Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Mischief Maker]

The problem is that, from what I'm seeing, you wish to maintain the status quo of modern democracy. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we've reached a breaking point where it's no longer possible. Either Hillary gets elected and the US and Europe become even more destabilized (via conflict with Russia, influx of "refugees", etc.), or Trump gets elected and we pull the curtain away from this facade and figure out how people are going to fend for themselves from now on.

Um... you are aware that Trump just pivoted on his key immigration stance, right?

Ann Coulter’s new book is called “In Trump We Trust,” but the conservative pundit might already be regretting that title.

“There’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven,” she wrote in her book. “Except change his immigration policies.”

Trump did just that on Wednesday night with a plan to offer legal status to undocumented immigrants, an announcement that came the very same night Coulter held her book launch party.

I'm afraid Santa Claus doesn't exist, neither does the Donald Trump that existed in your and Ann Coulter's minds. He's a rank and file con artist who will say anything, and the only reason he stuck with the wall is that's the random thing that got the biggest reaction out of the crowd at that particular moment.

Got to love the delicious irony of Coulter writing a book called, "In Trump We Trust" and having her trust in him betrayed the very night of her launch.

I think it's instructive to re-link the article by the author of The Art of the Deal laying out just how much of a bullshitter the real Donald Trump truly is:

“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting Trump in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

[quash]

I was the first person to point that out in this thread. Not just after it became official, but almost a year ago. You must not be paying much attention to what I've been saying if that's what you got out of that statement.

Here, for good measure.

[Ed Oscuro]

I agree the world has lots of bad stuff going on. That's what I was writing to quash earlier when he wanted us all to know that if the SJWs win, tomorrow THE WORLD WILL END!

What I've been saying is that the world has lots of bad stuff going on, which makes the position of the SJW one of- get this- privilege.

That's a non sequitur, but more importantly, let's just get this straight: When I point out that the SJ "menace" is nothing, your grand retort is that they are "privileged." I should probably be grateful you've built a rubber room for your fevered imagination to play in, because I can think of few things better for the nation than for the conspiracy theorists to be locked in battle with imaginary versions of their polar opposites.

But I still disagree with the premise that SJWs are "privileged." They have the same right of free speech as everyone else in the country. If you want privilege, stroll along Madison Avenue or through Hollywood, where they'll be happy to pit the "alt-right" and "SJW" against each other for a sitcom or ad campaign. So sure, some people are lazy SJW "heroes" who get kickstarter campaigns for doing nothing, and Rush Limbaugh has been on the air for how many years now? It's dumb and dishonest to lump in everybody interested in social justice.

It's telling that your posts put so much emphasis on stability and so little on improving justice.

Back in the '60s you would have been telling blacks to stop rocking the boat. Civil rights? Hell no, you've got black nationalists, Nation of Islam, Malcom X - better get a handle on those crazy men before they tear the country apart!

Which explains why the entire dogma surrounding it couldn't be any further removed from what could be considered pragmatic.

Oh, and your binary

Either Hillary gets elected and the US and Europe become even more destabilized (via conflict with Russia, influx of "refugees", etc.), or Trump gets elected and we pull the curtain away from this facade and figure out how people are going to fend for themselves from now on.

is supposed to be a pragmatic viewpoint?

Trump is starting to sound like a conventional politician there, changing his views depending on what crowd he's in front of. For a guy who supposedly was so savvy about using the media to crush his opponents, he suddenly looks very desperate for votes and the same media is now amplifying his lack of conviction. He's abandoned the revolution; he's just trying to backpedal all the way into the Presidency.

[quash]

That's a non sequitur, but more importantly, let's just get this straight: When I point out that the SJ "menace" is nothing, your grand retort is that they are "privileged."

Because that very privilege is what makes them so dangerous: their voices are heard far and away more than anyone else's right now.

But I still disagree with the premise that SJWs are "privileged."

Anyone in a first world nation is privileged. SJW's just happen to often times be among even the most privileged among them: college students, college professors, media pundits, etc.

They have the same right of free speech as everyone else in the country.

