clinton, you have 2 real choices, Trump or Clinton. Primaries are for voting for the best candidate, general elections are voting for 1 of 2 choices.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
In bold. I think he's still blowing smoke and doing what he did you outlined: saying what he thinks he needs to say to "close the deal" but it's for POTUS vs another business and (1) does have a core value and (2) will get none of those things done in 1-5 above. He's tapped into what he thinks people wanna hear, and will be a train wreck of a pres, and quite possibly, move the GOP farther left than ever. Not sure why people are willing to believe anything he says other than cognitive dissonance over the thought of HC in the WH.
Being an adult conversation and all please tell me about its hyperbole that Hilary is the most anti gun candidate in history.
Hence the hyperbole claim. She's no worse on that score than Obama, and like Obama and the other anti Liberty/Anti 2A/Anti Human Rights types, would ban every gun and bullet if she could. I posit she'll have even less success at it than Obama. Two, calling her "Princess of F***ing Darkness" is hyperbole to the max. She's one of my least favorite public figures, but some just take it too far with the hyperbole just as some compare Trump to Hitler.
As far as you campaigning against trump, you started a thread promoting the voting for a third party candidate who has a snowballs chance in hell of winning. You actively in this thread advocate voting Johnson over trump.
It would honestly be better for the second amendment and the election for people like you to spend that energy being pro Bernie. I'd take Bernie over Clinton all day long. A Bernie vs trump election is to me way better than Clinton vs trump.
And how was another republican candidate going to do better in a general election than trump? The people spoke and they don't want any of the other gop offerings. The people overwhelmingly supported trump by a huge margin. The same support for trump in the primaries will be there in the general election.
The people did not "speak" in the way you may think they did, I "advocated" possibly voting third party vs HC or Trump, and others have decided to make it a Trump-centric discussion ignoring (yet again) the fact that polls find third party voting taking approx equal votes from both candidates currently, and some polls suggesting more votes taken from HC.
I kept it completely HC/Trump equal in the thread and others turned it into the third party vs Trump discussion. Read closer and stop being so obviously biased. I'd prefer to see Bernie beat HC too at this point.
Agree. Ted Cruz couldn't excite a Viagra addict. And then he had the gall to show the American public that he was willing to go behind the scenes and try to "flip" delegates. Bad...bad strategy. Any fool can see this is the year of "the status quo don't go" and he couldn't see that would be perceived as stealing votes? I couldn't see electing someone who isn't any smarter than that.
Frankly, I guess I should have stayed away from a thread that promoted Gary Johnson. There's already something wrong with that premise. I worked under "governor" Gary Johnson during his entire regime and he just came across as the guy who wanted to shake things up "just because", without regard to the lives it might disrupt. I'm all for reform as long as it doesn't endanger public safety or cause hardship. He tried to go after changes like a raped ape and caused near chaos, at least from my position. Had he been responsible enough to maybe "try out" his policies a little at a time I might have given the guy some credit, but a bull in a china shop is a bull in a china shop and I couldn't ever, EVER, vote for Gary Johnson.
To be clear, the OP was not because I'm a GJ fan, but to discuss the reality a Libertarian/Third party candidate was polling as well as he is to discuss the topic of third party, the state of things as they are, etc. GJ per se, was ancillary to the intent of the post.
Getting the thread back on track, here is an interesting perspective on why Johnson may not be the answer for conservatives in November:
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/05/17/libertarian-party-safe-haven-conservatives/
It would be a mistake for any conservative or liberal to see Libertarian as a safe haven for their agendas which will not line up. It appears both D and R are taking a hard look at Libertarian in seemingly equal measure as there's aspects of L that appeal to both, but likely too many other aspects no die hard conservative or Liberal could accept.
I will add, libertarian (small L) is a philosophy not always in line with the Libertarian (large L) party and its stances per se. I see the modern day Libertarian as what the old school R was, which is socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" and but that all changed when the GOP was taken over by, well, you know. Pure Libertarian is a pipe dream, as is Communism and Socialism. Sounds great "on paper" and forgets people generally suck.
PatrioticDisorder
05-17-16, 19:14
In bold. I think he's still blowing smoke and doing what he did you outlined: saying what he thinks he needs to say to "close the deal" but it's for POTUS vs another business and (1) does have a core value and (2) will get none of those things done in 1-5 above. He's tapped into what he thinks people wanna hear, and will be a train wreck of a pres, and quite possibly, move the GOP farther left than ever. Not sure why people are willing to believe anything he says other than cognitive dissonance over the thought of HC in the WH.
Your speculating on him currently "blowing smoke", but it's not making any sense. First of all at 69 years old, the vast majority of people are concerned about legacy (natural course of human development). Second, coming from a northeastern state (as was I), you should understand the group think that goes on, being conservative/libertarian makes you a social leper. Trump knew as a businessman involved heavily in real estate he needed to rub elbows with these statist pukes, him espousing liberal viewpoints as a businessman from New York City is not surprising at all. Fact is, these statistics he needed to help his business/real estate deals go through were in a position to bend him over if they didn't like him (read believed him to be a conservative). To give money to both parties is extremely common among executives in the business world, that's simply a fact. It's been a while since I was an undergraduate and I forget which class this was specifically discussed in, but my major was Accounting and I remember it blowing my mind when I saw in one of my textbooks donation figures from various CEO's listed giving to political candidates in both parties.
To clarify, if Trump pushes his agenda (specifically items listed in 1-5) once president, will you have a change of heart regarding Trump or will you continue to oppose a man who I believe will be a highly successful POTUS pushing through a conservative agenda?
Your speculating on him currently "blowing smoke", but it's not making any sense. First of all at 69 years old, the vast majority of people are concerned about legacy (natural course of human development). Second, coming from a northeastern state (as was I), you should understand the group think that goes on, being conservative/libertarian makes you a social leper. Trump knew as a businessman involved heavily in real estate he needed to rub elbows with these statist pukes, him espousing liberal viewpoints as a businessman from New York City is not surprising at all. Fact is, these statistics he needed to help his business/real estate deals go through were in a position to bend him over if they didn't like him (read believed him to be a conservative). To give money to both parties is extremely common among executives in the business world, that's simply a fact. It's been a while since I was an undergraduate and I forget which class this was specifically discussed in, but my major was Accounting and I remember it blowing my mind when I saw in one of my textbooks donation figures from various CEO's listed giving to political candidates in both parties.
To clarify, if Trump pushes his agenda (specifically items listed in 1-5) once president, will you have a change of heart regarding Trump or will you continue to oppose a man who I believe will be a highly successful POTUS pushing through a conservative agenda?
IF Trump wins in November AND makes reasonable conservative overtures (i.e. reduces spending, appoints conservative justices, and improved boarder security with or without a wall, etc.), I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong and even vote for his second term.
On the other hand, if he gets elected and I'm right...
Oh, never mind. You would have no way of admitting your mistake if I'm right since the electrical grid will be down. ;)
IF Trump wins in November AND makes reasonable conservative overtures (i.e. reduces spending, appoints conservative justices, and improved boarder security with or without a wall, etc.).....
According to Pat Buchanan and Ed Rollins Trump and staff have been in talks with the more conservative elements regarding potential cabinet picks, justices, etc. If this is true, why Trump just hasn't come out and said this, I have no idea....
Doc Safari
05-18-16, 08:50
Getting the thread back on track, here is an interesting perspective on why Johnson may not be the answer for conservatives in November:
http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/05/17/libertarian-party-safe-haven-conservatives/
I rest my case, Your Honor. Gary Johnson is a looney tune of the highest order.
Your speculating on him currently "blowing smoke", but it's not making any sense.
You're speculating he's not, and prior behavior tends to predict future behavior. If you at al want to believe he's found the light and not just blowing smoke (and you could be right) that's your biz, but it's no less speculation than my position.
PatrioticDisorder
05-18-16, 10:54
You're speculating he's not, and prior behavior tends to predict future behavior. If you at al want to believe he's found the light and not just blowing smoke (and you could be right) that's your biz, but it's no less speculation than my position.
Except I've laid out the platform positions he's running on, you seem to believe in a grand conspiracy that he's running on a conservative platform so the media will attack him and his family at age 69 when he was already accomplished and living a wonderful life only to get elected and then flip flop to leftist positions. This kind of conspiracy theory requires a very thick tinfoil hat.
Except I've laid out the platform positions he's running on, you seem to believe in a grand conspiracy that he's running on a conservative platform so the media will attack him and his family at age 69 when he was already accomplished and living a wonderful life only to get elected and then flip flop to leftist positions. This kind of conspiracy theory requires a very thick tinfoil hat.
Now we are down to the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I" level stuff. You'd have to be wearing a tin foil hat to assume he's changed his mind all the major issues and ignore his prior behaviors/positions because you have his web site up with his current positions as proof he's found the light and all prior positions were the "bowing smoke" versions.
I'd say we have little to add to the topic at this point that's going to change any minds, mine and yours included. You're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm not, at least not at this time. As simple as that...
PatrioticDisorder
05-18-16, 13:37
Now we are down to the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I" level stuff. You'd have to be wearing a tin foil hat to assume he's changed his mind all the major issues and ignore his prior behaviors/positions because you have his web site up with his current positions as proof he's found the light and all prior positions were the "bowing smoke" versions.
I'd say we have little to add to the topic at this point that's going to change any minds, mine and yours included. You're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, I'm not, at least not at this time. As simple as that...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-supreme-court-nominees-223331
Trump unveils 11 potential SCOTUS nominees, all Conservative. How does this fit in with your grand conspiracy that Trump is really a leftist running as a conservative?
3. Tax reform, Trump's top proposed tax bracket will pay 25%, down from 39.6%. Frankly, I've always supported lower taxes & I always believed it was unfair to punish hard workers & high achievers. I will be finishing my residency training June 30th and for the first time in my life I will actually be in a tax bracket that would benefit from this proposal. I could certainly use that tax break, if for no other reason but to pay my student loans off (which are not tax deductible for me). Without a doubt this alone will help get the economy moving, Reagan and JFK demonstrated that when they cut taxes. Also worth noting is Trump's apparent carrot & stick approach to US companies that outsource jobs, the carrot is Trump's plan to lower corporate tax rates.
If Trump truly wants to cut taxes then why did he say he would be open to negotiating higher taxes for the wealthy? You just said yourself tax cuts have historically gotten the economy moving.
