I can’t support Johnson because his role as a minor party candidate is not necessarily to win, but to be a spokesman for libertarian principles. As a libertarian myself, I certainly want more Americans to hear and understand the libertarian philosophy....It seems to me that this is the year for party insiders to get burned by someone who's dropping in to take over their structure and ballot access.
If the RedState diarist — southernconstitutionalist — is correct, it puts Johnson in the same category as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.
This is the essence of 2016.
Posts
84 comments:
It's sort of a fair point....Johnson isn't that pure of a Libertarian; he never has been. But he hasn't come within a mile of co-opting the LP as Trump has with the GOP. Johnson at least generally stays with core principles and policies....Trump, on the other hand is a pathological liar, and changing his incoherent positions [when he bothers to have positions] on a daily basis.
It continues to amaze me that the GOP electorate, after bitching and whining about the party not offering actual Conservatives.....overwhelmingly nominate someone who's not remotely a Conservative.
Pat Buchanan made out all right with Ross Perot's party.
Anyway, "conservative" depends on how you define "conservative." If Trump can bring in some new people and make it fashionable to prune back "the regulation nation" and get some movement back into the economy, that is "conservative" enough for me, however he does it.
In response to the first response to this post: The Republican hillbillies are a dumb lot.
My fear, if anything, is that he is not nasty enough. I still say that what er really need is a reincarnation of Old Joe Kennedy!
So ironically....support for Trump is based purely on "hope and change". Beautiful.
"t continues to amaze me that the GOP electorate, after bitching and whining about the party not offering actual Conservatives.....overwhelmingly nominate someone who's not remotely a Conservative."
When the train is heading for the cliff, you pull the cord to stop it. You don't worry much about what comes after.
"The Republican hillbillies are a dumb lot."
A perfect picture of the far left which has Hillary and Bernie to choose from.
Constitutional Insurgent said...
"It continues to amaze me that the GOP electorate, after bitching and whining about the party not offering actual Conservatives.....overwhelmingly nominate someone who's not remotely a Conservative."
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
Anyone who cannot get behind these proposals is no conservative. They are lying to people by claiming to be. We have a candidate this time who will fight for free market health care reform. In 2012 we had a candidate who could barely be convinced to repeal some parts of Obamacare.
My guess at this point would be that a new poster to this boards like "Constitutional Insurgent" is actually a paid Hillary moby though so it is unlikely there will be any real engagement.
Once written, twice... said...
"In response to the first response to this post: The Republican hillbillies are a dumb lot."
Democrats are going to nominate Hillary Clinton.
But Once can't write more than a line in a post and has demonstrated no critical thinking ability while on this blog. Pointing at a party candidate and screeching about how dumb their supporters are is the tool of a weak mind.
Ann, that's a very good point. You win. This time.
Constitutional Insurgent, this is not terribly shocking. If the primary had been Trump vs. Cruz early on, Cruz almost certainly wins. If it had been Trump vs. Rubio, Rubio almost certainly wins. The primary became Trump vs. Cast of Thousands who split up the vote and let Trump win big with just pluralities. This was anything but normal procedure.
I also suspect that at this point conservatives were so fed up with the establishment screwing them over and anything that wasn't establishment was considered an improvement. Trump ain't establishment. That is for sure. Half a loaf.
@Achilles - You would guess wrong...but since you actually believe both the conveniently recent conversions and the 3rd grade rhetorical gravitas of your chosen candidate, I'm not certain you could grasp actual Conservatism nor engagement. I stand by a lengthy blogging history that refutes your throw-away assertion. But thanks for the chuckle.
@Static - Fair points all. I think several of the GOP contenders could have taken down Trump, if the field were not so large.
I don't know about the utility of "coherent positions", as expressed in some political magazine. Its all a bit like religion, where it shouldn't be. A bit of historical perspective tends to destroy all political dogma. The world is incoherent and fixed policies are weak before the power of events.
As a corrective for most such standing on principle at the cost of managing things in the real world, I suggest Manchester's biography of Churchill. Note that the third volume came out a few years ago, finally, finished by Paul Reid.
Constitutional Insurgent said...
"@Achilles - You would guess wrong...but since you actually believe both the conveniently recent conversions and the 3rd grade rhetorical gravitas of your chosen candidate, I'm not certain you could grasp actual Conservatism nor engagement. I stand by a lengthy blogging history that refutes your throw-away assertion. But thanks for the chuckle."
Whether you think Trump believes it or not those are the positions he is campaigning on. You either support those positions or you don't. You know what Hillary supports. You have a choice.
Saying "Trump doesn't really believe those things" is a cowards move. If you want to get after him later for not following through I will be right there with you. But at this moment he is championing these positions. You support them or you are a loser who wants to lose to the democrats. With Trump in the presidency we have a fighting chance. With Hillary the republic is lost.
