Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why don't you vote 3rd party?

Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:49:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Usually, less than 1% of voters go with a 3rd party presidential candidate.
The biggest 3rd Party, the Libertarian Party, in a good year, snags 1% of the vote. So, clearly, you're not voting for third parties. Why aren't you voting 3rd Party?

The only 3rd-party candidate to make a splash in modern times is Ross Perot, who snagged 19% of the vote. He never had a chance of winning, but he snagged enough of the vote to hand victory to Bill Clinton from whatever neocon PoS the GOP was running.

That's one reason not to vote 3rd Party, you might as well be voting against who you'd prefer to win of the Democrat vs. Republican candidates. It's like those #NeverTrump twits who might as well be voting for Hillary and wanting her to pick the next Supreme Court justice, someone like Ginsberg instead of the fine choices Trump has already identified. But, that's not why you don't vote 3rd Party.

The ironical named Libertarian Party and other Leftist parties are redundant of the Democrat Party, a party of bigger government and immoral values, which is why the LP party doesn't get more votes.

The Constitution Party is truly libertarian. So, if, you're not a libertarian, you won't vote for the Constitution Party. The CP is also Christian, which may turn away some secular libertarians, and there's not many Christians in America (supporters of Israel are not Christian, and so won't vote for a Christian party).

I think the big reason more people don't vote for a third party is because of public ignorance. Ross Perot had to spend millions and millions of his own money to be noticed by voters. So, bottom line, you vote out of ignorance. Am I right, or am I right?
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 8:54:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 8:49:49 PM, Rukado wrote:
Usually, less than 1% of voters go with a 3rd party presidential candidate.
The biggest 3rd Party, the Libertarian Party, in a good year, snags 1% of the vote. So, clearly, you're not voting for third parties. Why aren't you voting 3rd Party?

The only 3rd-party candidate to make a splash in modern times is Ross Perot, who snagged 19% of the vote. He never had a chance of winning, but he snagged enough of the vote to hand victory to Bill Clinton from whatever neocon PoS the GOP was running.

That's one reason not to vote 3rd Party, you might as well be voting against who you'd prefer to win of the Democrat vs. Republican candidates. It's like those #NeverTrump twits who might as well be voting for Hillary and wanting her to pick the next Supreme Court justice, someone like Ginsberg instead of the fine choices Trump has already identified. But, that's not why you don't vote 3rd Party.

The ironical named Libertarian Party and other Leftist parties are redundant of the Democrat Party, a party of bigger government and immoral values, which is why the LP party doesn't get more votes.

The Constitution Party is truly libertarian. So, if, you're not a libertarian, you won't vote for the Constitution Party. The CP is also Christian, which may turn away some secular libertarians, and there's not many Christians in America (supporters of Israel are not Christian, and so won't vote for a Christian party).

I think the big reason more people don't vote for a third party is because of public ignorance. Ross Perot had to spend millions and millions of his own money to be noticed by voters. So, bottom line, you vote out of ignorance. Am I right, or am I right?

Because people understand third parties have no chance in the American two party system.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 9:26:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 8:54:25 PM, PetersSmith wrote:
Because people understand third parties have no chance in the American two party system.

Then how did Ross Perot snag 19% of the popular vote, followed the next cycle by Pat Choate who won 8.4% of the popular vote, riding Perot's coat tails. These voters knew these two candidates had zero percent chance of winning.

People still voted for McCain, even though pre-election polls showed such a monstrous gap that it was clear he couldn't win (45.7% popular vote, 39% electoral vote). Those voters could have taken the opportunity to vote for any other loser, knowing they were voting for a loser.

Probably 10% of voters practically flip a coin to decide if they're voting Democrat or Republican. About 20% right now claim to be undecided. That's really 20% who might as well flip a coin (if you're still undecided, you don't really care who wins).

Even if third parties have no chance, if you think both major party candidates are equally bad (e.g. those in that 20% undecided), why not vote 3rd-party, because you don't really care between the top two who wins. The same for those millions of people who just stay home and don't vote.

I think there's no less than 20% of voters who don't vote 3rd-party only because they no nothing about third party candidates. Ignorance it is, but they'll tell themselves it's because 3rd-parties have no chance of winning. I'll give you that the rest of the people don't vote third party because they believe they'd be throwing away their votes.

But, on the other hand, you know your vote won't change the election outcome, so why not vote 3rd party, and vote for the platform you want (feel good about yourself, maybe send a message), rather than throwing away your vote on someone who might win -- regardless of your vote. (if you're in a swing state, sure vote for R or D, but if you're in a blowout state, you are wasting your vote going with R or D),
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:31:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 8:49:49 PM, Rukado wrote:
Usually, less than 1% of voters go with a 3rd party presidential candidate.
The biggest 3rd Party, the Libertarian Party, in a good year, snags 1% of the vote. So, clearly, you're not voting for third parties. Why aren't you voting 3rd Party?

The only 3rd-party candidate to make a splash in modern times is Ross Perot, who snagged 19% of the vote. He never had a chance of winning, but he snagged enough of the vote to hand victory to Bill Clinton from whatever neocon PoS the GOP was running.

That's one reason not to vote 3rd Party, you might as well be voting against who you'd prefer to win of the Democrat vs. Republican candidates. It's like those #NeverTrump twits who might as well be voting for Hillary and wanting her to pick the next Supreme Court justice, someone like Ginsberg instead of the fine choices Trump has already identified. But, that's not why you don't vote 3rd Party.

The ironical named Libertarian Party and other Leftist parties are redundant of the Democrat Party, a party of bigger government and immoral values, which is why the LP party doesn't get more votes.

The Constitution Party is truly libertarian. So, if, you're not a libertarian, you won't vote for the Constitution Party. The CP is also Christian, which may turn away some secular libertarians, and there's not many Christians in America (supporters of Israel are not Christian, and so won't vote for a Christian party).

I think the big reason more people don't vote for a third party is because of public ignorance. Ross Perot had to spend millions and millions of his own money to be noticed by voters. So, bottom line, you vote out of ignorance. Am I right, or am I right?

It's good you bring this up. I have bee a member of the Greem Party for a couple years now and I see that our message has popularity, but people won't vote for us because they are more afraid of the republicans than they are of the status quo.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:48:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 10:31:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
It's good you bring this up. I have bee a member of the Greem Party for a couple years now and I see that our message has popularity, but people won't vote for us because they are more afraid of the republicans than they are of the status quo.

Ralph Nader ran as a Green and got 3% of the vote, which is more impressive when you consider he wasn't on all the ballots. He didn't have much money, but he did have some name recognition. That 3% is nearly 30 times what the Green Party candidate normally gets!

No one voted for Nader or any other Green president candidate with expectation that they could win. The only difference between Nader and the other Green candidates is name recognition. People vote for who they see the media parading around.

Another reason not to vote Green is, like the Libertarian Party, it's redundant of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party is just just more incremental.
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 10:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 8:49:49 PM, Rukado wrote:
Usually, less than 1% of voters go with a 3rd party presidential candidate.
The biggest 3rd Party, the Libertarian Party, in a good year, snags 1% of the vote. So, clearly, you're not voting for third parties. Why aren't you voting 3rd Party?

Because 99% of the time I'm fine with the Republican nominee, and voting third party usually fails because they don't win. This year is an exception.

The only 3rd-party candidate to make a splash in modern times is Ross Perot, who snagged 19% of the vote. He never had a chance of winning, but he snagged enough of the vote to hand victory to Bill Clinton from whatever neocon PoS the GOP was running.

That's one reason not to vote 3rd Party, you might as well be voting against who you'd prefer to win of the Democrat vs. Republican candidates. It's like those #NeverTrump twits who might as well be voting for Hillary and wanting her to pick the next Supreme Court justice, someone like Ginsberg instead of the fine choices Trump has already identified. But, that's not why you don't vote 3rd Party.

