Hypothetical one. Wall gets built, but doesn't stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border. Which causes the right to blame the left for not allowing more harsh laws that """stop""" illegal immigration. The left then responds with, well your BBW was supposed to stop illegal immigration. Nothing changes. Hypothetical two. Imaginary Wall doesn't get built, illegal immigrants continue to cross the border with no problems. The right makes up some excuse as to why it's the left's fault the imaginary BBW wasn't built. The left says, see Trump lied! no Wall... Clinton 2020! Anti-Trump memes galore. The right says, the BBW was always imaginary. Clinton is a liar! Lock her up! Trump 2020. Anti-Clinton memes galore. Hypothetical three. Wall doesn't get built, illegal immigrants continue to cross the border with no issues. The right blames the left, the left blames the right. Government threatens to shut down again.... again... again... and again... Race in this country continues to play a main role in how people view one another. South Park makes a series of episodes that are spot on. The left again rigs the primary's. Then wonders why Trump is in for 8 years instead of 4.
Trump voters DGAF if he keeps his promises. They voted for him out of spite. The fact he won is good enough
I am an unskilled uncraftsman. But I did leave because the Universities in England have too high standards to employ someone like me.
I think a major part of the problem is terms like "the left" and "the right". These are artificial clumpings that are practically meaningless. If "the left" means anything, it's Sanders' supporters who had nothing to do with "rigging" the primaries. (If there was a "rigging" here it was a party political thing: the Democrats wanted an actual Democrat to win, not somebody who called himself a Democrat the day before he started running and then dropped that nomenclature the moment he dropped out. Ironically, of course, the Repubs tried desperately to do the same but Trump won anyway.) This whole "left/right" thing obscures the diversity of views across the political spectrum that might be a way to unlock gridlock which is what the people who give Congress a lower approval rating than botulism (and then turn around and vote for Tea Partiers who make it worse) are complaining about. Social conservatives have very little in common with Libertarians but they're clumped together under Repubs. Despite the fact that there are anti-abortion Democrats (including Harry frickin' Reid) and Repubs (including Donald frickin' Trump) who don't give a shit about the culture wars. But, of course, they have to pretend to to keep the coalition going, adding to the cycle of cynicism.
Serious question, Denny: you have managed to work yourself into a froth about the Wikileaks revelations. Do you honestly believe that the Repubs are any different? Or is your position "I will assume the best until I am forced to believe otherwise by (obviously politically motivated) leaks?" Essentially your position is "Democrats bad because leaks show bad, Repubs good because no leaks".
I believe any republican emails would show they tried to keep Trump from winning. It was done in the open, though. Like Romney's speech. Leaking them would have only helped Trump by gaining him even more of the sympathy that helped him win. I'm not a republican or fan of them. Of the bunch who ran, I'd have preferred Kasich. Cruz was just awful, but still would have beaten Clinton (any one of them would). The republicans do not have super delegates. I don't know how anyone can honestly support that concept, though people blindly do. It's unelected delegates choosing on behalf of the party, not on behalf of the people. It was mostly these unelected delegates that threw the delegate count against Sanders. That much of the rig job was done out in the open, but buried by the media. I think both parties ruin big parts of the country and society. Republicans maybe slightly less. I'd be a lot happier if they lived up to their rhetoric about smaller government and fiscal responsibility, but last time they had control of all 3 branches like this, they spent like there was no end to the money.
Okay, what about stuff like phony voter registration laws that are designed to suppress the minority vote? Would you believe leaks that showed that this was intentional on the Republican part? Would you be outraged? Or is suppressing minority vote okay, but trying to stop Bernie unconscionable? Also: why are you so outraged about Bernie (supposedly) being denied the Democratic nomination when his policies are about as anti-libertarian as you can get? (Although, judging by your approval of the VA and the Post Office, I don't think you really mean by "libertarian" what everyone else does.)
I don't think that's as black/white is it's made out to be in the press. One one hand, citizenship does come with the privilege of the vote, and not everyone who lives here is a citizen. On the other, the privilege to vote should not be unduly impeded. Either POV is perfectly valid, regardless of the crap spewed by democrats. I don't think there's any kind of smoking gun along those lines. FWIW, I opposed any sort of laws that restricted the vote and applaud the courts for striking them down when they did. And I do think you have little understanding of what Libertarian means. As a Libertarian, I favor the maximization of individual liberty over what has become unelected government panels deciding for everyone. The Constitution, literally interpreted, is Libertarian. The Post Office is called for in the Constitution. The VA is indirectly detailed in the form of raising a military and paying our national debts (we owe the soldiers, per contract). The proposal I make on health care is not socialist, costs the taxpayer $0, does not require anyone to participate, and only fosters competition - competition will drive innovation and lower costs in all things. I'm not a conservative. I am not religious (can't stand religion, actually). I am pro choice, pro civil rights, pro woman, for free and open borders, for legalization of drugs, etc. You will find MarAzul and other traditional conservatives and I have disagreed on many things in many threads here over the years. But feel free to invent a definition of Libertarianism and claim I don't fit it. EDIT: I also favor economic freedom and true free markets. Like I said, competition drives innovation and lower costs. I don't mean regulated capitalism, I mean pure capitalism, which was only tried here for a brief time and worked perfectly well. Capitalism is another straw man used by the left, argued as a bogeyman. If pure capitalism (separation of economy and state) were practiced, we wouldn't see the ills of capitalism mixed with government (kleptocracy, plutocracy, corruption, etc.).
The Constitution Party is that party....the Libertarian Party is like the Blazers....lacks a core identity...personally, I vote for people I think reflect my sensibilities, not political parties.
For the most part, you could not tell any of the Libertarian Party candidates apart from one another over the years. They all share the same philosophy and take the very same positions on issues. The constitution party is a christian nationalist party. The libertarian party has nothing to do with any religion or silly belief this is a judeo-christian nation.