I do see that as problematic. But on the other hand, if the LP has no intention of ever winning elections, it seems a fairly pointless enterprise. There are more efficient ways of educating people in political philosophy or public choice theory than in the limited discourse of political campaigns carried on via the mass media.
And a Johnson win, should such a thing be possible, would be a lot better than a Trump, Clinton, or Sanders win, indeed almost immeasurably so.
I have to say, too, that I would enjoy seeing Johnson point out that he has the experience as a chief executive that the other three all lack. . . .
Trump's candidacy has made it easy to spot the Mobys. Anyone who will attack Trump but can't bring themselves to convincingly criticize Hillary, is clearly not a conservative. Their worldview and inability to think critically probably makes it impossible to concern troll because they actually believe that Hillary is the perfect choice. Chuck lost all credibility when it became obvious that he was incapable of applying the same standard to Hillary that he was applying to Trump.
@Achilles - Though I can't agree with what you write, I an at least appreciate your fervor and passion. And I do indeed have a choice in November.
What is "actual conservatism"?
Russell Kirk had a hard time defining it over a lifetime dedicated to that question, trying to find a dogma where there wasn't.
My conservatism is more De Maistre than Reagan, but that's not a problem as both were more human, understanding and flexible than some of the more academic fellows of the current age.c
Constitutional Insurgent said...
"@Achilles - Though I can't agree with what you write, I an at least appreciate your fervor and passion. And I do indeed have a choice in November."
It doesn't matter if you believe what I write or not. Hillary or Trump are going to be the president.
If you can't see a difference then you are at best apathetic to the freedom you have and I fought for. If you can't get involved in this fight by at least voting for a fighting chance for our republic then you are worthless to "conservatism" and the Republic.
"I think several of the GOP contenders could have taken down Trump,"
Yes but they would have had to adopt one or two of his positions. That is the thing that drives his support.
Immigration is the strongest driver. Illegal, Muslim and excessive H1B visa immigration is what made him the candidate.
I am pleased to see the positions he has adopted but that is not what the election is about.
I have been very skeptical about what I The Trump Phenomenon a few months ago.
I don't like his manners or his speeches but I am resigned that the candidates I supported, and a couple I donated to, were not in touch with the concerns of American voters this year.
I had hopes that Cruz would see the coming trend and join Trump to help him govern and close ranks. He didn't.
I'll be very interested in who he chooses for VP as I think they will win the election. I just hope this will not be a disaster, as some supposed Republicans seem to wish.
We are in uncharted waters. Revolutions usually are.
@Achilles - I've never disputed that ether Clinton or Trump are going to be the next POTUS; I do however disagree that either one of them will be a net positive for our nation....and further believe that your line of thought best represents the apathy borne of the duopoly and it's media allies. It wold seem that you can't get past the fact that my vote will not alter the Clinton v. Trump race....thus I vote my conscience and my values; neither of which are represented by the frontrunners.
Constitutional Insurgent said...
"@Achilles - I've never disputed that ether Clinton or Trump are going to be the next POTUS; I do however disagree that either one of them will be a net positive for our nation....and further believe that your line of thought best represents the apathy borne of the duopoly and it's media allies. It wold seem that you can't get past the fact that my vote will not alter the Clinton v. Trump race....thus I vote my conscience and my values; neither of which are represented by the frontrunners."
I understand your paradigm perfectly. I have been arguing with people like you for months. You are not special.
First point. I live in Washington state and if Trump wins here it is a landslide. But I want a landslide. I want Hillary Clinton to kill herself after the election because she is so embarrassed. I want a filibuster proof majority in the senate. I want Trump to be successful and make this country great again.
Second point. This is more important that my vanity. I am not going to hide because Trump is imperfect. I am going to fight for this even though people will call me stupid. I am going to fight for this even though people will think less of me. You will not do that because you are more interested in you. You want people to think you are smart. You want to "be able to sleep at night."
At some point you will grow up and realize this election is more important than your feelings or perception of yourself or how others think of you.
"It continues to amaze me that the GOP electorate, after bitching and whining about the party not offering actual Conservatives ... overwhelmingly nominate someone who's not remotely a Conservative."
CI, what the heck is "the GOP electorate"?
We have a checkered system in which some states allow only registered Republicans to vote, and others in which anyone can vote. We have some caucus states where only those willing to spend the day in a high school gym have a voice. And you have a Long March system in which the people voting late in the campaign don't have the option to vote for the same slate of candidates as those who vote in February.
Add to that a leaning-liberal media who is more interested in horse races and commentary by idiots instead of looking at their platforms, and an portion of the electorate who -- except for the hardcore political wonks -- don't usually pay attention to the candidates until a few weeks before they get to vote (because why bother paying attention to the slate in February when you know most of them will drop out by the time you get to vote in May) .... and frankly I can't say that the collective group of those who voted could be called "the GOP."
I guess what I'm trying to say is, as one W. Zevon sang, "This shit's fucked up."
