The US Election 2016, Part VIII

[Gromnir]

It's alright WoD. You are the flip side of the same coin as the Hillary supporters. You are all in favor a giant all powerful government as long as it oppresses the people you want it to oppress, punishes who you want punished and denies freedom to those you don't think should have it. Just like the Democrats only with different targets.

 

I've been inclined to support the Republicans myself in the past because they are pro-liberty and pro-small government more often than not. But not all the time. Not even close to all the time. One day I realized that wasn't good enough.

to be fair, the President doesn't do most o' the things people on these boards wishes them to do.  a libertarian President w/o party support is gonna be very much limited to international affairs if he wants to accomplish anything. johnson got almost 0 support in Congress, which is only slight better than trump who gots the antagonism o' a substantial portion o' his own party.  actual Constitutional powers o' the President is limited insofar as domestic affairs is concerned, and johnson don't seem a particular enlightened choice for Leader of the Free World. better than trump?  perhaps, but only by a smidgen.  

 

from our pov, gd support o' a libertarian candidate for President is bass ackwards.  if you want local and national adoption o' libertarian values, then start by getting more libertarian state and national senators and representatives. a libertarian President w/o party support in Congress or an overwhelming mandate from the people is gonna be resulting in an impotent executive.  

 

most folks on these boards appear confused.  they seem to want a Trump Congress or a Johnson Congress.  is a basic and fundamental lack o' awareness 'bout what the President does in our federal government.  our President is not the leader o' the controlling party o' parliament. 

 

*shrug*

 

trump doesn't appear to have any grasp o' what a President can and cannot do...not to mention the fact that he has alienated many minority groups, women and environmentalists. oh, and we still ain't seen his taxes. when we imagine our ideal President for 2016, we conjure up the image o' divisive huckster with impulse control issues.  not. 

 

alternatively, johnson is startling unaware 'bout the world beyond US borders, so let's give him control o' the largest military on earth and have him deal with china and the middle east?    

 

clinton is mendacious and skeevy.  am not liking clinton, but she is the only candidate that will have any kinda Congressional support.

 

none o' the candidates is gonna be able to manhandle the Senate into confirmation o' extreme choices for the Court, so replacements is gonna be political inoffensive judges with impeccable qualifications, but we can understand the fear o' those who see an increasing liberal Court as a reason to vote 'gainst clinton.    

 

yeah, if we were buying a used car, johnson is the guy we would feel most comfortable with as the seller.  that ain't enough.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 2, 2016 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

Fort Islam apologists from the mouth of an exmuslim, current arab, and full time refugee and western newcomer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhSQLmfbQ6Y

[Wrath of Dagon]

Hilzilla doesn't have to pick someone extreme for the Supreme Court, all liberals vote as a block. Besides, even most Republicans voted for Ginsberg, she's plenty extreme enough: "screw the US constitution, replace it with South African constitution" lol

[Hurlshort]

GD has criticized the Libertarian party for not being better at the local level quite a few times.  I believe he hopes that Johnson exposure (that felt dirty) will help lead to more success at the state level.

[Gromnir]

GD has criticized the Libertarian party for not being better at the local level quite a few times.  I believe he hopes that Johnson exposure (that felt dirty) will help lead to more success at the state level.

 

an inevitable impotent national executive is not the best kinda exposure for the libertarian cause.  again, is bass ackwards.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

Hilzilla doesn't have to pick someone extreme for the Supreme Court, all liberals vote as a block. Besides, even most Republicans voted for Ginsberg, she's plenty extreme enough: "screw the US constitution, replace it with South African constitution" lol

 

don't put in quotes if she didn't say it.  sheesh.

 

and Ginsburg were indeed confirmed overwhelming by the senate, 'cause, y'know, she were a brilliant judge.  ah, the good old days.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

Lion El'Johnson shall rise

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, I thought even with quotes it was obvious it wasn't exactly what she said. Here's the exact quote

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

[Gromnir]

OK, I thought even with quotes it was obvious it wasn't exactly what she said. 

so you knew it wasn't an exact quote but you put in quotes anyway?  do you even know what quotation marks represent?