#NeverTrump twit here. Everything is negotiable for Trump. He's said as much. So everything he says is a lie. He won't nominate those justices (who are good picks, by the way), because he doesn't believe in originalism. He'll pick a squishy moderate so he can 'win'. Ben Howe gave a solid case here: http://www.redstate.com...

Bottom line: telling me to vote for Trump because he isn't Hillary won't work. You'll have to give a solid affirmative case for him, which you can't because he has no real ideology or beliefs.

The ironical named Libertarian Party and other Leftist parties are redundant of the Democrat Party, a party of bigger government and immoral values, which is why the LP party doesn't get more votes.

The Constitution Party is truly libertarian. So, if, you're not a libertarian, you won't vote for the Constitution Party. The CP is also Christian, which may turn away some secular libertarians, and there's not many Christians in America (supporters of Israel are not Christian, and so won't vote for a Christian party).

lol no. The Constitution party is the opposite of libertarian. It's a paleoconservative party seeking heavy involvement of the government in the economy (especially trade, which it opposes) and a borderline theocratic set of social policies, merged with a healthy dose of anti-Western foreign policy. No thanks.

The Libertarians have their own problems (insane foreign policy, open borders, and most members being crazy) but are actually libertarian.

I think the big reason more people don't vote for a third party is because of public ignorance. Ross Perot had to spend millions and millions of his own money to be noticed by voters. So, bottom line, you vote out of ignorance. Am I right, or am I right?

Nope. People normally aren't ignorant enough to think a third party can win. Candidates like Perot are an exception, with a cult of committed followers who stay with them no matter how crazy they get.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2016 11:22:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 10:48:56 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/30/2016 10:31:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
It's good you bring this up. I have bee a member of the Greem Party for a couple years now and I see that our message has popularity, but people won't vote for us because they are more afraid of the republicans than they are of the status quo.

Ralph Nader ran as a Green and got 3% of the vote, which is more impressive when you consider he wasn't on all the ballots. He didn't have much money, but he did have some name recognition. That 3% is nearly 30 times what the Green Party candidate normally gets!

No one voted for Nader or any other Green president candidate with expectation that they could win. The only difference between Nader and the other Green candidates is name recognition. People vote for who they see the media parading around.

Another reason not to vote Green is, like the Libertarian Party, it's redundant of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party is just more incremental.

I would actually disagree. The Democratic Party is more of a centrist, Social Liberal party, while we are a left wing Green party, much like the Green Parties in many European nations. The Democrats and the Republicans have very few differences in terms of actual policy. Neither support overturning citizens united, neither support abolition of the death penalty, a Green New Deal, single-payer health care, a basic income, GMO Labeling, electoral reform, etc. etc. Both are interventionist, support free trade deals, etc, etc.
But I don't think you get the Libertarians. I recommend you watch this video.
Wylted
Posts: 23,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 12:55:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Let's say Hillary gets 26% of the electoral votes, Donald Trumb gets 25% and Jill Stein gets 49% of the vote. You know who wins the election for president then? Well if Democrats control the house Hillary does, if Republicans control the house it is Trump. Voting 3rdbparty is a waste of time
Wylted
Posts: 23,343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 12:57:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually I agree with the op, your votebonly counts in swing states, you shoul d vote your conscience elsewhere
imabench
Posts: 21,805
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 2:07:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 8:49:49 PM, Rukado wrote:
Usually, less than 1% of voters go with a 3rd party presidential candidate.
The biggest 3rd Party, the Libertarian Party, in a good year, snags 1% of the vote. So, clearly, you're not voting for third parties. Why aren't you voting 3rd Party?

http://m.washingtontimes.com...
DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Khaz
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 2:07:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 8:49:49 PM, Rukado wrote:
there's [sic] not many Christians in America
Thanks for my daily chuckle
My ego is better than yours
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 2:24:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 11:22:38 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
I would actually disagree. The Democratic Party is more of a centrist, Social Liberal party, while we are a left wing Green party, much like the Green Parties in many European nations. The Democrats and the Republicans have very few differences in terms of actual policy.

As a Republican I find this laughable.

Neither support overturning citizens united

Actually, the Democrats do. (https://www.democrats.org...)

Republicans don't, because we support free speech.

neither support abolition of the death penalty

Technically true but they've been covertly working to stuff the court with anti-death penalty justices.

a Green New Deal

Of course they don't, that's a specific green party program. Like saying the greens didn't support the stimulus package.

single-payer health care

They support universal health care. Little real difference between left and even further left.

a basic income

True, because they aren't socialists yet.

GMO Labeling

Because they aren't anti-science in that regard.

electoral reform

lolwat? Not sure what you mean here because they've endorsed every new electoral idea under the sun. Independent commissions, expanded early voting, universal registration, anti-voter ID, all-mail ballot voting, longer voting hours, early voting, etc.

etc. etc. Both are interventionist

Depends on what you mean there. I wouldn't consider Obama an interventionist.

support free trade deals, etc, etc.

Again, depends on who you look at.

As a Republican I find this claim laughable. I suggest you read the 2012 Democratic platform:

But I don't think you get the Libertarians. I recommend you watch this video.

Make Debate.org Great Again!
Romanii
Posts: 5,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 2:25:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 10:57:59 PM, TN05 wrote:
#NeverTrump twit here. Everything is negotiable for Trump. He's said as much. So everything he says is a lie. He won't nominate those justices (who are good picks, by the way), because he doesn't believe in originalism. He'll pick a squishy moderate so he can 'win'. Ben Howe gave a solid case here: http://www.redstate.com...

That's an incredibly stupid case. Firstly, his analysis about how the GOP might lose its Senate majority is entirely speculative, and could easily be wrong. If the Republicans do retain their Senate majority, then Trump has every reason to go ahead and nominate someone on his list. Secondly, a "squishy moderate" is infinitely better than whoever Hillary Clinton would nominate, especially if the Democrats do manage to take the Senate majority. There's no world in which Clinton > Trump, from a conservative judicial perspective.

Not only that, but Howe's explanation of Trump's popularity is so asinine that it pretty much discredits him as an authority on anything Trump-related. ALL the Republican candidates supported building a wall, so singling that out as the reason for his nomination is just... painfully idiotic. And yet he asserts his ridiculous theory with the same arrogance and condescension that all #NeverTrumpers speak with. I sincerely hope you're not actually taking this moron seriously.

Bottom line: telling me to vote for Trump because he isn't Hillary won't work. You'll have to give a solid affirmative case for him, which you can't because he has no real ideology or beliefs.

His ideology is "whatever works" -- it's purely pragmatic. He borrows from both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans), with his underlying metric for evaluating policies being "the well-being of the American people," rather than "blind adherence to standard ideological talking points." Maybe that entails adopting some policies you don't like. Big deal. It's completely irrational for you to believe that someone who's 50-75% Republican is worse than somebody who's 0% Republican.
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:48:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 2:25:01 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 5/30/2016 10:57:59 PM, TN05 wrote:
#NeverTrump twit here. Everything is negotiable for Trump. He's said as much. So everything he says is a lie. He won't nominate those justices (who are good picks, by the way), because he doesn't believe in originalism. He'll pick a squishy moderate so he can 'win'. Ben Howe gave a solid case here: http://www.redstate.com...

That's an incredibly stupid case. Firstly, his analysis about how the GOP might lose its Senate majority is entirely speculative, and could easily be wrong.

If it isn't, do you honestly expect Democrats to concede a justice?

If the Republicans do retain their Senate majority, then Trump has every reason to go ahead and nominate someone on his list.

No, he doesn't. Filibuster still exists and Trump doesn't believe in a conservative judicial ideology. Why waste capital on it when he needs that for his 40% tariff or wall?