Constitutional Insurgent said...
@Achilles - You would guess wrong...but since you actually believe both the conveniently recent conversions and the 3rd grade rhetorical gravitas of your chosen candidate, I'm not certain you could grasp actual Conservatism nor engagement. I stand by a lengthy blogging history that refutes your throw-away assertion. But thanks for the chuckle.
5/30/16, 11:31 AM"
I confess that I haven't kept up on current events. You mind telling me who is the real deal conservative on the ballot? Now I don't trust His Orangness that much, he wasn't my choice in the primary but all I can judge him on is his stated positions which to my mind aren't terrible. Hillary's positions are terrible. I have no reason whatsoever to believe she doesn't believe and won't attempt to implement her positions. Do you think she's fooling everyone and will govern like a conservative if she wins? Whether Trumpy will govern by and attempt to implement his positions remains to be seen if he wins. But I live in a swing state so my vote actually does matter and I can't afford to waste it on a vanity vote.
If Johnson-Weld are "fake libertarians", then Trump is a fake Republican and fake conservative. The GOP nominee has flip-flopped like a Big Mouth Billy Bass.
I'm pleased to see the Libertarians nominate a serious candidate, but William Weld's remark comparing deporting illegal immigrants to Kristallnacht goes a long way towards explaining why the Libertarian Party, despite having been the preeminent third party for decades, has never gained ground.
The Republicans and Democrats can get away with leaders saying stupid things, but a party still hoping to achieve mainstream respect cannot.
It's a bit odd to say, in a medium that's all about personal vanity (why do we post and argue?).
But it is the correct perspective on duty, political and otherwise - it's not about ourselves or our feelings, as in Casablanca, these amount to a hill of beans. The correct course may be, and very likely is, the bitterest one.
I think it's high time to rethink the current two-party system. It has become irrelevant and invalid.
@Achilles - "I have been arguing with people like you for months. You are not special."
And I've been doing the same, with people like you....your point?
"You will not do that because you are more interested in you. You want people to think you are smart. You want to "be able to sleep at night."
You should really re-think the stale "Libertarians think they're smarter than everyone else n the room" canard, because if taken at face value, all it really means is that you'd be admitting to being ignorant. It's trite and specious. I'm sure that's not what you're going for....is it?
"At some point you will grow up and realize this election is more important than your feelings or perception of yourself or how others think of you."
This coming from the guy supporting the candidate who rests his entire campaign on the leftist tactic of appeal to emotion? This election, like every other, is not remotely about me....it's about the Republic I can try to leave to my daughters. If that means voting for values and policies that never really catch on to the short-attention-span, consumer masses....that's fine. I can not in good conscience be apathetic and give my vote to two irresponsible choices who have done nothing to earn it. It does nicely [yet sadly] illustrate that any commonalities regarding free market, protection of rights and property and the supremacy of individual liberty can be quickly and conveniently discarded if one is not voting for the right team.
@Bill - "CI, what the heck is "the GOP electorate"?" By that I was referring to the preponderance of Republican voters who cast for a particular candidate [Trump]. There's probably a better way to characterize that group, but it was what came to mind at the time.
I think it's high time to rethink the current two-party system
Well, for something that was totally unforeseen and unplanned, it has worked out pretty well for us. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have preferred something less permanent, or a multi-party system. However given the method of electing the president, a true multi-party system is unlikely.
Appeal to emotion is not a leftist tactic, it is a traditional political tactic in any democracy, going back to classical times. The Romans and Greeks taught it as a professional tool. One can argue that democracy itself is leftist, and in historical context this is supportable, but it is meaningless in the modern context. We have democracy and have to work with it.
@Buwaya - True, but in the current era, it's a tactic honed by the left and used as it's base currency, without context nor reason. It's a perversion of the ancient tactic the, in my opinion, should not be a primary tool of a Conservative.
Unfortunately, unless we can organize a government by philosopher kings (like Lee Jean Yews Singapore perhaps), the ONLY tool in Democratic competition, at least as far as public arguments go, is rhetoric. There is no way you can avoid this tool. At best you can avoid examining your own sides rhetoric and pretend it isn't, but an honest analysis will show all of it for what it is.
@ Achilles I agree with your point of view 100%. This election, like all elections, will determine the near future and , perhaps, the far future. Libertarians and "pure conservatives" are delusional to think that their strict observance of their so-called principles will change matters one whit. The choice will be between one person who we know is a devious, power hungry crook and a marginally unknown, charismatic candidate who, if he is successful in implementing his policy positions and SCOTUS possible list, will turn the country back toward its first principles. The libertarians and "pure conservatives" apparently aren't smart enough to figure out what is at stake. They will instead, like the Aussies in Gallipoli, charge the machine guns of reality.
"If every member of the Athenian Assembly was a Socrates [or philosopher king], it would still be a mob."
