The US Election 2016, Part IV

[Guard Dog]

 

In other news Gary Johnson/Bill Weld has hit the magic number of 15% in two of the five major polls. In fact Pew Research has them at 22% among the largest voting demographic. If he gets on that debate stage with Donald "Why can't we use nukes" Trump and Hillary "tax them all let God sort them out" Clinton we might have a real horse race. .

GD does this  mean the Libertarian party will become a permanent political party and voting option going forward in the USA?

 

Like Amentep said they are already a permanent political party. But not a very large or wealthy one. The LP relies almost entirely on individual contributions and membership dues. But as far as becoming an actual political force in the US, maybe, maybe not. A good performance in this election will help. Ballot access is a huge undertaking for the LP. It requires a lot of money and a lot of man hours. If Johnson/Weld can pull in 5% of the popular vote the LP candidate in 2020 will automatically be on the ballot. That is big. But 5% of the vote would not be all that impressive with two weak candidates like we have now. 10% or better or even winning one State would go a long way to carving out a niche as the real "3rd Party". That would change the dynamic in other areas too. Right now some 3k political positions in the US are held by Libertarians. But not one at the Federal level or in any State Senate and only four in State Houses. That has to change.

 

Success for Johnson/Weld would look like this IMO: 1) Get into the debates. If this doesn't happen, nothing else does.  2) Perform well enough there to raise brand awareness. Too many people still don't know who or what the party stands for. I would say most Americans like the Democrats on some things and the Republicans on others. The LP message of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Free from Government Intrusion (or assistance) might be just the mix folks will respond to.3) Get at least 5% of the popular vote. Hopefully a lot more. 15% to 20% would make the news everywhere and that will help with candidacies in congressional, state and local elections in 2018.

 

This has happened before. The Republicans in 1854, the Progressive Party in 1912 and The Reform Party in 1992. The former went on to win the Presidency and most of Congress in 1860. The latter two flamed out and were gone within 10 years. The LP won't disappear they way they did but it may implode back to a movement no one gives a crap about. I'm hoping it follows the path of the Republicans.

 

Right now the LP is the only and I do mean ONLY party that is talking about limited government and out of control spending right now. It is the only party talking about disentangling ourselves from combat in the middle east. That needs to happen. We need that voice on the national stage. I do not want to see the Republicans go the way of the Whigs. I'd like to see all three healthy and competitive. The Green Party too. The Democrats have long since abandoned their voters. They have never had full ballot access but if they did they should have a voice also.

[BruceVC]

 

 

In other news Gary Johnson/Bill Weld has hit the magic number of 15% in two of the five major polls. In fact Pew Research has them at 22% among the largest voting demographic. If he gets on that debate stage with Donald "Why can't we use nukes" Trump and Hillary "tax them all let God sort them out" Clinton we might have a real horse race. .

GD does this  mean the Libertarian party will become a permanent political party and voting option going forward in the USA?

 

Like Amentep said they are already a permanent political party. But not a very large or wealthy one. The LP relies almost entirely on individual contributions and membership dues. But as far as becoming an actual political force in the US, maybe, maybe not. A good performance in this election will help. Ballot access is a huge undertaking for the LP. It requires a lot of money and a lot of man hours. If Johnson/Weld can pull in 5% of the popular vote the LP candidate in 2020 will automatically be on the ballot. That is big. But 5% of the vote would not be all that impressive with two weak candidates like we have now. 10% or better or even winning one State would go a long way to carving out a niche as the real "3rd Party". That would change the dynamic in other areas too. Right now some 3k political positions in the US are held by Libertarians. But not one at the Federal level or in any State Senate and only four in State Houses. That has to change.

 

Success for Johnson/Weld would look like this IMO: 1) Get into the debates. If this doesn't happen, nothing else does.  2) Perform well enough there to raise brand awareness. Too many people still don't know who or what the party stands for. I would say most Americans like the Democrats on some things and the Republicans on others. The LP message of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Free from Government Intrusion (or assistance) might be just the mix folks will respond to.3) Get at least 5% of the popular vote. Hopefully a lot more. 15% to 20% would make the news everywhere and that will help with candidacies in congressional, state and local elections in 2018.