Their idea of free speech is trying to shut down any opposing viewpoints. There's countless examples of this happening, yet most people either don't want or care to acknowledge it.

It's dumb and dishonest to lump in everybody interested in social justice.

I don't doubt that there's differing views amongst the group, I know for example that a particular sect of it is vehemently anti-Zionist. But this gets more to the root of the issue, that there really is no such thing as social justice, moreso convenient scapegoats.

Back in the '60s you would have been telling blacks to stop rocking the boat. Civil rights? Hell no, you've got black nationalists, Nation of Islam, Malcom X - better get a handle on those crazy men before they tear the country apart!

It's funny you would choose those particular examples because they're the only groups of the era I can actually get behind. They didn't ask to be treated equally, they called to form their own society. I wish they had gotten their way; we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.

For a guy who supposedly was so savvy about using the media to crush his opponents, he suddenly looks very desperate for votes and the same media is now amplifying his lack of conviction.

Among other things I said forever ago is that Trump's lack of conviction is one of his best traits. He doesn't have to nor want to stand behind a conventional ideology. It is in fact such rank and file politics that has gotten us to where we are today.

[Xyga]

What you just described is the current leftist dogma in America. It should come as no surprise that there are people out there who choose to fight fire with fire, but again, I'm not one of them.

Leftist ? Bullshit. Hypocrisy about the condition of the various ethnic groups within a society is one thing, wanting to make racism and inequal rights the standard by law is immensely worse, a definitive burial of the people's rights and freedom.
Anyway that portion of his supporters who want that white-only dictatorship - and I don't see them as a small fringe, neither does Trump since he put so many effort in pleasing them - probably won't get what they want.
Even a dumbass like him realizes it's fucking nazi and there's no way all of the people in the US will quietly accept that.

The problem is that, from what I'm seeing, you wish to maintain the status quo of modern democracy. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we've reached a breaking point where it's no longer possible. Either Hillary gets elected and the US and Europe become even more destabilized (via conflict with Russia, influx of "refugees", etc.), or Trump gets elected and we pull the curtain away from this facade and figure out how people are going to fend for themselves from now on.

If Trump wins it'll be a powerful signal sent to the world that's it's okay to end democracy and throw values like the rights of man to the bin.
Better our crippled systems and values and the hope that we'll make them hold better in the future, than giving in to lies and a project for a perversion of a society with even less of a future.

You can choose to be bitter about the candidate that wants to put an end to America's interventions in the Middle East over a small but vocal block of his supporters, but it seems pretty silly from where I'm standing.

Fuck that, nobody gives a shit about the middle east over here, what I don't want to see happen is Russia and its club of dictators who have wet dreams of seeing the EU disappear receiving the green light to invade more territories.
The day Trump wins Putin will do the same shit he did in the Urkraine except this time he probably won't stop at the EU's borders.
Now that's a good way to star a new world war.
The US's protection ? It's mostly the US's fault that we Europeans are in such a deadlock to begin.

[Ed Oscuro]

No Stonewall riots for quash, eh?

[Durandal]

wanting to make racism and inequal rights the standard by law is immensely worse, a definitive burial of the people's rights and freedom

Good thing there are systems in place which limit the power of a president in order to prevent such radical changes in the law.

Anyway that portion of his supporters who want that white-only dictatorship - and I don't see them as a small fringe, neither does Trump since he put so many effort in pleasing them - probably won't get what they want.
Even a dumbass like him realizes it's fucking nazi and there's no way all of the people in the US will quietly accept that.

but what about Hillary pandering to the BLM thugs who want to kill all cops, censor free speech, and erect safe spaces????
Which is about as likely to happen as a pseudo-dictatorship under Trump. You don't see Hillary condemning BLM as much as you see Trump condemning the KKK, because shameless pandering for votes is part of the recipe for success.

If Trump wins it'll be a powerful signal sent to the world that's it's okay to end democracy and throw values like the rights of man to the bin.
Better our crippled systems and values and the hope that we'll make them hold better in the future, than giving in to lies and a project for a perversion of a society with even less of a future.

