It's official, Trump now has the required delegates.


#1

He’s the nominee. That’s it, primary is over.

Now it’s decision time. So, I’m looking at the third party candidates, and I’m not seeing anything I like. One of the Libertarians I like, young guy, very close to Cruz on many issues. I heard him being interviewed by Glenn Beck. Gary Johnson I do not like. The third Libertarian I don’t like either.

So, now I’m finding myself in the same position I’ve been in since 2008. I don’t like the R. I hate the D. I laugh at the L. The rest I may as well stay home.

I hate this.

Looks like Trump is it. :zombie:


#2

Yup.

The sad reality of it is…the voters, in the majority, in the main, are no longer accepting of a conservative Constitutionalist. They HAD one…actually, by degrees, three of them. The strongest, the most moral, the most dedicated…the sharpest…was the last man standing, of the Constitutionalists.

He got mowed down by the slander-flack by a tired old Nixon retread who’s made a life out of promoting Dirty Tricks in political campaigns.

Now…with an open-minded, informed electorate watching the proceedings…the slanders should have been obvious. Many of them took just moments to research - particularly Cruz’ eligibility for the office. Others took some weeding through - to get the true story about the loans and how they got not-reported on one particular form.

That, and Cruz decade-old public-office career - AND that he’s IMMENSELY popular with his constituency - AND that he walks the walk, and does what he said…SHOULD have sealed the deal. This Manhattan crony who essentially serves as an interface between Tammany Hall and real builders…should have been sent back to his golf course and his harem of past, present and future wives.

He was not. He was not because too many of today’s voters are not LOOKING to the Constitution. They’re looking for a Superman - which is the ripe situation for a cult-leader wannabee to emerge.

And Trump IS…THAT man. He’s a megalomaniac who’s made a life’s work out of promoting…Donald Trump. So he was in his comfort zone…still is; will be until the election’s over.

The cultists are all projecting what they WANT him to be, over what he REALLY IS - that anyone who cares to look can see. Which tells me there are going to be great numbers of former cultists with a reality hangover in a few months.

But…that’s where we are. Trump is the Yang of the Yin of this liberal destructiveness. Before there was the National Socialist Party and their hysterical-speechifying leader, there was the Republic of Wiemar, which was only a little more destructive then our Republic of Barry has been.

Now we get this clown. How he’ll fare against the Clinton Machine will be interesting. That is, assuming he’s not a Clinton plant, who’s there to deliberately throw the election.

It really doesn’t matter much to me anymore. Nobody I can support is on the ballot. A majority of voters do not want what I and other conservatives want. And neither of these two Statists want to address the serious problems we face with proven solutions.

So…the nation will crash. It comes down to death by a thousand cuts or death by a mortar to the face. The quicker we crash, the easier it will be to rise up again…witness, the collapse of the Soviet Union versus the slow death of Venezuela. Better Her Hillaryness takes us down fast, that the States can rise up, intact, and form a New United States.


#3

[quote=“Devilneck, post:1, topic:48792”]
He’s the nominee. That’s it, primary is over.

Now it’s decision time. So, I’m looking at the third party candidates, and I’m not seeing anything I like. One of the Libertarians I like, young guy, very close to Cruz on many issues. I heard him being interviewed by Glenn Beck. Gary Johnson I do not like. The third Libertarian I don’t like either.

So, now I’m finding myself in the same position I’ve been in since 2008. I don’t like the R. I hate the D. I laugh at the L. The rest I may as well stay home.

I hate this.

Looks like Trump is it. :zombie:
[/quote]Austin Petersen! He’s outstanding. Looks like Oregon isn’t getting an L primary (and most states don’t anyway) because Oregonians are silly drama queens or something, but he’s the one I’m supporting. The third libertarian is John McAfee, and he’s hilarious. He’s what anti-PC Trump could have been, anti-government, principled and consistent. Choice number two, and Johnson, well, he’s vastly better than literally every other candidate outside the LP. You want a government that doesn’t get involved in your life, vote for one of these guys.


#4

McAfee is something else. :rofl: I have never really looked into Petersen and I have always been a fan of Johnson.


#5

This election, more than any others since the Libertarian Party was organized…shows THEY ARE NOT SERIOUS.

They could run away in this election. There are PLENTY of disgusted voters who don’t want Trump Fascism or Rodham Alinskyism. They could get a SERIOUS team in there - and MARKET them, get them out in front of voters.

