I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

No, their version of what to be next will be even scarier. Secessionist perhaps? Radical states' rights? Calling for a constitutional convention? Establishment of a whites-only homeland?

I think it'll be more of the same: Gridlock, whining, filibusters, endless investigations of HRC, and four more years of muddling sideways.

And war. We'll have more of that in the middle east, which the GOP will wholeheartedly support. The only questions are whether it shifts from proxies to us putting together a coalition to openly intervene, and Russia's response.

If you've read the Wikileaks stuff re: Russia, Hillary seems to want to mend the relationship with Putin. But one of the conditions is Russia decreasing its efforts to expand its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. That's a non-starter.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Think of it as a protest vote against rationality.

It's entirely rational. I want the Libertarian Party to gain a greater voice in politics. Getting Johnson/Weld over 10% nationally will do that. HRC is going to win my state by a landslide, and I am not enthused by her, so a vote for her would be both wasted and the selection of candidate I don't particularly like for no good reason.

The logic of voting for Johnson is entirely rational considering: (1) my goal of enhancing the Libertarian Party's presence in the political discourse; and, (2) there is no risk associated with it. To vote for HRC or Trump would be illogical and indefensible given my views and objectives.

What you are really saying is, I think, "Libertarians are never going to win the White House, and voting for one is foolish." I understand that pragmatic reasoning. But you also understand you're missing the point. I don't expect Libertarians to win. I expect them to get more coverage, and their views to become more mainstreamed into the political discourse. As they become a more traditional voice in politics, their views and policies will inform the political platforms of the two entrenched parties.

It's a variant of what Bernie did -- converting positions previously considered within the "sphere of deviancy" into acceptable, debatable policy. Voting for Johnson couldn't be more rational for me.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's what the Trumpists will do. What will the Paul Ryan's and Reince Priebus's do?

And which of those teams will Ted Cruz join? (I suspect SEC will not like the answer)

Paul and Reince are happy to sign on to almost any lunatic idea as long as the person pushing it is somewhat less lunatic than Trump.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's entirely rational. I want the Libertarian Party to gain a greater voice in politics. Getting Johnson/Weld over 10% nationally will do that. HRC is going to win my state by a landslide, and I am not enthused by her, so a vote for her would be both wasted and the selection of candidate I don't particularly like for no good reason.

The logic of voting for Johnson is entirely rational considering: (1) my goal of enhancing the Libertarian Party's presence in the political discourse; and, (2) there is no risk associated with it. To vote for HRC or Trump would be illogical and indefensible given my views and objectives.

What you are really saying is, I think, "Libertarians are never going to win the White House, and voting for one is foolish." I understand that pragmatic reasoning. But you also understand you're missing the point. I don't expect Libertarians to win. I expect them to get more coverage, and their views to become more mainstreamed into the political discourse. As they become a more traditional voice in politics, their views and policies will inform the political platforms of the two entrenched parties.

It's a variant of what Bernie did -- converting positions previously considered within the "sphere of deviancy" into acceptable, debatable policy. Voting for Johnson couldn't be more rational for me.

Like I said....

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What you are really saying is, I think, "Libertarians are never going to win the White House, and voting for one is foolish." I understand that pragmatic reasoning. But you also understand you're missing the point. I don't expect Libertarians to win. I expect them to get more coverage, and their views to become more mainstreamed into the political discourse. As they become a more traditional voice in politics, their views and policies will inform the political platforms of the two entrenched parties.

It's a variant of what Bernie did -- converting positions previously considered within the "sphere of deviancy" into acceptable, debatable policy. Voting for Johnson couldn't be more rational for me.

No. It's not a variant of what Bernie did. A libertarian party will never take hold. Encouraging the increase in the participation of a third-party libertarian movement will ensure that the Republican Party--the only party that will ever be in a position to adopt any libertarian policy--does not. The result will be that people most passionate about libertarianism (and any Republican converts) will remain outside of the two-party system and will be forever irrelevant.

If Johnson (or an actual intelligent libertarian) wanted to do what Bernie did, he would attack from within the Republican Party. Paul tried it, but couldn't move the needle. The simple fact is, people who like to say they are libertarians are mostly just full of shit, like everyone else. They may share some views here and there ("legalize drugs!" "stop our interventionist foreign policy!"), but when it comes down to it, they're as in favor of big government as anyone else. They just want it used for things that appeal to them.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. It's not a variant of what Bernie did. A libertarian party will never take hold. Encouraging the increase in the participation of a third-party libertarian movement will ensure that the Republican Party--the only party that will ever be in a position to adopt any libertarian policy--does not. The result will be that people most passionate about libertarianism (and any Republican converts) will remain outside of the two-party system and will be forever irrelevant.

If Johnson (or an actual intelligent libertarian) wanted to do what Bernie did, he would attack from within the Republican Party. Paul tried it, but couldn't move the needle. The simple fact is, people who like to say they are libertarians are mostly just full of shit, like everyone else. They may share some views here and there ("legalize drugs!" "stop our interventionist foreign policy!"), but when it comes down to it, they're as in favor of big government as anyone else. They just want it used for things that appeal to them.

TM

Exactly, thanks for taking the trouble.

Another way of saying what you said is that we are a diverse country with 20 different political philosophies: right wing born-again evangelicals to libertarians to quaker pacifist hippies, socialists and free market conservatives. The political philosophies that matter find a coalition in a broad political party, and understand that if they do well their party will win most of the time and they'll get what they want some of the time when their party wins but not all of the time.

Anyone who thinks they'll have a "libertarian" party or a "socialist" party fails to understand this. They think they're living in a less intellectually diverse place, or can make America less diverse. Fuck 'em.