I don't expect an answer. I already pointed this out in the Trump fanboy thread and all I heard was crickets chirping. :)
....IF Trump wins in November AND makes reasonable conservative overtures (i.e. reduces spending, appoints conservative justices, and improved boarder security with or without a wall, etc.)....
http://www.wral.com/trump-unveils-list-of-11-potential-supreme-court-justices/15712275/
It's a start.....
Doc Safari
05-18-16, 14:37
In defense of you guys who want a "pure" candidate who will stick to the Constitution and restore the Republic to what the Founding Fathers intended, I just have to say "I was like you once."
The problem is: the country hasn't been capable of producing such a candidate WHO CAN WIN in a long time. Reagan wasn't even a "pure" candidate and people cite him as being maybe the closest thing we've had in decades.
Look at Ted Cruz: supposedly he was the one who was going to be the most like what the Constitutionalists want. Look where it got him. The rock star popular guy still won, and won handily.
On top of that, Cruz was just downright creepy in my book. The only other alternative people seem to be offering is Gary Johnson, who I've learned from experience wants to do some pretty bat shit crazy stuff. And he's a viable alternative to Trump? Huh?
The coffee is in the percolator, and people need to wake up smell it brewing. People need to realize that we have two choices: Hillary Clinton banning guns, or Mr. Rock Star Combover Hairdo who will probably not be as satisfying as a "real" Republican.
Like the Rolling Stones song says, "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Sometimes you have to settle for "At least he won't destroy us."
PatrioticDisorder
05-18-16, 14:57
If Trump truly wants to cut taxes then why did he say he would be open to negotiating higher taxes for the wealthy? You just said yourself tax cuts have historically gotten the economy moving.
I don't expect an answer. I already pointed this out in the Trump fanboy thread and all I heard was crickets chirping. :)
His tax plan has been consistent since day 1, top rate is 25%. Rubio's tax plan would have increased my taxes, Cruz's plan was a bit murky but appeared to not be nearly as good as Trump's cut. If you're actually referring to something specific instead of a spinmaster's distorted take on something Trump said you're welcome to cite it.
His tax plan has been consistent since day 1, top rate is 25%. Rubio's tax plan would have increased my taxes, Cruz's plan was a bit murky but appeared to not be nearly as good as Trump's cut. If you're actually referring to something specific instead of a spinmaster's distorted take on something Trump said you're welcome to cite it.
Consistent since day one, eh? Now he says his original plan was a concept that he expects will change. That's not very consistent.
"I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more," Trump told ABC's "This Week."
Pressed on the contradiction between his latest comments on taxes and the September tax plan, Trump said that he expected his original proposal was a "a concept" and he expected that it would be changed following negotiations with Congress.
"By the time it gets negotiated, it's going to be a different plan," Trump told ABC. He emphasized in interviews with both ABC and in a separate interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that his priorities were lowering taxes on the middle class and businesses.
"The middle class has to be protected," Trump told NBC. "The rich is probably going to end up paying more."
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/727737
PatrioticDisorder
05-18-16, 15:17
Consistent since day one, eh?
"I am willing to pay more, and you know what, the wealthy are willing to pay more," Trump told ABC's "This Week."
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/727737
His top income tax rate is 25%, what Trump is referring to is the hedge fund manager or old money types who make their money on capital gains (and therefore pay capital gains tax rates, NOT income tax)... And Trump's proposal is to increase capital gains rates only on people making MILLIONS per year, NOT your typical investor. Keep in mind Hitlery plans to raise capital gains taxes on everyone, which will effect many people, not just 0.003% of the population (the most elite).
This is why you have to research the actual substance yourself and not listen to the never trump spinmasters. I'm glad I could educate you on what Trump's tax plan actually entails and he has been consistent on it since day 1.
His top income tax rate is 25%, what Trump is referring to is the hedge fund manager or old money types who make their money on capital gains (and therefore pay capital gains tax rates, NOT income tax)... And Trump's proposal is to increase capital gains rates only on people making MILLIONS per year, NOT your typical investor. Keep in mind Hitlery plans to raise capital gains taxes on everyone, which will effect many people, not just 0.003% of the population (the most elite).
This is why you have to research the actual substance yourself and not listen to the never trump spinmasters. I'm glad I could educate you on what Trump's tax plan actually entails and he has been consistent on it since day 1.
Trump's top marginal rate of 25% kicks in at adjusted gross incomes greater than $154K/yr for single filers and $308K/yr for joint filers. His proposal for capital gains is a mere 5% increase taking it from 15 to 20% - that is NOTHING to hedge fund managers. There has some minor changes in personal exemptions and deductions, but the meat of his proposal was a collapse of the rates into 3 brackets and a reduction in the business income tax rate to 15%. This would be a tax cut for virtually everybody with a focus on the top earners, and him saying that the wealthy will pay more is just another lie. The wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes in this country and you cannot cut the top rates from from 39.6 to 25% without the wealthy paying less. Claiming that the wealthy will pay more while referring only to hedge fund managers is just classic bullshit and his attempts to be everything to everyone. Now, I'm all for the wealthy paying less since I'm wealthy, but let's be honest. Here are the problems with his plan:
First, Congress would need to pass some strict laws to counteract the incentive for wage earners to become independent contractors and pay the pass-through business rate that is 10% points less than the wage rate.
The big problem with Trump's tax plan is the other half of the equation that nobody likes to talk about - expenses. Any meaningful discussion of fiscal policy such as tax plans must take into consideration expenses. Trump proposed no meaningful reductions in expenses to offset his revenue losses which means that he adds an additional $10T in debt over 10 years to current trajectory. This $10T hole is despite a dynamic analysis of the economic stimulus caused by his plan on the economy. In fact, he has made statements indicating a massive increase in welfare spending when taken at face values (i.e. he proposed a federal plan to cover the 30 million uninsured) that would make it more like $15-20T over 10 years. That is completely unsustainable and is analogous to a family living on borrowed money taking a pay cut and expecting to get by without reducing their household expenses.
The bottom line is that Trump's plan is total crap, but this should not surprise anybody who has taken the time to really scrutinize all of his proposals as crap is a common theme. To be fair, most of the other GOP candidates had unrealistic plans but at least Rubio, Cruz, and even Bush had some meaningful spending reductions and reform of our biggest debt producing programs. However, Trump is rather unique in that his proposed spending cuts (education, EPA, etc.) were completely meaningless in the scheme of our budget since he refused to touch the big budget items such as Social Security and Medicare, and even hinted at massive entitlement increases. His proposed improvements in waste and efficiency were the typical progressive tripe that you hear from people like Hillary and Obama (remember that waste, fraud, and abuse line from the ACA).
Here is a good analysis of Trump's plan if you want to read about it from people who do that shit for a living: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
Eurodriver
05-18-16, 18:17
First, Congress would need to pass some strict laws to counteract the incentive for wage earners to become independent contractors and pay the pass-through business rate that is 10% points less than the wage rate.
Can you elaborate on this senseI?
PatrioticDisorder
05-18-16, 20:32
Trump's top marginal rate of 25% kicks in at adjusted gross incomes greater than $154K/yr for single filers and $308K/yr for joint filers. His proposal for capital gains is a mere 5% increase taking it from 15 to 20% - that is NOTHING to hedge fund managers. There has some minor changes in personal exemptions and deductions, but the meat of his proposal was a collapse of the rates into 3 brackets and a reduction in the business income tax rate to 15%. This would be a tax cut for virtually everybody with a focus on the top earners, and him saying that the wealthy will pay more is just another lie. The wealthy pay the vast majority of taxes in this country and you cannot cut the top rates from from 39.6 to 25% without the wealthy paying less. Claiming that the wealthy will pay more while referring only to hedge fund managers is just classic bullshit and his attempts to be everything to everyone. Now, I'm all for the wealthy paying less since I'm wealthy, but let's be honest. Here are the problems with his plan:
First, Congress would need to pass some strict laws to counteract the incentive for wage earners to become independent contractors and pay the pass-through business rate that is 10% points less than the wage rate.
The big problem with Trump's tax plan is the other half of the equation that nobody likes to talk about - expenses. Any meaningful discussion of fiscal policy such as tax plans must take into consideration expenses. Trump proposed no meaningful reductions in expenses to offset his revenue losses which means that he adds an additional $10T in debt over 10 years to current trajectory. This $10T hole is despite a dynamic analysis of the economic stimulus caused by his plan on the economy. In fact, he has made statements indicating a massive increase in welfare spending when taken at face values (i.e. he proposed a federal plan to cover the 30 million uninsured) that would make it more like $15-20T over 10 years. That is completely unsustainable and is analogous to a family living on borrowed money taking a pay cut and expecting to get by without reducing their household expenses.
The bottom line is that Trump's plan is total crap, but this should not surprise anybody who has taken the time to really scrutinize all of his proposals as crap is a common theme. To be fair, most of the other GOP candidates had unrealistic plans but at least Rubio, Cruz, and even Bush had some meaningful spending reductions and reform of our biggest debt producing programs. However, Trump is rather unique in that his proposed spending cuts (education, EPA, etc.) were completely meaningless in the scheme of our budget since he refused to touch the big budget items such as Social Security and Medicare, and even hinted at massive entitlement increases. His proposed improvements in waste and efficiency were the typical progressive tripe that you hear from people like Hillary and Obama (remember that waste, fraud, and abuse line from the ACA).
Here is a good analysis of Trump's plan if you want to read about it from people who do that shit for a living: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
The reality is there was similar criticism to Ronald Reagan, you know "VooDoo economics" and all that. Anyone can spin their numbers up anyway they want, Trump has spoken about entitlement reform a little and he has also sounded like a man reluctant to cut entitlements. Nobody is perfect, but I'll say he's on the right track and far more preferable all the way around over Hillary Rodham-Rodham. I get where you're coming from that we need to get entitlements under control, but understand Donald Trump is no the reason we are 20 trillion in debt. I have no doubt Trump understands we have a spending problem, but he also understands it's hard to take an entitlement away once it exists. I believe he'll do his best to stop the bleeding, at worst our entitlement problem will grow at a slower rate than it would under Hillary Clinton and the economy will be much better off and at best he'll shock you and actually go in with Paul Ryan on entitlement reform (one issue he claims to be conservative on, despite surrendering the power of the purse to Obama).
