2016 Election Thread

[Bark's Lounge]

I thought Gary Johnson said he wasn't going to partake in the usage of MJ until the election was over. That certainly is not the case... you can add untrustworthy to his ledger of flaws.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This was the year I was going to be a libertarian but, my god.  I might just vote for the American Delta Party which is actually on our ballot.  

 

Kodos, man.

 

[TheLeviathan]

Though...it is hard to argue with Kang's logic.....

 

[Badsmerf]

He was doing fine until he completely fell on his face about foreign policy. I'm at a loss for how badly those mistakes cost him. Worst part of it all, is that foreign policy is the main portion he should have been working on. I don't get it. It's evident how much Clinton prepares, and how professional she can handle any conversation. What the hell are the libs doing with Johnson? He's not stupid, neither is weld. I almost feel like they would have had way better luck with the virgin mobil guy. At least people know who he is and he has a little charisma. Not too late to switch.....

[Craig Arko]

I could not in good conscience even vote transhumanist, and they may be the only third party who could represent me.

 

http://www.transhumanistparty.org

[nicksaviking]

I could not in good conscience even vote transhumanist, and they may be the only third party who could represent me.

http://www.transhumanistparty.org

Don't be a biggot, all humans should be treated with respect.

 

Wait, do those guys think they have evolved and are superior to humans? Yeah biggot on.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

He was doing fine until he completely fell on his face about foreign policy. I'm at a loss for how badly those mistakes cost him. Worst part of it all, is that foreign policy is the main portion he should have been working on. I don't get it. It's evident how much Clinton prepares, and how professional she can handle any conversation. What the hell are the libs doing with Johnson? He's not stupid, neither is weld. I almost feel like they would have had way better luck with the virgin mobil guy. At least people know who he is and he has a little charisma. Not too late to switch.....

Smerf, as a person, I like Gary Johnson. He ran one of the smallest states in the U.S. and was successful. He could get away with his lack of knowledge in NM.

 

I view Johnson as a guy who owns a business and his employees like him pretty well, but he under pays them, but the caveat to that is he smokes weed with his employees on their breaks and buddies up with them, thus creating a cool boss, working atmosphere.

 

I think GJ screwed up and didn't think he had a chance and did not prepare. He is an isolationist,he should prepare, but why would he when he has no chance of winning. His thermometer of this election was off and he was ill prepared, he f'ed it up, it is on him.

 

I am glad that happened. Because this is the fight for our well being, our dignity, our ability to stand strong for the country we call "home".

 

My vote is going towards defeating Trump in a realistic fashion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

We can re-evaluate that in four years, eight at the most.

[Badsmerf]

I disagree. Once he started looking over ten percent and raising millions of dollars it gets serious. It's not his sole job to be prepared for interviews. Candidates have teams for that, people they pay fairly well. Where do you think all that raised money goes? Pays for man power and adds. There really is no excuse, it's on the party as a whole. Echoing what's already been said, if a third party really want to be taken seriously, they have to adjust their approach. This election will give them ground to stand on, but the next 2-4 years are really what's important.

[gunnarthor]

Well, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Johnson.  That's a fairly significant endorsement considering the paper had endorsed Obama twice, despite generally being republican-leaning.  It's also Clinton's "home state" or so.  Obviously, it won't affect anything but it's something for third party hopefuls.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/chicago-tribune-endorses-gary-johnson-228951

[TheLeviathan]

I'm shocked by that endorsement.

[stringer bell]

Going back to an earlier discussion, RCP has a "no-tossup" map in which Clinton leads 296-242. The include Florida and New Hampshire for HRC, while Trump is allotted Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Nevada, and Iowa. I think that distribution probably was pretty accurate when the debate occurred. The way I see the race is that Clinton has about 263 EVs secure barring a scandal or October surprise. That would mean Trump basically has to win all the tossups with perhaps a loss of one small state (NH, IA, or NV).

 

One of Colorado, Florida, Ohio or North Carolina plus the 263 electoral votes would be enough for Clinton. Five days after the first debate, I believe Clinton leads in all of the larger swing states, and probably every one listed here but Iowa. It isn't locked up because both major candidates are so poorly regarded. I'd much rather be in Clinton's position than Trump's, but the next five-plus weeks will be fun to watch.