 

This has happened before. The Republicans in 1854, the Progressive Party in 1912 and The Reform Party in 1992. The former went on to win the Presidency and most of Congress in 1860. The latter two flamed out and were gone within 10 years. The LP won't disappear they way they did but it may implode back to a movement no one gives a crap about. I'm hoping it follows the path of the Republicans.

 

Right now the LP is the only and I do mean ONLY party that is talking about limited government and out of control spending right now. It is the only party talking about disentangling ourselves from combat in the middle east. That needs to happen. We need that voice on the national stage. I do not want to see the Republicans go the way of the Whigs. I'd like to see all three healthy and competitive. The Green Party too. The Democrats have long since abandoned their voters. They have never had full ballot access but if they did they should have a voice also.

 

Well I think its  a worthwhile endeavor to support them, I dont think you can give too much attention to this type of campaign

 

I'm glad there is another political party you  identify with. As I said earlier I watched an interview with guys from LP and they seemed very sincere and candid 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

In other news Gary Johnson/Bill Weld has hit the magic number of 15% in two of the five major polls. In fact Pew Research has them at 22% among the largest voting demographic. If he gets on that debate stage with Donald "Why can't we use nukes" Trump and Hillary "tax them all let God sort them out" Clinton we might have a real horse race. .

GD does this  mean the Libertarian party will become a permanent political party and voting option going forward in the USA?

 

Like Amentep said they are already a permanent political party. But not a very large or wealthy one. The LP relies almost entirely on individual contributions and membership dues. But as far as becoming an actual political force in the US, maybe, maybe not. A good performance in this election will help. Ballot access is a huge undertaking for the LP. It requires a lot of money and a lot of man hours. If Johnson/Weld can pull in 5% of the popular vote the LP candidate in 2020 will automatically be on the ballot. That is big. But 5% of the vote would not be all that impressive with two weak candidates like we have now. 10% or better or even winning one State would go a long way to carving out a niche as the real "3rd Party". That would change the dynamic in other areas too. Right now some 3k political positions in the US are held by Libertarians. But not one at the Federal level or in any State Senate and only four in State Houses. That has to change.

 

Success for Johnson/Weld would look like this IMO: 1) Get into the debates. If this doesn't happen, nothing else does.  2) Perform well enough there to raise brand awareness. Too many people still don't know who or what the party stands for. I would say most Americans like the Democrats on some things and the Republicans on others. The LP message of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness Free from Government Intrusion (or assistance) might be just the mix folks will respond to.3) Get at least 5% of the popular vote. Hopefully a lot more. 15% to 20% would make the news everywhere and that will help with candidacies in congressional, state and local elections in 2018.

 

This has happened before. The Republicans in 1854, the Progressive Party in 1912 and The Reform Party in 1992. The former went on to win the Presidency and most of Congress in 1860. The latter two flamed out and were gone within 10 years. The LP won't disappear they way they did but it may implode back to a movement no one gives a crap about. I'm hoping it follows the path of the Republicans.

 

Right now the LP is the only and I do mean ONLY party that is talking about limited government and out of control spending right now. It is the only party talking about disentangling ourselves from combat in the middle east. That needs to happen. We need that voice on the national stage. I do not want to see the Republicans go the way of the Whigs. I'd like to see all three healthy and competitive. The Green Party too. The Democrats have long since abandoned their voters. They have never had full ballot access but if they did they should have a voice also.

 

Well I think its  a worthwhile endeavor to support them, I dont think you can give too much attention to this type of campaign

 

I'm glad there is another political party you  identify with. As I said earlier I watched an interview with guys from LP and they seemed very sincere and candid 

 

Well, I have tended to vote against the Democrats for reasons I have made clear here  time and again. That led me to supporting Bush in 2000, McCain in 2008, and Romney in 2012. I didn't think very highly of any of them. But their opponents were simply intolerable to me. In 1996, 2004, and 2016 BOTH the R and the D are intolerable so it is an easy choice for me this year.

 

But as I posted earlier I'm done with voting "against" someone. Unless something changes I've probably cast my last vote for a Republican presidential candidate. If that means climbing on Rocinante's back and charging the "giants" on the hill, well, saddle up and ride.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

KP giving the Secret Service a test of their capabilities at a Clinton rally:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXdkiaZvTVQ

They're onto me.