At the end of the day either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is going to be president, let's cut the bullshit. It's up to you to make a decision based on those cirumstances. Voting 3rd party is akin to a professional sports team throwing the season to get the number one pick, funny how teams who draft high tend to continue to draft high year after year...
First, Congress would need to pass some strict laws to counteract the incentive for wage earners to become independent contractors and pay the pass-through business rate that is 10% points less than the wage rate.
Can you elaborate on this senseI?
Sure. The are basically two ways to work in America - employee vs. independent contractor. The IRS is very interested in who is what because it can have profound implications even now in terms of manner and amount of collected income taxes. Many independent contractors choose to become corporate entities for liability and tax reductions purposes. If the corporate income rate is dropped down to 15% from 35%, you just created a powerful incentive for workers to stop being employees paying at top rate of 25%, and start become sole proprietor S-corps where their corporate income is taxed at 15%. For example, there are LOTS of independent contractors in my profession and most are taxed at the top marginal rate. I'd love to switch my status as an employee taxed at 39% to an independent contractor S-corp taxed at 15%. I'd do it tomorrow if I could.
MountainRaven
05-18-16, 21:32
Your speculating on him currently "blowing smoke", but it's not making any sense.
Drumpf comes to this race with some three decades of experience as a professional smoke blower.
If you don't think he's blowing smoke, you're not paying attention.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-supreme-court-nominees-223331
Trump unveils 11 potential SCOTUS nominees, all Conservative. How does this fit in with your grand conspiracy that Trump is really a leftist running as a conservative?
We'll see what he says once he and Hillary begin the Great Dance to the Center in July.
It might be worth remembering that Obama included defending the Second Amendment in his platform - and if you believed that then, well....
In defense of you guys who want a "pure" candidate who will stick to the Constitution and restore the Republic to what the Founding Fathers intended, I just have to say "I was like you once."
The problem is: the country hasn't been capable of producing such a candidate WHO CAN WIN in a long time. Reagan wasn't even a "pure" candidate and people cite him as being maybe the closest thing we've had in decades.
Look at Ted Cruz: supposedly he was the one who was going to be the most like what the Constitutionalists want. Look where it got him. The rock star popular guy still won, and won handily.
On top of that, Cruz was just downright creepy in my book. The only other alternative people seem to be offering is Gary Johnson, who I've learned from experience wants to do some pretty bat shit crazy stuff. And he's a viable alternative to Trump? Huh?
The coffee is in the percolator, and people need to wake up smell it brewing. People need to realize that we have two choices: Hillary Clinton banning guns, or Mr. Rock Star Combover Hairdo who will probably not be as satisfying as a "real" Republican.
Like the Rolling Stones song says, "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Sometimes you have to settle for "At least he won't destroy us."
I neither particularly need nor want a "pure" conservative candidate (and Ted Cruz was not that candidate, anyway).
What I want is a candidate who isn't wearing f___ing clown shoes - and Drumpf has been wearing the biggest f___ing clown shoes since Ben Carson dropped out of the race.
(And I didn't like Ted Cruz, either. But I'd have much rather seen Ted Cruz run against Bernie Sanders than see what we're apparently going to get in November: Hilliary Clinton and Donald Drumpf.)
The reality is there was similar criticism to Ronald Reagan, you know "VooDoo economics" and all that. Anyone can spin their numbers up anyway they want, Trump has spoken about entitlement reform a little and he has also sounded like a man reluctant to cut entitlements. Nobody is perfect, but I'll say he's on the right track and far more preferable all the way around over Hillary Rodham-Rodham. I get where you're coming from that we need to get entitlements under control, but understand Donald Trump is no the reason we are 20 trillion in debt. I have no doubt Trump understands we have a spending problem, but he also understands it's hard to take an entitlement away once it exists. I believe he'll do his best to stop the bleeding, at worst our entitlement problem will grow at a slower rate than it would under Hillary Clinton and the economy will be much better off and at best he'll shock you and actually go in with Paul Ryan on entitlement reform (one issue he claims to be conservative on, despite surrendering the power of the purse to Obama).
At the end of the day either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is going to be president, let's cut the bullshit. It's up to you to make a decision based on those cirumstances. Voting 3rd party is akin to a professional sports team throwing the season to get the number one pick, funny how teams who draft high tend to continue to draft high year after year...
Yes, he is. Moreover, if he understood all those things you say about entitlement reform, then I would not be able to say this:
Donald Trump has been funding Democrats to Republicans in 60:40 ratios. The Democrats that he has funded are some of the most vile creatures you could imagine. Names like Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel, and Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign ($50,000) come to mind. As for the 40% of Republicans, he has supported progressives like Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Charlie Crist (when he was a Republican), and Arlen Specter. In fact, he has SPECIFICALLY supported the opponents of Tea Party candidates in some of the most key elections in the past 8 years; most notably when McConnell was facing a primary in 2014 against Matt Bevin and when Reid was being challenged by Sharron Angle. Keep in mind that Reid barely won that election and Trump's money helped him over the top. That means you can thank Trump for Reid's last term. These donations were specifically designed to help a big government progressive defeat a limited government conservative, and elect the very people who voted for budgets that gave you a $20T debt. Why do you think that is the case? Let me give you a hint - he wanted the big government progressive to win.
So, yes. Donald Trump has done more than his fair share of being part of the fu<king problem, and giving him the keys to the White House is about as smart as giving a "reformed" jihadist the combination to your gun safe.
The reality is there was similar criticism to Ronald Reagan, you know "VooDoo economics" and all that. .
And the criticisms legit and the result was:
Yes, the reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an economic boom and big jump in the markets, but it was again, a smoke job as the idea of balancing the effects of his polices didn't happen and the results were:
"Reagan pledged during his 1980 campaign for president to balance the federal budget, but never submitted a balanced budget in his eight years in office. In 1981, the deficit was $79 billion and, in 1986, at the peak of his deficit spending, it stood at $221 billion. The federal debt was $994 billion when he took office in 1981 and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989. [36] Reagan also added more trade barriers than any other president since Hoover in 1930. US imports that were subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988. [37]"
If that's what we have to lookforward to under Trump, I'll pass.
So after reading the bitchfest, Im left wondering who do these people want for president? Despite what Glenn Beck prays for, we're not digging up Jefferson or Washington anytime soon.
Who is your Constitutional White Knight in shining armor? It obviously isn't slime ball Cruz.
Outlander Systems
05-19-16, 07:47
There is no Constitutional White Knight coming. Ever.
All the King's horses, and all the King's men, ain't puttin' this bitch back together again.
Enjoy the decline. (https://www.amazon.com/Enjoy-Decline-Aaron-Clarey-ebook/dp/B00AY5WUY0?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&redirect=true&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect)
So after reading the bitchfest, Im left wondering who do these people want for president? Despite want Glenn Beck prays for, we're not digging up Jefferson or Washington anytime soon.
Who is your Constitutional White Knight in shining armor? It obviously isn't slime ball Cruz.
There is no Constitutional White Knight coming. Ever.
All the King's horses, and all the King's men, ain't puttin' this bitch back together again.
Enjoy the decline. (https://www.amazon.com/Enjoy-Decline-Aaron-Clarey-ebook/dp/B00AY5WUY0?ie=UTF8&btkr=1&redirect=true&ref_=dp-kindle-redirect)
No doubt, this mess won't be fixed by an election, or even a few elections....not much chance of saving the republic in reality....we really can only hope that from the rubble we can build a new one rather than be subjects of tyranny like most survivors.
Outlander Systems
05-19-16, 08:47
1. Pour a scotch.
2. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the shitshow.
3. Maintain low blood pressure.
18+ Trillion in debt, and counting. A Cultural Marxist Wonderland blossoming. Unfunded liabilities, for which, our children's children will bear the burden of. Crony capitalism in lieu of free markets. Career politicians, which have morphed into some sort of different species, that spirits away to gated wonderlands, and loses every previous ounce of humanity once possessed. Business-crippling regulations. Global-centric trade deals. Erosion of national sovereignty.
The train's heading for a cliff; vote at 'em all we want, won't matter.
Might as well throw them feet up. Buy a bag of popcorn, lower thou blood pressure, and do what little you can to help out your kids.
Rome didn't have a single, well-defined event as the "trigger" or "indicator" of decline. It was a multigenerational slide into the dark ages.
We're there. Just imagine where we'll be.
No doubt, this mess won't be fixed by an election, or even a few elections....not much chance of saving the republic in reality....we really can only hope that from the rubble we can build a new one rather than be subjects of tyranny like most survivors.
Eurodriver
05-19-16, 08:48
Sure. The are basically two ways to work in America - employee vs. independent contractor. The IRS is very interested in who is what because it can have profound implications even now in terms of manner and amount of collected income taxes. Many independent contractors choose to become corporate entities for liability and tax reductions purposes. If the corporate income rate is dropped down to 15% from 35%, you just created a powerful incentive for workers to stop being employees paying at top rate of 25%, and start become sole proprietor S-corps where their corporate income is taxed at 15%. For example, there are LOTS of independent contractors in my profession and most are taxed at the top marginal rate. I'd love to switch my status as an employee taxed at 39% to an independent contractor S-corp taxed at 15%. I'd do it tomorrow if I could.
I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but I still don't understand. (And I want to, so please go on...)
S Corps are flow through entities. If you, a single individual, form an S Corp you will still be in whatever marginal tax bracket you would have been in had you been an employee of a company assuming the Corporate E&P of the S Corp is identical to the salary as an employee.
The only difference is that employees have to pay employment taxes and shareholders of S Corps do not (However, if you try to take distributions as a sole S Corp s/h without claiming a proper salary and the IRS gets wind of it they will amend your returns to give you a proper salary and thus - self employment tax. i.e. a surgeon cannot say his salary from his S Corp was $30k/yr ;) )
Again, unless I'm missing something, the only way what you're saying would work would be by forming a C Corp. C Corps are taxed as separate entities, but then you'd get taxed twice. Once at the Trump- 15% corporate rate, and then again at the dividend rate...which depending on how much you made might result in an overall savings of 5%. This is totally ignoring potential tax consequences/penalties for not claiming a salary (I'm unsure if you can form a C Corp with zero employees, and take 100% of the E&P without paying any SEP. This is not an issue in today's world, because no one would be dumb enough to form a C Corp and pay 35% at the corporate level and then another 15%+ on the dividend rate)
1. Pour a scotch.
2. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the shitshow.