Secondly, a "squishy moderate" is infinitely better than whoever Hillary Clinton would nominate, especially if the Democrats do manage to take the Senate majority. There's no world in which Clinton > Trump, from a conservative judicial perspective.

Any justice that is not an originalist or textualist is an awful justice. I don't want a Kennedy replacing Scalia.

Not only that, but Howe's explanation of Trump's popularity is so asinine that it pretty much discredits him as an authority on anything Trump-related. ALL the Republican candidates supported building a wall, so singling that out as the reason for his nomination is just... painfully idiotic. And yet he asserts his ridiculous theory with the same arrogance and condescension that all #NeverTrumpers speak with.

Lol

I sincerely hope you're not actually taking this moron seriously.

This coming from a Trump supporter, who takes a moron seriously.

Bottom line: telling me to vote for Trump because he isn't Hillary won't work. You'll have to give a solid affirmative case for him, which you can't because he has no real ideology or beliefs.

His ideology is "whatever works" -- it's purely pragmatic. He borrows from both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans), with his underlying metric for evaluating policies being "the well-being of the American people," rather than "blind adherence to standard ideological talking points."

His ideology is whatever he thinks the room he is in likes. Trump rally? Mexicans are terrible. CNN debate? Everything's negotiable, let's have more H1B visas. Trump rally? Abortion is bad, let's punish the mother. CNN? The laws aren't going to change. Nothing he says can be trusted as being true.

Maybe that entails adopting some policies you don't like. Big deal.

40% tariffs and Putin shilling are no-deals for me. So is his proposal to abolish the first amendment's speech protections, murder the families of terrorists, deport everyone and then bring them back, ban an entire religion from entering this country, withdraw from NATO, take oil from Iraq, etc.

I expect Trump to act as president the same as he does right now, which is to act as a bully and liar, only with real power. You expect him to pretend the last 10 months were a lie and become sane for the first time in his public life. Who is the one grasping for straws here?

It's completely irrational for you to believe that someone who's 50-75% Republican is worse than somebody who's 0% Republican.

I think both Hillary and Hillary donor are terrible candidates, with neither being acceptable. They have demonstrated time and time again a fundamental lack of character and taken ideological stances that are, at best, wrong. Whatever candidate I will support will likely not be someone I agree with 100%, but he will be qualified and lack the stain of awfulness they have.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:53:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/30/2016 10:57:59 PM, TN05 wrote:
#NeverTrump twit here. Everything is negotiable for Trump. He's said as much. So everything he says is a lie. He won't nominate those justices (who are good picks, by the way), because he doesn't believe in originalism. He'll pick a squishy moderate so he can 'win'. Ben Howe gave a solid case here: http://www.redstate.com...

I see Romanii gave you a deserved spanking for your post. What would motivate Trump to not go with a Supreme Court choice not on his list? Trump might not believe in originalism, but he doesn't believe anything to the contrary either. Trump is pragmatic, meaning he'll go with what he has already presented rather than get in, to him, a pointless battle with a Republican congress.

Ben Howe doesn't care about our liberty or social issues. He just wants a candidate that has a boner, like himself, for killing Arabs. Trump's claim that he didn't support the Iraq war is nothing short of a threat to Howe that he's not going to get any more war porn to masturbate to -- or, at least that Hillary offers a better chance for getting new war porn.

It's suitable that Howe closes by posting a tweet of the Iraq war architect Bill Kristol, "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance." Really, is your skull so full of sh!t that you think the neocons can find a candidate who hasn't even announced yet in this election year but that has real chance of winning? The only thing an independent candidate has a real chance of doing is assuring Hillary's victory.

Here's another claim of Bill Kirstol's, made in 2002 that attacking Iraq could "have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." How'd that work out?

lol no. The Constitution party is the opposite of libertarian. It's a paleoconservative party seeking heavy involvement of the government in the economy (especially trade, which it opposes) and a borderline theocratic set of social policies, merged with a healthy dose of anti-Western foreign policy. No thanks.

What did I just say about the contents of your skull? The Constitution Party doesn't call for a ban on gambling, but it does call upon a getting the government to not participate in gambling. That's libetarianism. If it were simply theocratic set of social policies, they'd also call on a ban on gambling.

How do wars in the middle-east, which have contributed to US debt, dead Americans, and numerous losses of our freedoms, mesh with libertarianism? Do you think the CPs desire to reduce taxes and shift some taxes to tariffs is somehow anti-libertarian.

The Libertarians have their own problems (insane foreign policy, open borders, and most members being crazy) but are actually libertarian.

Your brown matter must be oozing out of your ears! Currently, the top issue for the Libertarian Party is special rights for homosexuals and transsexuals. They call it equality, I call it an expansion of government. I call it using the government manipulate the values of the people. I also call their position the foundation for all the tyrannical anti-consent laws that are coercing individuals to support sexual perversion.

Their open borders position has nothing to do with libertarian values, but with a desire to flood America with socialists from the third world who will not only vote for socialism, but require expansion of the government welfare state.

LP Actually librartarian? Twit.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:54:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 2:25:01 AM, Romanii wrote:
Not only that, but Howe's explanation of Trump's popularity is so asinine that it pretty much discredits him as an authority on anything Trump-related. ALL the Republican candidates supported building a wall, so singling that out as the reason for his nomination is just... painfully idiotic. And yet he asserts his ridiculous theory with the same arrogance and condescension that all #NeverTrumpers speak with. I sincerely hope you're not actually taking this moron seriously.

He thought Marco Rubio was a good candidate. This would be a mild improvement.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
Romanii
Posts: 5,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 5:22:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 3:48:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 2:25:01 AM, Romanii wrote:
If the Republicans do retain their Senate majority, then Trump has every reason to go ahead and nominate someone on his list.
No, he doesn't. Filibuster still exists and Trump doesn't believe in a conservative judicial ideology. Why waste capital on it when he needs that for his 40% tariff or wall?

Nonetheless, getting a conservative nomination confirmed is quite doable with a Republican Senate majority.

Secondly, a "squishy moderate" is infinitely better than whoever Hillary Clinton would nominate, especially if the Democrats do manage to take the Senate majority. There's no world in which Clinton > Trump, from a conservative judicial perspective.
Any justice that is not an originalist or textualist is an awful justice. I don't want a Kennedy replacing Scalia.

Therefore, let Hillary Clinton appoint a blatantly anti-originalist justice..... c'mon, I know you're not THAT stupid.

I sincerely hope you're not actually taking this moron seriously.
This coming from a Trump supporter, who takes a moron seriously.

Right. The guy who thrived in the hyper-competitive business landscape of New York City for almost 50 years, and single-handedly took over the GOP primary despite competition from extremely adept politicians like Rubio and Cruz. That guy's a moron. For sure.

Bottom line: telling me to vote for Trump because he isn't Hillary won't work. You'll have to give a solid affirmative case for him, which you can't because he has no real ideology or beliefs.

His ideology is "whatever works" -- it's purely pragmatic. He borrows from both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans), with his underlying metric for evaluating policies being "the well-being of the American people," rather than "blind adherence to standard ideological talking points."
His ideology is whatever he thinks the room he is in likes.

The only way you can believe that is through willful ignorance. http://www.debate.org...


Maybe that entails adopting some policies you don't like. Big deal.

40% tariffs and Putin shilling are no-deals for me. So is his proposal to abolish the first amendment's speech protections, murder the families of terrorists, deport everyone and then bring them back, ban an entire religion from entering this country, withdraw from NATO, take oil from Iraq, etc.

The amount of dishonesty in your portrayal of Trump's policy positions is... staggering. Either that or I've overestimated your intelligence and you're just really bad at reading comprehension. Please be trolling.

I expect Trump to act as president the same as he does right now, which is to act as a bully and liar, only with real power. You expect him to pretend the last 10 months were a lie and become sane for the first time in his public life. Who is the one grasping for straws here?