 

also, keep in mind that you are leaving out the fact that your quote of Ginsburg were a reply to a question 'bout crafting a Constitution for egypt.  given how well the arab spring worked out, perhaps a different kinda Constitution would be a good starting point. oh, and we can quote Scalia observing that the Chinese Constitution is actual more protective o' fundamental rights than is the US Constitution... and guys such as Patrick Henry could be quoted for their opposition to the Bill of Rights.  lack o' understanding and a willingness to take outta context is gonna continue to lead you to these little misapprehensions.

 

as an aside, if Gromnir were writing a Constitution in 2012, we would be a bit liberal in using the text o' the original US Constitution. for chrissakes, look at all the amendments.  is much legal gymnastics o' clauses that has resulted in our present functional Constitution here in the USA.  if you can't improve, then you is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

am not actual a fan o' Ginsburg, but wod misquotes and misrepresentations has us defending her.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Are you saying Egypt actually adopted the US constitution and that's why Arab spring didn't work out? She wasn't just talking about Egypt, she's clearly saying anyone writing a constitution should take SA constitution as a model, not US constitution. Of course the SA constitution was written by Marxists, while US constitution is probably the most anti-Marxist document ever written, so there you are.

[Guard Dog]

Yes, I want the giant evil government to oppress terrorists and criminals. Targets do matter.

Until the day comes and the government decides the terrorist is YOU!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yeah, OK, let's just disband them. And yes, they'll probably decide that if Hilzilla wins, so it's up to all freedom loving people to make sure she doesn't win.

[Gromnir]

Are you saying Egypt actually adopted the US constitution and that's why Arab spring didn't work out? She wasn't just talking about Egypt, she's clearly saying anyone writing a constitution should take SA constitution as a model, not US constitution. Of course the SA constitution was written by Marxists, while US constitution is probably the most anti-Marxist document ever written, so there you are.

 

are you being willful obtuse?  at no point did we imply or suggest that egypt had adopted the US Constitution.

 

and no, she weren't saying that "anyone writing a constitution should take SA constitution as a model."  (see, that is how to use exact quotes.) in fact, your quote of Ginsburg seems to purposeful leave out the immediate preceding sentence

 

"You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II."

 

naughty selective quoting from wod?  

 

*feigned shock*

 

in the same interview you quote, rbg also recommends looking at kanadian and european Constitutions. so no, she ain't recommending the sa constitution as a model.  take what has been learned in recent decades and create something new and better?  well gosh, that sounds positively American...  much as does the following quote from the same interview:

 

"let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. if the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference. so the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor."

 

burn the witch.

 

...

 

is other ways in which you is wrong, but it gets tiresome explaining to you how water is wet.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps gonna keep bolding and italicizing name 'til am certain you know proper spelling.  wod eccentricities makes so is difficult to tell when is accidental or purposeful mistaken spellings for names.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

It's alright WoD. You are the flip side of the same coin as the Hillary supporters. You are all in favor a giant all powerful government as long as it oppresses the people you want it to oppress, punishes who you want punished and denies freedom to those you don't think should have it. Just like the Democrats only with different targets.

 

I've been inclined to support the Republicans myself in the past because they are pro-liberty and pro-small government more often than not. But not all the time. Not even close to all the time. One day I realized that wasn't good enough.

to be fair, the President doesn't do most o' the things people on these boards wishes them to do.  a libertarian President w/o party support is gonna be very much limited to international affairs if he wants to accomplish anything. johnson got almost 0 support in Congress, which is only slight better than trump who gots the antagonism o' a substantial portion o' his own party.  actual Constitutional powers o' the President is limited insofar as domestic affairs is concerned, and johnson don't seem a particular enlightened choice for Leader of the Free World. better than trump?  perhaps, but only by a smidgen.  