[Katphood]

 

 

The 400 Million $ he is talking about is the money that US owed to Iran. Again, proof that he has no idea what he is talking about and I have no idea why Russia supports this idiot. Maybe they hope that Trump will eventually bring the downfall of the US with his stupidity. Let's just hope he doesn't bring the downfall of the whole world with him. Yup, people are that misinformed.

 

Supposedly the $400 Million is from an international court ruling regarding a disagreement between US-Iran dating to the late 1970s when the US agreed to back the Shah of Iran in buying arms.  The US's position had been that the change of regime made the agreement null and void, whereas the international court determined the agreement was with the country and that the regime was irrelevant.  This is - again supposedly - why the right has been arguing that US agreed to "accept" the international court ruling as a cover to buy off Iran to release prisoners.

 

Mike Rogers claimed on TV that there was no ruling yet. Not sure if that's true or not.

 

Edit: In any case they obviously tried to hide the fact that they made the payment.

 

 

He went ahead and took back what he had said earlier according to BBC.

[Guard Dog]

New Johnson/Weld ad released in conjunction with their CNN appearance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gCSTFaibOg

[Amentep]

Right now the LP is the only and I do mean ONLY party that is talking about limited government and out of control spending right now. It is the only party talking about disentangling ourselves from combat in the middle east. That needs to happen. We need that voice on the national stage. I do not want to see the Republicans go the way of the Whigs. I'd like to see all three healthy and competitive. The Green Party too. The Democrats have long since abandoned their voters. They have never had full ballot access but if they did they should have a voice also.

 

IMO, since we'll probably never eliminate the political parties entirely, the better solution to what we have now is to have multiple viable parties; Libertarians and Green seem to be the most likely candidates for such at the moment. In a way I hope the R & D having such divisive candidates may allow the system to really branch out, with voters trying to grasp at alternatives such as they become viable past this election cycle.

 

"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

 

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

 

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

 

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

 

- George Washington, 1776

Edited August 5, 2016 by Amentep

[Wrath of Dagon]

Unfortunately because of their hatred of parties the founders set up what turned out to be a two party system. A perfect example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

[Amentep]

Yeah, irony is so ironic. :|

[Oerwinde]

 

Who's Darrell Castle and why have I not heard of him?

[Meshugger]

 

Who's Darrell Castle and why have I not heard of him?

 

The Constitution Party. Ron Paul endorsed them instead of Mr. Mittens back in 2012.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, Trump just sold out and endorsed all the establishment candidates in the Republican primaries.

[Pidesco]

That must be a result of the "intervention".

[BruceVC]

Well, Trump just sold out and endorsed all the establishment candidates in the Republican primaries.

Sold out?

 

No he made the inevitable and predictable   decision, Trump cant do most of what he claimed he can do WOD. Some things he can do but most of the big things like the Trump Wall wont happen

 

Its okay in a way, rather find out now  about his demagoguery than get much more disappointed later

 

But if you think you have issues with populism, check this  radical political party in SA and the false promises made to black people who support them 

 

http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2016/05/11/Mngxitama-%E2%80%98Slave-mentality%E2%80%99-EFF-doesn%E2%80%99t-believe-%E2%80%98blacks-can-actually-farm-and-feed-the-nation%E2%80%99

[BruceVC]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngWiQ25cZU0

 

The crying baby incident, this a good example of how Trump in this case unintentionally offends women

 

He doesn't realize how he comes across

[Hiro Protagonist]

Something you can try for yourself.

 

 

Also, another search parameter.

