Of course you should judge them individually;^) The point that I keep making is that no one who is ethical will be chosen by either the GOP or the Dems. It will not happen, so your only ethical choices are outside the statist party. All members of the GOP are not evil, but those within the GOP who choose the candidate are proven evil by their actions, lies, and betrayals.

"No, I never said that and it can't be logically deduced from what I did say about Republican voters."

My apologies if I misunderstood. Your statements were fairly concise and explicit, which is why I used quotes when citing them. I am always open to a restatement for clarification.

"Nothing I have written says that I favor collapse"

So far, the slate of alternatives (i.e. non-Republicans) stands decidedly and disappointingly empty. You seem to hold that anyone with an (R) on their name is establishment and should under no circumstances be voted for. That leaves me few (read: zero) alternatives which would be acceptable under such criteria. This lack leaves me rather frustrated with your line of reasoning.

The history of voting in this nation favors Democratic victory when third party candidates run. The history of Democratic control has been decidedly anti-liberty and non-sustainable, and these policies have only accelerated under this President. So every seat which falls to a Democrat necessarily accelerates policies which advance collapse. Thus if a Democrat ends up in a seat, we know they will vote for collapse.

Yes, I agree that there are some Republicans who go along with the Democrats, but there are also many who do not. I don't see any recognition of these objectors by you. You tend to speak in broad brush strokes, openly equating every single member of either party as being an active proponent of bad policy. When I look at the voting records, I see the objectors.

"Vote for principle. Don't vote for evil."

I agree we should vote for principle. I reserve the right to judge candidates individually rather than collectively, however, as to their fitness for office.

"I just can't accept the notion that anyone who votes for a GOP candidate is by your definition necessarily evil. "
No, I never said that and it can't be logically deduced from what I did say about Republican voters.
"I think we both agree that the leadership of the Republican Party has thrown in with the Democrats and is not furthering the cause of liberty. "
Absolutely. They have done exactly what I repeatedly warned everyone in the Gulch they would do. That prediction did not take any genius to make; it was obvious from the GOP's history of betrayal. Republican voters ignore the obvious historical record repeatedly and doom the liberty of Americans.
"The proposal you give to just collapse the entire system"
I repeat: stop trying to make me responsible for your conclusions. Nothing I have written says that I favor collapse as a solution. As previously stated, I favor republican voters rationally concluding that the GOP will betray them as in the past and leaving the GOP en mass to vote for a candidate that will more likely defend liberty and reduce government power. Vote for principle. Don't vote for evil.

I think you confuse my disagreement with your statement that Republicans are evil with your conclusion that I am a supporter of the GOP. I don't support the GOP. I actively vote for people who challenge the GOP establishment wherever possible - as long as they are not a Democrat. I just can't accept the notion that anyone who votes for a GOP candidate is by your definition necessarily evil. That is the point on which I can not agree with you. I do not and can not categorically assign labels in such a manner. To me it is a not only a fallacy of inclusion, but a prejudicial judgement.

I think we both agree that the leadership of the Republican Party has thrown in with the Democrats and is not furthering the cause of liberty. McConnell and Boehner were certainly of that mold, and disappointingly it appears that Paul Ryan is slipping into the same folly. I do not support any such. My support falls to individual candidates, which is why I never have and never will donate to any party apparatus. There are specific office holders currently in government with an (R) next to their name whom I hold in high regard: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jeff Sessions, Trey Gowdy, Raul Labrador, and about a dozen more. I would vote for any of them if they were in my voting district. There are others such as the aforementioned McConnell, John McCain, and others whom I consider the very traitors you (justly IMO) hold contempt for.

I am like Hannity, Rush, and Beck: very disappointed in the current path of the Republican Party. The part where you and I differ, I think, is that I still believe there are some with an (R) who are honorable men. Not perfect men, but honorable (the Freedom Caucus comes to mind). I would love to see the rise of a group of leaders who have an affinity for liberty. So far, however, I haven't seen anything come from any of the supposed third party routes that leads me to hope in that direction. And there has been a marked rise in so-called Tea Party candidates within the Republican Party - especially in the last ten years - which leads me to hope that there is still a possibility for redemption there.