[Craig Arko]

Going back to an earlier discussion, RCP has a "no-tossup" map in which Clinton leads 296-242. The include Florida and New Hampshire for HRC, while Trump is allotted Colorado, North Carolina, Ohio, Nevada, and Iowa. I think that distribution probably was pretty accurate when the debate occurred. The way I see the race is that Clinton has about 263 EVs secure barring a scandal or October surprise. That would mean Trump basically has to win all the tossups with perhaps a loss of one small state (NH, IA, or NV).

 

One of Colorado, Florida, Ohio or North Carolina plus the 263 electoral votes would be enough for Clinton. Five days after the first debate, I believe Clinton leads in all of the larger swing states, and probably every one listed here but Iowa. It isn't locked up because both major candidates are so poorly regarded. I'd much rather be in Clinton's position than Trump's, but the next five-plus weeks will be fun to watch.

You have an interesting definition of 'fun,' there.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm shocked by that endorsement.

Yeah, I understand the sentiment that neither major party candidate is worthy of an endorsement but I couldn't endorse Johnson with a straight face after the past week. That world leader question was the slowest, fattest, juiciest softball a candidate could be offered and... he blanked.

 

Truly unfortunate, as this country badly needs a fiscal conservative presence. Even if I don't agree with LIbertarians by and large, an actual real counter needs to exist.

[Squirrel]

 

Well, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Johnson.  That's a fairly significant endorsement considering the paper had endorsed Obama twice, despite generally being republican-leaning.  It's also Clinton's "home state" or so.  Obviously, it won't affect anything but it's something for third party hopefuls.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/chicago-tribune-endorses-gary-johnson-228951

No, it's really not that significant, it was pretty expected. Before Obama, they never endorsed a Democrat for president, and they pretty much had to endorse Obama considering he was the Senator from Illinois. It's interesting to note that they did NOT endorse him when he was running for Senate in 2004, despite the fact that his opponent was just not good. This is a very typical move of the Tribune. And, they endorsed Rubio in the primary. Their endorsements have always had very strong, conservative leanings. It's significant only in that it's not Trump, but it's not representative of any ideological shift on their part, not really. It would have been at least surprising if not significant if they had endorsed Clinton because she's a Democrat. It's not something they would do. It would have been even more significant if they had endorsed no one. But endorsing Johnson, given how Chicago feels about Trump, was more expected than significant. This significance isn't necessarily a boost for 3rd parties, not directly, they are just saying 'Not Trump.'

 

Edit: I have may have gotten that 2004 non-endorsement wrong ... I can't find who they endorsed and that was a very weird election as I recall now, with the Republican dropping out of the race in the final stretch, being replaced by Alan Keyes. However, their endorsements are more conservative than not, especially for top positions such as president and governor. I still think it was an unsurprising endorsement.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd call any major newspaper a "significant" endorsement for Johnson given what he's shown us so far.

[Squirrel]

I'd call any major newspaper a "significant" endorsement for Johnson given what he's shown us so far.

Well, given what Johnson has shown I'll give you significant, but not in a good way. This endorsement was only to say 'not Trump.' If any other Republican were nominated, any in the field who were running, the Tribune would've endorsed them. Their support of a third party is just disingenuous to me, and I support having more fields of choice. Their only reason for coming out with this now, when they have never supported this isn't about third party support but an anti-Trump vote. Maybe for Johnson it's a good thing and significant for his campaign, but this reeks of typical Trib fare in lacking real integrity.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah, I understand the sentiment that neither major party candidate is worthy of an endorsement but I couldn't endorse Johnson with a straight face after the past week. That world leader question was the slowest, fattest, juiciest softball a candidate could be offered and... he blanked.

 

Truly unfortunate, as this country badly needs a fiscal conservative presence. Even if I don't agree with LIbertarians by and large, an actual real counter needs to exist.

 

If nothing else, I'd have just liked to see a viable third option get enough traction to force both the Dems and Republicans to stop playing so many little games that screw over the average person to keep themselves in power.   You know, to force the focus back on acceptable governance.  