He's demonstrated more sanity and analytic ability than any of the other candidates in the 2016 presidential race thus far.

It's completely irrational for you to believe that someone who's 50-75% Republican is worse than somebody who's 0% Republican.
I think both Hillary and Hillary donor are terrible candidates, with neither being acceptable. They have demonstrated time and time again a fundamental lack of character and taken ideological stances that are, at best, wrong. Whatever candidate I will support will likely not be someone I agree with 100%, but he will be qualified and lack the stain of awfulness they have.

No. By supporting any candidate other than Donald Trump, you are indirectly supporting Hillary Clinton. It's as simple as that, and attempting to frame it any other way is nothing more than wishful self-delusion.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 5:32:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 3:48:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
You expect him to pretend the last 10 months were a lie
so Trump is a liar, BUT the past 10 months can't possibly have been a lie. talk about internal consistency.

and become sane for the first time in his public life.
Why am I getting the impression TN05 had literally never heard of Trump before the race

Who is the one grasping for straws here?
still you.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 2:58:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 3:53:58 AM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/30/2016 10:57:59 PM, TN05 wrote:
#NeverTrump twit here. Everything is negotiable for Trump. He's said as much. So everything he says is a lie. He won't nominate those justices (who are good picks, by the way), because he doesn't believe in originalism. He'll pick a squishy moderate so he can 'win'. Ben Howe gave a solid case here: http://www.redstate.com...

I see Romanii gave you a deserved spanking for your post. What would motivate Trump to not go with a Supreme Court choice not on his list? Trump might not believe in originalism, but he doesn't believe anything to the contrary either. Trump is pragmatic, meaning he'll go with what he has already presented rather than get in, to him, a pointless battle with a Republican congress.

Trump is only interested in 'winning', which is why he won't risk losing on an issue he doesn't believe in. He needs that political capital to get his 40% tariff and wall.

Ben Howe doesn't care about our liberty or social issues. He just wants a candidate that has a boner, like himself, for killing Arabs. Trump's claim that he didn't support the Iraq war is nothing short of a threat to Howe that he's not going to get any more war porn to masturbate to -- or, at least that Hillary offers a better chance for getting new war porn.

Trump loves killing Arabs, didn't you hear? He wants to kill the families of terrorists and bomb Iraq to take their oil.

It's suitable that Howe closes by posting a tweet of the Iraq war architect Bill Kristol, "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance." Really, is your skull so full of sh!t that you think the neocons can find a candidate who hasn't even announced yet in this election year but that has real chance of winning? The only thing an independent candidate has a real chance of doing is assuring Hillary's victory.

Actually, the poll with Mitt Romney in showed it Clinton 37%, Trump 35%, Romney 22%. That's inside the margin of error. National polls with Gary Johnson have shown anything from an eight-point Clinton lead to a 3-point Trump lead. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

So no, not really.

Here's another claim of Bill Kirstol's, made in 2002 that attacking Iraq could "have terrifically good effects throughout the Middle East." How'd that work out?

Trump said he supported invading Iraq in 2002 as well (https://www.buzzfeed.com...). I'm not a neocon or a Trumpkin, so I'm not wedded to defending the Iraq war.

lol no. The Constitution party is the opposite of libertarian. It's a paleoconservative party seeking heavy involvement of the government in the economy (especially trade, which it opposes) and a borderline theocratic set of social policies, merged with a healthy dose of anti-Western foreign policy. No thanks.

What did I just say about the contents of your skull? The Constitution Party doesn't call for a ban on gambling, but it does call upon a getting the government to not participate in gambling. That's libetarianism. If it were simply theocratic set of social policies, they'd also call on a ban on gambling.

lol no. You have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't think you understand what libertarianism is.

How do wars in the middle-east, which have contributed to US debt, dead Americans, and numerous losses of our freedoms, mesh with libertarianism? Do you think the CPs desire to reduce taxes and shift some taxes to tariffs is somehow anti-libertarian.

Their desire to become isolationist is vaguely libertarian. Their desire to install massive government taxes on imports is not.

The Libertarians have their own problems (insane foreign policy, open borders, and most members being crazy) but are actually libertarian.

Your brown matter must be oozing out of your ears! Currently, the top issue for the Libertarian Party is special rights for homosexuals and transsexuals. They call it equality, I call it an expansion of government. I call it using the government manipulate the values of the people. I also call their position the foundation for all the tyrannical anti-consent laws that are coercing individuals to support sexual perversion.

In the view of the libertarian, they are just looking for equal rights. Marriage and the like. I disagree, but that's their view. The party broadly speaking opposes government regulation in the economy and personal lives.

Their open borders position has nothing to do with libertarian values, but with a desire to flood America with socialists from the third world who will not only vote for socialism, but require expansion of the government welfare state.

LP Actually librartarian? Twit.

Actually, their open borders position is very consistent with the libertarian value of free markets and free people. They believe that people have a right to move, and businesses have a right to hire who they want to hire. That's libertarianism. It's an incorrect view, but it is a libertarian one.

Closed borders is not a libertarian view.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 3:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 5:22:34 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:48:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 2:25:01 AM, Romanii wrote:
If the Republicans do retain their Senate majority, then Trump has every reason to go ahead and nominate someone on his list.
No, he doesn't. Filibuster still exists and Trump doesn't believe in a conservative judicial ideology. Why waste capital on it when he needs that for his 40% tariff or wall?

Nonetheless, getting a conservative nomination confirmed is quite doable with a Republican Senate majority.

Democrats will have no desire to confirm anyone. They haven't for three decades now. Trump will do what he always does, and pivot to the center and appoint a moderate so he can 'win'. And if Republicans don't go along, he'll insult them and call them losers.

Secondly, a "squishy moderate" is infinitely better than whoever Hillary Clinton would nominate, especially if the Democrats do manage to take the Senate majority. There's no world in which Clinton > Trump, from a conservative judicial perspective.
Any justice that is not an originalist or textualist is an awful justice. I don't want a Kennedy replacing Scalia.

Therefore, let Hillary Clinton appoint a blatantly anti-originalist justice..... c'mon, I know you're not THAT stupid.

I have no faith Trump will be any better. I view any judge outside originalism as being equally bad.

I sincerely hope you're not actually taking this moron seriously.
This coming from a Trump supporter, who takes a moron seriously.

Right. The guy who thrived in the hyper-competitive business landscape of New York City for almost 50 years

You mean the guy who inherited cash and connections from his father, has underperformed in comparison to the market, and has failed at essentially everything else outside of real estate?

and single-handedly took over the GOP primary despite competition from extremely adept politicians like Rubio and Cruz. That guy's a moron. For sure.

He is indeed a moron. Howe is far more intelligent than Trump and has contributed far more to the conservative movement.

His ideology is "whatever works" -- it's purely pragmatic. He borrows from both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans), with his underlying metric for evaluating policies being "the well-being of the American people," rather than "blind adherence to standard ideological talking points."
His ideology is whatever he thinks the room he is in likes.

The only way you can believe that is through willful ignorance. http://www.debate.org...

He says one thing to rallies and another thing to CNN. He's taken every stance on every issue. It is willfully ignorant to believe anything he says.

Maybe that entails adopting some policies you don't like. Big deal.

40% tariffs and Putin shilling are no-deals for me. So is his proposal to abolish the first amendment's speech protections, murder the families of terrorists, deport everyone and then bring them back, ban an entire religion from entering this country, withdraw from NATO, take oil from Iraq, etc.

The amount of dishonesty in your portrayal of Trump's policy positions is... staggering. Either that or I've overestimated your intelligence and you're just really bad at reading comprehension. Please be trolling.

Really?

45% tariff: http://www.businessinsider.com...
Putin shilling: http://www.mediaite.com...
Expand libel laws: http://www.alternet.org...
Murder terrorist families: http://www.cnn.com...
Touchback amnesty: http://www.newsweek.com...
Ban Muslims: http://www.cnn.com...
Withdraw from NATO: http://www.newsweek.com...
Steal oil: http://www.vice.com...