 

from our pov, gd support o' a libertarian candidate for President is bass ackwards.  if you want local and national adoption o' libertarian values, then start by getting more libertarian state and national senators and representatives. a libertarian President w/o party support in Congress or an overwhelming mandate from the people is gonna be resulting in an impotent executive.  

 

most folks on these boards appear confused.  they seem to want a Trump Congress or a Johnson Congress.  is a basic and fundamental lack o' awareness 'bout what the President does in our federal government.  our President is not the leader o' the controlling party o' parliament. 

 

*shrug*

 

trump doesn't appear to have any grasp o' what a President can and cannot do...not to mention the fact that he has alienated many minority groups, women and environmentalists. oh, and we still ain't seen his taxes. when we imagine our ideal President for 2016, we conjure up the image o' divisive huckster with impulse control issues.  not. 

 

alternatively, johnson is startling unaware 'bout the world beyond US borders, so let's give him control o' the largest military on earth and have him deal with china and the middle east?    

 

clinton is mendacious and skeevy.  am not liking clinton, but she is the only candidate that will have any kinda Congressional support.

 

none o' the candidates is gonna be able to manhandle the Senate into confirmation o' extreme choices for the Court, so replacements is gonna be political inoffensive judges with impeccable qualifications, but we can understand the fear o' those who see an increasing liberal Court as a reason to vote 'gainst clinton.    

 

yeah, if we were buying a used car, johnson is the guy we would feel most comfortable with as the seller.  that ain't enough.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah I've hit a few of these points repeatedly over the last 8 threads. There was never a serious shot at Johnson winning the vote outright. Even if he got into the debates the best he could hope for is maybe... MAYBE getting his home state or perhaps an outside shot at winning Utah. That might... MIGHT have been enough to deny Clinton & Trump 270 if the rest of the election fell out favorably. Then he might... MIGHT have an outside shot in the House of Representatives as a compromise candidate. It would be like needing both the Turn and River cards to draw to an inside straight in three consecutive hands. Longshot does not do it justice. 

 

But what he can do and has done is elevate the brand. In a previous post I described 3rd party Presidential bids as "hail mary" passes. They are an enormous undertaking. As a party member I am aware of the lengths they went to to secure ballot access in all 50 states & DC. It was a long and expensive undertaking. The problem is it leaves little in the way of assets to support Congressional candidates. And there are some 200 Libertarian candidates for Congress this year across the US. Having a Presidential candidate on the top of the ballot does help with that. But not as much as having the cash to help the campaigns and a lot of that is expended on ballot access. If Gary Johnson can win at least 5% of the vote this year the 2020 candidate will automatically be on the ballot. And the LP will be eligible for federal election assistance. That means more assets for campaign support in 2018 & 2020.

 

So far this campaign has been a huge success. Johnson has raised more money that any LP candidate. He has been endorsed by 6 major newspapers and a handful of celebrity types. It's October and we are actually talking about the Libertarian ticket. That has not happened... ever that I can remember. Granted this is not 100% on his merits. The embarrassing choices of the two major parties has helped. But this is an opportunity to advance the brand and I think it's bring seized. 

 

If Johnson captures the magic number of 5% this will be a success. If he does better and one of those 200 candidates for Federal office is elected this will be an unqualified success. If that happens and Clinton wins the Presidency and the Republicans retain Congress I'll be happy. If this happens and Trump wins and the Democrats capture at least one House of Congress I'll be happy.

 

One thing that has been proven is the Libertarian message is being heard by Millennials and Active Duty Military. That is where we should be recruiting candidates. That is where we need to spend the next four years advertising. 

 

I know you think the "hail mary" is backwards and it is. But the LP is not a movement. It's a political party and a political party needs a face, it needs a leader. By November 8th most of the country will have heard of Gary Johnson and beacuse of him the LP. But without him in the race no one would have heard of Paul Stanton, a twice wounded Iraq vet running for Senate in Florida. No one will hear about Mark West, Chis Hynes, or Steve Issacson all running for different House seats in Arkansas. You get the idea.There are close to 3k LP members serving in elected office right now. But none at the Federal level. If we get one... just one it will make the news. But only because Johnson mounted a credible challenge this year. 

