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

This is strange phrasing. He "joked" about how he can get away with sexually assaulting women and has been accused by at least 10 women of actually doing so.

Sure, he has not promised to actively try to make things worse for women, but he's certainly not going to champion any improvements. And he and his boys don't seem too receptive to women in the workplace.

There's certainly no reason to think he wouldn't go along with all of the anti-women stuff the GOP regularly cranks out (e.g., transvaginal ultrasounds, TRAP laws, etc.)

Ah, back when the presidency mattered. Those were the days.

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

That's about right. As I said, the only place it may get dicey is if this thing becomes close here. This one really is mentally trying. On one hand, I understand the status quo can't and shouldn't be sustained. On the other, if a vote for Johnson is a vote for the mother of all recessions, the cost benefit calculation requires voting for Hillary.

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

That's kind of laughable.

First, after three plus decades of this crap, and now trickles of totally not-at-all shocking email leaks, why would you think there's suddenly some there there?

Second, you think Hillary's going to cut a deal with him after what he's already done? Why would she?

Third, his best chance at a deal is obviously getting Trump elected. Why would he not use his best available ammo to do that? Especially because electing Trump would also quell outrage from the right, where it would be most fierce (see GOP elected official thanking god for Assange).

Okay, he does seem like someone who just wants to see the world burn, so maybe.

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

He objectifies women. His only policy regarding their reproductive rights would be ask the Surgeon General to push a med school to give him an honorary degree in gynecology.

Dr. Carson will oblige, of course.

I didn't think it mattered then, either. It was a protest vote.

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

He assaults women, or so he said and several shes have said. You don't think that's an even bigger deal "objectif[ying]" or "private sexual conduct"?

The macro story the history of American governance is the steady march toward an ever-stronger executive and a self-professed libertarian doesn't think who holds the office matters. That's mind-blowing.

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

Hell, I want Trump to lose big because I want the GOP to decide it has to try something very different.

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

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

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

God, I can only imagine what they might try next.

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

They absolutely have to try to be the latinx party, but I have no frickin clue how they could accomplish that, especially after the Trump Storm.

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

OK, I'll bite. What?

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

It's the NSFW version of the latino party.

Some rare old funky funk here. Carleen & the Groovers. The Thing. The Daily Dose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWM_-ylI9k8

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

Me being silly-PC. Gender neutral version of latino/latina.

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

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?

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

I was told by a lobbyist type from Austin that a Constitutional Convention is a very high priority on Governor Abbot's to-do list next year.

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

isn't there a gender neutral plural? in Italian it likely would end in an i. I'm just saying, ignorance of their language is a specie of hate, perhaps not as bad as suggesting a physical wall be built, but your indifference is a wall just the same.

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

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

But all the things on my list are ideas bumping around on the right, and some have buy-in from some of the lunatics they've elected to congress.

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

Not bad. Found this there and preordered some deep funk album.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au6hzTFZrDY

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

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)

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

No.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Like I said....

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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?)

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Nobody's seriously screwing with the Second Amendment. It's a third rail like Roe v. Wade. Some stuff is just political suicide.

(But that doesn't mean you don't lie to your base about doing so.)

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

No one here is bright enough, or in possession of adequate insider knowledge, to be as smug as you often are.

This does little to move the discussion forward. Every time I'm here I see about five or six opportunities to grab the low hanging fruit. I usually avoid it. You might want to drop about 30% of your attempted humor.

We already know you're smart and witty. Use the skill sets judiciously.

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

I believe I can think of one example where a third party had this kind of influence on another party, and that was FDR's adoption of social security as an idea from the socialist party. But that was a discrete program that build broader support, a la Bernie's college plan, not a broad philosophical outlook.

I think Libertarian third parties do more to isolate Libertarianism and make it look kooky myself. Part of the problem for libertarianism is the number of kooky folks seeing it as an excuse for racism (I ought to be free to decide who sits at my lunch counter!); part of it is the number of silly white boys with Ayn Rand fetishes (the Creative Class!!). When Libertarianism gets its own party these folks really stand out because it's such a small little party. Kind of the way Jill Stein gives all Greens a bad name.

But, hey, it's your vote. And, hey, Gary, don't bogart that joint, pass it here.

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

No, he's shown that they aren't at all motivated by religion, or conservatism, but are memory a coalition those who are afraid of people who they perceive as unlike them.

Conservative evangelicals became politicized to fight the integration of Bob Jones University, and that's still who they are, for the most part.

Sure, as long as libertarian policies don't abide the gays, women, foreigners, icky sex or sinful drugs.

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

Well, here in Minnesota, the Farmer and Labor Party grew influential enough to wind up merging with the Democrats. That was a long time ago and only one state.

I think not having to be in a coalition with other tend to extremism too. And extreme libertarianism is kooky stuff.