I expect Trump to act as president the same as he does right now, which is to act as a bully and liar, only with real power. You expect him to pretend the last 10 months were a lie and become sane for the first time in his public life. Who is the one grasping for straws here?

He's demonstrated more sanity and analytic ability than any of the other candidates in the 2016 presidential race thus far.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk...

It's completely irrational for you to believe that someone who's 50-75% Republican is worse than somebody who's 0% Republican.
I think both Hillary and Hillary donor are terrible candidates, with neither being acceptable. They have demonstrated time and time again a fundamental lack of character and taken ideological stances that are, at best, wrong. Whatever candidate I will support will likely not be someone I agree with 100%, but he will be qualified and lack the stain of awfulness they have.

No. By supporting any candidate other than Donald Trump, you are indirectly supporting Hillary Clinton. It's as simple as that, and attempting to frame it any other way is nothing more than wishful self-delusion.

By that logic, by supporting a candidate other than Hillary Clinton I am indirectly supporting Trump. So we're even.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
Greyparrot
Posts: 16,916
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 4:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 3:09:43 PM, TN05 wrote:

No. By supporting any candidate other than Donald Trump, you are indirectly supporting Hillary Clinton. It's as simple as that, and attempting to frame it any other way is nothing more than wishful self-delusion.

By that logic, by supporting a candidate other than Hillary Clinton I am indirectly supporting Trump. So we're even.

This is true; and remember, Trump did say that he was confident he could win the general without the small, small percent of far right-wingers, and that they could try again in 8 years. It's a bold calculated move on his part, and one that actually could work as long as he does not attack Bernie supporters. Every time he sympathizes with Bernie, that's more and more crossover to easily counter the far right wingnuts.
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 5:21:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 2:58:00 PM, TN05 wrote:
Trump loves killing Arabs, didn't you hear? He wants to kill the families of terrorists and bomb Iraq to take their oil.

When Trump was trying to get your vote, TN05's vote, he presented himself as a bit of a war criminal. But, he didn't go as far as Cruz who promised to carpet bomb the middle east and find out if sand can glow (implying carpet bombing with nukes). He didn't go as far as Clinton and some other GOP candidates in supporting the Iraq war later. I doubt you'll hear rhetoric like that from Trump anymore, now that he's secured the Republican nomination.

The #NeverTrump twits are mainly one-issue voters, and that's for unjust war, and they, you (or at least the people you blindly follow), like your war odds better with Hillary. Feel free to refute me by confessing that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs.

Actually, the poll with Mitt Romney in showed it Clinton 37%, Trump 35%, Romney 22%. That's inside the margin of error. National polls with Gary Johnson have shown anything from an eight-point Clinton lead to a 3-point Trump lead. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Recent polls don't show that Hillary has anything close to an 8 point lead, Trump even leads in some. I don't see anything in your link about Romney. Anyway, your poll still shows Clinton winning. Do you think Romney, a Republican independent, won't draw more heavily from Republican side, pushing Clinton's lead further? Even if it it doesn't, Trump still wins, because Romney's 22% isn't anywhere close enough. Your poll shows that Romney isn't going to win, and if the goal is to stop Trump --- then you know yourself, unless you're a complete idiot, that the intent of running Romney is to help Hillary win.

Trump said he supported invading Iraq in 2002 as well (https://www.buzzfeed.com...). I'm not a neocon or a Trumpkin, so I'm not wedded to defending the Iraq war.

I know what Trump said, that's why I said Trump "claims" that he didn't support the Iraq war, which is correct, rather than saying Trump didn't support the Iraq war. Still, an "I guess so", followed by later assertions that the Iraq was was wrong, is a lot better than Kristols 2002 claim that Saddam "passed the goal" of obtaining nuclear weapons, and other utterly dishonest statements to push America into war.

Their desire to become isolationist is vaguely libertarian. Their desire to install massive government taxes on imports is not.

Your obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. Overall, the CP wants huge cuts in taxes. Tariffs need less government to collect than other kinds of taxes, which makes them relatively libertarian. The LP party shows no interest in dismantling big government that requires big taxes, which makes their support for reduced taxes meaningless.

In the view of the libertarian, they are just looking for equal rights. Marriage and the like. I disagree, but that's their view. The party broadly speaking opposes government regulation in the economy and personal lives.

Since when is licensing relationships libertarian? On the contrary, licensing is controlling. Licensing is an expansion of government. Expansion of government in the name of equality is not libertarian. It's also not about equality, as homosexual men were always equally able to get government licensing for marriages with women. Why don't gun owners demand licensing of guns?

You know, I think you're one of the biggest idiots on the planet. The only reason Democrats/Liberals/LP want government licensing of homosexual relationships is to provide the foundation for the government to promote the homosexual lifestyle and for the government to coerce everyone to support homosexual lifestyles. The intent behind same-sex marriage is absolutely anti-libertarian.

Actually, their open borders position is very consistent with the libertarian value of free markets and free people.

I support open borders, because I'm libertarian. The LP party supports open borders because the LP party is totalitarianism, and supports socialism and the welfare state, and open borders is a means to that end. I'm libertarian, so I also support ending big government which brings socialist immigrants to America, such as socialism and the welfare state, as well as other things like the government providing translations in languages other than English. I also support eliminating anti-consent laws that coerces businesses to give preferences to immigrants.

The Constitution party position statement on immigration seems mostly to align with my own, end big government activity that brings mass immigration. The LP platform glaringly takes no position against welfare for immigrants, socialized medicine, or the imposition of anti-consent/discrimination laws on businesses (just on "private" organizations).

The Libertarian Party is for freedom like miserable homosexuals are gay, it's false advertising.
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 8:50:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 5:21:13 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/31/2016 2:58:00 PM, TN05 wrote:
Trump loves killing Arabs, didn't you hear? He wants to kill the families of terrorists and bomb Iraq to take their oil.

When Trump was trying to get your vote, TN05's vote, he presented himself as a bit of a war criminal. But, he didn't go as far as Cruz who promised to carpet bomb the middle east and find out if sand can glow (implying carpet bombing with nukes). He didn't go as far as Clinton and some other GOP candidates in supporting the Iraq war later. I doubt you'll hear rhetoric like that from Trump anymore, now that he's secured the Republican nomination.

So Trump floats policies he has no plan of ever implementing? Interesting. Normally this is called a 'lie'.

The #NeverTrump twits are mainly one-issue voters, and that's for unjust war, and they, you (or at least the people you blindly follow), like your war odds better with Hillary. Feel free to refute me by confessing that Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs.

Bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. There was a general international consensus that Saddam Hussein had some WMDs. This turned out to be false, and Saddam had fooled everyone into thinking he did.

That being said, in hindsight was the Iraq war a mistake? Yeah. Nation building doesn't work.

Actually, the poll with Mitt Romney in showed it Clinton 37%, Trump 35%, Romney 22%. That's inside the margin of error. National polls with Gary Johnson have shown anything from an eight-point Clinton lead to a 3-point Trump lead. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Recent polls don't show that Hillary has anything close to an 8 point lead, Trump even leads in some. I don't see anything in your link about Romney.

Look it up. There's this thing called google.

Anyway, your poll still shows Clinton winning. Do you think Romney, a Republican independent, won't draw more heavily from Republican side, pushing Clinton's lead further?

Perhaps, but she is just as hated as Trump.

Even if it it doesn't, Trump still wins, because Romney's 22% isn't anywhere close enough. Your poll shows that Romney isn't going to win, and if the goal is to stop Trump --- then you know yourself, unless you're a complete idiot, that the intent of running Romney is to help Hillary win.

The goal is to provide a conservative alternative so that conservatism retains a national voice. It would be great if the candidate could win, but that's not likely.

