2016 Election: The Most Defining In U.S. History!

[Empirica]

The 2016 Election is 20 months away and the POTUS hopefuls are lining up to share their wonderful promises!

This election will define like no other the future of the United States and the ideo-political direction it will take!

Defining - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
de·fined - de·fin·ing
Definition of DEFINE
transitive verb
1. a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human>
> b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)

2. a : to fix or mark the limits of : demarcate <rigidly defined property lines>
> b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>

Like all nations before us; we have made our fair share of bad choices which we have worked tirelessly to rectify!

Despite these growing pains; the United States has risen to a level of success unequaled by any nation in history!

Americans created the freest, wealthiest, safest, most powerful nation, with the fattest poor people in the world!

The choice we make in 2016 will either solidify or alter the course of the United States and all future generations!

I beseech you, please don't sacrifice what America has built for the promise of a non-existent Utopian pipe dream!

I plea with voters to reject all Progressive/Democrat and Establishment/Republican candidates and elect a President with strong Libertarian values and policies who will halt the decline of the United States and restore it to the greatness its Founding Fathers envisioned!

A simple litmus test is a candidate's position on illegal immigration and only a Zero Tolerance Policy is acceptable!

Please join me in saving America in November 2016 :hm and thank you for your patriotic support!

 

[Lovebug]

I hear your plea and agree with you on our complacent establishment politics. But, do you think Americans can handle personal responsibility and the libertarian principle?

 

[Paschendale]

Not so much with the big sweeping moment. We're just going to see a continuation of the current political trends. We'll see extreme partisanship. We'll see the results of changing demographics (this is why Democrats are likely to win a lot next year). We'll see even more unregulated spending on elections by billionaire donors, and even more corruption of the political process by the wealthy. None of this is unprecedented.

Also, it is hilarious that anyone thinks that libertarian ideas will alleviate any of the problems in the current political establishment. The problem is too much power concentrated in the hands of private owners and big corporations. Further reducing the power of the government to rein in all that private power on behalf of the people will only make things worse.

 

[haymarket]

Not so much with the big sweeping moment. We're just going to see a continuation of the current political trends. We'll see extreme partisanship. We'll see the results of changing demographics (this is why Democrats are likely to win a lot next year). We'll see even more unregulated spending on elections by billionaire donors, and even more corruption of the political process by the wealthy. None of this is unprecedented.

Also, it is hilarious that anyone thinks that libertarian ideas will alleviate any of the problems in the current political establishment. The problem is too much power concentrated in the hands of private owners and big corporations. Further reducing the power of the government to rein in all that private power on behalf of the people will only make things worse.

Amen Brother. Amen!

 

[Declan]

Yes every election is the most important in the history of the US. The candidates have always told us so, at least, especially when they have their hand out trying to get money out of your pocket.

 

[haymarket]

Libertarians should wise up and realize they will always be useful to the Republican party but only in the same way as kleenex is and then they will be tossed into the trash heap just as kleenex is.

But it seems far too many of them - especially those who love the label of "right libertarian" - hate Democrats and progressives far more than they lover Libertarians and do NOT support that party or its candidates. Until they wise up and go full bore Libertarian they will always be on the fringes trying to tout their pie-in-the-sky ideas and never getting a chance to having them baked, sold or eaten.

 

[Cavendish]

Changing demographic trends will see a decline in the prevalence, popularity and electoral-viability of the ideals originally espoused and championed by the Founders of this nation. I know that sounds crude, but it's backed up by Gallup/Pew polls and logic.

A libertarian, or a Republican with libertarian leanings, will never hold office in this country again.

 

[Paschendale]

Libertarians should wise up and realize they will always be useful to the Republican party but only in the same way as kleenex is and then they will be tossed into the trash heap just as kleenex is.

But it seems far too many of them - especially those who love the label of "right libertarian" - hate Democrats and progressives far more than they lover Libertarians and do NOT support that party or its candidates. Until they wise up and go full bore Libertarian they will always be on the fringes trying to tout their pie-in-the-sky ideas and never getting a chance to having them baked, sold or eaten.

