Cruz suspends campaign, dump rejoices

[txradioguy]

Election 2016...Hobson's Choice.

Either way we're screwed.

[zeitgeist]

You know, as I mentioned, Trump was my fifth or sixth choice at the beginning of the campaign season.

Going way back, I thought rather highly of John Boehner and/or John Kasich, based upon how they were during the early 1990s.  But then Boehner turned Democrat Lite, and Kasich turned silly.

I thought Mitt Romney deserved a second chance (this was before he got unhinged and attacked another Republican), and especially since the Democrats had vetted and slandered him so much in 2012, I figured he'd win because there wasn't any new mud to splatter on him.

Barring that, I rather liked Paul Ryan until like Boehner, he turned Democrat Lite.

With the Democrats in the White House, the Republicans are supposed to be the party in opposition.  I dunno where people get this idea that partisanship is "bad;" or at least it is when Republicans but not Democrats do it.

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, all these other guys, were suddenly adopting Democrat stances on immigration, crime, taxes, national security.  My God, it was a wondrous thing to watch, all these about-faces.  Who the Hell was representing Republicans and Republican values any more?

Well, it wasn't Donald Trump, but as he's the last man standing, I'll stand with him.

I agree with you on this.  You don't always get what you want or want what you get.  I have wondered for a long time about the fate of the Republican party. This year may finally produce an answer.  I find it hard to believe real conservative constitutionals can find a home with libertarians.  Ronulans and Sandernistas could certainly form an interesting party with them since both seem to be looking for new homes.     

I often remind my self Reagan was a Democrat and Hillary a Republican.  Nothing is cast in stone.  People can and do change over time.   

[landofconfusion80]

Libertarians enjoy basic beliefs. Everyone gets left alone and to their own liberties.  Republicans and Democrats are just two sides of the same coin rolling down the wrong hill

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Big Dog]

I agree with you on this.  You don't always get what you want or want what you get.  I have wondered for a long time about the fate of the Republican party. This year may finally produce an answer.  I find it hard to believe real conservative constitutionals can find a home with libertarians.  Ronulans and Sandernistas could certainly form an interesting party with them since both seem to be looking for new homes.     

You make a mistake thinking libertarian = Ronulan, my friend. People who believe in free will and liberty don't follow any single man or his philosophy. Ron Paul had, and has, many good things to say, but he also said many things I disagree with. I wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul for president.

For the past half-dozen presidential elections, Republicans have coerced libertarians to vote for (R) candidates, with the justification that we agree on enough issues, and that libertarians should compromise with the GOP on our differences. That compromise has been purely one-sided, and it continues to this day.

The foot's on the other hand now, conservative Republicans. You can choose to embrace libertarianism (including the parts you disagree with); hold your nose for the odd and inconsistent NY liberal strongman who is your party's putative nominee, or stay home. I will continue to be a soldier for liberty, with or without you.

[zeitgeist]

You make a mistake thinking libertarian = Ronulan, my friend. People who believe in free will and liberty don't follow any single man or his philosophy. Ron Paul had, and has, many good things to say, but he also said many things I disagree with. I wouldn't have voted for Ron Paul for president.

For the past half-dozen presidential elections, Republicans have coerced libertarians to vote for (R) candidates, with the justification that we agree on enough issues, and that libertarians should compromise with the GOP on our differences. That compromise has been purely one-sided, and it continues to this day.

The foot's on the other hand now, conservative Republicans. You can choose to embrace libertarianism (including the parts you disagree with); hold your nose for the odd and inconsistent NY liberal strongman who is your party's putative nominee, or stay home. I will continue to be a soldier for liberty, with or without you.

Ron Paul ran as a libertarian in 1988.

1988 - Ron Paul, on the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia, comes in third for the U.S. presidency. He receives more than 430,000 votes – almost twice the total of any other third party candidate.   

https://www.lp.org/introduction/our-history

There is a lot to be said for liberty coupled with personal responsibility and accountability. 

[Ptarmigan]

I have noticed the conservatives of all stripes are lately becoming as rabid as the liberals... especially on single issues.  There is no perfect candidate. Never has been, never will be.  The religious conservatives want Jesus Christ as a candidate. The abortion conservatives want a candidate that will outlaw abortion. The immigration conservatives want someone that will round up the illegals and show them the door post haste.  The liberty conservatives want a libertarian.  The fiscal conservatives, like myself, want a candidate that does not seem to exist.  If anyone of these types of conservatives don't get their single issue candidate, they seem to stay home on election day in a snit.

Meanwhile on the other side the dems of all stripes will vote for whoever has a D after their name.

That right there is the problem.

Many people vote because of the economy. I agree something has to be done with illegal immigration. The rest, they can be dealt once they are in the White House.

[Ptarmigan]

My take:

I know what I am getting with an enboldened Hillary... obumbles on steroids. With Trump I don't know what I am getting. I may get a conservative, I may get a liberal, I may get a snake oil salesman, I may get any number of things in between.  For me the choice is easy. I will vote for Trump. I will vote that way for the simple reason that at worst I don't think he will be effective and probably won't get anything passed.  Nothing coming out of DC is a hell of a lot better than obumbles on steroids. At best, might get some decent policies from the man.  Hell if he does nothing else but build a damn wall and start kicking the illegals out I would consider that a win.