 

Libertarians, at least fiscally, would be an option to vote for that would reduce military spending, reign in our foreign policy a little bit, and try to fix some of our deficit issues.  Or at least their viable presence in the race could move the needle in the right direction.  (Like Bernie's surge brought certain issues to the forefront)

 

Alas, they nominated Johnson for the umpteenth time and in addition to being very bland, he's appeared to be high/stupid when interviewed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

If nothing else, I'd have just liked to see a viable third option get enough traction to force both the Dems and Republicans to stop playing so many little games that screw over the average person to keep themselves in power. You know, to force the focus back on acceptable governance.

 

Libertarians, at least fiscally, would be an option to vote for that would reduce military spending, reign in our foreign policy a little bit, and try to fix some of our deficit issues. Or at least their viable presence in the race could move the needle in the right direction. (Like Bernie's surge brought certain issues to the forefront)

 

Alas, they nominated Johnson for the umpteenth time and in addition to being very bland, he's appeared to be high/stupid when interviewed.

Agreed on all counts. As I've said what seems like a million times in the past year, a two party system only works if both parties are viable options.

 

While I disagree with most of the Libertarian platform, they are a viable option (provided Libertarians are smart enough to move to center a bit and ditch some of their most asinine and impossible ideals).

[PseudoSABR]

 

Libertarians, at least fiscally, would be an option to vote for that would reduce military spending, reign in our foreign policy a little bit, and try to fix some of our deficit issues.  Or at least their viable presence in the race could move the needle in the right direction.  (Like Bernie's surge brought certain issues to the forefront)

I think we're all for reigning in wasteful spending, but Libertarians promote neoliberal policies and oppose any and all regulation as a matter of ideology.  I don't really see how that's different from what the Republicans have been claiming to offer for decades (although in practice, they spend, as you say on defense, etc.).  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think we're all for reigning in wasteful spending, but Libertarians promote neoliberal policies and oppose any and all regulation as a matter of ideology.  I don't really see how that's different from what the Republicans have been claiming to offer for decades (although in practice, they spend, as you say on defense, etc.).  

 

I think that's a very rigid interpretation of what it means to be Libertarian, but I agree the party takes a lot of blame for that viewpoint of what a libertarian is.  In many libertarian circles you'll even find things like universal basic income being discussed, so there is a broad array under which one can call oneself a libertarian.

 

I wish the party would embrace the large umbrella of ideas offered by the idea of more "personal freedoms, keep government to necessities" as a platform.  Instead, as you say, they tend to just be socially liberal Republicans.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think that's a very rigid interpretation of what it means to be Libertarian, but I agree the party takes a lot of blame for that viewpoint of what a libertarian is.  In many libertarian circles you'll even find things like universal basic income being discussed, so there is a broad array under which one can call oneself a libertarian.

 

I wish the party would embrace the large umbrella of ideas offered by the idea of more "personal freedoms, keep government to necessities" as a platform.  Instead, as you say, they tend to just be socially liberal Republicans.

That's fair. I guess my point is that when we wish for more third-party involvement, we may tend to paint those parties in the image that we would have them, then what their base might actually constitute.  I know many people identify as Libertarian, but I don't necessarily hear much consistency on positions beyond those pillars of free market and anti-regulation.  

 

I'm sure I would do the same thing if we're conceptualizing some party to left of the Democrats.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's fair. I guess my point is that when we wish for more third-party involvement, we may tend to paint those parties in the image that we would have them, then what their base might actually constitute.  I know many people identify as Libertarian, but I don't necessarily hear much consistency on positions beyond those pillars of free market and anti-regulation.  

 

I'm sure I would do the same thing if we're conceptualizing some party to left of the Democrats.

 

Probably right.  I think we tend to see them as marginalized viewpoints in part because the parties are marginalized.

 

I think most people would identify as being largely libertarian if the definition was this: more personal freedom and government is largely in charge of these things and as little else as possible: education, (a much smaller) military, and regulation to prevent fraud or abuse.  (I'd put medical care in there as well personally, but I don't think most people would agree with that.  Hell, I'm wary of including education)

[Brock Beauchamp]

I believe Libertarians are a bit of a special case. Their base isn't as fringe as their opposition in the Greens because the Democrats haven't sold out to social elements as the GOP has done.