How the hell is Bill Weld who in MA was a liberal Republican running on the Libertarian ticket? I have to go with those who think the booze has gotten to him.
The problem with philosopher kings is you must have only one.
@buwaya - "At best you can avoid examining your own sides rhetoric and pretend it isn't, but an honest analysis will show all of it for what it is."
Cogent point.
"if taken at face value, all it really means is that you'd be admitting to being ignorant."
No, it is a standard tactic of the left to assume superiority of intellect. It's interesting that you are using the same tactic.
Once again, when the train is heading for the cliff, you pull the cord to stop it. You do not worry about what comes next.
You seem quite willing as a "conservative" to have the most fascist candidate we have seen since Aaron Burr, who might have been the model, elected president. Hillary is a fascist. Trump might or might not be authoritarian.
@Michael K - "No, it is a standard tactic of the left to assume superiority of intellect. It's interesting that you are using the same tactic."
Sorry no. Your projection of what you want to be true, does not make it so. I'm voting my values, as clearly stated. My assumption of intellectual superiority is a figment of your imagination, unless you can kindly point out where I stated such. You see what you admit to when pressed to back up this specious canard?
Others here are merely playing the odds. Speaking of odd, once again.....mighty disappointing to see alleged Conservatives vote for nothing more than "hope and change". Bear in mind, this issue didn't begin with the Trump v. Clinton paradigm...it began at the start of the primary season when alleged Conservatives started voting for Trump. Ownership of this debacle doesn't have it's genesis at final delegate count.
Both Johnson and Weld are about as Libertarian as Jesse Ventura.
Ventura would sign anything the DFL put on his desk -- in return for their support of his highly subsidized low-speed trolley! That mostly serves DFL constituents!
The problem with philosopher kings is you must have only one.
But we have one too many.
"My assumption of intellectual superiority is a figment of your imagination,"
"You should really re-think the stale "Libertarians think they're smarter than everyone else n the room" canard, because if taken at face value, all it really means is that you'd be admitting to being ignorant. "
QED, as we say in Geometry.
"since you actually believe both the conveniently recent conversions and the 3rd grade rhetorical gravitas of your chosen candidate, I'm not certain you could grasp actual Conservatism nor engagement."
QED2, as we say in Geometry.
Please explain how Johnson and Weld are for "Smaller Government" while Trump isn't. Please give concrete examples and avoid the usual Trump insults and appeals to vaguely defined Libertarian "principles".
And I'd love to know how Trump is not a "True Conservative" while McCain & Romney were.
You must not have done well in geometry.....
This is the essence of 2016.
This third party candidate has my vote: https://imgflip.com/i/13x12y
@rcocean - He's refused to reform Social Security, and has advocated for universal healthcare [calling it oddly, one of the "top three" fundamental jobs of the federal government], along with security and education.
"You must not have done well in geometry....."
Thank for a third example of your imagined intellectual superiority.
The gift that keeps on giving.
Wow...pithy. My point stands.
The ideologues on the right argue among themselves about who is the "pure" conservative -- and how that is defined seems to be based on the litmus test of the ideologue doing the defining-- and meanwhile they win no battles in the culture wars and their ill-defined ideals become caricatures turned into punch lines.
So-called liberals have become incredibly illiberal in their opposition to the so-called conservatives. I wonder if any of them can really define conservatism today -- especially since conservatives can't seem to agree among themselves -- or are they just fighting demons they make up in their heads based on stereotypes from the past?
Now --shock and surprise-- we have libertarians who are not "true" libertarians...
Political ideologies have become fashion for tendentious people-- there are trends to follow, and if you aren't wearing the latest style you are not acceptable. In the meantime, the dowdy folk are on to the fact that ideologues are often just self-serving and full of sh*t.
How about common-sense as an ideology; maybe we can try that on for size?
"Political ideologies have become fashion for tendentious people"
Yup. Some of us are bailing out.
"William Weld's remark comparing deporting illegal immigrants to Kristallnacht goes a long way towards explaining why the Libertarian Party, despite having been the preeminent third party for decades, has never gained ground." Kristallnacht in Warsaw, no less. But Libertarians are "sophisticated." Good thing Drumpf doesn't know what Kristallnacht was. If questioned about it, he'd insist that at his casinos every night is crystal night: "Only the best, baby!" Before venturing an opinion about it, Sanders would first try to remember if it came before or after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Hillary, of course, would think back to Bill's wild night with the bimbo from Hope, Crystal.
"Cogent point"
I would have gone with 'trenchant'
Whenever I see "Drumpf" I know I am reading a talking points spouter who does not think for themselves. Don't fret it, there's lots of you.
Achilles said...
Constitutional Insurgent said...
My guess at this point would be that a new poster to this boards like "Constitutional Insurgent" is actually a paid Hillary moby though so it is unlikely there will be any real engagement.