The way Lincoln, who was the Third Party Republican candidate (the major parties at the time were the Dems and the Whigs)…scored a win.

This could have been it…and instead, they pull out John McAfee. Who next…his buddy Alex Jones?

The world is insane. And we’ll shortly be made to feel the consequence of that insanity.


#6

I could write in Maggie Clam…


#7

I’s been a few cycles since I voted Libertarian. I will be reviewing their nominee. I’m not a Gary Johnson fan. I like him and some of his positions but, not enough to vote for him. He was part of the Libertarian influx into the Republican Party that pulled the Republican party a little that direction.


#8

Austin Petersen 2016!


#9

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:5, topic:48792”]
This election, more than any others since the Libertarian Party was organized…shows THEY ARE NOT SERIOUS.

They could run away in this election. There are PLENTY of disgusted voters who don’t want Trump Fascism or Rodham Alinskyism. They could get a SERIOUS team in there - and MARKET them, get them out in front of voters.

The way Lincoln, who was the Third Party Republican candidate (the major parties at the time were the Dems and the Whigs)…scored a win.

This could have been it…and instead, they pull out John McAfee. Who next…his buddy Alex Jones?

The world is insane. And we’ll shortly be made to feel the consequence of that insanity.
[/quote]You realize, of course, that the Libertarian Party doesn’t pull out people to run, right? They just run. Then the party can “pull” them out at the convention.

It’s sort of like Donald Trump running. The GOP didn’t pull him out, but it’s going to pick him. Don’t know what it means that McAfee is buddies with Alex Jones. I know I’ve seen that he’s been on Alex Jones’ show before. What McAfee has been saying in debates is spot on with nearly everything, and he’s funny too.

Watching these guys though, I’ve become a fan of Austin Petersen.

[quote=“John_Blutarski, post:7, topic:48792”]
I’s been a few cycles since I voted Libertarian. I will be reviewing their nominee. I’m not a Gary Johnson fan. I like him and some of his positions but, not enough to vote for him. He was part of the Libertarian influx into the Republican Party that pulled the Republican party a little that direction.
[/quote]There was a libertarian influx into the Republican Party? I always thought of him as one of those Republicans that invaded the LP a few years back, like Bob Barr.
If Gary Johnson is nominated, he will be the best candidate in the field – and mostly on the good side as opposed to the lesser of two evils. But I have few objections to him. Most problematic for me is wedding cakes. It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of liberty and the freedom of association. I don’t trust him. He’s far too comfortable with the use of government power. Most libertarians will disagree with him about it too.


#10

Whatever it is they do, it’s not successful and doesn’t seem oriented towards success. It seems people vote Libertarian as a badge of how much Above It All they are - and are proud losers.

And sometimes contribute towards the OPPOSITE of what it is they purportedly voted for. Most Libertarian votes probably come from those who might otherwise vote Republican - I say that advisedly. Crypto-Marxists have little in common with laissez faire Libertarians. At times the Left has promised Legal Dope, which is a draw - but not enough of one for un-intoxicated true libertarians.

So they parade their silly choice as somehow smarter; and we get Bubba - who won with a PLURALITY.

If they’re serious about something other than partying…they are gonna have to try other tactics. This year is, or was, their Grand Chance.


#11

Most people aren’t Libertarians and the LP will never have any meaningful nationwide success.


#12

They will have success based on what they stand for and communicate to the voters.

What is a Liberatarian?

A Republican? Frankly, the Democrat party is UNdemocratic - it’s tyrannical Statist-Collectivist.

The Libertarians need to get their heads out of their choom cloud and GET SERIOUS. Or else, quit wasting ballot space.


#13

Guys and gals, first of all, I don’t like Donald Trump, but truth be told, he IS the PEOPLES choice. The mainstreet voter has spoken, and quite loudly I might add. Therefore it does become incumbent upon all conservative AMERICANS, you and me, to then, get the best and brightest young man or woman into office who WILL represent the people and in doing so, throw out the incumbent melted jello pops presently inhabiting those offices.
IN EVERY state there needs to be a regime change and for the Pelosies and Reads, the Boxers and the indian maiden, swift retirement, and a way to cut pensions. For Hillary jail time. and for those cronies of Obama long jail terms for this then leads to curtailment of all of the Obama programs. Erase this timeline from the history books.
In all seriousness, this IS what we all must do, and do quickly; get the present crop of political hacks OUT OF OFFICE and replace them with can do and will do people. This keeps Trump in check and strengthens our government back to where it was meant to be.


