So GOPs successful march to authoritarian regime will require cheating NEW: The NRCC is out with a new ad campaign asking 200k GOP voters in #PA18 if they experienced issues at polls on Tuesday. If so, they can message with a lawyer from the NRCC Legal Defense program. Info gathering for potential election challenge: https://t.co/FtErtOiWts— Ben Kamisar (@bkamisar) March 15, 2018
When you start a post with "I'm going to take a very wild guess ..." ... it's not exactly a strong endorsement for me to read the rest. Here's a poll from 2016 that showed Gary Johnson getting about 39% of the active service vote. http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...eating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops. Methinks that active service members are directly affected by Democratic foreign policy. And it shows. Libertarianism gets some of its best traction in veteran circles ... something we've seen in this forum too with the likes of @Moishe. As far as the racial angle, I'm not even going to take the bait. At this point I just want to point out that I'm not engaging this conversation as a champion of libertarianism. I disagree strongly with many strains in libertarianism ... especially where it overlaps with paleo conservatism. The reason I engage in these conversations is because the repeated hysteria about 3rd party voters in this forum is absurd, poorly researched, poorly articulated, not substantive and mostly not constructive. Here's another poll from Gallup from 2016. http://news.gallup.com/poll/195920/americans-desire-third-party-persists-election-year.aspx. They find that 57% of Americans want more parties to choose from. A number that went up by 11% since 2012. This should just be a reminder that when people engage in 3rd party voter shaming, they're actually shaming the wishes of a majority of Americans.
If the Libertarian Party or whoever wanted to do something rather than siphon votes from the realistic options in federal elections, they'd work towards a repeal of the Uniform Congressional District Act at the federal level while working toward proportional representation in state and local legislatures. Short of that, "wanting more parties" is a pipe dream with no realistic prospects.
@Boloni86, from @ceezmad post: “Similarly, self-described libertarians do not differ a great deal from the public in opinions about foreign policy. Libertarianism is generally associated with a less activist foreign policy, yet a greater share of self-described libertarians (43%) than the public (35%) think “it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.” No, foreign policy is not a reason to vote L, but most likely a reason Ls vote R.
That chart and question does not necessarily mean military. If you think trade it makes sense, the other option was too protectionist. ok here is the wording of the second option. So it is between "it is best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs" Or "We should pay less attention to problems overseas and pay more attention to problems at home" So One sounds very Trumpist, I can see why many people including libertarians would pick the first one. BTW Dapip, When Trump announced the steel tariffs, did you for a second think, hey maybe this Trump guy is not as bad as I thought? Did you slap your self for thinking that even for a second?
I am pretty sure the green party platform had something about multiparty legislation, i forget the details. Green party on electoral reform. The Libertarian party does not seem to have electoral reform as a platform. So a goal to you Arsenal.
While I may come to this conclusion personally (I voted Clinton, Obama etc ...), I wouldn't have the audacity to lecture others to do the same. I respect anyone's vote as long as they can articulate their reasoning. For example a small business owner who may vote GOP because they're really drowning under their tax and regulatory burden. I may disagree with them and try to encourage them to see the bigger picture of what we lose without that tax or regulation. But I don't automatically go to this default place that calls them a fascist or fascist enabler. I need more evidence than a stupid vote to determine whether someone is a horrible human being or if they're a generally decent person who I happen to disagree with.
I usually ask for fairer trade policies that take in account the interests of working classes both in the industrialized and under developed countries. Tariffs for the sake of balancing the trade unbalance have never been my recipe. I guess you were trying to illustrate a point about oversimplifying other’s POV.
All? And how do you define that? Keep in mind that, in essence, the War on Drugs was started during the Presidency of FDR. It wasn't called that, but sure as shit, it was focused on Blacks. So not every ********ed up policy which is a hindrance on minorities can be blamed on Reps. Well, you have never addressed Obama's use of drones in the Arabian Peninsula that I have seen, which expanded the War on Terror. And you have never, that I have seen, addressed the fact that under Obama's presidency, he prosecuted the highest number of press-leakers of anybody. And you have not addressed Obama's use and expansion of covert domestic wiretapping, that I have seen. And did Obama push, or make any moves outside of speeches, to have bank executives investigated following the financial collapse? Did you address any of that? Got your excuses ready?
How do I say this? I’ve never said Democrats are perfect, or even good in every aspect of governance. However, most of us can agree that the current incarnation of the GOP will have no problem destroying whatever is left of our democracy and they’re usually terrible in most aspects of governance. You’re correct that fixing ALL damage done by the GOP might take too long, but let’s say that we fix at least voting, campaigning and representation. And for the record, I think that while is true that Obama/Clinton made some horrible mistakes, I consider that we cannot compare them with our perfect scenario but to what would be the alternative, as for example deregulating banks again, letting Russia make the calls in the Middle East or close our borders to refugees. IOW their mistakes don’t look that bad when compared with intentional sabotage.