3. Maintain low blood pressure.
18+ Trillion in debt, and counting. A Cultural Marxist Wonderland blossoming. Unfunded liabilities, for which, our children's children will bear the burden of. Crony capitalism in lieu of free markets. Career politicians, which have morphed into some sort of different species, that spirits away to gated wonderlands, and loses every previous ounce of humanity once possessed. Business-crippling regulations. Global-centric trade deals. Erosion of national sovereignty.
The train's heading for a cliff; vote at 'em all we want, won't matter.
Might as well throw them feet up. Buy a bag of popcorn, lower thou blood pressure, and do what little you can to help out your kids.
Rome didn't have a single, well-defined event as the "trigger" or "indicator" of decline. It was a multigenerational slide into the dark ages.
We're there. Just imagine where we'll be.
Looks like our reign will be much much shorter than Rome's....but they did have some outrageous parties on the way out.
Outlander Systems
05-19-16, 09:18
Transform all Golden Corrals into Vomitoriums.
Looks like our reign will be much much shorter than Rome's....but they did have some outrageous parties on the way out.
Transform all Golden Corrals into Vomitoriums.
Maybe it'll be like being on Oprah but instead of a car everybody gets an orgy.
"You get an Orgy! and You get an Orgy! Everybody gets an Orgy!!!!!!"
I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but I still don't understand. (And I want to, so please go on...)
S Corps are flow through entities. If you, a single individual, form an S Corp you will still be in whatever marginal tax bracket you would have been in had you been an employee of a company assuming the Corporate E&P of the S Corp is identical to the salary as an employee.
The only difference is that employees have to pay employment taxes and shareholders of S Corps do not (However, if you try to take distributions as a sole S Corp s/h without claiming a proper salary and the IRS gets wind of it they will amend your returns to give you a proper salary and thus - self employment tax. i.e. a surgeon cannot say his salary from his S Corp was $30k/yr ;) )
Again, unless I'm missing something, the only way what you're saying would work would be by forming a C Corp. C Corps are taxed as separate entities, but then you'd get taxed twice. Once at the Trump- 15% corporate rate, and then again at the dividend rate...which depending on how much you made might result in an overall savings of 5%. This is totally ignoring potential tax consequences/penalties for not claiming a salary (I'm unsure if you can form a C Corp with zero employees, and take 100% of the E&P without paying any SEP. This is not an issue in today's world, because no one would be dumb enough to form a C Corp and pay 35% at the corporate level and then another 15%+ on the dividend rate)
Damn. The problem with you smart mother****ers is that to us dumb mother****ers y'all seem like crazy mother****ers. This is why I do Turbo Tax.
Maybe it'll be like being on Oprah but instead of a car everybody gets an orgy.
"You get an Orgy! and You get an Orgy! Everybody gets an Orgy!!!!!!"
Now, if that's the case, I would definitely vote for Clinton. Bill, that is. Word is he threw some bad-ass parties.
Donald Trump has been funding Democrats to Republicans in 60:40 ratios. Why do you think that is the case?
One reason is because all the names you mentioned are the career crooks. Honest people don't need to accept what amounts to extortion money. Secondly, ih has been playing the long game, which it looks like he has, then it would be in his best interest to hold his friends close and his enemy closer.
It's kinda hard to win the poker game when you are not sitting at the table. You gotta pay to play that game. What he wanted or needed at any given time was not exactly beyond the will of the people to offset.
So for good or bad, he like millions upon millions of other Americans played the game, but he bought a seat at the table. He has basically won and is now sitting at the final table. This showdown will pit Socialism against Capitalism.
Don't vote for Trump. You get Hillary, very simply. American will become a quasi socialist country and the SCOTUS will be stacked accordingly to create in the coming years a full on Socialist nation with Communist leanings. Hillary getting elected = TWA ( Third World America )
PatrioticDisorder
05-19-16, 11:52
And the criticisms legit and the result was:
Yes, the reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an economic boom and big jump in the markets, but it was again, a smoke job as the idea of balancing the effects of his polices didn't happen and the results were:
"Reagan pledged during his 1980 campaign for president to balance the federal budget, but never submitted a balanced budget in his eight years in office. In 1981, the deficit was $79 billion and, in 1986, at the peak of his deficit spending, it stood at $221 billion. The federal debt was $994 billion when he took office in 1981 and grew to $2.9 trillion when his second term ended in 1989. [36] Reagan also added more trade barriers than any other president since Hoover in 1930. US imports that were subject to some form of trade restraint increased from 12% in 1980 to 23% in 1988. [37]"
If that's what we have to lookforward to under Trump, I'll pass.
I think I understand your position better, I am of the belief Ronaldus Magnus was by far the best POTUS in my lifetime and while not perfect, his policy caused a huge boom that echoed into the 90s. I believe Donaldus Maximus will be the next great POTUS, not perfect but far better than we're used to having.
brickboy240
05-19-16, 11:58
With Hillary you will get NO balanced budget and little that will actually spurn on business in America. In fact, you will probably get more legislation and action that force US businesses to close or (...wait for it) move to Mexico, India or China.
Hillary will build on Obama's habit of zero-growth legislation and actions. Higher taxes, more rules and regulations and more expenses for those operating businesses in America. Maybe a carbon tax as well.
This much... can pretty much guarantee.
I think I understand your position better, I am of the belief Ronaldus Magnus was by far the best POTUS in my lifetime and while not perfect, his policy caused a huge boom that echoed into the 90s. I believe Donaldus Maximus will be the next great POTUS, not perfect but far better than we're used to having.
Lol. "Ronaldus Maximus" and "Donaldus Maximus." I love it.
While Reagan spent money like a drunken sailor (and since I was one, I would know...) and didn't walk the walk with regard to small government/low taxation conservatism, as a leader he was without equal (in my lifetime). I also believe that he provided the foundation that led to the biggest economic boom since the post-WWII boom.
I think I understand your position better, I am of the belief Ronaldus Magnus was by far the best POTUS in my lifetime and while not perfect, his policy caused a huge boom that echoed into the 90s. I believe Donaldus Maximus will be the next great POTUS, not perfect but far better than we're used to having.
I am of the belief he was one of the most overrated POTUS of all time, and never could figure why more people don't see that and his "boom" was artificial (per above) and Iran-Contra makes what HC did with Benghazi look minor in comparison. It was a national disgrace that set us back decades and opened the flood gates for many of the problems we are dealing with to this day. Anyone else would have and should have been impeached, but he was not known as the "teflon president" for nothing...We are 180 on that issue.
I am of the belief he was one of the most overrated POTUS of all time, and never could figure why more people don't see that and his "boom" was artificial (per above) and Iran-Contra makes what HC did with Benghazi look minor in comparison. It was a national disgrace that set us back decades and opened the flood gates for many of the problems we are dealing with to this day. We are 180 on that issue.
Overrated is terribly subjective. He is always--ALWAYS--on the top 5 most liked/most respected lists. He campaigned as a Goldwater disciple, but for all of his small government/small taxes/small spending rhetoric, he grew the crap out of government. But in spite of the fallout from his tax plan and fiscal policies, the boom was real--and it lasted. Plenty of data. Now you can rightfully argue correlation vs causation, but the economy was strong well into Clinton's terms. He was the last president to enjoy relationships across the aisle, and he demonstrated real leadership of this country. Oh, and accelerating the whole end of the pesky USSR, too. As for Iran-Contra, it was a mess, for sure, and his problem was thinking he could work with Iran at all to get hostages back.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-19-16, 12:46
Anyone that thinks that we would have been better off with either Carter or Mondale is bat shit crazy.
IF by the problems we face you mean terrorism, I'll take terrorism any day over 10,000 nukes on a hair trigger pointed at us- which were almost let go a couple of times that we know of by mistake.
The debt he incurred versus defeating communism???? The cost of fighting that war, even a limited one in europe would have far eclipsed the debt we took on.
If people can't discern the difference between knocking back communism in central america and enabling ISIS in the middle east, there isn't much I can say. Was everything that Reagan did whiter-than-white? Not even close, but again, I can't help but shake my head when people try to explain things that I actually lived thru. It's like the 1970s and oil embargoes, gas lines, stagflation and hyperinflation and the Russian's expanding communism everywhere didn't happen.
Overrated is terribly subjective. He is always--ALWAYS--on the top 5 most liked/most respected lists. He campaigned as a Goldwater disciple, but for all of his small government/small taxes/small spending rhetoric, he grew the crap out of government. But in spite of the fallout from his tax plan and fiscal policies, the boom was real--and it lasted. Plenty of data. Now you can rightfully argue correlation vs causation, but the economy was strong well into Clinton's terms. He was the last president to enjoy relationships across the aisle, and he demonstrated real leadership of this country. Oh, and accelerating the whole end of the pesky USSR, too. As for Iran-Contra, it was a mess, for sure, and his problem was thinking he could work with Iran at all to get hostages back.
Per usual, you make some balanced and fair comments. I'm done with this thread as it's gotten non productive.
Per usual, you make some balanced and fair comments. I'm done with this thread as it's gotten non productive.
Thanks, Will. I try to be objective. I think he was the right president for the wrong reasons. As a very conservative ideologue, I think Reagan talked the talk but couldn't walk the walk with regard to small government/small spending. Reaganites claim the spending and growth was in response to or because of the USSR, but that was just part of the picture.
But his leadership and affecting policy across the aisle was spectacular. He was one of the last presidents to believe in American exceptionalism. And his speeches, especially after times of national tragedy? Simply awesome. The last president before him who could stir a population with speeches was Kennedy; before that, Roosevelt.
brickboy240
05-19-16, 14:23
Just having a president that actually LIKES the country he presides over will be quite a difference.
Eurodriver
05-19-16, 17:04
Damn. The problem with you smart mother****ers is that to us dumb mother****ers y'all seem like crazy mother****ers. This is why I do Turbo Tax.
Wtf is happening to M4C.
You're the second person to call me smart this month.
Wtf is happening to M4C.
You're the second person to call me smart this month.