#14

No.

Those who chose someone else, outnumber the Trumpchumps.

That was the whole PURPOSE of Kase-Itch’s hanging on. He was either in Trump’s pay or was fawning for some kind of appointment. But he was to divide the NeverTrump vote, which would have gone to Cruz.

Congrats. The Trumpbots got what they wanted.

Let’s see if they can beat the Clinton Fraud machine. And then, let’s see if they’re more pleased with liberal RINO policies than with liberal Democrat policies, which are mostly the same things.


#15

If you believe that I have this bridge.
Reality bites and there is NO third party candidate at this point that has the remotest chance of winning which gives Hitlery or socialist Sanders the presidency by proxy.
Trump does have a very realistic chance of winning and with a responsible congress the checks and balances again moves to the front as it was meant to be.


#16

When are they going to have this success? I think one of their problems is they have been serious, they’re not shy about telling people exactly what they believe whether anyone wants to hear it or not. Unfortunately, they end up talking about the gold standard or getting rid of the safety net which doesn’t fly with most Americans. I don’t care if they stay or go away because they’re not a factor either way.


#17

What serious effort have they made to get out their message?

Standing there, smug, doesn’t count. Smug superiority doesn’t attract voters. Nor does pro-pot or open-borders advocacy.

A LOT of what the Libertarians stand for or apparently support, I could go for - but what they’ve chosen to advertise in the past are polarizing issues that conservative, traditional voters will quickly reject. We don’t need dope-addled nihilists in government. We need thoughtful, well-reasoned rejection of the now-universal Big Statist bipartisan platform.


#18

I agree.

Nor does pro-pot or open-borders advocacy.

Pot is being legalized, unlike Gay marriage, through ground-up initiatives. Even if people aren’t enthusiastic about it, it’s clear that consensus is shifting towards surmising that the War on Drugs has failed, and that prohibiting Marijuana has not contained its ill effects; it has only created other ill effects. Just like Prohibition in the 1930s.

Understanding the limits to power, it’s efficacy, is a Conservative posit. Good intentions is not enough; if the results aren’t there, then it’s bad policy.

To second point, nativism is unconservative. It’s nationalistic, but it’s unconservative. It doesn’t respect individual sovereignty, it doesn’t respect markets, and it engenders large Government expenditures on the Security State apparatus.

Libertarians have no reason to embrace such a thing; it is on first principles that it is rejected. Not idle positioning or “nihilism”.


#19

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:10, topic:48792”]
Whatever it is they do, it’s not successful and doesn’t seem oriented towards success. It seems people vote Libertarian as a badge of how much Above It All they are - and are proud losers.
[/quote]They’re folks who won’t vote for mainstream trash. They’ve been where you are for many more years. Also, if winning is everything, vote for Trump or Clinton. See how far that gets you. I am personally rather proud that my vote will not go to any of those losers, who are bound to lead our country further up the creek.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:10, topic:48792”]
And sometimes contribute towards the OPPOSITE of what it is they purportedly voted for. Most Libertarian votes probably come from those who might otherwise vote Republican - I say that advisedly. Crypto-Marxists have little in common with laissez faire Libertarians. At times the Left has promised Legal Dope, which is a draw - but not enough of one for un-intoxicated true libertarians.
[/quote]Republicans have not been laissez faire any more than the left has been a friend to social and civil rights. If the left were, bakers wouldn’t be baking for gay weddings against their will. If Republicans were laissez faire and really believed in fiscal restraint (never mind monetary policy) we wouldn’t have a national debt, and government would actually be small.

Also, libertarians are rare as blue guy suggested. And they have never successfully impacted a presidential election. Even if they actually were voting against their own actual interests, they still haven’t managed to achieve it (although their vote could actually have impacted a small number of state level elections). Given how few there are (and it’s the largest third party), it’s not surprising and they’re doing all right – especially since they do manage to win local elections. In many ways, local elections are even more important than national elections.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:10, topic:48792”]
So they parade their silly choice as somehow smarter; and we get Bubba - who won with a PLURALITY.
[/quote]Don’t blame libertarians for not being Republicans and voting against Trump. Blame the GOP. It hasn’t given any conservative or libertarian what they want for years.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:10, topic:48792”]
If they’re serious about something other than partying…they are gonna have to try other tactics. This year is, or was, their Grand Chance.
[/quote]Well, a third party will have to end the stranglehold the two major parties have on the law itself, on election rules and funding. It could happen when enough people turn their backs on Team Blue and Team Red, but many are too busy worrying that the other team might win if they don’t go with their own home team.