 

We have had some success before and were unable to exploit it. But the LP is different now. The Harry Browne "burn the whole thing down" wing is out of power. The "little L's" are in control. I roll my eyes when I hear someone tell me I'm "wasting my vote". In 2012 close to 118,000,000 votes were cast in 2012. Obama got close to 66M, Romney close to 61. Three million votes taken from both spread out across the country would have changed nothing. But if a 3rd party got those it WOULD have changed 2016. If you think of it that way a vote for Johnson/Weld is the only "productive" vote I can cast.

[BruceVC]

Are you saying Egypt actually adopted the US constitution and that's why Arab spring didn't work out? 

 "Egypt actually adopted the US constitution "    

 

 

Just the thought of that  concept makes this post the funniest and most ridiculous suggestion anyone has said in ages on these forums, this even makes volo's  comments seem normal

 

Well done WOD, you definitely get the famous and revered BruceVC award for  the " most absurd and unlikely post to make " 

 

Sometimes you guys really are funny and the funniest thing about it is I dont think you mean to be humorous 

[BruceVC]

Are you saying Egypt actually adopted the US constitution and that's why Arab spring didn't work out? She wasn't just talking about Egypt, she's clearly saying anyone writing a constitution should take SA constitution as a model, not US constitution. Of course the SA constitution was written by Marxists, while US constitution is probably the most anti-Marxist document ever written, so there you are.

The SA constitution wasn't written by Marxists ....what are you talking about ?

 

The SA constitution was and is very well constructed, there are certain things the USA could adopt but it wouldn't be suitable overall for a country like the USA

 

For example we believe that everyone has a right to dignity so certain aspects of Freedom of Speech would be considered very offensive to the dignity of people so that would immediately clash with the USA view around Freedom of Speech which we have often discussed

 

As I often try to explain to you guys in the USA we believe in free speech but certain words are considered unacceptable. This seems to be contradictory but this is because of the history of Apartheid which has a degree of relevance in our laws  

[Zoraptor]

SACP.

 

Lion El'Johnson shall rise

 

Johnson faces stiff competition in US election

Johnson exposed by Aleppo gaffe

Weld leaves Johnson hanging when asked which world leaders he admired etc etc

 

Might as well get them all out of the way.

[Agiel]

 

Wonder if you could tune that into something that goes with the second verse of the old British Army Ballad "I Don't Want to Join the Army":

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Woomp! There it is. Intrepid Cheeseball-dust-coated Insultman has avoided paying any taxes for decades, and not paying taxes he claimed to be sign of cleverness, so, here we go. 

 

Still, I have this awful feeling that his supporters don't care one bit about that. Perhaps they do indeed applaud him for it.

 

But, he's obviously running for president for a pretty important country, and those nasty bankruptcies alone are deeply worrying.

Add to that his excited sniffles each time he speaks about the wall along Mexico and we're starting to see his true colours shining through, and they're brown, not as the Fall leaves in Cali, but as the shirts on certain right-wing extremists in Germany in the 1930s. 

 

Scary stuff.

Edited October 2, 2016 by IndiraLightfoot

[Meshugger]

Woomp! There it is. Intrepid Cheeseball-dust-coated Insultman has avoided paying any taxes for decades, and not paying taxes he claimed to be sign of cleverness, so, here we go. 

 

Still, I have this awful feeling that his supporters don't care one bit about that. Perhaps they do indeed applaud him for it.

 

But, he's obviously running for president for a pretty important country, and those nasty bankruptcies alone are deeply worrying.

Add to that his excited sniffles each time he speaks about the wall along Mexico and we're starting to see his true colours shining through, and they're brown, not as the Fall leaves in Cali, but as the shirts on certain right-wing extremists in Germany in the 1930s. 

 

Scary stuff

 

Don't worry, the blue-shirts will counter them in the greatest battle of the ages.