I think the non-crazy libertarians (that is, the ones who aren't just selfish pricks) should switch sides. It's clear that the Republican party only pays them in lip service and anti-government rhetoric while still embracing all of the big government and pro corporate policies that libertarians claim to hate. And then they get into all of the religious laws and try to force their social positions on everyone. Democrats at least don't do that, and are slightly less pro-corporate. The Democratic party actually aligns closer with libertarian positions than Republicans do. Republicans just claim to be. But they take the libertarian vote for granted. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that. I think a libertarian branch of the Democratic party might be a really good thing. Help pull the left away from its big business ties.

Changing demographic trends will see a decline in the prevalence, popularity and electoral-viability of the ideals originally espoused and championed by the Founders of this nation. I know that sounds crude, but it's backed up by Gallup/Pew polls and logic.

A libertarian, or a Republican with libertarian leanings, will never hold office in this country again.

That you think American principles can only be held by white, heterosexual, Christian men (the demographic in decline) is really quite pathetic. Also there is no such thing as a Republican with libertarian leanings, only libertarians dumb enough to think that the Republican party gives a crap what they think.

 

[Cavendish]

That you think American principles can only be held by white, heterosexual, Christian men (the demographic in decline) is really quite pathetic.

It's a supported and reasoned claim, though. Minorities and recent immigrants are less inclined to support unrestricted freedom of speech and thought, free enterprise, small business, isolationism and fiscal conservatism. And yes, these are (or were) America's core principles.

Also there is no such thing as a Republican with libertarian leanings, only libertarians dumb enough to think that the Republican party gives a crap what they think.

The second part of this statement has nothing to do with the first. The GOP might be hostile to libertarians, but many individual Republicans have held libertarian positions, and it makes sense in the context of American (and Western) political philosophy that Republicans and libertarians agree on many issues. Note, for example, the genesis of (capital-R) Republicanism in the schools of classical liberalism and classical republicanism, as well as its grounding in the synthesis of English whiggery and continental-European ideas of governance (eg Switzerland).

I find your assertion that the Democrats are more libertarian absurd, but also pointedly bizarre. If we accept libertarianism as the modern form of classical liberalism, and classical liberalism as the original form of liberalism from which social liberalism (the ideology of the Dems) spawned, then the Republicans are far better ambassadors of libertarian principles. Unfortunately the pro-big business, MIC backers of the GOP guide its policy to the extent where the GOP has turned on principles it once held sacred.

 

[Sherman123]

The 2016 Election is 20 months away and the POTUS hopefuls are lining up to share their wonderful promises!

This election will define like no other the future of the United States and the ideo-political direction it will take!

Defining - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
de·fined - de·fin·ing
Definition of DEFINE
transitive verb
1. a : to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of <whatever defines us as human>
> b : to discover and set forth the meaning of (as a word)

2. a : to fix or mark the limits of : demarcate <rigidly defined property lines>
> b : to make distinct, clear, or detailed especially in outline <the issues aren't too well defined>

Like all nations before us; we have made our fair share of bad choices which we have worked tirelessly to rectify!

Despite these growing pains; the United States has risen to a level of success unequaled by any nation in history!

Americans created the freest, wealthiest, safest, most powerful nation, with the fattest poor people in the world!

The choice we make in 2016 will either solidify or alter the course of the United States and all future generations!

I beseech you, please don't sacrifice what America has built for the promise of a non-existent Utopian pipe dream!

I plea with voters to reject all Progressive/Democrat and Establishment/Republican candidates and elect a President with strong Libertarian values and policies who will halt the decline of the United States and restore it to the greatness its Founding Fathers envisioned!

A simple litmus test is a candidate's position on illegal immigration and only a Zero Tolerance Policy is acceptable!

Please join me in saving America in November 2016 :hm and thank you for your patriotic support!