No, what you're seeing is the cycle of populism: a large amount of people starts to feel increasingly more oppressed over time as a result of social/economic changes, a messiah descends from the sky promising the people to heal their ills and fight back against the people responsible for putting them in such a bad position (rich people, Jews, muslims, etc.), that guy gets elected, fails to deliver on most of his promises, either doesn't really improve anything or fucks up badly, and in the next election cycle the people are more wary of electing a guy like that again, until another issue rises which a politician can use to his advantage. Rinse and repeat.

A Trump presidency (depending on world events), isn't going to be as catastrophic as you'll think it will be. It'll probably suck W. Bush levels, but then you can at least know for sure that we'll get more "sane" candidates after that once everyone's suffered through the aftermath of Trump's presidency (unless by some happy accident Trump manages to do really well). Maybe Hillary fucks up and we'll get more Trump-like candidates after her, who knows. The current polarized American political climate allows for that crazy shit to happen anyways. I don't view Trump as a cause, but rather a product of the division in the USA, as no sane intelligent informed voter would even dream of having that guy as president, right? Even if Trump didn't exist, some guy as brash and as bold would eventually run for president, and people would vote for him because that guy would actually care about (read: pander to) them. As American politics continue to be such a massive circus, so will it allow for more candidates like Trump. This is an unique election, where two nominees who under any normal circumstances would get knocked out halfway through, only managed to get as far as they did because of each other.

Fuck that, nobody gives a shit about the middle east over here, what I don't want to see happen is Russia and its club of dictators who have wet dreams of seeing the EU disappear receiving the green light to invade more territories

What would Russia and pals stand to gain from the disbandment of the EU?

The day Trump wins Putin will do the same shit he did in the Urkraine except this time he probably won't stop at the EU's borders.
Now that's a good way to star a new world war.

Under Obama, Crimea was annexed. And under Trump, a larger part of the East-European border could be at stake because him and Putin are best buddies?
It could happen. Do we have the guarantee that Hillary is opposed to Russia's expansionism? Here I was starting to think no POTUS really wants to mess with Russia's business unless it somehow affects them both, like the Middle East.
And here I thought Trump was the kind of guy who'd nuke Russia if they'd step one foot in Europe...

[quash]

Leftist ? Bullshit. Hypocrisy about the condition of the various ethnic groups within a society is one thing, wanting to make racism and inequal rights the standard by law is immensely worse, a definitive burial of the people's rights and freedom.

It's already the defacto standard in some parts of the US, what with preferential treatment for undocumented immigrants. Ask me how I know.

Anyway that portion of his supporters who want that white-only dictatorship - and I don't see them as a small fringe, neither does Trump since he put so many effort in pleasing them - probably won't get what they want.
Even a dumbass like him realizes it's fucking nazi and there's no way all of the people in the US will quietly accept that.

Of course. I've been saying for a year now that he won't deliver on most of his promises. Grass is green, the sky is blue, and the world keeps on spinning.

If Trump wins it'll be a powerful signal sent to the world that's it's okay to end democracy and throw values like the rights of man to the bin.
Better our crippled systems and values and the hope that we'll make them hold better in the future, than giving in to lies and a project for a perversion of a society with even less of a future.

You... have been paying attention to the DNC leaks, right? How it's come out that Bernie was set up for failure from day one, how the DNC has set up controlled opposition whenever possible, how electronic polling booths are incredibly off from exit polls, etc?

If Trump wins, it's not going to be in spite of democracy, it's going to be in spite of the forces at work that have all but rendered it completely useless.

As far as "ending the rights of man" goes: name one thing he has actually proposed that even approaches that. I'll wait.

Fuck that, nobody gives a shit about the middle east over here, what I don't want to see happen is Russia and its club of dictators who have wet dreams of seeing the EU disappear receiving the green light to invade more territories.
The day Trump wins Putin will do the same shit he did in the Urkraine except this time he probably won't stop at the EU's borders.

What makes you think that? I don't see any reason for Russia to attack the EU in the foreseeable future, nor do I see NATO being disbanded (although it is likely to undergo some structural changes, at this point by necessity since Turkey is on the chopping block).

Now that's a good way to star a new world war.