 

That doesn't excuse the base elements of the Libertarian Party and some of their idiotic ideas but it makes their potential for change much more realistic. They're fiscal conservatives without the social garbage. Remove the most radical elements of the Lib party and that's a pretty reasonable goal.

 

I believe that the biggest problem with our system is that it forces third parties to radicalize. The Libertarian Party could be quite reasonable but if it doesn't go to an extreme, it's just the Republican Party with a twist and no one gives them the time of day.

 

So we get obstructionist government policy that's largely nonsensical. In my opinion, what's worst about the Libertarian Party is that the GOP has adopted some of its worst principles while keeping the GOP's worst principles. It's a match made in hell. Ted Cruz is basically the poster child for the mish-mash of badly thought out Libertarian and Republican principles combined into one unholy mess.

 

I've long bellieved that if the Libertarian Party moved away from a small government platform to a small federal government platform, they'd be far more successful. Don't block government at all levels, let states decide. If Minnesota wants to impose stronger taxes, so be it. If they want to strengthen healthcare, so be it.

 

But blocking all government at all levels is a fool's errand and simply wrong. Pick your battles and leave the ideology at the door because ideology doesn't play in the real world.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Ted Cruz is basically the poster child for the mish-mash of badly thought out Libertarian and Republican principles combined into one unholy mess.

He came to my mind as well.

 

Speaking of Cruz, has anyone damaged their brand as much as he has this election cycle? He was always an ass, but the non-endorsement at the Republican convention and now the endorsement of Trump once the polls looked close...

[Brock Beauchamp]

He came to my mind as well.

 

Speaking of Cruz, has anyone damaged their brand as much as he has this election cycle? He was always an ass, but the non-endorsement at the Republican convention and now the endorsement of Trump once the polls looked close...

He's a nonsensical turd who only appeals to those who want to sound smart but think little. I have no respect for the man.

[Craig Arko]

The Libertarian platform reads like a blueprint for anarchy to me.

 

The 'mainstream' GOP seems bent on establishing a theocracy.

 

I'll go with a secular constitutional republic, thank you very much.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I believe that the biggest problem with our system is that it forces third parties to radicalize. The Libertarian Party could be quite reasonable but if it doesn't go to an extreme, it's just the Republican Party with a twist and no one gives them the time of day.

 

Yeah, I'd say the Green Party has the same tendency.  To separate themselves they end up becoming whackos rather than staying true to what they are.  And there is absolutely a market for social liberalism and smaller federal government.  

 

Also, I think it's worth pointing out, that the anti-regulation talk is a bit deeper than it appears on the surface.  I understand people being hesitant to see government shrink it's role in regulating business, but there is a flip side too.  Part of being a libertarian means that by shrinking government, you are also shrinking the ways in which government and big business work together to stifle the little guy.  We may not need as much regulation if we cut some of the ties between the economy and government.

 

But, personally, I'm not as hard line a libertarian about regulation.  I think it's necessary, but should also be as minimal as possible.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Levi, I think I badly stated my previous post. I believe the Libertarian Party is more grounded than the Green Party.

 

The Libertarian Party is full of fiscal conservatives who are frustrated the Republican Party has sold them out on social issues.

 

The Green Party has no such equivalent. Liberals have moved to center but haven't sold out half their ideals in the same way conservatives have in the past 40 years.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Levi, I think I badly stated my previous post. I believe the Libertarian Party is more grounded than the Green Party.

The Libertarian Party is full of fiscal conservatives who are frustrated the Republican Party has sold them out on social issues.

The Green Party has no such equivalent. Liberals have moved to center but haven't sold out half their ideals in the same way conservatives have in the past 40 years.

 

We don't disagree.  I think I was just trying to build off your point and note that the libertarian party still has plenty of whack jobs.  Hell, the platform this year even opposes abortion rights.  

 

I think perhaps Ted Cruz has done exactly what I feared: co-opted the name and is now driving people to the title without understanding what it actually means.  

 

(Not that a view on abortion does that in and of itself, I wish that particular issue had a lot more nuance and good sense, but it is a troubling sign)

[PseudoSABR]

An anonymous source sent the NY Times Trump's previously unreleased tax returns from 1995 which showed substantial losses, enabling Trump to avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades:

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

 Smart indeed.