I am so tired of hearing that a particular election is the 'most important ever!' it rings hollow pretty quickly. Only fanatics tend to truly believe that 'this' election is the most important, the most critical, ever.

 

[NeverTrump]

I plea with voters to reject all Progressive/Democrat and Establishment/Republican candidates and elect a President with strong Libertarian values and policies who will halt the decline of the United States and restore it to the greatness its Founding Fathers envisioned!
!

Lolz. Why and how will libertarians specifically do this? So I am guessing you are advocating people vote for Gary Johnson? He seems to be the only official Libertarian running. Or does that not matter to you? Only folks who seem to act like Libertarians matter? I'm confused please elaborate on this highly partisan rant.

 

[Empirica]

Lolz. Why and how will libertarians specifically do this? So I am guessing you are advocating people vote for Gary Johnson? He seems to be the only official Libertarian running. Or does that not matter to you? Only folks who seem to act like Libertarians matter? I'm confused please elaborate on this highly partisan rant.

Just curious??? Who would someone labeled "ModerateGOP" top candidate for POTUS be?

 

[NeverTrump]

Just curious??? Who would someone labeled "ModerateGOP" top candidate for POTUS be?

Nice try at deflection. Answer my question related to your thread first and then I'll answer yours. However, with little research on my posting history I'm sure you could easily find out

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Republicans are hostile to libertarians because libertarians pose a real internal threat to the Republican establishment. The Tea Party started as a libertarian movement before it was overtaken by the religious far Right. Perot was a Republican with liberal social leanings and nabbed 19% of the popular vote, effectively giving the election to Clinton with a narrowish plurality (43% to 37%+19%).

A real third party push would bleed far more Republican votes than Democrat votes. And I say this as a libertarian who wants nothing more than to see a non-R/D Executive. Voting libertarian is basically voting Democrat.

I'm just not going to vote. It doesn't matter.

 

[Politicks]

I am so tired of hearing that a particular election is the 'most important ever!' it rings hollow pretty quickly. Only fanatics tend to truly believe that 'this' election is the most important, the most critical, ever.

This time, there is an exceedingly good justification for calling it the most important. At least, the most important one since 1860, for one very simple reason. The 45th American President could potentially be selecting up to four new Supreme Court Justices to replace the aging Ruth Bader Ginsburg (81), Antonin Scalia (79), Anthony Kennedy (78) and Stephen Breyer (76) - almost half of the nine-person lineup of the United States Supreme Court. With a historical 25-year average tenure, these lifetime appointments will directly determine the political, ideological and socioeconomic direction of the country for the next three decades, and indirectly thereafter.

 

[NeverTrump]

Republicans are hostile to libertarians because libertarians pose a real internal threat to the Republican establishment.
Voting libertarian is basically voting Democrat.
I'm just not going to vote. It doesn't matter.

None of these things make sense combined in the same paragraph. You say Republicans don't like libertarians yet party leadership is willing to let them in the party and grab what little votes they give. You say you guys are a threat but refuse to vote because it doesn't matter. You admit, it's like voting democrat! :lamo

 

[DA60]

Well, I could do without the drama and the patriotic part (to me, patriotic is just a word politicians throw around to get people do do/believe things that they would not ordinarily).

But I agree completely that both the Dem's and the Reps are worse then useless, two sides to the same coin and neither party is capable of doing anything but making America worse.

Plus, Gary Johnson (who I assume will be the Libertarian candidate again), of the candidates that seem to be in the running for all parties so far, seems to be by FAR the best candidate.