5/30/16, 11:27 AM
Actually, no, it just got booted from another blog, and PLOP! here it is.
I leave for work, come back, and find constitutional insurgent floundering. It is that moment where he realizes this isn't the NRO echo chamber of nevertrumpers and he is in over his head.
The next 6 months are going to be humbling for ideologues like him. The parties are realigning and you can't fit everyone into a square or circular hole. And as powerful as the federal government has become taking your ball and going home is not a viable option. They are going to have to think about what is really important to them. Even the most challenged intellectually have to accept how conceited and selfish abstaining is.
Even I voted for romney who was a detestable candidate and now a traitor. Find your peace and cast the only vote a decent and useful human being can cast.
Oh sure....your stoic wisdom has left me feeling ever so inferior /sarc. This coming from a guy who most assuredly doesn't want someone to take his own advice..... when it doesn't square with his apparent lack of principles, and most importantly......his team. I wish you well in the next 4-8 years as your candidate continues administering leftist policies, perhaps only slightly better than the Democrat. If he doesn't merely lose because he's the most horrific candidate the GOP has proffered in my lifetime.
Constitutional Insurgent said...
"@rcocean - He's refused to reform Social Security, and has advocated for universal healthcare [calling it oddly, one of the "top three" fundamental jobs of the federal government], along with security and education."
Only CI knows what Trump really believes. Trump doesn't actually believe any of the things he says. The ever insightful and ultimately brilliant true conservative knows everything... Except how to understand someone else's point of view.
It is no stretch to say Trump is not an ideologue or that Trump has not spent significant time thinking about political issues prior to his campaign. It is clear he spent his time thinking about running his myriad businesses. This to many of us a feature, not a bug.
If you try to understand Trump from his perspective instead of yours it will help you develop a much more accurate paradigm. Right now you are just a bitter loser making things up.
Really? You're going to stand by the accusation that I've made that up? I'll give you a chance to reconsider before offering up the easily found quotes. Talk about a gift that keeps on giving....
On entitlements - http://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/why-donald-trump-wont-touch-your-entitlements
On the "top three functions of the federal government" - http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/trump-top-3-functions-us-govt-are-security-health-care-and-education
Some Conservative. Perhaps I'm just not in tune with his "perspective" like you just be.
seriously immoral majority, you have no standards at all,.
The way I see it, politics at this level is entirely about non-rational, or at least non-logical matters, and the fight itself has no rules, no qualified, disinterested umpire, and no object but power.
The important things are tribal identity, tribal power, and perception of personal power. Issues and policies are just excuses for rhetorical displays of identity and power. Some people, for aesthetic reasons, but moreso as tribal markers, prefer some thicker slatherings of issues and policies (just talk that is essentially irrelevant to future governance) over the fundamentals, but underneath it all it is the same.
The anti-Trump side of the "right" is reacting mainly because of identity issues. They dont feel they are "them", the people Trump has directly appealed to, and they dont want to be lumped with "them", the lower orders. This is an age old thing in US politics, a dislike of the middle, of the mass, the Sinclair Lewis/HL Mencken attitude. It shows up on both the left and the right, and is accomodated in several ways. At the moment some complain that the Trump message lacks the proper formulae, the slathering of "issues and policies", that serve as tribal markers. The tribe that cares for these is rather small though, and not very powerful.
Its easier for me, a foreigner, to see the various American tribes without the baggage of identity and its requirements of amour propre. But it seems that this is a generally useful skill.
Yup, it is Xe.
Scott Adams, cartoonist extraordinaire, does the best job of explaining Trump. Actually, no one else really has an explanation for Trump's success, so his explanation defaults to the best.
As for the libertarians being taken seriously- they picked William Weld as their vice-presidential candidate. Who, in 1993, appointed The Cosmic Muffin as the first ever official state astrologer in the United States, bringing Massachusetts right into the forefront of 16th century science. Yep, real serious guy there with a concrete grasp of reality.
Ever wonder why with supposedly overwhelming support from the intelligentsia he never got to be ambassador to Mexico? And then came to NY trying to become a governor of a second state, and was rejected by the Republican Party? Not a good track record since leaving the Peoples Republic of Taxachusetts. And the Libertarians selected him after repeated rejection. Did they feel sorry for him?
the cosmic muffin, I must have blocked that out,
rhhardin has said at least 20 times on this blog Trump is against PC and people care about that. I decided to give Trump a chance when I heard his answer to the question What do you think about Global Warming? was "expensive bullshit." Of course, maybe I just made that up because I wanted and want to believe it so bad I created the "quote" myself. Frankly, I am too frightened about what it will confirm about my memories recall functions if I find myself wrong to verify the quote. I just trust myself here. Sorry Ronny.
I understand not agreeing with hardin, but to deny an argument was ever made isn't useful for people of good, or at least not bad, faith.