It's already started, friend. It started the moment the US was incriminated beyond a shadow of a doubt in Syria. My concern is how it develops from here.

The US's protection ? It's mostly the US's fault that we Europeans are in such a deadlock to begin.

It's your own damn fault for letting it happen!

[EmperorIng]

Well, I'd say 70 years ago, when the choices were a) alliance/protection of the USA, and b) becoming a Soviet colony and enjoy decades of military dictatorship, I'd say most of the Euro countries, given the choice, would have chosen the former. At least, none of the older Polish immigrants in my neighborhood have fond memories of the good ol' commie days.

I think the fact that, as quash posted, the US is starting to move material out of Turkey, along with its hamfisted outreach to Russia, shows that it is not going to be part of the big party any time soon. Good riddance; it's bad enough that the USA turns a blind eye to all the trouble in the world caused by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and their incessant quest to turn the Muslim world into a literal shithole (see: Saudi money destabilizing every single Muslim country on earth). I don't know if the USA+Europe really need the "support" of an autocrat who looks the other way when ISIS smuggles people and oil over its border and uses the refugee crisis to extract more demands out of a pathetic EU.

[ED-057]

Fuck that, nobody gives a shit about the middle east over here, what I don't want to see happen is Russia and its club of dictators who have wet dreams of seeing the EU disappear receiving the green light to invade more territories.
The day Trump wins Putin will do the same shit he did in the Urkraine

Yeah, because Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was Putin's agent, and the flood of migrants into the EU are coming from... Crimea?

You really don't have a clue do you?

[Mischief Maker]

A Trump presidency (depending on world events), isn't going to be as catastrophic as you'll think it will be. It'll probably suck W. Bush levels,

WHAT THE FUCK?!!

Have we truly reached the point where there are people who think the presidency of Bush jr. wasn't catastrophic?

I was the first person to point that out in this thread. Not just after it became official, but almost a year ago. You must not be paying much attention to what I've been saying if that's what you got out of that statement.

Well I also remember you pointing to "The Art of the Deal" as explaining the genius behind Trump's seemingly stupid statements. Then I pointed out that it was a ghostwritten work of fiction and you kinda stopped talking about that subject.

Here's the source of my visceral dislike for Trump: I can't stand punks.

Once upon a time I worked in criminal law and had a lot of face time with a lot of punks. Because of that experience I can't take fictional mob movies like The Godfather or shows like The Sopranos seriously anymore because they romanticize crooks and make them look like brilliant Machiavellian strategists with an unbreakable sense of honor. True story crime movies like Goodfellas or Donnie Brasco I still enjoy because they show crooks to be the impulsive lying backstabbing pieces of shit they really are. You don't need to be smart to be a con artist, you just have to be ballsy.

Trump is a punk. Take the Estonia interview, for example. The reporter asks a hypothetical question about Russia invading our NATO ally Estonia, how would Trump respond? Trump replies that Estonia owes NATO money. This was not deeply thought out nuanced out-of-the-box political thinking, as proven by Estonia's government pointing out that they WERE paid up with NATO. No, this was a shakedown attempt, as thoughtlessly reflexive as an Australian Shepherd biting the ankle of someone running away.

I've had plenty of less-than-bright punks attempt to shake me down. "Hi, I have information that can help out your client." I make an appointment, drive down to the prison, sit down with pen and pad, ask what he knows. "What are you gonna give me for this information?" Absolutely nothing, dumbass, if I gave you anything your testimony would instantly become worthless in court. If you do any research on Trump's past business practices you learn he has a habit of making verbal agreements to take part in a project, the other party then starts spending money in earnest on the project, then right when they're deep in debt Trump tells them, "I want more money or I'm out, and all the money you spent will be lost." So when he was given that hypothetical about Estonia being in need, his tiny punk brain immediately went to, "someone's depending on me, time to shake them down for more money!"

It's an open question whether Trump doing business with the mob and being mentored by a mob lawyer was anything more than the price of doing business in New York, or if it went deeper. But holy fuck does he like to emulate a mobster. People in this forum were talking about how much they can't stand bitch moves, well I can't stand a punk looking for the angle. Trump is a punk.