Trump said he supported invading Iraq in 2002 as well (https://www.buzzfeed.com...). I'm not a neocon or a Trumpkin, so I'm not wedded to defending the Iraq war.

I know what Trump said, that's why I said Trump "claims" that he didn't support the Iraq war, which is correct, rather than saying Trump didn't support the Iraq war. Still, an "I guess so", followed by later assertions that the Iraq was was wrong, is a lot better than Kristols 2002 claim that Saddam "passed the goal" of obtaining nuclear weapons, and other utterly dishonest statements to push America into war.

So, like many issues, Trump lied to make himself appeal to you. And, being an idiot, you fell for it and now worship him.

Their desire to become isolationist is vaguely libertarian. Their desire to install massive government taxes on imports is not.

Your obtuseness never ceases to amaze me. Overall, the CP wants huge cuts in taxes. Tariffs need less government to collect than other kinds of taxes, which makes them relatively libertarian.

Lolno. Conservatives and libertarians reject tariffs because they function both as a tax and a subsidy. It's big government at its worst, restricting the market and declaring winners and losers. Liberals like yourself love tariffs because they allow government greater control of the economy.

The LP party shows no interest in dismantling big government that requires big taxes, which makes their support for reduced taxes meaningless.

Actually, they don't. I suggest you read their platform:

https://www.lp.org...

In the view of the libertarian, they are just looking for equal rights. Marriage and the like. I disagree, but that's their view. The party broadly speaking opposes government regulation in the economy and personal lives.

Since when is licensing relationships libertarian? On the contrary, licensing is controlling. Licensing is an expansion of government. Expansion of government in the name of equality is not libertarian. It's also not about equality, as homosexual men were always equally able to get government licensing for marriages with women. Why don't gun owners demand licensing of guns?

That's a valid criticism of their position - at the most recent libertarian debate, they questioned the legitimacy of driver's licenses. But their stance makes sense internally when they note that marriage is not going away, so they want it to be as 'equal' as possible.

You know, I think you're one of the biggest idiots on the planet.

Coming from the Trump supporter

The only reason Democrats/Liberals/LP want government licensing of homosexual relationships is to provide the foundation for the government to promote the homosexual lifestyle and for the government to coerce everyone to support homosexual lifestyles. The intent behind same-sex marriage is absolutely anti-libertarian.

You are correct about the progressive reasoning for support but utterly wrong on what libertarians support. Libertarians don't need everyone to embrace something, because they value individual liberty.

Actually, their open borders position is very consistent with the libertarian value of free markets and free people.

I support open borders, because I'm libertarian. The LP party supports open borders because the LP party is totalitarianism

sigged because this is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

and supports socialism and the welfare state, and open borders is a means to that end. I'm libertarian, so I also support ending big government which brings socialist immigrants to America, such as socialism and the welfare state, as well as other things like the government providing translations in languages other than English. I also support eliminating anti-consent laws that coerces businesses to give preferences to immigrants.

It concerns me that you have the right to vote given you fundamentally don't seem to understand anything.

The Constitution party position statement on immigration seems mostly to align with my own, end big government activity that brings mass immigration. The LP platform glaringly takes no position against welfare for immigrants

The libertarian party opposes the concept of welfare for anyone. (https://www.lp.org...)

socialized medicine

The libertarian party opposes socialized medicine for anyone. (https://www.lp.org...)

or the imposition of anti-consent/discrimination laws on businesses (just on "private" organizations).

The libertarian party rejects even the civil rights act.

The Libertarian Party is for freedom like miserable homosexuals are gay, it's false advertising.

lol
Make Debate.org Great Again!
Romanii
Posts: 5,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 9:40:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 3:09:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 5:22:34 AM, Romanii wrote:
Nonetheless, getting a conservative nomination confirmed is quite doable with a Republican Senate majority.
Democrats will have no desire to confirm anyone. They haven't for three decades now. Trump will do what he always does, and pivot to the center and appoint a moderate so he can 'win'. And if Republicans don't go along, he'll insult them and call them losers.

You're grasping at straws. There's no reason for Trump to nominate a moderate if there's a Republican Senate majority -- there would be very little the Democrats could do to stop a conservative appointment from happening. And by the way, a conservative SCOTUS appointment would be a massive "win" for Trump as well. It would fulfill one of his biggest campaign promises, and have the additional benefit of increasing his 'legitimacy' as a Republican in the eyes of other GOP members.

Therefore, let Hillary Clinton appoint a blatantly anti-originalist justice..... c'mon, I know you're not THAT stupid.
I have no faith Trump will be any better. I view any judge outside originalism as being equally bad.

That's objectively dumb. Judicial philosophy isn't binary. It's a spectrum, and a Trump-appointed moderate would be much closer to your originalist ideals than anybody Clinton would appoint.

Right. The guy who thrived in the hyper-competitive business landscape of New York City for almost 50 years
You mean the guy who inherited cash and connections from his father,
Are you seriously daft enough to think that negates his accomplishments?
has underperformed in comparison to the market,
Someone else already linked you to this: www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-
You should try actually reading it, instead of spouting the same bullsh!t over and over again.
and has failed at essentially everything else outside of real estate?
http://www.businessinsider.com...
And lmao @ the ludicrousness of your implication that being wildly successful in "only" one industry isn't sufficient to demonstrate competence. Your anti-Trump bias has truly blinded you.
and single-handedly took over the GOP primary despite competition from extremely adept politicians like Rubio and Cruz. That guy's a moron. For sure.
He is indeed a moron.
I guess that's why your hero Rubio wasn't able to beat him, huh?
Howe is far more intelligent than Trump and has contributed far more to the conservative movement.
Howe is even more clueless than you. I have zero respect for his opinions on anything political.

The only way you can believe that is through willful ignorance. http://www.debate.org...
He says one thing to rallies and another thing to CNN. He's taken every stance on every issue. It is willfully ignorant to believe anything he says.
Try me. Give any example. I'll explain to you why the perceived inconsistency is a result of your own incompetence.

The amount of dishonesty in your portrayal of Trump's policy positions is... staggering. Either that or I've overestimated your intelligence and you're just really bad at reading comprehension. Please be trolling.
45% tariff: http://www.businessinsider.com...
He's explicitly stated that the 45% tariff is a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. It's a prospect meant to intimidate Chinese into agreeing to his terms -- not a realistic policy proposal. His platform says nothing about such a large tariff. On the contrary, all his platform talks about is getting China to eliminate its unfair trade advantages (e.g. protectionism, currency devaluation, etc).
Putin shilling: http://www.mediaite.com...
Lol. Suggesting that Putin might be innocent of a particular accusation = Putin-shilling? Alright.
Expand libel laws: http://www.alternet.org...
How exactly is expanding libel laws a violation of the first amendment? Antonin Scalia himself actually spoke out against the overly-limited applicability of our current libel laws... again, your anti-Trump bias is making you stupid.
Murder terrorist families: http://www.cnn.com...
He said he'd "go after" them. Ever heard of a mock execution?
Touchback amnesty: http://www.newsweek.com...
Garbage article. The author probably didn't even read Trump's immigration policy. Trump said he wants to deport as many illegal immigrants as is realistically possible (i.e. criminal aliens and anyone caught crossing the border going forward), and maintain the status quo on legal immigration (thereby allowing them a regulated path to re-entry if they want it).
Ban Muslims: http://www.cnn.com...
He hasn't talked about that at all since his initial mention of it right after the European terrorist attacks, and it's no where to be found on his platform. It was an obvious political ploy, and a wildly successful one too.
Withdraw from NATO: http://www.newsweek.com...
Again, garbage article. I never knew Newsweek was this bad. I watched the foreign policy speech they're referring to, and I didn't hear anything along the lines of "we should leave NATO." Directly quote where Trump said that.
Steal oil: http://www.vice.com...
This is the only position that was correctly portrayed. What's wrong with taking oil from ISIS territory? To the victor go the spoils...