I do not think Libertarian ideals are all perfect as they tend to be forget about the poor/sick/helpless and leave them to charity. I think government should look after those that cannot look after themselves...but I think they should provide the basics like shelters with basic medical care as opposed to apartments and cash and so on.
But in most other respects, I generally agree with the Libertarian's...though I still do NOT consider myself a Libertarian.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

None of these things make sense combined in the same paragraph. You say Republicans don't like libertarians yet party leadership is willing to let them in the party and grab what little votes they give. You say you guys are a threat but refuse to vote because it doesn't matter. You admit, it's like voting democrat! :lamo

The Tea Party expressed libertarian ideals in 2008-2010. The far right ate it up until the establish Republicans moved to fold the Tea Party into it's own ranks. Then the Tea Party became representative of *only* the far right, after having been infiltrated and coerced by the establishment.

I never voted for a Teapublican. I've never voted for a Democrat, outside of local politics. Where I live, my votes really don't matter. But nationally speaking, the one time a serious challenger came close to fiscal conservatism coupled to socially liberal ideals, we got Clinton instead.

 

[Empirica]

Republicans are hostile to libertarians because libertarians pose a real internal threat to the Republican establishment. The Tea Party started as a libertarian movement before it was overtaken by the religious far Right. Perot was a Republican with liberal social leanings and nabbed 19% of the popular vote, effectively giving the election to Clinton with a narrowish plurality (43% to 37%+19%).

A real third party push would bleed far more Republican votes than Democrat votes. And I say this as a libertarian who wants nothing more than to see a non-R/D Executive. Voting libertarian is basically voting Democrat.

I'm just not going to vote. It doesn't matter.

I pretty much agree Gonzo_

If an establishment Republican gets the nomination, I'll likely stay home_

Whether we get a Dem or a Pub really wouldn't make much of a difference_

 

[Fletch]

I think the non-crazy libertarians (that is, the ones who aren't just selfish pricks) should switch sides.

Who's the bigger prick? The guy who wishes to keep what is rightfully his own and use it as he sees fit? Or the thieving socialist prick who lusts after the property of others and employs the state to steal it for his own use. No contest there really.

 

[Paschendale]

Who's the bigger prick? The guy who wishes to keep what is rightfully his own and use it as he sees fit? Or the thieving socialist prick who lusts after the property of others and employs the state to steal it for his own use. No contest there really.

You do realize that liberals are generally more affluent than conservatives, right? With the exception of the super rich .1%, who run right wing politics, a lot of the money skews liberal. So, we're not after your property. You don't have much worth taking. But we're not going to let you keep voting in cronies of those super rich who will keep taking our property and yours. We're perfectly to content to use our property for your benefit as well as ours. But we're not willing to let the super rich have it for themselves.

And we're not willing to let you have it and not pay your fair share. All of those arguments that conservatives make about freeloading poor people... they don't apply to hardworking and struggling people. They apply to lower middle class conservatives with an overblown sense of their own importance. All they (you?) want is what other people have. And they want the government to only do the things that benefit them and not anyone else.

Yeah, selfish conservatives, especially the ones that call themselves libertarians, are the pricks. The whole ideology is rooted in selfishness.

 

[NeverTrump]

I pretty much agree Gonzo_

If an establishment Republican gets the nomination, I'll likely stay home_

Whether we get a Dem or a Pub really wouldn't make much of a difference_

So much for sticking to your guns. Tell me how could someone who isn't a republican get the republican nomination?? Hmmm....Then what republican would you consider to be anti-establish? How do you feel about said republican/not republican pretending to be republican just to get elected?

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Libertarians should wise up and realize they will always be useful to the Republican party but only in the same way as kleenex is and then they will be tossed into the trash heap just as kleenex is.

But it seems far too many of them - especially those who love the label of "right libertarian" - hate Democrats and progressives far more than they lover Libertarians and do NOT support that party or its candidates. Until they wise up and go full bore Libertarian they will always be on the fringes trying to tout their pie-in-the-sky ideas and never getting a chance to having them baked, sold or eaten.

Because the current GOP's stances on social issues, the GOP's foreign policy of intervention and war everywhere and their pro-corporate policy of having little problem with corporate welfare costing 100's of billions while whining continually about food stamps, etc., I have no idea why any Libertarian would defend the GOP, but most do. Hell there are some so called Libertarians who still constantly defend Bush 2 and his wars, and the patriot act, part d, etc.

