The New American Politics thread

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Rand Paul has never run as a libertarian, and Ron hasn't been one for 20 years. When he was, he got 0.5% of the vote. Johnson's polling a fair sight better than that.

Why do you think they fell under the Republican flag? It best represented their libertarian values.

I think you're confusing the the libertarian movement, such as it is, with mainstream Republican voters who aren't motivated primarily by social issues.

Not confused at all. I'm telling you how it is down here and the values of those who are the true leaders of the accepted libertarian movement. If you are looking for examples of American libertarianism you need look no further than the Koch brothers. Their views are what American libertarianism is about and supported by the vast majority who identify themselves as libertarians. For the record, their father Fred, was the founder of the John Birch Society. The Tea Party was driven by the Koch brand of libertarianism for example. Hell, if you look behind any institution that claims to be libertarian in any form you're going to find the Koch fingerprints and money. They drive libertarianism in this US, not Gary Johnson.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by troutman

Now he is claiming the general election will be rigged, because he will never admit defeat or that he is wrong about anything. Already making excuses.

Yeah. I'm sure these seeds won't result in any ridiculousness when he loses. This is the kind of crap that legitimately leads to some wack job trying to shoot someone.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...will-be-rigged

[AcGold]

So we're 100% discounting any minute possibility of election fraud?

[peter12]

I think, moving forward, any attempt to line up the capabilities of the two candidates should be ignored. Clinton is far more qualified than Trump to the point of farce and satire.

This election should simply be a referendum on Clinton's abilities to hold to her promises, and govern with excellence. Voters should place their trust in Mrs. Clinton, observe, and punish her severely during the next cycle if her actions do not meet the standards of rhetoric.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So we're 100% discounting any minute possibility of election fraud?

It's going to be pretty unnecessary in this election. But no, it can't be discounted 100%. I know Trump is big on "firsts" in terms of campaign style, but crying fraud at this point is pretty reckless. Especially since so much of his core support seems to be pretty much hooked on the anger drip.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

Why do you think they fell under the Republican flag? It best represented their libertarian values.

I disagree. Rand, in particular, doesn't have libertarian values. He has some positions that overlap with libertarian values, and other positions that are totally antithetical to libertarian values. He is a Republican who happens to be somewhat more libertarian than some other Republicans; particularly the evangelical wing of the party.

They drive libertarianism in this US, not Gary Johnson.

One group of people has consistently flown under the Republican banner, including the Kochs, who consistently support Republican candidates. Another group consistently self-identifies as libertarian. Yet you choose to see the former as the "real libertarians" and the latter as something else. I reiterate that you are confused.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So we're 100% discounting any minute possibility of election fraud?

Think for a second what kind of scale voter fraud would need to occur on in order to affect the outcome of an election where 218 million people are eligible to vote.

Voter fraud is one of the great red herring arguments of any election cycle. It's a non issue.

The idea of "election fraud"? What does one even mean with that. The closest we've seen to election fraud is the gerrymandering done by the Republicans to keep their power in down stream elections.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So we're 100% discounting any minute possibility of election fraud?

Yup

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yup

What about in 2000? Didn't Bush "steal" the election

Like i am not sure what Trump is thinking but this isn't the first time...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't think the 2000 election issue was really about voter fraud so much as the Court making the wrong call. But even then, that's a pretty unlikely scenario to have materialize. Possible, but highly unlikely.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I disagree. Rand, in particular, doesn't have libertarian values. He has some positions that overlap with libertarian values, and other positions that are totally antithetical to libertarian values. He is a Republican who happens to be somewhat more libertarian than some other Republicans; particularly the evangelical wing of the party.

One group of people has consistently flown under the Republican banner, including the Kochs, who consistently support Republican candidates. Another group consistently self-identifies as libertarian. Yet you choose to see the former as the "real libertarians" and the latter as something else. I reiterate that you are confused.

The Koch brothers are a signpost of an extinct species.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah. I'm sure these seeds won't result in any ridiculousness when he loses. This is the kind of crap that legitimately leads to some wack job trying to shoot someone.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...will-be-rigged

I like this little tidbit and the end of that article

Trump announced Monday that he had raised $35m in July, which he claimed was “unheard of for Republicans”.
Campaigns are not due to file reports to the Federal Election Commission until 20 August. However, if accurate, that figure would represent a decrease of $66m on the total raised by Mitt Romney in July 2012.