Winning the news cycle over and over and over, thereby winning the GOP nomination according to many learned thinkers, is indeed a result that can be compared to the concept of purely emotionally voting for someone tribally. Especially when tribes overlap and the people doing the labeling and the people labeled wouldn't agree on criteria to be used nor how to form the labels. Trump won every single county in five states on one election day, so which tribe all they ALL in?
But, if indeed emotion is the only driver of Trump's limited victory for only the GOP nomination so far, how could anyone logically declare the winning strategy 3rd grade use of rhetoric as a shaming technique intended to change the winning strategy (toward a more losing one, presumably)?
I think Einsein could understand speaking in simple locutions when intending to inspire emotions that winners need to build among their supporters. In fact, making the working or successfully simple more complex isn't a sign of intelligence by itself.
Don't get me wrong, please go ahead and reinvent the wheel and piss on every design before yours, but don't demand everyone else do so that uses the current wheels to trample political opponents trying to do the trampling themselves, not be trampled.
"Actually, no one else really has an explanation for Trump's success,"
ex·pla·na·tion
ˌekspləˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
a statement or account that makes something clear.
"the birth rate is central to any explanation of population trends"
synonyms: clarification, simplification; More
a reason or justification given for an action or belief.
"Freud tried to make sex the explanation for everything"
synonyms: account, reason;
You might want to google Donald Trump, or, in fact, Duck Duck Go Trump.
Amazing as it might be to some, sitting around counting daddy's money and being super duper mean to Women wasn't what Trump spent decades doing. I swear to God I am not making this up.
You might even find an article or interview or something pre-POTUS run that could help to inform you, if that be a desire of yours that wouldn't result in a cause of harm I must add. My concept, sure sure others thought of it before, but I declaim still it mine, that The Apprentice was Trump and America the boss to hire or fire ultimately, I meant TV ratings in part but not whole.
Think about this: some critics of Trump say he is all brand with no structure of substance supporting his sales goals, techniques, results, and all the Gestalt consequences.
Some say Trump is defined better than anyone by Scott Adams (through Adam's explanations of the success Trump is enjoying currently), as if Adams would claim something so silly himself compared to Trump's decades of doing the eponymous defining.
The explanations can be done by Those With Whom You Stand Shoulder To Shoulder, like, oh I don't know, Mr. Roger Stone? Has he offered any thoughts on the Trump POTUS march?
Newt?
Christie?
Has Carson commented?
Bob Dole?
My memories aren't true necessarily because they are mine, and that is scary. Yet I seem to recall many people have explained Trump and his success among the GOP primary voters.
I listened to radio hosts in Denver fret, My God they were concerned!, like Hew Hughitt wherever he broadcasts from, that Donald statement about something would really cost him, like Romney's 47% comments did (must have is what these people intended). And, don't you know it, these guys selling air time were willing to admit they just didn't know what was going on in 2012, and that is the reason their opinions are so valuable now.
I like Mr. Mike Rosen and have a lot of respect for him, and he is mostly retired from the 50000 watt blow torch 850 KOA he acted as an effective star employee and spokesman for for decades, but something won't allow him to see the light regarding Trump, although he too has offered many explanations, erroneous as has been proven by time so (thus) far.
"...their structure and ballot access."
But if were actually "their" structure of ballot access, of course the possibility they could become burned somehow would be eliminated.
Unless the insiders didn't understand "their" structure to a degree raising to incompetent.
And foolishly simplistic too.
I bet lawyers could figure out words to put in order so that "intellectually" "their" structure and ballot access wouldn't preclude what happened, it was Trump's structure and ballot access.
Ya follow?
The moment he got to the number of delegates needed with the GOP through the GOP, he erased the notion it was someone else's to begin with, at least when comparing one person to one person, Trump or not. Events have shown the moment Trump declared himself of the GOP, it was his to lead. The context of his leadership of the current GOP is not accomplishments, but vision. To an extent, vision is an accomplishment for the GOP and its leaders. But that isn't what I am referring to.
Sure smart folks can weasel around defining "insiders" until a winning argument foments, I understand that, I am just saying no other winning argument has fomented since Trump defeated all his opponents in the GOP. This means if another argument fomented eventually comes along and results in my theories incorrect, as of now they are still not unworthy objectively and still may remain so subjectively.
The assumption information labeled as "low" is something to be avoided is mistaken when referring to potential voters.
Like with college sports, right-wingers sustain funding for organizations seeking their elimination. Or, at least any existence observable.
CNN and FOX and et al depend on a faulty assumption that being "informed" is being informed after honesty was sought on the part of those doing the informing from the persons with the power to inform. Many voters have extensive information of/by/for Kim Kardasian, for example, but those same Democratic's equally as high information about Just How Now Racist Is the GOP by the very same folks writing the same article decades ago is why Reagan made his "just isn't so" proclamation of wisdom.