I don't think the man is nuts per se. I think he is crazy... like a fox.  Nobody gave him a chance and here he is.  Love him or hate him, you have to admit he can out-politician the politicians and out-MSM the MSM.  The MSM is gonna go freaking nuts in the next few months... and it will all be ineffective.  The Dump is gonna go ape shit the likes of which we haven't seen since Bush beat Kerry.   

Just my 2 cents. Take it for what it is worth.  Don't particulary care for Trump... hate hillary worse.

As an aside I love it when the Trump haters look at me with blood in their eye when they ask "My god are you a Trump supporter?"  I just smile and reply "My god are you are a criminal Hillary supporter".   

My thinking too.

[Big Dog]

Ron Paul ran as a libertarian in 1988.

Yes, he did. That changes none of what I wrote.

There is a lot to be said for liberty coupled with personal responsibility and accountability.

That's true. It's also true that the State can't force people to be responsible, and  imprisoning or killing them won't make them  accountable.

The only alternative to liberty is slavery. Which will you vote for?

[I_B_Perky]

Many people vote because of the economy. I agree something has to be done with illegal immigration. The rest, they can be dealt once they are in the White House.

That is my way of thinking as well.  The economy is the great equalizer in politics.  You just cannot spin your way out of a shitty economy.  On the other hand, you got a large number of people on welfare and it seems to me that the ups and downs do not affect them.  That needs to change.  I don't think it will.

As to immigration of the illegal kind.  I really think something needs to be done. 

A thought:  The easiest way is to turn all these illegals into GOP voters and the dems will deport their ass so fast it would make a New York Minute seem like an eternity.  Build a wall in year 1 of a GOP admin, then grant the illegals permanent non voter status in year 4.  Make the plan widely known.  The libs being libs would be against it from the get go and viola!  GOP voters.  Would it work?  Beats me.  Does what we have now work? Hell no!

Now I ain't the smartest guy in the world and I thought of this so why can't the GOP policy wonks come up with it?   

[Carl]

I think most here are very libertarian in values and political philosophy.

Capital L party Libertarianism which is socially liberal and isolationist loses a lot of us.

[Big Dog]

I think most here are very libertarian in values and political philosophy.

Capital L party Libertarianism which is socially liberal and isolationist loses a lot of us.

The party is Libertarian, but it neither owns nor controls libertarianism. I don't vote for the Libertarian Party, I vote for a libertarian candidate. Does that make sense?

"Socially liberal" is a misnomer. There is a big difference between disapproving of any human action, a moral and cultural position, and expecting the State to violate the life, liberty, property, or pursuit of happiness of someone else because I disapprove.

For example, I am disgusted by male homosexuality, but wholeheartedly support woman-on-woman sex, for the obvious reason- pure entertainment value. I do not expect the State to oppress or favor either group. I openly laugh at trannies, while I oppose laws which either oppress them or give them any preferences under the law. I don't give a good God damn about marijuana consumption, much preferring good bourbon and a cigar- and I oppose laws which infringe on the natural right of another to control his own body (even if it causes him harm).

I also think about the dichotomy between individual liberty and membership in a political party with a platform.  There are positions the national LP holds that I disagree with. I am pro-life, and consider it a libertarian view based on the natural right to Life. I believe in national sovereignty and strong borders, and consider it a libertarian view based on the individual's natural right to Property and the legitimate purpose of government- to safeguard individual liberty. The LP does not require me to agree with them on either position to be a member of the party; in fact, it cannot, for that would be decidedly un-libertarian.

The Democrat and Republican candidates oppose personal freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government, much less constitutionally limited government. I'll never vote for my own enslavement, nor vote for a candidate who is willing to steal from me in the name of a fictional "common good" or "greater good".

[zeitgeist]

Yes, he did. That changes none of what I wrote.

That's true. It's also true that the State can't force people to be responsible, and  imprisoning or killing them won't make them  accountable.

The only alternative to liberty is slavery. Which will you vote for?

I imagine you mean this as a theoretical construct rather than literal truth based on the current political race.  Otherwise it is a bit of hysterical hyperbole.   Not casting a vote is certainly your right just as it is to vote for a Libertarian candidate.  I am sure Hillary will appreciate it. 

Looking ahead to her Supreme court picks which have the potential to alter the court to a 7-2 liberal active base, how will that affect your liberty?  Will Trump make better picks?  Who knows.  Does he have a better chance than a Libertarian of winning.  Absolutely.   You are willing to play Russian Roulette with a fully loaded automatic.  I am more comfortable with a single shot in a revolver.     

[DumbAss Tanker]

Looking ahead to her Supreme court picks which have the potential to alter the court to a 7-2 liberal active base, how will that affect your liberty?  Will Trump make better picks?  Who knows. 

Much as I would prefer it wasn't Trump (But at least it isn't Bush, Graham, or Christie, all of whom would be even more troublesome to me), I'm highly confident he couldn't possibly make WORSE picks for the Supreme Court than Hitlery would.