No. By supporting any candidate other than Donald Trump, you are indirectly supporting Hillary Clinton. It's as simple as that, and attempting to frame it any other way is nothing more than wishful self-delusion.
By that logic, by supporting a candidate other than Hillary Clinton I am indirectly supporting Trump. So we're even.

No... that's not how it works. You're a Republican, i.e. presumed to be a Trump-voter on the electoral map. By voting for somebody else, you are denying Trump a vote -- not Clinton.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2016 11:01:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 8:50:49 PM, TN05 wrote:
Bush didn't lie about WMDs in Iraq. There was a general international consensus that Saddam Hussein had some WMDs. This turned out to be false, and Saddam had fooled everyone into thinking he did.

No, Bush and Kristol had you fooled into thinking Saddam had WMDs. People like you willingly believed outright bullsh!t. And, if you and I were here in 2002, I would spelled out to you Bush's lies and you would have replied like a true twit "Bill and Hillary says Saddam had WMDs, so it must be true!" or something else equally nonsensical.

The goal is to provide a conservative alternative so that conservatism retains a national voice. It would be great if the candidate could win, but that's not likely.

D@mn, if you're not about to break new ground in the highly competitive field of idiocy in thinking handing Hillary the presidency by injecting a neocon spoiler into the election will help preserve a conservative national voice.

Lolno. Conservatives and libertarians reject tariffs because they function both as a tax and a subsidy. It's big government at its worst, restricting the market and declaring winners and losers. Liberals like yourself love tariffs because they allow government greater control of the economy.

Tariffs a subsidy? A subsidy of domestic production? So, you want to tax domestic production and subsidize imports? Actually, your neocon leaders don't want to tax production either. They want to directly tax the people, with regressive taxes on income or sales.

You are correct about the progressive reasoning for support but utterly wrong on what libertarians support. Libertarians don't need everyone to embrace something, because they value individual liberty.

If your fascist friends, the LP, value individual liberty, why have they made a top concern expanding government, even if in the name of [different but] equal government licensing, knowing that they're handing "progressives" the tools suppress individual liberty?

The libertarian party opposes the concept of welfare for anyone. (https://www.lp.org...)

socialized medicine

The libertarian party opposes socialized medicine for anyone. (https://www.lp.org...)

or the imposition of anti-consent/discrimination laws on businesses (just on "private" organizations).

The libertarian party rejects even the civil rights act.

I don't think the LP platform says the things you think it says. And, since you're not quoting it, you're helping preserve our own delusions. As I pointed out, they only weakly oppose anti-consent laws for "private organizations." Most people don't think of businesses as private organizations. In fact, the law defines businesses as public accommodations or other public entity, not as private organizations.

They say they support free market medical care. But, the say nothing about opposing socialized medicine or repealing Obamacare (federally mandating buying of government-designed insurance policies). You can (laughably) support a parallel "free market" without any desire or intent to end the "free" socialist healthcare.

They have a line in their platform opposing welfare for businesses, I couldn't find anything opposing welfare not individuals. Indeed, their platform is glaring short on any methods to shrink government, and government control.

In their platform, they repeatedly promote the interests of homosexuals and transvestites (because, what's freedom without the government blessing perverts), while demanding the the government discriminate against Christians. Why don't your fascist douche bags at the LP include "religion" in their oft repeated denouncements of discrimination? (Their platform says they oppose government aiding religion, which means they want the government to discriminate against Christians by banning Christian individuals and groups from receiving the same "aid" as anyone else.)
TN05
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 12:14:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/31/2016 9:40:25 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 5/31/2016 3:09:43 PM, TN05 wrote:
Democrats will have no desire to confirm anyone. They haven't for three decades now. Trump will do what he always does, and pivot to the center and appoint a moderate so he can 'win'. And if Republicans don't go along, he'll insult them and call them losers.

You're grasping at straws. There's no reason for Trump to nominate a moderate if there's a Republican Senate majority -- there would be very little the Democrats could do to stop a conservative appointment from happening. And by the way, a conservative SCOTUS appointment would be a massive "win" for Trump as well. It would fulfill one of his biggest campaign promises, and have the additional benefit of increasing his 'legitimacy' as a Republican in the eyes of other GOP members.

Actually, they could filibuster. And Republicans, being wary of changing Senate rules, would likely not change it. In a scenario Trump wins, he's already won over the GOP and his cultists will defend anyone he picks.

I have no faith Trump will be any better. I view any judge outside originalism as being equally bad.

That's objectively dumb. Judicial philosophy isn't binary. It's a spectrum, and a Trump-appointed moderate would be much closer to your originalist ideals than anybody Clinton would appoint.

It is a binary. Either you interpret the Constitution as it was originally written, or you are a judicial activist.

You mean the guy who inherited cash and connections from his father,
Are you seriously daft enough to think that negates his accomplishments?

I certainly doubt he'd have anything close to what he does now without his father's money and connections with local government and the mafia.

has underperformed in comparison to the market,
Someone else already linked you to this: www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-
You should try actually reading it, instead of spouting the same bullsh!t over and over again.

lol you just don't like that argument. He's not an amazing businessman. Either he's slightly above average, or utterly underperforming relative to the market.

and has failed at essentially everything else outside of real estate?
http://www.businessinsider.com...
And lmao @ the ludicrousness of your implication that being wildly successful in "only" one industry isn't sufficient to demonstrate competence. Your anti-Trump bias has truly blinded you.

When everything else he's worked on has flamed out? It does. The USFL. Trump steaks. Trump Vodka. Trump University. Trump Mortgage. Trump Ice. Trump 2000. Trump magazine. Trump Taj Mahal.

He's failed at football, casinos, and booze. Three things Americans hate.

He is indeed a moron.
I guess that's why your hero Rubio wasn't able to beat him, huh?

I'll give him credit, he managed to win 40% of Republicans. Even a moron can strike gold.

Howe is far more intelligent than Trump and has contributed far more to the conservative movement.
Howe is even more clueless than you. I have zero respect for his opinions on anything political.

lol

Try me. Give any example. I'll explain to you why the perceived inconsistency is a result of your own incompetence.

Go ahead, spin doctor. Here's ten (http://www.cnn.com...).

I'll add onto those his support for universal health care and his 2013 endorsement of the DREAM Act.

He's explicitly stated that the 45% tariff is a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. It's a prospect meant to intimidate Chinese into agreeing to his terms -- not a realistic policy proposal. His platform says nothing about such a large tariff. On the contrary, all his platform talks about is getting China to eliminate its unfair trade advantages (e.g. protectionism, currency devaluation, etc).

1) It's a useless bargaining chip if they know he won't do it.
2) In his book Time to Get Tough (originally written in 2011, republished for his campaign this year), he proposed a 20% tariff on all goods. Of course, a few years earlier in his 2008 book Never Give Up, he supported globalization.

Lol. Suggesting that Putin might be innocent of a particular accusation = Putin-shilling? Alright.

When Putin is widely documented as killing journalists, yes, he is shilling.

How exactly is expanding libel laws a violation of the first amendment? Antonin Scalia himself actually spoke out against the overly-limited applicability of our current libel laws... again, your anti-Trump bias is making you stupid.

Trump wants to expand laws so he can sue journalists he doesn't like.

He said he'd "go after" them. Ever heard of a mock execution?

""The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families" - Donald Trump

Garbage article. The author probably didn't even read Trump's immigration policy. Trump said he wants to deport as many illegal immigrants as is realistically possible (i.e. criminal aliens and anyone caught crossing the border going forward), and maintain the status quo on legal immigration (thereby allowing them a regulated path to re-entry if they want it).

Wrong again. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants (as well as their children). He wants to bring 'the good ones' back. That's touchback amnesty. [https://www.bostonglobe.com...]