Hence this:

NJC was not and is not a fan. But he’s going to vote for Trump anyway. Also, based on what I’ve seen him post, NJC is unlikely to agree with libertarians and vote libertarian for economic and social reasons – ever.

On the flip side, the libertarian message seems to get more and more mainstream play year after year. Someday, perhaps it reaches some critical mass. In the meantime, I won’t vote for the jokers the Republican Party nominates.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:12, topic:48792”]
They will have success based on what they stand for and communicate to the voters.
[/quote]I’m sure. Just the way the Dems and Reps market themselves. Pretty hair, a fancy slogan (Yes, we can and For the Children) and so forth.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:12, topic:48792”]
What is a Liberatarian?
[/quote]More tightly defined than a Republican or a Democrat, and that is likely part of the reason they fail to break the mainstream stranglehold. They don’t appeal to enough voters. It’s not surprising. The Dems and Reps keep offering free stuff, free jobs and free security from anything that might give us a hangnail. And they really keep failing to do any of it effectively, yet in hopes of achieving some dream out ahead of us that can magically be created by a politician, they keep on voting for the morons.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:12, topic:48792”]
The Libertarians need to get their heads out of their choom cloud and GET SERIOUS. Or else, quit wasting ballot space.
[/quote]Yeah, a waste of a couple of lines. Oh, no. You’re finally where I have been. We won’t vote for Trump. We won’t vote for Clinton. We won’t vote for Sanders in the unlikely event he wins his primary.

As for the choom. I’ve never used any drug outside of occasional alcohol and regular use of nicotine. I’m not an anomaly among libertarians.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:17, topic:48792”]
What serious effort have they made to get out their message?
[/quote]Every day, in so many ways.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:12, topic:48792”]
Standing there, smug, doesn’t count. Smug superiority doesn’t attract voters. Nor does pro-pot or open-borders advocacy.
[/quote]Are you feeling a sense of smug superiority or sorrow about the Trump nomination? I submit you’re just feeling what libertarians always feel, disgust and sadness.

[quote=“JustPassinThru, post:12, topic:48792”]
A LOT of what the Libertarians stand for or apparently support, I could go for - but what they’ve chosen to advertise in the past are polarizing issues that conservative, traditional voters will quickly reject. We don’t need dope-addled nihilists in government. We need thoughtful, well-reasoned rejection of the now-universal Big Statist bipartisan platform.
[/quote]Libertarians are not dope-addled nihilists. They’re people who want government out of their lives, either completely or nearly completely. Their viewpoints are not mainstream, so anti-government that just about anything that comes out of their mouths is “polarizing” one way or the other. Traditional voters are interested in free stuff and protection from the latest thing that scares them, whether it’s that a Muslim or a moron kid gets loose in school with a gun, that someone might enjoy something dangerous and/or sinful or some Chinese has stolen his job. I think libertarian views are becoming more mainstream, but there’s a long way to go yet. Any of the three remaining mainstream candidates will hasten that viewpoint as reality requires people to sit up and take notice – then again they may just double down on more of the problem (government, bureaucrats, politicians and voters) in search of solutions instead of relying on what our founding fathers knew, that it is liberty, the Constitution, society (note that this is a separate thing from our nation or our government) and hard work that improve their lives.


#20

Any 3rd party run delivers the presidency to Hillary, or probably Joe Biden should Clinton lose the “FBI primary”. Given the role the Supreme Court is playing in shaping this nation, anyone who doesn’t think that makes a huge difference is certifiably nuts.

This nation is locked in a struggle between conservatives and progressives for the hearts, minds and future of the people. This battle was joined in the 1920s and has been raging ever since.

For those who would like to know how we got where we are I suggest you read, “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes. The title is a take-off on the Yale professor of the late 19th century - William Graham Sumner’s - reference to the forgotten man - the man in the middle class who works and pays for much of the largess of government intervention/programs without having much of a say about it.