I was weak and I apologize. Won't happen again. Get back under your rock. ;)
TacticalSledgehammer
05-20-16, 06:37
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but isn't Gary Johnson is selecting William Weld as his VPrunning mate? He's another anti gun politician. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/01/us/in-shift-massachusetts-governor-backs-gun-law.html
PatrioticDisorder
05-20-16, 07:33
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but isn't Gary Johnson is selecting William Weld as his VPrunning mate? He's another anti gun politician. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/01/us/in-shift-massachusetts-governor-backs-gun-law.html
So we have a gun grabber & an open borders guy on the Libertarian ticket? I doubt Johnson gets more than 0.5% of the vote this time.
Wtf is happening to M4C.
You're the second person to call me smart this month.
Kinda like "I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member"
So we have a gun grabber & an open borders guy on the Libertarian ticket? I doubt Johnson gets more than 0.5% of the vote this time.
Foreign policy is a mess too.
BoringGuy45
05-20-16, 09:10
I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but isn't Gary Johnson is selecting William Weld as his VPrunning mate? He's another anti gun politician. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/01/us/in-shift-massachusetts-governor-backs-gun-law.html
That was 23 years ago. He could have changed his mind since then.
PatrioticDisorder
05-20-16, 09:15
That was 23 years ago. He could have changed his mind since then.
The problem is he helped this bullshit get on the books in MA, like Kasich did on the federal level.
For me and many others that is a mortal sin, I cannot and will not ever forgive anyone who screwed gun owners & the constitution that way. Had he been a private citizen, I could accept that but that is not the case.
MountainRaven
05-20-16, 09:26
The problem is he helped this bullshit get on the books in MA, like Kasich did on the federal level.
For me and many others that is a mortal sin, I cannot and will not ever forgive anyone who screwed gun owners & the constitution that way. Had he been a private citizen, I could accept that but that is not the case.
I like how you've settled the cognitive dissonance of disliking someone who once supported gun control while supporting a life-long supporter of gun control.
PatrioticDisorder
05-20-16, 09:28
I like how you've settled the cognitive dissonance of disliking someone who once supported gun control while supporting a life-long supporter of gun control.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-gun-control.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?181346-If-Trump-wins-the-Republican-nomination/page167
2 real choices, 1 good, 1 bad. This Johnson nonsense is 1/2 vote for Hillary Rodham-Rodham.
I like how you've settled the cognitive dissonance of disliking someone who once supported gun control while supporting a life-long supporter of gun control.
Trump didn't just support gun control as a private citizen in an abstract sense. He financially support anti-gun politicians who advertised gun control as part of their platform just THREE YEARS AGO.
In other words, he negated your NRA-ILA contributions. Let that sink in for a while.
Eurodriver
05-20-16, 12:35
Trump didn't just support gun control as a private citizen in an abstract sense. He financially support anti-gun politicians who advertised gun control as part of their platform just THREE YEARS AGO.
In other words, he negated your NRA-ILA contributions. Let that sink in for a while.
And Trump will be a lot harder to defeat when he introduces anti-gun legislation than Hillary will.
P.S. You never replied to my post re: Tax law.
Doc Safari
05-20-16, 12:53
And Trump will be a lot harder to defeat when he introduces anti-gun legislation than Hillary will.
I don't think he will do that. At worst I think he might be like Reagan and cave to some perceived "need" for some law that someone else has introduced.
PatrioticDisorder
05-20-16, 13:06
I don't think he will do that. At worst I think he might be like Reagan and cave to some perceived "need" for some law that someone else has introduced.
That will not happen, Trump to speak in front of the NRA in mere moments, NRA to endorse Trump today, the earliest of any presidential candidate ever. Trump will expand gun rights, not contract gun rights.
Doc Safari
05-20-16, 13:14
That will not happen, Trump to speak in front of the NRA in mere moments, NRA to endorse Trump today, the earliest of any presidential candidate ever. Trump will expand gun rights, not contract gun rights.
Good to know. This reinforces my belief that he has genuinely changed his stance on some issues. They say the older you get, the more conservative you get.
PatrioticDisorder
05-20-16, 13:26
Good to know. This reinforces my belief that he has genuinely changed his stance on some issues. They say the older you get, the more conservative you get.
I'm not even convinced he was ever anti-gun even when he made old statements that sounded that way, he may have been but I can't be certain. People who are not from NY really do not understand the anti-conservative bias there, if you are a conservative or espouse conservative views, then you will be treated like a leper. I'm from NY and I thought I was "pro-2a" but didn't understand why anyone would need an AR-15. I was totally ignorant, brainwashed really but even if I was to tell people in NY I believed people should be able to own a pistol, I'd be looked at like I had 3 eyes. I learned early on to remain quiet about my political beliefs. I know people in upstate who registered as a Democrat because it was known if you were a registered Republican, well good luck getting hired for a state job (and due to the wonderful leftist policies, there are very few decent jobs left in upstate). The anti-conservative group think is incredible in NY, I really don't even consider it part of the US, my family now completely resides in Florida and under no circumstance would I ever go back to visit.
Doc Safari
05-20-16, 13:33
I'm not even convinced he was ever anti-gun even when he made old statements that sounded that way, he may have been but I can't be certain. People who are not from NY really do not understand the anti-conservative bias there, if you are a conservative or espouse conservative views, then you will be treated like a leper. I'm from NY and I thought I was "pro-2a" but didn't understand why anyone would need an AR-15. I was totally ignorant, brainwashed really but even if I was to tell people in NY I believed people should be able to own a pistol, I'd be looked at like I had 3 eyes. I learned early on to remain quiet about my political beliefs. I know people in upstate who registered as a Democrat because it was known if you were a registered Republican, well good luck getting hired for a state job (and due to the wonderful leftist policies, there are very few decent jobs left in upstate). The anti-conservative group think is incredible in NY, I really don't even consider it part of the US, my family now completely resides in Florida and under no circumstance would I ever go back to visit.
True that. I also allow for the possibility he just parroted what he thought would make him popular and bring more money into his businesses.
I'm not even convinced he was ever anti-gun even when he made old statements that sounded that way, he may have been but I can't be certain. People who are not from NY really do not understand the anti-conservative bias there, if you are a conservative or espouse conservative views, then you will be treated like a leper. I'm from NY and I thought I was "pro-2a" but didn't understand why anyone would need an AR-15. I was totally ignorant, brainwashed really but even if I was to tell people in NY I believed people should be able to own a pistol, I'd be looked at like I had 3 eyes. I learned early on to remain quiet about my political beliefs. I know people in upstate who registered as a Democrat because it was known if you were a registered Republican, well good luck getting hired for a state job (and due to the wonderful leftist policies, there are very few decent jobs left in upstate). The anti-conservative group think is incredible in NY, I really don't even consider it part of the US, my family now completely resides in Florida and under no circumstance would I ever go back to visit.
I can also second this, I grew up in a small farming town South of Rochester, so it wasn't nearly as bad as NYC or in Rochester, but I would describe most gun owners there as Zumbos, they like their shotguns for hunting but ARs were not a huge deal, I didn't get my first one until I was 25 and it was a RRA because I didn't really know any better.
TacticalSledgehammer
05-20-16, 15:55
Trump has no desire to introduce any anti-gun legislation. He has contributed to the anti-gun politicians, like he has contributed to pro gun politicians. That's what you have to do to get certain things passed or permits approved to build things.
So we have a gun grabber & an open borders guy on the Libertarian ticket? I doubt Johnson gets more than 0.5% of the vote this time.
That's not what you need to worry about. Glenn Beck is the rebound after his love affair with Ted "The Savior" Cruz fell apart. Glenn's new squeeze is Austin Petersen. He reason's that Austin can win the Lib. Nomination, get in the debates with Trump and Hillary and will enough votes in the general to pull down both opposing parties. While it probably simply more of Glen's pipe dream ramblings... if this guy did get a foot hold of some sort. The result of pulling down both other sides means Hillary can get elected with simply the mindless dregs of her voting pool. The voters born out of that thimble sized gene pool that believe in her... oh and the highly educated Republican "neverTrumpers"... I suppose that some sort of Ying and Yang balance deal there, who knows.
Anyway, that's Glenn's new mission in life. Last week he was a Libertarian that was funding a Republican when the GPO wasn't his party. This week he's pushing the validity of the 3rd Party Libertarian while saying he has no chance of winning. I've heard that some people actually have more money than brains and I'm certain Glenn is the poster child for that state of being.
So forget Gary Johnson, forget McAfee, This weeks rock star is Austin "open borders" Petersen. No chance of winning anything but if all the cards are played just right and stars align, he could obtain a presence large enough to give Hillary the win as she would only need to capture her lowest most rabid voter base.
Doc Safari
05-20-16, 17:39
Glenn Beck is such a tool that he needs his own tool box. And I say that as a former fan. When his show turned into the "Anti-Trump Obsession Show" I quit listening.
Truth be told, I was sort of in favor of Cruz until Beck started associating him with some tinfoil hat Mormon prophecy about Cruz riding in on a white horse to save the Constitution.
Truly, it takes high quality drugs to come up with that shit.
Glenn Beck makes me violently ill.
I wish Rachel Maddow were conservative and straight or at least bi.
But that's another topic
I wish Rachel Maddow were conservative and straight or at least bi.
Dude!!! You got the hots for the big black glasses and the man-do??? Ugh
Dude!!! You got the hots for the big black glasses and the man-do??? Ugh
I'm a man of extremes. Butch girls are kind of a thing for me.
I don't know why.
Dude!!! You got the hots for the big black glasses and the man-do??? Ugh
Don't get him started on RM again.......
@DG ... I feel the same way about Beck. I used to listen to him and he seemed pretty normal and actually funny sometimes.... but man he has gone down some crazy ass road.
Truly, it takes high quality drugs to come up with that shit. I don't know if you say that in jest or not be he supposedly had some hush hush health problems. It really makes you wonder... Religion, Politics, and the right drugs in a guy that thinks he's got it all figured out anyway.... who knows... He sure doesn't seem like the same person and he seems to need an immediate cause to champion and more importantly 'win'.
ETA: Wow... and apparently now he's trying to get in bed with Zuckerberg. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/20/carlson-glenn-beck-mark-zuckerbergs-manservant/
I'm a man of extremes. Butch girls are kind of a thing for me.
I don't know why.
Well, you'd be a brave man blazing that trail! she'd be better then Beck though...
And Trump will be a lot harder to defeat when he introduces anti-gun legislation than Hillary will.