The good thing is, at least they're not helping the republicans build a majority. As long as the philosophies of the right can't get together, the good guys win.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

They hate the constitution. It gets in the way of so much of their agenda.

Says the guy who backs the party that doesn't want to recognize 20% of the Bill of Rights.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Says the guy who backs the party that doesn't want to recognize 20% of the Bill of Rights.

Look, don't blame me, I told Obama he couldn't quarter those guys in your house.

(Seriously, though, you're thinking 2nd and 10th?)

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Adder

That's what the Trumpists will do. What will the Paul Ryan's and Reince Priebus's do?

And which of those teams will Ted Cruz join? (I suspect SEC will not like the answer)

I could totally get behind a Texit. Or a constitutional convention.

Ted Cruz is all but dead to me. I mean, I'd vote for him against Wendy Davis, but that's about it. That said, I do distinguish between people who back Trump like a hostage with a gun to his head and those who enthusiastically embrace him.

Polling data shows that Trump's lead in TX is within the margin of error. That said. I'm still not voting for the guy. I truly believe in small government and have no interest in voting for a national populist big government autocrat, who also happens to be a serial sexual predator. But I'm not happy about it. The Democrats are just going to do to the rest of the country what they did to Georgia ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...a-storm-drain/ ). I saw that 87% of Rs are voting Trump, but I'd say at least a third of them are solely doing it because of Hillary. If the Dems had run someone likable as a person, say, Biden, I think they'd be up 20 points and win Texas. On the other hand, if the GOP had nominated Rubio against Hillary, they'd be up by double digits too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. It's not a variant of what Bernie did. A libertarian party will never take hold. Encouraging the increase in the participation of a third-party libertarian movement will ensure that the Republican Party--the only party that will ever be in a position to adopt any libertarian policy--does not. The result will be that people most passionate about libertarianism (and any Republican converts) will remain outside of the two-party system and will be forever irrelevant.

If Johnson (or an actual intelligent libertarian) wanted to do what Bernie did, he would attack from within the Republican Party. Paul tried it, but couldn't move the needle. The simple fact is, people who like to say they are libertarians are mostly just full of shit, like everyone else. They may share some views here and there ("legalize drugs!" "stop our interventionist foreign policy!"), but when it comes down to it, they're as in favor of big government as anyone else. They just want it used for things that appeal to them.

TM

Even if they are not full of shit, Trump has revealed -- or confirmed -- that GOP voters are largely uninterested in what they have to say. People are voting for Johnson this year because they don't like Trump, not because they are flocking to the Libertarians views.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Says the guy who backs the party that doesn't want to recognize 20% of the Bill of Rights.

Says the woman whose (former) party can't even abide by the introductory clause of their favorite amendment.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Says the woman whose (former) party can't even abide by the introductory clause of their favorite amendment.

Oh shit, a constitutional smackdown! It's on! O.K., let's do this. Here's another rare deep funk cut from the same compilation album where I got yesterday's Daily Dose. Soul Seven with "The Cissy's Thang." Jangly rhythm guitar? Check. Creeping bass line? Check. Grooved out horn lines? Check. It must be funky!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYZoUuZhLmI

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I could totally get behind a Texit.

I have proposed to my friends in the UK (both Brits and Scots) that we swap Texas for Scotland. They all thought it sounded like a great idea.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Exactly, thanks for taking the trouble.

Another way of saying what you said is that we are a diverse country with 20 different political philosophies: right wing born-again evangelicals to libertarians to quaker pacifist hippies, socialists and free market conservatives. The political philosophies that matter find a coalition in a broad political party, and understand that if they do well their party will win most of the time and they'll get what they want some of the time when their party wins but not all of the time.

Anyone who thinks they'll have a "libertarian" party or a "socialist" party fails to understand this. They think they're living in a less intellectually diverse place, or can make America less diverse. Fuck 'em.

The good thing is, at least they're not helping the republicans build a majority. As long as the philosophies of the right can't get together, the good guys win.

Please reread what I wrote, with focus on the part about Libertarians "informing the policies" of the entrenched two parties.

You and TM are both arguing against a point I've not offered.

I don't expect a Libertarian Party to succeed, or the two party system to end. I expect Libertarianism to infect the policies of both parties. I actually agree with TM's analysis that Paul had the right idea in trying to inject Libertarianism into the GOP. I'm advocating a variant of that. Bernie forced the Democrats to adopt more progressive policies. Libertarians can force the GOP to do the same. This can be done with a Libertarian running as a Republican, as the Independent Sanders did in running as a Democrat. It can also be done by getting Libertarian policies more exposure, and making Libertarians attractive to a GOP in dire need of new voters. Or both. These are not mutually exclusive strategies. In fact, they compliment each other.

It's simple. Make Libertarianism more popular/noticed, get people more accepting of its policies, and let the GOP either co-opt it or absorb some of its policies by necessity.

People are seeking alternatives. TM's right that most people like big govt, but people also like freedom. Tempered Libertarianism is an attractive option. And Trump had marginalized the biggest obstacle to it making gains within the GOP: the Religious Right.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Even if they are not full of shit, Trump has revealed -- or confirmed -- that GOP voters are largely uninterested in what they have to say. People are voting for Johnson this year because they don't like Trump, not because they are flocking to the Libertarians views.

Untrue. Libertarianism has enjoyed increased exposure and consideration for many years now. Credit that to Paul.

Trump has shown the Religious Right can be forced to vote for almost anything. This allows the GOP tent to become more open to Libertarian policies which were previously deemed too socially tolerant.