Idiotic, if one read AND UNDERSTANDS NOW, Brave New World, but if it keeps folks writing a check every year so as to not have to consider the horror of being ridiculed as information below standard influenced, well, WRITE THE DAMN CHECK ROGER the quack Dr. in The Long Goodbye philosophized.
Damnit, that movie reference just supported those trying to eliminate its herewith referrer.
Mr. Constitutional Insurgent,
What are you arguing for. Yeah, Trump has a *lot* of warts. Gary Johnson? Because if that is who you are pushing, why are you letting Hillary off the hook? Because what it seems like is you are trying to do her work for her by pushing a lot of anti-Trump shit written with muddy context, if any, and often invidious interpretation.
If you think that Hillary is the best person to pick the next three 'Justices,' why not just say so? Me personally, I am picking through the wreckage for the best shelter, you seem to think that anybody who would ever consider voting for Trump is a wild-eyed true believer waiting for the starship behind the asteroid.
If you have reasons to vote for Gary Johnson over Trump, let's hear him. As it is, I don't seem much of what you write that couldn't have been written by the paid Hillary troll patrol.
For all of the Libertarians' mockery of how terrible the two main parties are, they are a fucking joke. Their "convention" was a collection of imbeciles and their VP candidate is about as Libertarian, historically, as Hillary.
I have to say, too, that I would enjoy seeing Johnson point out that he has the experience as a chief executive that the other three all lack. . . .
But the state spent more under Johnson than they did before Johnson and certainly more than they have since Johnson.
His executive experience isn't one of cutting spending.
I'm pleased to see the Libertarians nominate a serious candidate, but William Weld's remark comparing deporting illegal immigrants to Kristallnacht goes a long way towards explaining why the Libertarian Party, despite having been the preeminent third party for decades, has never gained ground.
Yeah. That Johnson BEGGED for THIS guy diminishes Johnson as well. Libertarians seem to be unrealistic. They want open borders because "we shouldn't be giving away all of these social services to anybody anyway". Which is true...but until we cut the social programs away, why would you advocate importing more poverty here?
Good thing Drumpf
Nothing worthwhile will ever come out of anybody saying this. Thanks for saving people the time of taking you seriously.
Democrats aren't getting a genuine leftist, instead they are getting a corrupt triangulating machine pol. Republicans aren't getting a genuine rightist, instead getting a Euro-style nativist with a pseudo-populist streak. So what are Libertarians getting? A crypto-Republican? A moderate-in-sheep's-clothing? This is the year of breaking out of our comfort zones, and third parties shouldn't expect to be immune from that.
I'll have to study up on this Johnson fellow, at this point he'd have to be pretty terrible to make him a worse choice than the two main parties are putting up. He already can say he has more governing experience than both of them combined. And if he favors easing business regulations and curbing the drug war, that counts as a plus.
I don't know whether his candidacy would hurt Trump or Hillary more, but we can be sure whoever loses will blame him rather than their own inability to win voters. Trump and Hillary don't appear to be the self-reflecting types.
I don't know whether his candidacy would hurt Trump or Hillary more, but we can be sure whoever loses will blame him rather than their own inability to win voters. Trump and Hillary don't appear to be the self-reflecting types.
...True, but I doubt any candidate for President, which requires an excessively large ego, is much for self-reflection.
Johnson is a better libertarian that Weld is. I'm not sure Weld even considers himself libertarian-ish.
Weld's problem isn't that he deviates from the philosophy (almost everyone does in small ways at least) but rather that he does so in cases - like eminent domain - where there is overwhelming libertarian agreement. That said anyone looking at the VP candidate as a deal breaker was always going to find some reason to "disqualify" the libertarian candidate.
This is going to be a revealing election. We can compare the vote percentages for Johnson vs Trump in states in play versus not to estimate the potential libertarian-ish vote should such a candidate ever win the Republican nomination. I don't think there's ever been a campaign where the libertarians had a chance to make such a splash.
"...True, but I doubt any candidate for President, which requires an excessively large ego, is much for self-reflection."
Yeah, I guess the real man bites dog story would be a losing candidate saying "clearly I sucked here".
@Tim - I've been arguing against the canard that voting for the Libertarian candidate is "throwing away one's vote". I'm quite sure that many people believe such, but since it's not their vote their referring to, it can't help but be false. Clinton isn't "off the hook", she's irrelevant regarding which party I'd consider voting FOR. I can't conceive of a time where I'd give serious consideration tooting Democrat, so unless I would decide merely to vote AGAINST a party, she doesn't for me...enter into a discussion regarding the LP and the GOP.
I've spent several electoral cycles to this point, voting for the GOP candidate for POTUS and SEN/REP, hoping for a serious effort to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. What we've gotten in return, is an increase at nearly every level in nearly every agency, bureau and department and perpetual nation building adventures in various soul-sucking shitholes. This has additionally, continued to tie ever more state actions to federal funding.
