On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2015 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:14:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume that something comes along that causes
Hillary to withdraw from the nomination process. Could be health or
scandal ... who knows?

To whom would you then shift your support and ultimate vote for?

Webb? O'Malley? Bernie?


Trump, he has a better chance than any of those.



Scary, huh? :-)


Exactly why I am disgusted with the whole process.
BTW anyone who really thinks their one vote actually counts should
have a hard time criticizing someone else's "invisible friend".
Between the corruption of the system by big money and the electoral
college system to begin with, elections are far from being decided by
a few motivated voters.
It is clearly irrational faith in something you can't show scientific
evidence to demonstrate.

On 11/1/15 1:51 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 13:05:03 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/1/2015 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 12:14:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Hypothetically, let's assume that something comes along that causes
Hillary to withdraw from the nomination process. Could be health or
scandal ... who knows?

To whom would you then shift your support and ultimate vote for?

Webb? O'Malley? Bernie?


Trump, he has a better chance than any of those.



Scary, huh? :-)


Exactly why I am disgusted with the whole process.
BTW anyone who really thinks their one vote actually counts should
have a hard time criticizing someone else's "invisible friend".
Between the corruption of the system by big money and the electoral
college system to begin with, elections are far from being decided by
a few motivated voters.
It is clearly irrational faith in something you can't show scientific
evidence to demonstrate.


Is this the libertarian premise for 2016? As in, "we'll never be able to
field a winning POTUS candidate, so let's do whatever we can to hold
down the vote and help the Repugnicans." Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.

On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.




All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected
federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea
Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who
eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal
office, but...they don't seem to get elected.

Years ago, I described libertarians as Republicans with even less of a
sense of civic responsibility. I've not read anything that would make me
change my mind. I understand self-described libertarians don't like
foreign military adventures and are in favor of legalizing pot, and want
to do away with all manner of regulations so the "free market" will
prevail. Well, I've always thought libertarianism was way over the line
on simplemindedness. I'm not a big fan of foreign military adventures,
either, and I see advantages to decriminalizing pot, but I don't favor
going back to the "wild, wild west" domestically.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.




All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected
federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea
Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who
eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal
office, but...they don't seem to get elected.


It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you
posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the
stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major
party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections".


Years ago, I described libertarians as Republicans with even less of a
sense of civic responsibility. I've not read anything that would make me
change my mind. I understand self-described libertarians don't like
foreign military adventures and are in favor of legalizing pot, and want
to do away with all manner of regulations so the "free market" will
prevail. Well, I've always thought libertarianism was way over the line
on simplemindedness. I'm not a big fan of foreign military adventures,
either, and I see advantages to decriminalizing pot, but I don't favor
going back to the "wild, wild west" domestically.

You ignored a number of issues that align closer to Bernie than
Hillary or any of the republicans but I am not surprised.
Even if we had a significant Libertarian membership in congress and
holding the white house, I doubt they could make a serious dent in the
4th branch of government, US Civil Service.
That is a reality that confronted Carter and Reagan significantly and
all presidents to some extent.
I remember Carter coming to town and how that reality bitch slapped
him in the face. He had the goal of "streamlining government" and he
created a few stream lined agencies but what he didn't understand was
that it was "additive", hiring more people but the existing agencies
were still there. They were not leaving. They just changed all of the
signs.

On 11/2/15 11:02 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 07:54:30 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/1/15 10:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 14:09:03 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

Because, in the end,
libertarians are Republicans just as Tea Baggers are Republicans.

"Republican" seems to be anyone who disagrees with you. The fact
remains almost half of all voting aged people are so disgusted with
the process that they stay home. Are they all Republicans too?
Maybe you are right. Is that why Nixon called them the silent
majority.




All the self-described "libertarians" I've heard of who *hold* elected
federal office ran as and run as Republicans, and the self-described Tea
Baggers do the same. Now, there are some self-described libertarians who
eschew the Republican moniker and run as libertarians for federal
office, but...they don't seem to get elected.


It sounds like they have fallen prey to the same pragmatism that you
posses. You have to go along to get along. I think that is mostly the
stacked deck we have dealt to 3d parties. You need to pick a major
party to even get a seat at the table. Yeah right "free elections".


Indeed, I am politically pragmatic. I've stated many times I like
Sanders and admire him, but I don't think he can win the presidency.
I also like Mrs. Clinton and admire her.

I rarely agree with more than 75% of any politician's positions,
proposals, et cetera.

I'll be happy if Mrs. Clinton wins the election. I'd be happy if Sanders
won it. But I don't believe that possible.

There are no Republicans among the current choices with a chance to win
the nomination who I could vote for.