He hasn't talked about that at all since his initial mention of it right after the European terrorist attacks, and it's no where to be found on his platform. It was an obvious political ploy, and a wildly successful one too.

Oh really? Earlier this month he said he'd offer London's mayor an exemption. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

Again, garbage article. I never knew Newsweek was this bad. I watched the foreign policy speech they're referring to, and I didn't hear anything along the lines of "we should leave NATO." Directly quote where Trump said that.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Steal oil: http://www.vice.com...
This is the only position that was correctly portrayed. What's wrong with taking oil from ISIS territory? To the victor go the spoils...

That's not how war works at all.

By that logic, by supporting a candidate other than Hillary Clinton I am indirectly supporting Trump. So we're even.

No... that's not how it works. You're a Republican, i.e. presumed to be a Trump-voter on the electoral map. By voting for somebody else, you are denying Trump a vote -- not Clinton.

lol. I'm not a 'presumed Trump voter'. In fact, I've made it very clear for the last 10 months that I won't support him. I'm not denying him a vote because he never had mine.
Make Debate.org Great Again!
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:01:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2016 12:14:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
lol. I'm not a 'presumed Trump voter'. In fact, I've made it very clear for the last 10 months that I won't support him. I'm not denying him a vote because he never had mine.
The LP party supports open borders because the LP party is totalitarianism - Rukado
#NeverTrump

Hey, faggot, don't quote me out of context. The LP party doesn't believe in open borders for the sake of free travel, but for the sake of expanding government. Immigrants expand our government welfare programs and other government services, and immigrants tend to vote for socialist and anti-liberty politicians. The LP party token opposition to anti-consent laws is weak to none-existent, such as laws forcing employers to favor immigrants. The LP party token opposition to government subsides of immigration is weak to non-existent.

And, faggot, your opposition to Trump amounts to support of Hillary who has more desire to grow the government than does Trump. Your #NeverTrump movement is lead by one of the most dishonest Jews on the planet, William Kristol. You'd improve you company if you rolled around with maggots in cow pies. You'd also improve your intelligence if you had the brain of a retarded mosquito transplanted into your skull.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2016 7:15:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Libertarian Party is just a bunch of Republicans that like weed.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
Romanii
Posts: 5,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2016 5:40:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/1/2016 12:14:37 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/31/2016 9:40:25 PM, Romanii wrote:
You're grasping at straws. There's no reason for Trump to nominate a moderate if there's a Republican Senate majority -- there would be very little the Democrats could do to stop a conservative appointment from happening. And by the way, a conservative SCOTUS appointment would be a massive "win" for Trump as well. It would fulfill one of his biggest campaign promises, and have the additional benefit of increasing his 'legitimacy' as a Republican in the eyes of other GOP members.
Actually, they could filibuster. And Republicans, being wary of changing Senate rules, would likely not change it. In a scenario Trump wins, he's already won over the GOP and his cultists will defend anyone he picks.

Filibusters can be overcome with sufficient persistence on the part of GOP senators... and the #1 reason why the GOP is unifying around Trump in the first place is in order to ensure conservative SCOTUS nominations. Your argument is nonsense. If Republicans retain the Senate majority, then there's literally no reason for Trump not to pick someone on his list.

That's objectively dumb. Judicial philosophy isn't binary. It's a spectrum, and a Trump-appointed moderate would be much closer to your originalist ideals than anybody Clinton would appoint.
It is a binary. Either you interpret the Constitution as it was originally written, or you are a judicial activist.

Wow, I guess I was wrong. You ARE stupid...

Someone else already linked you to this: www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-
You should try actually reading it, instead of spouting the same bullsh!t over and over again.
lol you just don't like that argument. He's not an amazing businessman. Either he's slightly above average, or utterly underperforming relative to the market.
He has performed well above average, and that is a fact.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
And lmao @ the ludicrousness of your implication that being wildly successful in "only" one industry isn't sufficient to demonstrate competence. Your anti-Trump bias has truly blinded you.
When everything else he's worked on has flamed out?
Doesn't matter. In the hyper-competitive business landscape of New York City, somebody who tries as many things as Trump does is inevitably bound to experience failure quite often -- being successful in even a single industry is a tremendous entrepreneurial accomplishment. And by the way, it isn't just one industry... he's done very well in recreation, hospitality, and TV too.

Try me. Give any example. I'll explain to you why the perceived inconsistency is a result of your own incompetence.
Go ahead, spin doctor.
Having basic comprehension of the English language = being a spin doctor? Lmao.
Here's ten (http://www.cnn.com...).
Excellent. I'll make a separate post for those.

He's explicitly stated that the 45% tariff is a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. It's a prospect meant to intimidate Chinese into agreeing to his terms -- not a realistic policy proposal. His platform says nothing about such a large tariff. On the contrary, all his platform talks about is getting China to eliminate its unfair trade advantages (e.g. protectionism, currency devaluation, etc).
It's a useless bargaining chip if they know he won't do it.
Which is why he was reluctant to reveal that in the MSNBC interview he said it in.
2) In his book Time to Get Tough (originally written in 2011, republished for his campaign this year), he proposed a 20% tariff on all goods. Of course, a few years earlier in his 2008 book Never Give Up, he supported globalization.
He isn't anti-globalization. He's just against unconditionally supporting every aspect of it.

Lol. Suggesting that Putin might be innocent of a particular accusation = Putin-shilling? Alright.
When Putin is widely documented as killing journalists, yes, he is shilling.
Wrong: http://www.politifact.com...

How exactly is expanding libel laws a violation of the first amendment? Antonin Scalia himself actually spoke out against the overly-limited applicability of our current libel laws... again, your anti-Trump bias is making you stupid.
Trump wants to expand laws so he can sue journalists he doesn't like.
The reason he doesn't like them is because they lie about him...

He said he'd "go after" them. Ever heard of a mock execution?
""The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families" - Donald Trump
Wow, you really do have problems with English comprehension...

Garbage article. The author probably didn't even read Trump's immigration policy. Trump said he wants to deport as many illegal immigrants as is realistically possible (i.e. criminal aliens and anyone caught crossing the border going forward), and maintain the status quo on legal immigration (thereby allowing them a regulated path to re-entry if they want it).
Wrong again. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants (as well as their children). He wants to bring 'the good ones' back. That's touchback amnesty. [https://www.bostonglobe.com...]
Lmao, read his platform. You try cherry-picking quotes to make his policies look stupid, but all you're really doing is proving your lack of proficiency in understanding words -- you've once again demonstrated that you are incapable of distinguishing between (1) Trump's policies, and (2) how Trump communicates those policies to his audiences. Simplicity and hyperbole are key to mass-persuasion. Trump understands that truth. Your hero Rubio should take a lesson in rhetoric from him.

He hasn't talked about that at all since his initial mention of it right after the European terrorist attacks, and it's no where to be found on his platform. It was an obvious political ploy, and a wildly successful one too.
Oh really? Earlier this month he said he'd offer London's mayor an exemption. (http://www.nytimes.com...)
Yes, in response to a reporter bringing it up... when's the last time he himself promised to ban all Muslim immigration?

Again, garbage article. I never knew Newsweek was this bad. I watched the foreign policy speech they're referring to, and I didn't hear anything along the lines of "we should leave NATO." Directly quote where Trump said that.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com...
Did you read the article? He said we should threaten to leave NATO only if our allies refuse to reimburse us. You don't seem to understand the concept of a bargaining chip...

No... that's not how it works. You're a Republican, i.e. presumed to be a Trump-voter on the electoral map. By voting for somebody else, you are denying Trump a vote -- not Clinton.
lol. I'm not a 'presumed Trump voter'. In fact, I've made it very clear for the last 10 months that I won't support him. I'm not denying him a vote because he never had mine.

Way to miss the point.