Since my vote will not affect the outcome of a Trump-Clinton contest [statistically, it simply won't] I will vote for a platform that supports my values [admittedly minus immigration], in the effort to get the LP on the debate stage and in national awareness [where statistically, it will can have more of an effect]. Were I to desire to merely vote for a safer horse in the GOP, I can't get past the pathological lying, twitter trolling and general immaturity of the GOP nominee. I want to try and leave my daughters a Republic that is beholden to it's citizens, not billionaires who can run for office or the current political duopoly and it's media allies.
That's fine, CI, but I will go for the pig in a poke, Trump over known evil Hillary, any day of the week. But I can respect votes for Johnson or Stein. Here in Vermont the libertarians ensured that the Democrat got a minority in the gubernatorial election, and I doubt those votes would have gone to Republicans, so they killed Single Payer, and good on 'em, but just keep in mind that the alternative to Trump is going to be Hillary. Why not go more positive on Johnson? It's not like there is anything you can say against Trump that a large number of his voters aren't already thinking, and hasn't been said a million times on the net just this morning, but Johnson isn't really that well known. I lived in Mass when Weld was governor, and I certainly didn't actively dislike him as I did Dukakis. He correctly pointed out that Massachusetts was becoming a "welfare magnet" by putting fake social security numbers in welfare apps, creating a plantation of dependent Democrats, so he has my respect there. If he wants to support "open borders" he better make clear that it doesn't mean "open benefits" and I am not sure how that can really work.
But anybody who says "I will not be stampeded into voting for someone I despise because they say the other person is worse," has my respect.
"@Tim - I've been arguing against the canard that voting for the Libertarian candidate is "throwing away one's vote"."
The Republicans and Democrats already threw away everyone's votes by nominating the two most unacceptable candidates in our lifetimes. It takes some gall to then say "don't bother voting for a candidate you actually prefer, that's throwing away your vote, which should instead go towards someone you can't stand".
tim in vermont,
"But anybody who says "I will not be stampeded into voting for someone I despise because they say the other person is worse," has my respect."
Thing is, registered Libertarians tend not to be persuaded by that argument, anyway. Yes, Achilles at 11:39am assures us that "With Hillary the republic is lost." But Libertarians remember conservatives telling us that America would collapse if Barack Obama were elected President in 2008, so vote for McCain. We remember liberals telling us that the world would end if George W. Bush were elected President in 2000, so vote for Gore. Such arguments have been employed since at least the very first President contest in 1796*, when the Federalists informed us that Jefferson would bring the French Revolution to America, and the Democratic-Republicans assured us that Adams was a monarchist who would bring an end to the republic.
Adams, Jefferson, Bush, Obama and a whole lot men in between all became President, and yet America is still standing. Now it is entirely possible that perhaps this time conservatives are right and America will collapse if Hillary is elected, or perhaps this time liberals are correct and the world will end if Trump is elected... But at least understand why many of us are a bit skeptical of that kind of rhetoric and don't find it as a persuasive reason to vote for Trump (or Hillary, for that matter).
*- the first two Presidential elections were not contested.
I've been arguing against the canard that voting for the Libertarian candidate is "throwing away one's vote".
Johnson now says he agrees with Sanders almost 75% of the time. A Libertarian who usually agrees with a Socialist seems like a really piss-poor Libertarian to me. Voting for Johnson is throwing away your vote. Just vote Bernie in that case.
damikesc,
"A Libertarian who usually agrees with a Socialist seems like a really piss-poor Libertarian to me."
Did you actually read past the headline? Johnson was referring to a 60-question quiz on the website ISideWith.com (a website buying ads to get Johnson into the Presidential debate, as I understand it) wherein- after scoring 100% agreement with himself (imagine that)- the quiz indicated that his next-most similar candidate was Bernie Sanders with 73%. Johnson believes it was because of all the questions relating to abortion, gay marriage, military interventions, crony capitalism, marijuana legalization, etc. etc. As Johnson noted, "We come to a T in the road when it comes to economics. I would really argue that if we absolutely had a fair system of economics, that free markets, that we would do a lot better than going down the– going down the path of socialism.”
Libertarians want small government and individual freedom across the board, not just on economic matters. Conservatives- who want small government only on economc issues, but clamor for big government to regulate personal behaviors on all of the above issues (and other social issues)- can't seem to understand that rather large difference between us.
Nice try, though. I'm sure you convinced a whole lot of libertarians to vote for Republicans with your insightful argument.
I am a Libertarian, and I will vote for Johnson/Weld since they are better than Trump and Hillary. However, I am NOT enthusiastic about the ticket. Johnson even describes himself as "socially liberal." Libertarians aren't supposed to socially liberal or socially conservative. We are supposed to be for allowing individuals to live their lives freely. The government's sole job is to defend that. Having the government involved in social engineering programs (whether they are conservative or liberal) is anti-libertarian.
Post a Comment