Yeah but as a black man in America that every vote has always been the lesser of two evils for the most part, I can't exactly feel sorry. It was pretty clear who was the danger to the country and world and who was clearly a fascist, I don't get this. Not to mention all those people you named are nowhere near the amount of people being hurt. ********ing more dreamers than that whole group.
Like you did. I would say that the Democrats are good, rarely, and muddling most of the time, at best. There are occasional moments of excellence, such as the ACA, but even that was less than great. But I agree that Dems are better, in general, than Republicans. But that is a bar set far, far too low. I would add education to that as well. But I don't want my government to look "not bad when compared..." I want my government to attempt to be good. To make a serious effort at helping people, making people safer and healthier. Reps certainly don't give much of a ********, but the Dems are not working hard either. And neither of those is the fault of the libertarians. Look, you rail on the libertarians for not voting for Clinton. But that removes the blame from Clinton and the DNC and the entire Democratic Party for not putting forward a better candidate. Also blame the voters who voted for 45 who ordinarily would not have, despite the numerous sexist and racist things he said. Bang away at the shit the Dems have put on display over the past 18 months or so to make the Democratic Party better. And know that every time you blame the libertarians, justified or not, it takes away from the efforts to make the Democratic Party better. And right now, with the looks of a massive blue shift, that is where our focus should be, making the party better.
Tough when you have a daily reminder by this administration. I literally scream some days WTF! How is this guy the president!?! And then I remember 3rd party Voters, Bernie bros and stay at homers/both siders!
One more retirement..... Rep. Ryan Costello (R-PA) is considering retirement, several state and national officials in GOP politics have told ABC News, a move that would boost Democratic hopes in their quest to retake control of the House. PS. Just found out that his district currently is R+2 but will become D+2.
Agreed. Wise man. It’s a progression. With all his errors and controversy Clinton was better than Reagan and Bush I. Obama looked Washingtonian next to W. Now Blago or Doyle would look like FDR compared to the Orange menace. IOW asking for perfection and pointing at the faults of the Democrats becomes Republican enabling. Too many things contributed. More than how third party voters vote what I really despise is their #bothsidesdoit rhetoric. You lost me here. Democrats have offered better solutions than the GOP for the last 3 or 4 decades. We still have to debate on #drones&yemen.
....moving forward and trying to nominate someone likable would be a good start... But I think the DNC knows people like me will probably vote blue no matter who this time :barf: , so nothing of significance will change....
I think I am being significantly misquoted here. I asked @Knave about a half remembered article he posted. IIRC that article makes the argument that if you don't vote or waste your vote, you provide soft acquiescence to fascism. In normal times, that won't matter. But in the context of an campaign openly admiring Mussolini, it does matter. So if you cast a protest vote or stay home because Bernie, then you get a fascist government - its hard to deny that you chose not to oppose to the maximum extent you could. I don't deny there are valid reasons not to vote Clinton. Some of my german friends despise the Clintons for all the deaths and suffering imposed via the Iraq sanctions That's why @Knave stresses the lesser evil approach. I don't want to speak for him and in particular I don't agree with all his views. Where I do agree with him, is given what is now clear about Trumpism, your civic duty, if you believe in democracy, is to oppose him to the maximum extent. A vote for Saccone is clearly a vote endorsing the GOP's failure to hold Trump accountably to Congress. A protest vote or not voting is a vote that also fails to hold Trump accountable
Your punishment is the invocation of this earworm whenever you think of Libertarians. (I think Brummie actually had this haircut in his wilder college days)
This 1000%. Far too many Libertarians pursue the white whale of the presidency without trying to win local seats, or to push for PR. The GOP truly are trying to destroy democracy in order to maintain economic power. Which is why you have to put your petty ********ing grievances aside for two goddamn seconds in order to win some voters so that Trump and the GOP cannot accomplish their goal. "Play with my ball or I go home. Also, you're stupid for having played ball with those other kids yesterday" is not a winning way to get a Saturday morning pickup game going. Now is it. Okay, dumbass. I've been posting for a year now a very simple, basic question. It hasn't been answered yet by anyone on this forum, largely because the answer is really obvious and anyone who disagrees with me knows they're dumbasses for disagreeing with me. So here's the question: How does the Democratic Party defeat Donald Trump in 2020 by relying on a turnout-only (i.e., no persuasion of non-HRC voters) campaign? I'll even post the answer so that you can simply copy-paste. THEY DON'T.