Jesus Christ, Republicans! If you wanted a candidate to stick it to the establishment, Rand Paul was right there. Instead you went with the funny clown who hates the spicks. I think Hillary is the wrong choice for America but you left me no other choice!

[Obiwanshinobi]

Well, I'd say 70 years ago, when the choices were a) alliance/protection of the USA, and b) becoming a Soviet colony and enjoy decades of military dictatorship, I'd say most of the Euro countries, given the choice, would have chosen the former. At least, none of the older Polish immigrants in my neighborhood have fond memories of the good ol' commie days.

There's the rub - they moved overseas for a reason. Many of current Law and Justice* partisans, who have stayed much closer to homeland, used to be relatively well-off (by the humble Eastern Bloc standards) in them old days.

*) Whose chairman, by the way, used to be ostensibly Russophobic; less so these days. In his stead, one of his "figure of fun" henchmen carries that torch.

Off-topic? I wish it was.

[EmperorIng]

There's the rub - they moved overseas for a reason.

Some of them did move only until after the Solidarity movement swept out the communists. My pastor, who is in his 30s, is fond of recounting how when going to the theater, before a movie would play, the generalissimo, or whomever was in charge in those days would appear as the "movie preview", lecturing the audience about the glories of communism and the duty of every Pole towards the state, and of capitalism this and that. He recalls the puffed-up bravado as being both extremely boring and funny all at once.

If you wanted a candidate to stick it to the establishment, Rand Paul was right there.

He was for cuts in military spending, reducing debt, and decreasing federal power. There was no way the big-wigs would let someone like that win. And to be fair, Rand is not good at debating. Well hey, the young people still love him, so maybe in 10 years' time it will be their turn to run the show (If the debt crisis is still salvageable). I'm sure the Arianna Huffingtons, Slates, and Vox'es of the world will still find a way to paint him as an out-of-control racist or something, but I guess that's just how things are.

[Ed Oscuro]

Meanwhile, 40 percent of Trump supporters in Texas think that Acorn is going to steal the election.

Yeah, that Acorn.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Some of them did move only until after the Solidarity movement swept out the communists.

Solidarity wasn't so much anti-anything as it was pro-something (some of its iconic figures had pretty communist family background and largely inherited their ideals), but I don't think there's modern language left to have any civil conversation about it at this point. No register, linguistically speaking.

[quash]

Well I also remember you pointing to "The Art of the Deal" as explaining the genius behind Trump's seemingly stupid statements. Then I pointed out that it was a ghostwritten work of fiction and you kinda stopped talking about that subject.

Why do you put so much stock in the words of an assblasted ghost writer that Trump probably stiffed on royalties?

I'm not saying that the strategies outlined in the book are certifiable fact, nor am I saying they'll work for everyone (indeed, you probably have to have the kind of demeanor Trump does to pull most of them off). All I'm saying is that the general idea behind how he approaches negotiations is outlined in the book.

I mean, shit, I don't think most of us here believe the Bible to be completely non-fictional, yet is it not the best tool for getting inside the head of a Christian?

Jesus Christ, Republicans! If you wanted a candidate to stick it to the establishment, Rand Paul was right there. Instead you went with the funny clown who hates the spicks. I think Hillary is the wrong choice for America but you left me no other choice!

Yeah, why didn't they go with the guy whose father was steamrolled by the RNC? How about a Mormon who drew the blueprint for Obamacare? Or better yet, a DNC appointed stooge posing as a maverick?

I don't even know how else to explain this to you. It's clear that you aren't actually reading most of what I'm saying because you somehow thought I was invested in the wall, which I called out a year ago as being a chip on the bargaining table.

[quash]

For what it's worth: if Trump is elected, I think he'll go back on his latest promise, too. Either he'll change nothing and keep up the deportation dog and pony show that Obama started, or he'll actually start cracking down on expired visa overstays.

[Bitter Almonds]

If you wanted a candidate to stick it to the establishment, Rand Paul was right there.

