Got my first-ever bumper sticker: "Don't be the lesser evil: Johnson Weld 2016."

I don't live in a swing state, so I am voting third party in the hopes of them being on the ballot next time. Haven't decided between Green and Libertarian. My objective is less to support a particular party and more to get other voices, ANY other voices, into the mix

Sure, throw your vote away. Why bother to show up at all? Just wash your hands of the whole thing and give up now. If Hilliary wins it will because of bench warmers. Trump is an independent! Look how much the republican elites hate him! He is more populist and libertarian than anyone else running. Why would you be against prosperity?

Steve in Tulsa wrote:

'Trump is an independent! Look how much the republican elites hate him! He is more populist and libertarian than anyone else running.'

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

Since Trump cannot articulate a consistent position on most issues from one day to the next, it's very unwise indeed to say that he is 'libertarian' or 'populist' in any degree.

However, and understanding that we are shooting at a moving target here, I would say that any candidate who proposes or supports

- barring persons from entering the country based upon their religion

- restricting the First Amendment rights of persons speaking or writing about 'celebrities' and others in the public eye

- punishing women and/or physicians who undergo or perform abortions

- the use and expansion of eminent domain powers to allow governments to seize private property for dubious 'public' uses

- ending 14th-amendment citizenship

- waterboarding suspected terrorists "and worse"

- killing the families of suspected terrorists

- seizing the oil resources of foreign nations

- wasteful and ineffective subsidies, such as those for renewable fuels and corn-based ethanol

- a mandatory minimum wage

- state-operated single-payer healthcare

can possible be described as 'libertarian' or 'populist' in any meaningful degree.

Trump is every-bit as much for overarching state control over every aspect of our lives as Clinton is, maybe worse. It's just that the parts of our lives he wants the state to control are sometimes just a little bit different from those that Clinton wants the state to control. When it comes to libertarian values, you could not slip a rolling paper between the two of them - they're both as bad as each other.

llater,

llamas

A flaw in our electoral system is that some people's votes matter than others, depending on where they live. I might be tempted to disagree with Amy if she lived in a battleground state, but she doesn't. California is a one-party state and Hillary will win going away, even if every person who has even thought about a third-party vote goes for Trump instead. I'm in the mirror image of that; Trump will win easily in my state, so I might also vote for Johnson. Even assuming that Johnson doesn't carry a state (and I'm almost certain he won't), if he gets to 5%, it will be the first such since Ross Perot.

(The last third-party candidate to carry a state was George Wallace in 1968, who carried Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. That didn't swing the election since even if Hubert Humphrey had won all of those states, he still would have fallen short of Nixon. However, had Humphrey won California, that combined with Wallace's states would have prevented any candidate from reaching a majority, and the election would have landed in the House of Representatives.)

Since Trump cannot articulate a consistent position on most issues from one day to the next, it's very unwise indeed to say that he is 'libertarian' or 'populist' in any degree. ~ llamas at September 7, 2016 6:32 AM

The problem for Trump is that, not having had a political philosophy up to now, he is developing one on the fly. If you observe closely, you can see it beginning to coalesce. He's becoming more consistent, even as he's contradicting some of his earlier statements.

Mitt Romney suffered from the same problem. He was for big government programs, except when he was against them. He failed to defend his Massachusetts record because he had no consistent political philosophy while he was governor and bounced whichever way the popular wind blew him.

Part of that was a primary system which demands that potential nominees kowtow to hardcore party partisans and candidates attract broad-based support.

Arnold, when he was governor of California, did the same thing, mistaking popularity for respect.

To his credit, Donald actually seems to be forming a fairly consistent political philosophy.

Not for nothing llamas, but Clinton supports a lot of those items as well

@lujlp - of course you are correct, and Clinton supports just as many statist, confiscatory and generally anti-libertarian positions as Trump does, maybe more, and many of them exactly the same as Trump.`

So, as I said, in this regard, there's virtually nothing to choose between them.

llater,

llamas

I have trouble understanding why you say Trump isn't a populist Llamas. He definitely isn't a libertarian. But populists have supported many of the things on your list. Closed borders is a classic populist theme. As is mercantilism and one way trade (hostility to imports). Even increasing the minimum wage is a common populist demand. Abortion and interrogation of foreigners was never part of the populist movement either for or against, so that's a wash. His support for eminent domain is his only anti-populist position I can think of.

> If Hilliary wins it will because
> of bench warmers.