[nik-]

Perhaps it was referring to such a low amount being unheard of

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I disagree. Rand, in particular, doesn't have libertarian values. He has some positions that overlap with libertarian values, and other positions that are totally antithetical to libertarian values. He is a Republican who happens to be somewhat more libertarian than some other Republicans; particularly the evangelical wing of the party.

I think you are the confused one. Rand Paul has always been a libertarian. Just because he runs for office under the flag of the Republicans does not make him a Republican. It means he saw that party as the best chance for him to win a seat in congress and affect change through moving the needle toward where his values are. Paul’s values are at the core libertarian, but he has softened some of those values to work within the system.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Rand...s_+_Values.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...s_of_Rand_Paul
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...nds-10-issues/

When Rand Paul bowed out of the Republican race the hopes were that he would jump in as a candidate for the Libertarian ticket. He elected not to go that route and instead maintain his seat in congress rather than run as a libertarian and get left at the curb.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...in-partys-pre/
https://alibertarianfuture.com/2016-...ul-supporters/
http://spectator.org/65369_rand-paul...n-libertarian/

One group of people has consistently flown under the Republican banner, including the Kochs, who consistently support Republican candidates. Another group consistently self-identifies as libertarian. Yet you choose to see the former as the "real libertarians" and the latter as something else. I reiterate that you are confused.

You’re failing to acknowledge how politics in the United States works. It is a dichotomous decision for 98-99% of Americans. If you want a seat in congress you need to run as a Republican or a Democrat. A libertarian or an independent seldom wins a seat in congress, and when they do they are forced to caucus with one of the two parties. Sadly, that is the way the system works.

Bernie Sanders was a true independent and when he decided he wanted to run for President he recognized the harsh realities of the process and was forced to run as a Democrat. He could have run as an independent, got a token vote and then found himself unemployed come November. Instead he took a shot within the system and gained traction for his views, probably forcing the party to adjust their platform because of the national support he received. Doesn’t change Bernie’s views or make him a Democrat. The same goes for Paul.

Paul wanted to affect change on many issues. He learned from his father that it is best to get a seat at the table and then try and affect change rather than run on a ticket where a seat is all but lost. Paul is still a libertarian in his views, just working the system from the only avenue afforded to him. The same goes for the Koch brothers. They support candidates that will best forward their libertarian agenda and get elected. Once they get elected they will their bidding and institute libertarian policies under the guise of the Republican banner. That is how the system works and you are ignoring that important fact.

[peter12]

I actually have no clue what either of you are arguing about. Totally nonsensical.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by AcGold

So we're 100% discounting any minute possibility of election fraud?

It depends how credible you think Election Justice USA is. They certainly think there could be as many as 180+ Delegates that switched, which would have given Sanders the lead in elected delegate support. Despite the group coming into formation only recently, the people who authored the report have some pretty strong backgrounds in statistics.

There were 2 high profile documented incidents which certainly lend credence to election fraud:

1) Chicago voting machine irregularities
2) New York affiliation changes where signatures were forged

Regardless of whether or not there was election fraud, it drives home the point to have a 3rd party entity oversee these types of events to ensure compliance and to eliminate doubt.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

I actually have no clue what either of you are arguing about. Totally nonsensical.

He's basically trying to convince me that being a Libertarian means being a fringe right-winger, based on the political priorities expressed by Ron and Rand Paul who he has identified as synonymous with Libertarianism in the USA. And failing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

He's basically trying to convince me that being a Libertarian means being a fringe right-winger, based on the political priorities expressed by Ron and Rand Paul who he has identified as synonymous with Libertarianism in the USA. And failing.

Yeah, get out of the trenches! Not doing you any favours.

You are right to say that it is beyond obvious that libertarianism is basically mainstream now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by peter12

The Koch brothers are a signpost of an extinct species.

You can do better than this Peter. This is a very stupid comment. Anyone with a billion dollars to burn on a political campaign is a major player. Anyone who has established the political organs to further their agenda, long after they are gone, is far from a signpost of an extinct species. When you look around American politics and see the number of politicians the Koch brothers own, at both the state and federal level, their influence is obvious. When you look at the influential infrastructure they are leaving behind, their influence in immense. These guys will be influencing elections and policy long after they are in the ground.

[ResAlien]

Yeah, being a libertarian is mostly just being a right winger but without the Jesus stuff dictating the platform. You guys sure like to argue though, have at 'er.