He was for cuts in military spending, reducing debt, and decreasing federal power. There was no way the big-wigs would let someone like that win. And to be fair, Rand is not good at debating. Well hey, the young people still love him, so maybe in 10 years' time it will be their turn to run the show (If the debt crisis is still salvageable). I'm sure the Arianna Huffingtons, Slates, and Vox'es of the world will still find a way to paint him as an out-of-control racist or something, but I guess that's just how things are.

Gary Johnson is still in the race.

#FeelTheJohnson

[quash]

Feel the DNC's controlled opposition to steal votes from Trump.

Seriously, nobody else on the planet spends so much on such clearly forced internet presence.

[Lord Satori]

Has it never occurred to you that his own words may simply be pushing them away?

People have a curious aversion to people who say something they disagree with.

[Mischief Maker]

Why do you put so much stock in the words of an assblasted ghost writer that Trump probably stiffed on royalties?

First of all, Trump can't stiff Tony Schwartz on royalties because Trump didn't publish the book, Random House did. Tony Schwartz was never assblasted by Trump; he got his royalties, got his name on the cover, and has no financial incentive to badmouth the book that made him rich:

Spoiler

(Though if you actually read the article Trump did attempt to shake down Tony Schwartz for money after the book was published. Unsuccessfully, I might add.)

Second of all, because Trump is constantly lying and has no history of public service, the only options available to us voters to determine his qualification are his record in business (lots of failures with golden parachutes thanks in large part to his daddy Fred) and the words of his frigging biographer!

I'm not saying that the strategies outlined in the book are certifiable fact, nor am I saying they'll work for everyone (indeed, you probably have to have the kind of demeanor Trump does to pull most of them off). All I'm saying is that the general idea behind how he approaches negotiations is outlined in the book.

Let me again quote from the article:

When Schwartz began writing “The Art of the Deal,” he realized that he needed to put an acceptable face on Trump’s loose relationship with the truth. So he concocted an artful euphemism. Writing in Trump’s voice, he explained to the reader, “I play to people’s fantasies. . . . People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and it’s a very effective form of promotion.” Schwartz now disavows the passage. “Deceit,” he told me, is never “innocent.” He added, “ ‘Truthful hyperbole’ is a contradiction in terms. It’s a way of saying, ‘It’s a lie, but who cares?’ ” Trump, he said, loved the phrase.

The Donald Trump in the book is a work of fiction like the Easter Bunny. Maybe I just have a perspective that you don't because I've dealt with so many con artists. But if you work in intelligence and you're this aggressively naive... maybe that Legacay of Ashes book was right.

[Bitter Almonds]

... and now a former cia director is singing praises to $hillary.

[quash]

Like I've said before, Trump is no saint. I'll even agree that there is no such thing as innocent deceit. But you can't deny that Trump has time and again over promised and under delivered- and gotten away with it. I think it's pretty clear that he would have liked to seen some of his proposals come to fruition a long time ago, but he knows that by now it's either impossible or ineffective to implement many of them.

That being said, if there's one area where I don't think he's bluffing for the most part, it's foreign policy. For starters, his campaign is connected to a group of well respected, retired military officials that wouldn't be supporting him if they didn't know that he agreed with their plans regarding Syria specifically. Additionally, he has been very selective in who he hasn't pissed off in this arena; specifically, Israel and Russia. Though I think it is also worth noting that he has gone out of his way to make an enemy of the neoconservative establishment, basically giving them the finger by saying that America's interventionist streak would be coming to an end under his administration.

Basically, both the bridges he's built and the bridges he's burned here are way too opposed to each other to present a conflict of interest. And believe me, if I thought for even a moment that there was one, I'd be the first to point it out.

[BryanM]

Well hey, the young people still love him

He got 11% of the 18 to 45 bracket.
Carson got 16%.
Trump got 31%.

* The above-46 bracket voted 23% for Trump. The evidence does lightly support that television media hurt Trump, and they made Paul invisible.

** Though I'd argue that Paul doing as well as Cruz in that demographic means that young people are merely losing interest in the republican party when it comes to religion. The other stuff... they're still interested.