 

[Guard Dog]

Interesting take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

 

 

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad. He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president. I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

[BruceVC]

 

Interesting take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

 

 

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad. He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president. I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

That is a interesting article, it raises some relevant points but I dispute the core message or several core points for example 

 

 " The media bear a lot of responsibility for the creation of Trump, and treating all Republican presidential candidates as if they’re a danger to American society is just one way they’ve done it. It’s unlikely that the media are going to en-masse recognize their bias, but perhaps if the Trump campaign has taught the media anything, it’s to ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again  " 

 

 

What amazes me is that even in the USA the media gets unfairly blamed or there contribution towards a certain social dynamic is exaggerated 

 

The media did not create Trump or encourage his rise to the Republican candidacy, this is a spurious assessment. Trump was strategic and had his 5-6 political objectives right from the beginning, the media would naturally discuss any view any candidate may have but because Trump was so contriversial of course he had media focus

 

You cannot blame the media for reporting on a story, if anything Trump used the media to gain significance 

 

Also Romney was no where seen globally in the same negative light as Trump, the worst and most memorable thing he must have said was the 47 % comment about people wanting handouts from government. So yes he was seen  as a wealthy, callous elitist but he never created the offense Trump has

 

Romney was not the problem for the GOP, he never was .....Trump has created the real issues 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

Interesting take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

 

 

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad. He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president. I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

That is a interesting article, it raises some relevant points but I dispute the core message or several core points for example 

 

 " The media bear a lot of responsibility for the creation of Trump, and treating all Republican presidential candidates as if they’re a danger to American society is just one way they’ve done it. It’s unlikely that the media are going to en-masse recognize their bias, but perhaps if the Trump campaign has taught the media anything, it’s to ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again  " 

 

 

What amazes me is that even in the USA the media gets unfairly blamed or there contribution towards a certain social dynamic is exaggerated 

 

The media did not create Trump or encourage his rise to the Republican candidacy, this is a spurious assessment. Trump was strategic and had his 5-6 political objectives right from the beginning, the media would naturally discuss any view any candidate may have but because Trump was so contriversial of course he had media focus

 

You cannot blame the media for reporting on a story, if anything Trump used the media to gain significance 

 

Also Romney was no where seen globally in the same negative light as Trump, the worst and most memorable thing he must have said was the 47 % comment about people wanting handouts from government. So yes he was seen  as a wealthy, callous elitist but he never created the offense Trump has

 

Romney was not the problem for the GOP, he never was .....Trump has created the real issues 

 

The problem is as the column pointed out, Romney was portrayed as this terrible, anti-American villain. As was McCain, Bush before him, Dole before him, Reagan before them. The media is so closely aligned with the left that every Republican candidate is described as the biggest threat to the future of the country since Hitler and so on. The problem is now we have a candidate who might actually deserve that description and no one is listening because the media has ruined it's own credibility. People read how terrible Trump is and think they've heard it all before. It's like the boy who cried wolf. When the wolf actually shows up no one believes him.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Interesting take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

 

 

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad. He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president. I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

That is a interesting article, it raises some relevant points but I dispute the core message or several core points for example 

 

 " The media bear a lot of responsibility for the creation of Trump, and treating all Republican presidential candidates as if they’re a danger to American society is just one way they’ve done it. It’s unlikely that the media are going to en-masse recognize their bias, but perhaps if the Trump campaign has taught the media anything, it’s to ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again  " 

 

 

What amazes me is that even in the USA the media gets unfairly blamed or there contribution towards a certain social dynamic is exaggerated 

 

The media did not create Trump or encourage his rise to the Republican candidacy, this is a spurious assessment. Trump was strategic and had his 5-6 political objectives right from the beginning, the media would naturally discuss any view any candidate may have but because Trump was so contriversial of course he had media focus

 

You cannot blame the media for reporting on a story, if anything Trump used the media to gain significance 

 

Also Romney was no where seen globally in the same negative light as Trump, the worst and most memorable thing he must have said was the 47 % comment about people wanting handouts from government. So yes he was seen  as a wealthy, callous elitist but he never created the offense Trump has

 

Romney was not the problem for the GOP, he never was .....Trump has created the real issues 

 

The problem is as the column pointed out, Romney was portrayed as this terrible, anti-American villain. As was McCain, Bush before him, Dole before him, Reagan before them. The media is so closely aligned with the left that every Republican candidate is described as the biggest threat to the future of the country since Hitler and so on. The problem is now we have a candidate who might actually deserve that description and no one is listening because the media has ruined it's own credibility. People read how terrible Trump is and think they've heard it all before. It's like the boy who cried wolf. When the wolf actually shows up no one believes him.

 

I understand the criticism  but I think its unfair or inaccurate, for example ask any other forum member living outside the USA what they thought about Romney and how the media in their country portrayed him

 

I'll be surprised if most people will say he was seen as a  villain or as controversial as Trump?