Most Libertarians and nothing but Republicans in Libertarian clothing.

 

[haymarket]

Because the current GOP's stances on social issues, the GOP's foreign policy of intervention and war everywhere and their pro-corporate policy of having little problem with corporate welfare costing 100's of billions while whining continually about food stamps, etc., I have no idea why any Libertarian would defend the GOP, but most do. Hell there are some so called Libertarians who still constantly defend Bush 2 and his wars, and the patriot act, part d, etc.

Most Libertarians and nothing but Republicans in Libertarian clothing.

Well said!

 

[Fletch]

You do realize that liberals are generally more affluent than conservatives, right? With the exception of the super rich .1%, who run right wing politics, a lot of the money skews liberal. So, we're not after your property.

Nice try. I love how you say "we're" not after you property as if you are part of that 1% lol. But if you big hearted liberals have all the money, then you should be giving it freely. Unless, of course, you are all just too selfish. Practice what you preach. You think socialism is so wonderful? Give all this wealth you say you have to the poor then come talk to me.

You don't have much worth taking.

Perhaps, but that hasn't stopped the thieving leftists from taking a large % of it now has it. Be honest (sorry, liberals cant do that) liberals/leftists/progressives/socialists all want the same thing--control of wealth. You guys are obsessed with the property of others.

But we're not going to let you keep voting in cronies of those super rich who will keep taking our property and yours.

Do you even read what you write? Seriously. How can you even say something like that with a straight face? Your entire ideology is based upon robbing Peter to pay Paul yet you claim it is the other side engaging in theft. Is it dishonesty? Or are you just that unaware of how your own ideology operates? Either way, you advocate fighting theft with theft of your own. You steal from me why? So the rich have less to take? Brilliant.

We're perfectly to content to use our property for your benefit as well as ours.

Oh now aren't you just wonderful. But if that were true I wouldn't be forced to pay taxes to fund all these great ideas you leftists come up with. Here is the truth, the selfish of this world are those who lust after the wealth of others; those who wish to control the wealth of others; those who look around and boil with envy at the sight of someone who has a penny more than they think they should have. I don't want your money, I don't want your help and I don't want you stealing from others under the false pretense that you are doing good on my behalf. You have convinced yourselves that you are the altruists and, therefore, anything you want and desire is good, and those who oppose you evil. But if goodness were measured by how much you steal from others we wouldn't have overcrowded prisons.

What is the difference between a leftist and a thug who robs you at the ATM? The thug is more honest. He doesn't pretend his criminal behavior is motivated by a higher moral calling. And in that he doesn't employ others to do his bidding, he is far less cowardly as well.

But we're not willing to let the super rich have it for themselves.

So you will steal it and pretend that you are the moral ones. Thank you for proving my point.

And we're not willing to let you have it and not pay your fair share.

I don't want it. But you don't give me the opportunity to say 'no.' You impose your will upon everyone and act as if you are doing good. You aren't. All you leftist argue for choice. Well, give me the choice to say 'no' to your leftist wealth transfer schemes. You wont. Because you aren't really for the freedom to choose. That's just another liberal lie.

All of those arguments that conservatives make about freeloading poor people... they don't apply to hardworking and struggling people. They apply to lower middle class conservatives with an overblown sense of their own importance. All they (you?) want is what other people have. And they want the government to only do the things that benefit them and not anyone else.

Again, you are indicting your own ideology without knowing it. I don't want anything from you; I don't want what other people have. YOU DO. How do you not see that?

Yeah, selfish conservatives, especially the ones that call themselves libertarians, are the pricks. The whole ideology is rooted in selfishness.

If keeping and using what is rightfully my own makes me a selfish prick, then I am guilty as hell. But what does that make the person who wishes to deprive me of what is rightly my own to use for his own purposes? When you figure out what that is, wear it.