P.S. You never replied to my post re: Tax law.
Must have missed it...sorry. Big grant going in next month keeping me busy. I'm only posting on 15 min lunch breaks and for a few minutes at night. I'll look for it Sunday and try to reply.
Trump didn't just support gun control as a private citizen in an abstract sense. He financially support anti-gun politicians who advertised gun control as part of their platform just THREE YEARS AGO.
In other words, he negated your NRA-ILA contributions. Let that sink in for a while.
Well he just got the endorsement of the NRA for whatever that is worth. Keep in mind I called bullshit on Harry Reid's NRA "A rating" long before he pulled his Sandy Hook attempt.
But again, Hillary vs Trump. There is no contest anymore. She has supported more gun control shit and raised more funds for gun control than anyone in recent memory. She is as interested in complete and total gun bans the way Trump is interested in a new, hot wife. It's not even close.
So Trump is the guy. It's time to stop all the BS and make sure Hillary doesn't happen. Just like we all tried to prevent Obama from happening twice. I absolutely despised McCain, more than you hate Trump, and I had zero confidence in Romney and thought he was nothing but a weak gun banner, but I voted for them both because I knew Obama would try to pull some crap. And we all saw his attempts to EO a gun ban after Sandy Hook. Thankfully it failed.
So please stop wasting our time with Trumps anti gun past, we are far more concerned with Clintons anti gun present.
Eurodriver
05-21-16, 08:01
Must have missed it...sorry. Big grant going in next month keeping me busy. I'm only posting on 15 min lunch breaks and for a few minutes at night. I'll look for it Sunday and try to reply.
No worries, I just like discussing that sort of thing but don't feel as if I'm badgering you ;)
I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but I still don't understand. (And I want to, so please go on...)
S Corps are flow through entities. If you, a single individual, form an S Corp you will still be in whatever marginal tax bracket you would have been in had you been an employee of a company assuming the Corporate E&P of the S Corp is identical to the salary as an employee.
The only difference is that employees have to pay employment taxes and shareholders of S Corps do not (However, if you try to take distributions as a sole S Corp s/h without claiming a proper salary and the IRS gets wind of it they will amend your returns to give you a proper salary and thus - self employment tax. i.e. a surgeon cannot say his salary from his S Corp was $30k/yr ;) )
Again, unless I'm missing something, the only way what you're saying would work would be by forming a C Corp. C Corps are taxed as separate entities, but then you'd get taxed twice. Once at the Trump- 15% corporate rate, and then again at the dividend rate...which depending on how much you made might result in an overall savings of 5%. This is totally ignoring potential tax consequences/penalties for not claiming a salary (I'm unsure if you can form a C Corp with zero employees, and take 100% of the E&P without paying any SEP. This is not an issue in today's world, because no one would be dumb enough to form a C Corp and pay 35% at the corporate level and then another 15%+ on the dividend rate)
Ahh, I think that I see the problem. You can't apply current tax law to the Trump plan. His plan does away with self-employment tax, corporate AMT, and sets the top rate for income from pass-throughs including partnerships at 15%. Take a look at the business section on the document below and let me know what you think:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf
My suspicion is that he is doing this to spur small business development. However, I know that you are an accountant and these are your waters. I defer to your expertise if you think that I'm off base.
Eurodriver
05-21-16, 13:05
Ahh, I think that I see the problem. You can't apply current tax law to the Trump plan. His plan does away with self-employment tax, corporate AMT, and sets the top rate for income from pass-throughs including partnerships at 15%. Take a look at the business section on the document below and let me know what you think:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000560-an-analysis-of-donald-trumps-tax-plan.pdf
My suspicion is that he is doing this to spur small business development. However, I know that you are an accountant and these are your waters. I defer to your expertise if you think that I'm off base.
Now I see where you're coming from. I knew something wasn't right (you're a smart guy ;) )
• Limit the top individual income tax rate on pass-through businesses such as partnerships to no more than 15 percent.
I don't see where it specifically says this, but the term "top individual income tax rate on...partnerships" certainly implies that the top individual income tax rate for an individual receiving partnership (or LLC) E&P is...15%.
In that case, what you original said is completely logical and every swinging dick with a professional certification is going to be forming an LLC/LLP - including yours truly.
I did not, however, see any reference to an elimination of SEP (which is SS, Medicare, etc...) so an "employee" of an LLP/LLC is still going to get taxed at the 12.4% SEP up to 117k + 2.9% on all "salary" plus 15% for Federal income tax. After the employee's "salary" is deducted, however, then the rest of the income is legitimately taxed at a flat 15%. This point is rather moot, however, as that 15.3% is going to be paid regardless if you're running your LLP under President Trump or working at Walmart today under Zero.
I could go on (and I want to because Trump's tax plan really doesn't make a whole lot of sense) about the IRS enforcing effective salary rates to avoid lowballers, but the more I think about it the more this so fundamentally changes the tax code that it will never be implemented.
I agree the RNC deserves every negative thing they've brought on themselves: "Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch."
But what I don't understand is that Hillary is the Princess of F***ing Darkness and you worry Trump might not be the Angel of Light?
That is the part that doesn't make sense.
Hillary will finish destroying what Obama didn't and Trump might not save us.
That's a pretty clear choice in my book. Certain death versus maybe not getting any better.
I'm pretty sure the Prince of Darkness and the Angel of Light have the same address...:smile:
Doc Safari
05-23-16, 09:35
Look at it this way: do you want to vote for the wench who is promising to cut your nuts off, or would you rather vote for the person who may be lying or may waffle but at least tells you for the time being that he supports you keeping your testicles?
Bad sign for Johnson....even the #nevertrump National review is starting to go after Johnson for being not conservative, and not even very libertarian.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives
PatrioticDisorder
05-23-16, 10:27
Bad sign for Johnson....even the #nevertrump National review is starting to go after Johnson for being not conservative, and not even very libertarian.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives
Yep, Johnson is a shitty excuse for a "libertarian" candidate, I predict he gets less than 1% of the vote in November. The NeverTrump goofballs are going to start feeling really stupid.
platoonDaddy
06-01-16, 15:34
He has been and is a POS
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who scored the party’s nomination, was gifted a replica Sunday of George Washington’s flintlock pistol by runner-up Austin Petersen.
Tearing up at the close of the Florida convention, Petersen presented Johnson with the pistol as a symbol of party unity.
“You have my sword, and you have my gun,” he said, as the nominee accepted the gift.
But then, Johnson unceremoniously chucked it in the garbage can.
Cue sadness.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/01/libertarian-nominee-accepts-rival-s-gift-washington-replica-pistol-then-trashes-it.html?intcmp=hpbt2
Doc Safari
06-01-16, 15:36
He has been and is a POS
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who scored the party’s nomination, was gifted a replica Sunday of George Washington’s flintlock pistol by runner-up Austin Petersen.
Tearing up at the close of the Florida convention, Petersen presented Johnson with the pistol as a symbol of party unity.
“You have my sword, and you have my gun,” he said, as the nominee accepted the gift.
But then, Johnson unceremoniously chucked it in the garbage can.
Cue sadness.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/01/libertarian-nominee-accepts-rival-s-gift-washington-replica-pistol-then-trashes-it.html?intcmp=hpbt2
I rest my case, Your Honor.
The guy proved to be a first-class arrogant A-hole when he was governor of New Mexico. This sounds like something he'd do for sure.
Bad sign for Johnson....even the #nevertrump National review is starting to go after Johnson for being not conservative, and not even very libertarian.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives
He also picked Bill Weld for running mate who was not a bad Gov. of MA and fairly popular, but he's no Libertarian. It's interesting to note, none of the parties now have anyone who'd be considered a classic example of their respective party, even the Libertarians have been "infiltrated" buy those using to use the party for their personal gain vs party and national gain.
He also picked Bill Weld for running mate who was not a bad Gov. of MA and fairly popular, but he's no Libertarian. It's interesting to note, none of the parties now have anyone who'd be considered a classic example of their respective party, even the Libertarians have been "infiltrated" buy those using to use the party for their personal gain vs party and national gain.
It's infuriating to me, I speak to so many so called libertarians that are just leftist progressives and call themselves Libertarians. I am an independent now because of how these idiots make the Libertarian party look. Our entire political system has been hijacked from us, it sucks donkey balls big time!
Can't even vote for party lines anymore- they don't even exist! It's just a bunch of assholes who want power and money and will do ANYTHING to get it. Wolves in sheep's clothing. Lies, lies, promises, more lies, "vote for me this is what I'll do for you..."- it's a ****ing sham, a charade, a dog and pony show, a twisted circus of bullshit asshatery that continues to break apart our unity and destroy the nation...
PatrioticDisorder
06-01-16, 16:24
Add to the mix the creepy ass kiss Johnson blew Trump and the weirdo candidate who got on the podium at their convention to get butt ass naked, not to mention candidates that don't really represent libertarian ideas, the libertarian party has zero credibility. Again, we have a 2 party system, you need to convince people of your ideas in the PRIMARY, that is what the primary is for. The general election is about a binary choice,'there is not a real 3rd option, just an illusion that tends to create 1/2 a vote for the option you do not want.
Add to the mix the creepy ass kiss Johnson blew Trump and the weirdo candidate who got on the podium at their convention to get butt ass naked, not to mention candidates that don't really represent libertarian ideas, the libertarian party has zero credibility. Again, we have a 2 party system, you need to convince people of your ideas in the PRIMARY, that is what the primary is for. The general election is about a binary choice,'there is not a real 3rd option, just an illusion that tends to create 1/2 a vote for the option you do not want.
As with the GOP the last election, they had a real chance and blew it. If there had ever been a chance for the Libertarians to be garner credibility and get traction, this was it. They all but blew it. I do think there's enough people now aware Libertarians and in the "anyone but Dump or Hillary" camp, Libertarian party will take more votes than ever before. To what effect, and from who, I don't know, and neither does anyone else....
Doc Safari
06-01-16, 17:16
Let's face it. Our electoral system has been completely corrupted by people who have a personal agenda and care nothing about the country.
Let's face it. Our electoral system has been completely corrupted by people who have a personal agenda and care nothing about the country.
Hate to say it, but the only one who has made that a real topic his platform is Sanders. Campaign reform as a starter is one of the few things I think he's spot on about. Sanders is the only one i think actually believes and lives what he says, but the road to hell is paved with such people who genuinely believed in their cause. Sanders may still be a better choice than HC...