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Meshugger

[redneckdevil]

Reason it's no big deal is because as Americans unless I've been living under a rock already pretty think that the rich don't pay a lot in taxes because of "donating to charities" as a usual tax break that's played and practiced.

You know the whole "I'm gonna pay an absobate amount at a friend/college charity banquet and thru business deals get that money back and vice versa in doing the same for them and then putting it on taxes as an amount "we have already paid for"....

That's why unless u dislike Trump why it doesn't bother the average American because we know all the politicians are doing it for years, so why should we care now?

And if it IS that big a deal, then blast Clintons for doing it as well thru their Clinton foundation because they've been exposed to money laundering by even bypassing the charity thing and just donating and investing and taking loans outta their other partially owned organizations.

[Pidesco]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html

 

I'm sure someone will posit that him having losses 900 million in one year and still being around as a business is a sign of what a shrewd mind he has.

[Guard Dog]

Another endorsement for Johnson. This time from the Boston Globe's political columnist: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/09/30/character-matters-electing-either-clinton-trump-would-moral-disaster/DFUra308mm5PWC1s7HHTfI/story.html

[Agiel]

I found this to be hilarious:

 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Agiel

[Gromnir]

am a little surprised that trump were able to claim a personal loss o' +$900 million.  we were under the impression that much o' the loss for his numerous failed businesses were shouldered by investors, which if true is a bit mind boggling.  if $900 million is actual only a small fraction o' the total money lost by investors, then we wonder why anybody would look to trump to fix america's financial problems.  sure, wall street already avoids him, but am not sure why the public is buying his snake oil. even so, we expected that trump had taken a considerable loss and were using that loss to reinvigorate his real estate holdings. so this ain't much o' a bombshell.

 

...

 

in the spirit o' full disclosure, Gromnir has done similar, though order o' magnitude much diminished... and no investors to pay for our mistakes.  the recent real estate collapse were a boon for us.  our significant losses when property values dropped by more than 50% in many cases has resulted in "champagne wishes and caviar dreams."  not kidding. many responsible americans lost their homes when the housing bubble burst, and folks like Gromnir were there to pick up the pieces.  sure, our total net worth were tempoarey brutalized, but we still had money, and we could buy property on the cheap when things were at their worst.  

 

ok, oversimple example.  let's say that Gromnir lost $500k when housing bubble burst.  the thing is, we still had property and money and mutual funds and whatnot, and we could, w/o much effort, scrape together $100k in cash.  again, oversimple and numbers is wrong, but for sake o' simplicity let's say we split that 100k into 10 $10k deposits, which we then used to buy 10 different homes for dirt cheap 'cause they were foreclosed properties.  nice big fat mortgages on all o' them, but so what? we get 10 properties that considerable increase in value when property values recover, and in the meantime we have 'em as rental properties that provide a tiny bit o' income on top o' covering property taxes n' such.  

 

eventual we is gonna sell those properties and uncle sam is gonna want his cut... and his cut is big.  capital gains rates is punishing.  am already in the 39.6% tax bracket, so the capital gains tax is 20%.  but guess what, we got that $500k tax credit and we can carry-over for years in anticipation o' selling property and partial or complete wipe out the capital gains hit.  

 

...

 

recent economic downturn resulted in many people losing their homes and/or life savings.  many o' those who lost ain't never gonna complete recover, particularly those who had less to start with.  however, even the moderate wealthy were able to take advantage o' the situation to enrich selves... which is good business sense.  however, to add insult to injury, folks such as Gromnir is able to turn our past loss into a substantial future windfall. poor got poorer and rich got richer.

 

the thing is, schools and healthcare can't be treated same as trumps' bungled business ventures.  if schools fail, America can't write it off as a loss and then use as a future deduction.  can't use his dad's old connections to leverage sweetheart deals on healthcare as he has done with properties in nyc.  

 

*shrug*

 

we want to see trump taxes.  am still waiting.

 

HA! Good Fun!