Bernie Sanders won his primary in the 18 to 45 bracket. The future of the Democratic Party is Bernie Sanders. The future of the Republican Party is Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

There was no way the big-wigs would let someone like that win

Ing, is it possible for you to accept that the world thinks pure libertarianism is just shit, and that only a minority likes it?

Ron Paul did the best to articulate the pure republican economic platform (minus the cronyism - cut out that middle man~), with the "stop bothering other people" policy on war and people's private lives. He did a fantastic job of this, and his rallies were something to really see.

Objective results have proven that the republican economic platform (with or without cronyism) is like eating dogshit to the average voter. The reason normal people vote republican is usually for tribal reasons - they have a view of a specific way "people ought to be", and that's why race, religion, and sexuality resonate and get votes from them. Telling people how they should live their lives... is kind of complete and total anathema to pure libertarianism, isn't it?

I'm not trying to be mean or anything (god knows I'm not going to belittle someone who actually thinks about things instead of knee-jerkingly going "fuck the gays" or "guillotine everyone who makes over $80,000 a year"), but this is a symptom I see in a lot of libertarians. "If only people knew, they would love my view of the world!"

When there's never been any strong support of this in the real world. The hard ceiling has always been around 15% of the population, with the real world performance coming in at 5 to 10. You need 22 to 25 percent of the population behind you to take over a political party and enact policy.

[quash]

Ing, is it possible for you to accept that the world thinks pure libertarianism is just shit, and that only a minority likes it?

I don't think he's wrong in his analysis of why Rand Paul will never be president, but I do also agree with this.

Furthermore, the Libertarian party is without a doubt deeply infiltrated; no organization that still has a shred of integrity left would allow this to happen:

https://youtu.be/zTOfzLCtUX8

[BryanM]

Alan Grayson and Tim lost.

Alan Grayson in particular only got 20% of the vote after the tsunami of lies spent on TV and radio to bury him. Now a republican is running against a republican for that senate seat. And that's what we'll be getting country wide, again and again, for the next 12 to 16 years.

[Mischief Maker]

Screw Aleppo, I'm shocked that his opposition to Net Neutrality isn't sinking Gary Johnson. Not to mention his love for Citizen's United!

I mean I want him in the debates, but only to peel votes from Trump.

Anyone who voted Bernie in the primary who's seriously considering voting Johnson in the general should be hit over the head with a rolled up newspaper then pointed to a breakdown of Johnson's actual policy stances.

[quash]

Screw knowing anything about world affairs, don't you dare make me pay more for Netflix.

[Mischief Maker]

Screw knowing anything about world affairs, don't you dare make me pay more for Netflix.

Lemme put that in proper context. It's a cross-post with another forum where a bernie-or-buster was saying the media was making a mountain out of a molehill over poor Gary Johnson's fuckup, and I was reminding them about all the many ways Gary Johnson's platform and past record should be abhorrent to Bernie supporters.

Then I remembered there were a few Bernie-now-Johnson supporters on this forum so I cross-posted.

I understand you're a Trump diehard because you think the one issue Trump won't flip on is kowtowing to Moscow because Trump purrs like a kitten every time Putin pays him a compliment. I think that's wishful thinking on your part and disagree, but I respect your reasoning far more than Bernie-or-busters going over to Johnson. Policy-wise Johnson and the Libertarian party are horrible, and it's not like this information isn't readily available.

Yes, I think Clinton and the DNC did wrong and I want to see them punished too, but I'm not willing to cut off my nose to spite my face, and neither is frigging Bernie Sanders!

[quash]

snip

Of course the media is going to cover Gary Johnson's fuckups, that's the reason he's in the race: to steal votes from Trump. Can't have him looking too good, so the coverage he'll be getting will be mostly negative.

And "kowtowing to Moscow" isn't what I'm hoping for. I just want the plan to drag America into a war it can't survive to be cut off at the head.

Bernie won't do anything because he's on the Clinton kill list if he does. This is assuming he wasn't controlled opposition all along, in which case it's his job to not do anything.

In any case, the DNC literally undermined democracy and everyone's okay with voting for the candidate that did it. Again, I won't even be mad if she wins, just disappointed.