You shouldn't try to describe causative forces in contexts you don't comprehend. No, if Hillary wins it will be because a bunch of illiterates, regressed to the deepest social resentment of their eighth-grade selves, decided a game-show host of documented fiscal and managerial incompetence should represent our interests domestically and abroad. You want to prove things to people.

You're fucking this up.

I mean, I know point that out doesn't help, but when people are so nakedly corrupt in their enthusiasms, we at least ought to take some pleasure in saying so.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/09/06/julian-assange-we-have-released-thousands-of-emails-where-clinton-herself-has-used-a-c-in-brackets/

That woman *cannot* become president of the United States without irreparable damage to the rule of law, and government accountability.

In spite of Crid's animosity towards Trump, lets not pretend that voting Johnson, and throwing the election to Hillary is going to be the better outcome.

So, as I said, in this regard, there's virtually nothing to choose between them.

Sure there is, Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he isnt a felon who violated national security. Plus he is so routinely despised he wont be able to get any of his legislation passed and will be such a petulant whiner that he'll veto most of what congress sends across his desk.

"- barring persons from entering the country based upon their religion"

Stating that we should temporarily stop taking in people that are troublesome to vet so we can ensure the vetting is being done properly is different from stating the above but that is easily ignored isn't it.

Stating that we should temporarily stop taking in people we can not vet a few weeks before terrorists kill Americans because our vetting process purposely ignored social media due to PC concerns has also been ignored.

Was he lucky in his timing or simply stating an obvious fact that proved to be fatal for some is also easy to ignore.

Oh well, obviously "we" did not know how well our vetting process was doing in protecting the ability of terrorists to participate in social media. Too bad people died, but that's okay "We are from the government and are here to help."

Makes as much sense as barring my wife's countrymen during WWII to me. Feel free to differ, I feel free to let you know now, in advance, that the next San Bernardino is on you.

Because it's not about religion, it's about a malignant political philosophy masquerading as one. One with a doctrine that wants me to be a second class citizen in my own nation. Pardon me for not caring about the rights of those who have no right to be here, wish me ill, and at least some of whom have proven they will act on it.

Or as dad used to say, better safe than sorry.

Gary Johnson is a complete idiot" and a "hypocrite"?

Great, so now our choice is a buffoon, a thieving liar, and also hypocritical idiot.

I want to press that big, red, do-over button. Anyone see it anywhere?

Tell all those involved that they need to redo this election season starting with the primaries and, no, they cannot nominate the same fools - give us better choices!

> In spite of Crid's animosity
> towards Trump

That understates it. He's a feckless child, blowing money and cheating partners (in every context) as fast as he can. To speak of "animosity" for such a person is pointless.

> lets not pretend that voting
> Johnson, and throwing the election
> to Hillary is going to be
> the better outcome

That's where your heads are at. You can't consider the word "Trump" without thinking "But Hillary!" For you guys it's not about ideology, principles, policy or public service. You're racing to the bottom. You WANT this to happen. You NEED it to be this simple.

My favorite two-word sentence: No tears.

Don't come cryin'.

The problem with Hillary and Trump is each one only looks good in comparison to the other one, and mostly due to the sum of the fears of what the other one could become. And either one will live up to at least some of the detractors' worst fears. No matter how outlandish those fears, whichever is elected is going to do damage to the country. There will be a lot of "I told you sos" after this election, whichever candidate wins. And a lot of tears.

Neither is worthy of being president.

Yet neither is bad enough to make Gary Johnson a widely desirable alternative. Either Trump or Hillary is going to win the election. And there will not be an apology from the voters strong enough to make up for it.

Interesting

The Flight 93 Election

Excerpts:

"...only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying."

"All of Trump’s 16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their 'opposition' may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32 'genders,' elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, 'Islamophobia,' and Black Lives Matter. They merely help ratify them."

"A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England. We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else."

That is interesting Conan.

For the record, I agree the US as it has been historically is dying. The US likes to think of itself as a young nation, but the reality is it is one of the oldest democracies in the world. The years of bad law and bad precedent weigh heavily on it. And despite fiscal conservative's fears, money and debt are only a symptoms. The real issue is how we educate our children. That is why labor participation among young men is falling. That is why men refuse to marry. That is why we spend so much so ineffectively. The WW2 generation tried to give their kids everything they didn't have growing up. But they forgot to give their kids what they did have. And now our schools are run by marxist nihilists, miseducating by the millions.

"That understates it. He's a feckless child, blowing money and cheating partners (in every context) as fast as he can. To speak of "animosity" for such a person is pointless."

Ya know, Crid sounds like one of the disgruntled investors in Trumps bankrupt deals.