Bad sign for Johnson....even the #nevertrump National review is starting to go after Johnson for being not conservative, and not even very libertarian.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435704/gary-johnson-libertarian-party-2016-conservatives
They are making room for David French.
platoonDaddy
06-02-16, 04:33
They are making room for David French.
David French: Important to say, white working class communities deserve to die
“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.”
These are strong words, but they are fundamentally true and important to say. My childhood was different from Kevin’s, but I grew up in Kentucky, live in a rural county in Tennessee, and have seen the challenges of the white working-class first-hand. Simply put, Americans are killing themselves and destroying their families at an alarming rate. No one is making them do it. The economy isn’t putting a bottle in their hand. Immigrants aren’t making them cheat on their wives or snort OxyContin. Obama isn’t walking them into the lawyer’s office to force them to file a bogus disability claim…
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2016/06/01/david-french-important-to-say-white-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/
Let's face it. Our electoral system has been completely corrupted by people who have a personal agenda and care nothing about the country.
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq169/bbossman1/giant%20meteor_zpsao0bkfwh.png
PatrioticDisorder
06-02-16, 06:57
David French: Important to say, white working class communities deserve to die
“The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.”
These are strong words, but they are fundamentally true and important to say. My childhood was different from Kevin’s, but I grew up in Kentucky, live in a rural county in Tennessee, and have seen the challenges of the white working-class first-hand. Simply put, Americans are killing themselves and destroying their families at an alarming rate. No one is making them do it. The economy isn’t putting a bottle in their hand. Immigrants aren’t making them cheat on their wives or snort OxyContin. Obama isn’t walking them into the lawyer’s office to force them to file a bogus disability claim…
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2016/06/01/david-french-important-to-say-white-working-class-communities-deserve-to-die/
David French is Bill Kristol's guy, let's not forget Bill Kristol is Irving Kristol's son. Irving Kristol is pretty much the founder of the neocon's (Democrat light), so none of this is really surprising. The Neocon movement is officially dead, the neocon's have slowly destroyed the Republican party's credibility over the last 3 decades. This French guy can run, he won't get over 0.5% of the vote.
Wasn't French just begging Romney to run? God this election is a shit show.
I guess I'm not voting for Johnson either. Nice antics, dickhead. In fact, I looked into the Libertarian Party's website thinking maybe it was somewhere that someone who basically agrees with most of their ideals could go. If you check out their list of elected officials its pretty much a bunch of Dungeons and Dragons weirdos who managed to run for Water District Board.
Johnson now just a few points from being included in the debates. I'd really like to see him in the debates, which could be a real game changer. Johnson actually polls above Trump or HC in some segments, such as active duty mil. If he does not get into the debates, chances of any upsets are obviously very remote. If he's part of the debates and a large % of the population is exposed to what they perceive as a viable alternative, I' think he'd have a legit chance if he performed well in a debate. I have never seen him in a live debate, and that's a skill set he'd better have in spades between those those two vipers.
And before anyone uses the "A vote for Johnson is a vote for HC" do your homework and or see my responses to that in other threads please. Things on the ground are changing rapidly, so even these recent polls could have changed by now:
Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/
Most recent I could find:
Poll Finds Opening for Third-Party Candidates as Clinton, Trump Remain Unpopular
https://www.facebook.com/kdecollibus/posts/10208262119403445?comment_id=10208268078912429¬if_t=mentions_comment¬if_id=1469391493719736
A simple but effective vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGD8gJt7weU
Johnson now just a few points from being included in the debates. I'd really like to see him in the debates, which could be a real game changer. Johnson actually polls above Trump or HC in some segments, such as active duty mil. If he does not get into the debates, chances of any upsets are obviously very remote. If he's part of the debates and a large % of the population is exposed to what they perceive as a viable alternative, I' think he'd have a legit chance if he performed well in a debate. I have never seen him in a live debate, and that's a skill set he'd better have in spades between those those two vipers.
And before anyone uses the "A vote for Johnson is a vote for HC" do your homework and or see my responses to that in other threads please. Things on the ground are changing rapidly, so even these recent polls could have changed by now:
Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-is-gary-johnson-taking-more-support-from-clinton-or-trump/
Most recent I could find:
Poll Finds Opening for Third-Party Candidates as Clinton, Trump Remain Unpopular
https://www.facebook.com/kdecollibus/posts/10208262119403445?comment_id=10208268078912429¬if_t=mentions_comment¬if_id=1469391493719736
A simple but effective vid:
What exactly is "intelligent immigration reform"?
What about guns?
"Peace and prosperity/end the wars" makes me wonder how strong on national defense and foreign policy they are.
What exactly is "intelligent immigration reform"?
What about guns?
"Peace and prosperity/end the wars" makes me wonder how strong on national defense and foreign policy they are.
See: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Guns, he's GTG as you're going to find. Some of his positions are spot on, some not so much, but if we want the two party death grip on our system broken, there we have it. He aint perfect by any means, but being Libertarian oriented as I am (or more like old school GOP which was fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal" before right wing neocons took it over...) I'll be happy to take my chances 100 times over with Johnson vs Trump or HC.
David French is Bill Kristol's guy, let's not forget Bill Kristol is Irving Kristol's son. Irving Kristol is pretty much the founder of the neocon's (Democrat light), so none of this is really surprising. The Neocon movement is officially dead, the neocon's have slowly destroyed the Republican party's credibility over the last 3 decades. This French guy can run, he won't get over 0.5% of the vote.
Yep. Dead and thankfully so. Momentum necessary to roll back the regulatory state was squandered on neocon interventionism and other aspects of their nonsense.
"Peace and prosperity/end the wars" makes me wonder how strong on national defense and foreign policy they are.
I think you can be both the former and strong in the latter. At one point the Republican party was the party of Teddy "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" Roosevelt.
My personal position is that we've wasted a lost of resources both in manpower and money, fighting wars we had no business being involved in, that could have been much better spent getting our troops more and better training and equipment.
That and having known and worked with so many exceptional members of our military, I think it's a travesty to spill one drop of their blood over acres of worthless desert filled with people that hate us. Let it be known that if you come after us we're gonna wipe you out, but otherwise let em rot...
If this guy really wanted a chance then he should have been there from the beginning and got his message out with all the other clowns on that republican wanna be stage. At this point it's waaaay too little and waaaaay too late. And without a STRONG anti-open borders stance combined with an even STRONGER stance on exactly who would end up in the Supreme Court, I am completely uninterested in anything else he has to say. "Voting your conscience" is sounding more and more like "let's fundamentally change America" to me. If Hillary ends up winning by a slim margin, I would wish a long walk on a short pier to all of you that are even entertaining this lunacy this late in the game.
See: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
Guns, he's GTG as you're going to find. Some of his positions are spot on, some not so much, but if we want the two party death grip on our system broken, there we have it. He aint perfect by any means, but being Libertarian oriented as I am (or more like old school GOP which was fiscally "conservative" and socially "liberal" before right wing neocons took it over...) I'll be happy to take my chances 100 times over with Johnson vs Trump or HC.
I'm 85% with Johnson on the issues. We part ways on some aspects of drug laws and some of his immigration policy. For example, I'm open to decriminalization of pot but not legalization of hard drugs. When it comes to immigration, we differ on border security and probably the number of work visas that need to be issued. Otherwise, I could go down the list and check virtually all the other boxes including basic human decency - something that I can't do for the major party candidates.
Saw this and thought it was interesting cause I only see people saying Johnson is the savior.
There Is No Logic in Voting for Gary Johnson
http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/there-is-no-logic-in-voting-for-gary-johnson/
If this guy really wanted a chance then he should have been there from the beginning
Umm, he was...
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-25-16, 10:46
How many congressional districts has the Liberterian party ever carried? Why a Libby president, when they can hardly carry districts.
The ultimate Hail Mary but instead you make the other team lose.
Saw this and thought it was interesting cause I only see people saying Johnson is the savior.
There Is No Logic in Voting for Gary Johnson
http://libertyhangout.org/2016/07/there-is-no-logic-in-voting-for-gary-johnson/
I decent read, but nothing I didn't know and the author offers no solutions. Make no mistake, Johnson is no pure Libertarian and per the vid, two time GOP Gov.
He's far from Libertarian ideal, but far closer than HC or Trump, that's for damn sure. So, the author offers nothing but:
Vote for HC or Trump
Stay home and feel morally superior because Johnson not ideal Libertarian candidate.
Obviously, most voting for HC or Trump are well aware neither candidate even close to the ideal of the parties.
Vote for HC or Trump
Stay home and feel morally superior because Johnson not ideal Libertarian candidate.
.
Or feel morally superior cause you voted for Johnson and can sit and say I told you so to everyone else when one of the other 2 win.
That's the impression I get from a lot of Johnson supporters.
Honestly IMO there is one person that can't be president. That's what I tell people that ask me about it.
Umm, he was...
Ummm, don't recall seeing him on stage. Your name on a flyer taped to a telephone pole in Virginia doesn't count. Or did I miss him altogether and he was on stage, maybe the undercard? I don't remember seeing him anywhere.
Or feel morally superior cause you voted for Johnson and can sit and say I told you so to everyone else when one of the other 2 win.
That's the impression I get from a lot of Johnson supporters.
Honestly IMO there is one person that can't be president. That's what I tell people that ask me about it.
You posted an article for which the author ranted about how Johnson is not a true Libertarian (and he's correct) but offered zero solutions, such as recommending people vote for X instead, unless I missed it. Hence, those are the choices that exist to people. Vote for what they consider lesser of two evils (and some would argue a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil) or vote their conscience and let the chips fall where they may. All I'd like to see at this point is Johnson in the debates at this point. I'd consider that alone a major achievement consider the death grip the Dem/GOP have on the system.
Vote for HC or Trump
Stay home and feel morally superior because Johnson not ideal Libertarian candidate.
IMO, people should be strategic.
I'm probably gonna pull the trigger for Johnson but that's because there's no way in hell AL will go for Hilldog. It gives the LP some help in getting exposure without too much risk of putting Hillary in the WH.
If I was in a battleground state where every vote matters, I'd rethink that plan to keep Hilldog out....