Edited August 6, 2016 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

GD do you think its okay to not vote for any party because your fundamental view of something is not an objective of any party?

 

I didnt vote in the local election in SA this week, my first time ever. But many people are upset  or critical with me for not voting like some of my family and friends  who now refuse to discuss SA politics with me because " I didnt bother to vote so that means I dont really care "    

[Hiro Protagonist]

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

Interesting take: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/05/how-paul-krugman-made-donald-trump-possible.html

 

 

 

His convention was called “one of the worst ever.” Chris Matthews deemed him “dangerous” and “scary,” Ellen DeGeneres said “If you’re a woman, you should be very, very scared.” His opponent ran an ad against him portraying him as uniquely dangerous for women. “I’ve never felt this way before, but it’s a scary time to be a woman,” said a woman in the ad. He was frequently called a “bully,” “anti-immigrant,” “racist,” “stupid,” and “unfit” to be president. I’m referring, obviously, to the terrifying Mitt Romney.

 

That is a interesting article, it raises some relevant points but I dispute the core message or several core points for example 

 

 " The media bear a lot of responsibility for the creation of Trump, and treating all Republican presidential candidates as if they’re a danger to American society is just one way they’ve done it. It’s unlikely that the media are going to en-masse recognize their bias, but perhaps if the Trump campaign has taught the media anything, it’s to ratchet down the rhetoric so that words mean something again  " 

 

 

What amazes me is that even in the USA the media gets unfairly blamed or there contribution towards a certain social dynamic is exaggerated 

 

The media did not create Trump or encourage his rise to the Republican candidacy, this is a spurious assessment. Trump was strategic and had his 5-6 political objectives right from the beginning, the media would naturally discuss any view any candidate may have but because Trump was so contriversial of course he had media focus

 

You cannot blame the media for reporting on a story, if anything Trump used the media to gain significance 

 

Also Romney was no where seen globally in the same negative light as Trump, the worst and most memorable thing he must have said was the 47 % comment about people wanting handouts from government. So yes he was seen  as a wealthy, callous elitist but he never created the offense Trump has

 

Romney was not the problem for the GOP, he never was .....Trump has created the real issues 

 

The problem is as the column pointed out, Romney was portrayed as this terrible, anti-American villain. As was McCain, Bush before him, Dole before him, Reagan before them. The media is so closely aligned with the left that every Republican candidate is described as the biggest threat to the future of the country since Hitler and so on. The problem is now we have a candidate who might actually deserve that description and no one is listening because the media has ruined it's own credibility. People read how terrible Trump is and think they've heard it all before. It's like the boy who cried wolf. When the wolf actually shows up no one believes him.

 

I understand the criticism  but I think its unfair or inaccurate, for example ask any other forum member living outside the USA what they thought about Romney and how the media in their country portrayed him

 

I'll be surprised if most people will say he was seen as a  villain or as controversial as Trump?

 

You're making my point for me Bruce. Of course Romney wasn't a monster. But the Media gladly portrayed him that way. Now they are portraying Trump that way and people just think "well there they go again". Calling everyone a monster who isn't just just inure's people to the language so they don't believe it when the actual monster shows up.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Hurlshort]

I don't disagree that the vast majority of the Media™ are liberal, but I don't see it as some great conspiracy.  Rather the kind of person that is going to go to college and get a degree in journalism is already leaning towards liberalism.  Journalistic integrity is only going to so far when you are naturally predisposed to one type of thinking.  

[Guard Dog]

I don't disagree that the vast majority of the Media™ are liberal, but I don't see it as some great conspiracy.  Rather the kind of person that is going to go to college and get a degree in journalism is already leaning towards liberalism.  Journalistic integrity is only going to so far when you are naturally predisposed to one type of thinking. 

I agree. They are not working together. In fact most see themselves as being in competition yet they are mostly saying the same things. It's just a real life example of Orwell's "Groupthink"

 

And I'll tell you something else. If Johnson gets into the debate and actually mounts a challenge to a Clinton coronation they will turn on him like a school of piranha that smells blood. CNN especially is talking him up because they think he hurts Trump.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Guard Dog