Ummm, don't recall seeing him on stage. Your name on a flyer taped to a telephone pole in Virginia doesn't count. Or did I miss him altogether and he was on stage, maybe the undercard? I don't remember seeing him anywhere.
Then maybe you need to research a tad more what it takes to get on stage, and of course the fact the media is run/owned by one of the two major parties and ignores third party candidates. He's just started getting some traction with the media for various reasons. I added links to check out above also by mainstream media outlets also.
IMO, people should be strategic.
I'm probably gonna pull the trigger for Johnson but that's because there's no way in hell AL will go for Hilldog. It gives the LP some help in getting exposure without too much risk of putting Hillary in the WH.
If I was in a battleground state where every vote matters, I'd rethink that plan to keep Hilldog out....
Good points. I voted TP every time as I was in MA where my vote didn't matter anyway. Now living in a battleground state, I will keep a sharp eye out and will either hold nose and vote Trump or will vote Johnson, depending on how things play out over the coming months.
Will, what does Johnson offer that you like and do those things more closely match what Trump is saying, or Hillary. If it's closer to Trump's then most likely Johnson would be taking votes from the Trump side, which is good for Hillary, no? I think we all agree that she is just not an option and would do almost anything to keep her from nominating the next 1, 2, 3 or more SCOTUS judges right?
That's my fear, that any other candidate at this point that would even be remotely palatable, is just going to rob votes from what appears to be the only serious chance to defeat Hillary, Trump.
And I am asking this seriously; can Johnson really defeat Hillary?
MountainRaven
07-25-16, 11:52
Hearing Drumpf referred to as a serious choice makes me cringe and the Founding Fathers spin in their graves.
dwhitehorne
07-25-16, 12:04
I wonder if some money from the Dems will be funnelled to the 3rd party candidate. The last few elections in Virginia were close and the Libertarian candidate pulled enough votes from the Republican for the Democrat to win. The local radio station said the number one donor in the last election to the Virginia Libertarian candidate was a Democrat. I bet the Virginia VP candidate is well aware. David
Will, what does Johnson offer that you like and do those things more closely match what Trump is saying, or Hillary. If it's closer to Trump's then most likely Johnson would be taking votes from the Trump side, which is good for Hillary, no? I think we all agree that she is just not an option and would do almost anything to keep her from nominating the next 1, 2, 3 or more SCOTUS judges right?
The vibe I'm getting is actually that a lot of Bernie voters are swinging to Johnson. They hated losing but now they're pissed that the DNC conspired against them with Clinton.
The vibe I'm getting is actually that a lot of Bernie voters are swinging to Johnson. They hated losing but now they're pissed that the DNC conspired against them with Clinton.
Either way, the third part just mostly pulls votes from the Rep side.
That is how we got a second term with Bill. The Clinton's KNOW this and will work it. If he gains any ground it is a sure win for HRC.
It is truly said Americans are not smart enough to see this.
HRC can't beat Trump. But she can win based on the ignorance of the American people.
Will, what does Johnson offer that you like and do those things more closely match what Trump is saying, or Hillary. If it's closer to Trump's then most likely Johnson would be taking votes from the Trump side, which is good for Hillary, no? I think we all agree that she is just not an option and would do almost anything to keep her from nominating the next 1, 2, 3 or more SCOTUS judges right?
That's my fear, that any other candidate at this point that would even be remotely palatable, is just going to rob votes from what appears to be the only serious chance to defeat Hillary, Trump.
And I am asking this seriously; can Johnson really defeat Hillary?
Good points and fair Qs. The problem is to answer them is to just rehash what I and others don't like about Trump which has been covered ad nauseam in the existing Trump thread(s). I have no faith in anything Trump says per the fact much of it is 180 from his prior positions, etc. Your concerns are valid of course.
Hearing Drumpf referred to as a serious choice makes me cringe and the Founding Fathers spin in their graves.
Agreed. It's a scary time, but it aint boring! :cool:
I wonder if some money from the Dems will be funnelled to the 3rd party candidate. The last few elections in Virginia were close and the Libertarian candidate pulled enough votes from the Republican for the Democrat to win. The local radio station said the number one donor in the last election to the Virginia Libertarian candidate was a Democrat. I bet the Virginia VP candidate is well aware. David
We do know some within the GOP feel Trump is such a poor candidate, they are funneling money to HC camp who otherwise would have given to GOP candidate:
http://observer.com/2016/05/wealthy-cruz-donor-pours-millions-into-clinton-campaign/
I will say, all prior rules are no more and major shifts are taking place within both parties and Dem sending $ to TP could come back to bite them in the ass in a major fashion is polls are correct.
Either way, the third part just mostly pulls votes from the Rep side.
That is how we got a second term with Bill. The Clinton's KNOW this and will work it. If he gains any ground it is a sure win for HRC.
It is truly said Americans are not smart enough to see this.
HRC can't beat Trump. But she can win based on the ignorance of the American people.
That is how we got the first term of Bill, less so the second time. In 1992 Perot got 19% of the popular vote. He got far less in 1996. Clinton never had >50% in either election.
Either way, the third part just mostly pulls votes from the Rep side.
That is how we got a second term with Bill. The Clinton's KNOW this and will work it. If he gains any ground it is a sure win for HRC.
It is truly said Americans are not smart enough to see this.
HRC can't beat Trump. But she can win based on the ignorance of the American people.
Put it this way, the 538 tracker has gotten very interesting in the last few days since all the emails leaked. It's now pegged trump at a 53% chance to win as of today.
That is how we got the first term of Bill, less so the second time. In 1992 Perot got 19% of the popular vote. He got far less in 1996. Clinton never had >50% in either election.
That is what I meant, Perot screwed us....... And those that voted for him.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-25-16, 13:31
That is what I meant, Perot screwed us....... And those that voted for him.
Yep, when you look state by state at the 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 you can see that popular vote percents are not that illuminating. Looking at states and their Electoral vote trends. TN is a great example and went Bush in 88 then for Bill twice with Gore as VP, but in 2000 with Gore at the head of ticket he loses TN.....
Either way, the third part just mostly pulls votes from the Rep side.
That is how we got a second term with Bill. The Clinton's KNOW this and will work it. If he gains any ground it is a sure win for HRC.
It is truly said Americans are not smart enough to see this.
HRC can't beat Trump. But she can win based on the ignorance of the American people.
I have supplied numerous sources suggesting that's simply not true, and to date, most polls show the addition of a third party candidate a negative to HC at this point.
I have supplied numerous sources suggesting that's simply not true, and to date, most polls show the addition of a third party candidate a negative to HC at this point.
Know what's a better negative for HRC? Voting for Trump.
Sorry Will, couldn't resist.
I am still hopeful with that much stupid, liberal, corruption and political correctness gathered in one place, that it will all implode on itself
I have supplied numerous sources suggesting that's simply not true, and to date, most polls show the addition of a third party candidate a negative to HC at this point.
I will not argue the point but I do not believe that "research". Statics can be manipulated to tell what ever story you want. It is in the interest of the left to publish as much "research" as possible to show the conservatives on the high ground to vote third party.
Those that have been paying attention know that a great deal of the "research" is BS and is to there to fuel their agenda. Do we need to talk about Gore's Global warming or Andrew Wakefield's MMR research?
I will not argue the point but I do not believe that "research". Statics can be manipulated to tell what ever story you want. It is in the interest of the left to publish as much "research" as possible to show the conservatives on the high ground to vote third party.
Those that have been paying attention know that a great deal of the "research" is BS and is to there to fuel their agenda. Do we need to talk about Gore's Global warming or Andrew Wakefield's MMR research?
OK, then we will go with "cuz I say so" as the indicator for whether Johnson it a negative to HC or Trump. Rgr rgr. Regardless, TP can be spoilers for either party as was the Green Party for Gore. We have history to show that it's not automatically a magic negative for GOP, cuz it aint. Two, there's far more people in the "Anyone but Trump or HC"camp than is fully realized at this time, and I suspect that will show itself in spades come this election. It may in fact help Trump in this election. Obviously, those who genuinely want Trump win should just vote for him no doubt.
OK, then we will go with "cuz I say so" as the indicator for whether Johnson it a negative to HC or Trump. Rgr rgr. Regardless, TP can be spoilers for either party as was the Green Party for Gore. We have history to show that it's not automatically a magic negative for GOP, cuz it aint. Two, there's far more people in the "Anyone but Trump or HC"camp than is fully realized at this time, and I suspect that will show itself in spades come this election. It may in fact help Trump in this election. Obviously, those who genuinely want Trump win should just vote for him no doubt.
I understand what you are saying and I do agree to a point.
But overall inTHIS election I think it will hurt Trump more than HRC. And unfortunately neither of us can be right until after the election.
I'm voting for Johnson. If everybody dissatisfied with the 2 choices voted for Johnson, he'd win by a landslide.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I understand what you are saying and I do agree to a point.
But overall inTHIS election I think it will hurt Trump more than HRC. And unfortunately neither of us can be right until after the election.
You may be right, but indicators don't seem to support it. But all the old rules don't apply this election in my view
I'm voting for Johnson. If everybody dissatisfied with the 2 choices voted for Johnson, he'd win by a landslide.
If he can get into the debates, holds his own in those debates, and convince people's he's a viable candidate and they are not just wasting a vote and or giving it to the greater of two evils, he'd win by a landslide. If he can't get into the debates to be exposed to a large number of people and get compared to Trump and HC, then it's very unlikely even though TP votes will hit a record high if I was a betting man.
But all the old rules don't apply this election in my view.
That statement I can wholeheartedly agree with.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-25-16, 23:52
Yep, when you look state by state at the 84, 88, 92, 96, 00, 04 you can see that popular vote percents are not that illuminating. Looking at states and their Electoral vote trends. TN is a great example and went Bush in 88 then for Bill twice with Gore as VP, but in 2000 with Gore at the head of ticket he loses TN.....
Hello, here is your proof.
When I looked at it last time we talked about this, there were a couple of other states that like Colorado and Missouri that follow a similar trend.
You can click thru the map at: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/map/historic.html#1996 to see the states change. You need a swing of about 50 EC votes to change either election.
Actually, just look at Ohio, it goes for Clinton/Gore when big ears is in the election.
You can look at vote totals and try to parse breakdowns, but the reality is that the GOP lost a lot of states that they had and would once again win that went to Clinton/Gore.
That is the reality.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.