The proposal you give to just collapse the entire system is one which I view with serious and grave reservations. The notion of the phoenix of the Constitution rising from the ashes of a nation in turmoil is in my mind a plot from a movie far more than the likely outcome in reality. The reality I see would be far darker as those who would rise to power would subject this nation to a tyranny akin to that of the Soviet Union - with all its gulags and secret police. It took sixty years to overthrow that government even partially, and the current system is more one of oligarchical tyrants than anything resembling a true democratic republic. And I do not wish to live the remainder of my life in such circumstances, nor would I wish that upon my children or children's children.

Further, if the great light of the United States is to dim to the level of the rest of the socialist world, I do not see what other power on earth is going to encourage the fledgling nations of the world to choose a society that celebrates freedom and equality. There are a plethora of nations who would immediately fall to the tyrant if the US were unable to defend them. The East China Sea has been claimed by the Chinese to the detriment of Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan and the Phillippines. Ukraine has fallen to Russia. More will continue to fall if the US is not present to defend them (Israel being first and foremost).

Spot on.

Not trying to respond to your entire statement, WS, but I look at it partly this way. For the past 50 years one group (Dem)has claimed to want bigger government and when in power has created bigger government and less individual liberty. The other group (GOP) has claimed to defend individual liberty and promised smaller government repeatedly, and when in power has repeatedly delivered bigger government and (arguably) more severe reductions in liberty than even the Dem group has imposed. For me liberty and free markets are good and curtailment of either/both are evil. There is no significant conflict between the two groups. Both are evil. No, I do not think or say that every member or supporter of both groups are evil, but those who control the power within both groups do not allow anyone that will depart from this path to greater government power and less liberty to have any position of power. The thought that the voters choose the candidates for president is a fallacy. Voters will have no voice in the result until voters abandon both groups. The result is that many good people are wasting their efforts and continue to waste their efforts with a very consistent evil result. This will not change within either group because no one who is uncorrupted will ever rise to power in the two groups. Any effort within the two groups is either assisting evil, or a waste of resources and often results in corruption or utter frustration of once good people.

No, I don't read minds, but I can tell when your written statements assign responsibility to me for things I didn't write and offer conclusions that are yours, not mine, and have no support in what I did write. You are welcome to your opinion, of course, and if you can rationally explain your continuing faith in the GOP in spite of their consistent history of deceit and looter activity, I am quite willing to discuss it further.

The flaw in your logic is the statement "John A" is a Socialist. Socialism is an evil doctrine and John A may believe many aspects of it, but no man is the embodiment of a doctrine unless they define it. Perhaps not even then. Is Ayn Rand the embodiment of Objectivism?

If John A is not a perfect example of a Socialist then there must be some aspects of him that are not Socialist. It is possible to consider John A and John B and determine which of them are to a lesser degree adherents of Socialism and vote on the basis of that, voting for their non Socialist portion and accepting that some degree of Socialism will be elected since A or B is going to be elected. Accepting that reality is part of the process.

My political philosophy is very similar to that of Treebeard in Lord of the Rings:
"I am not altogether on anyone’s side because nobody is altogether on my side"

To characterize someone who doesn't altogether agree with you as 'evil' creates a world of only evil. Even on this self-selecting site there are wide ranges of opinion. Are we all 'evil'?

Comments like "get off the reframing crap it isn't going to work and you are not good enough" show to me two things: that you have a rather high opinion of yourself and that you overvalue your ability as a communicator. Restatement is the prime method by which a good communicator expresses back to the other that he/she is actually listening and comprehending what the other is saying. I'd encourage you to try it - not deride it. It's quite useful - and not just in forum posts.

"Mine is General and his/her name is Martial Law."

Thanks for being so explicit. (That's not sarcasm by the way. I sincerely appreciate a forthright statement.) Just a question, but who is going to lead this military revolution you desire? Do you have fantasies of "Red Dawn", "Hunger Games", or "Star Wars", forgetting that none of those was an overnight affair? The type of general civil unrest you're talking about doesn't accomplish regime change. And it isn't as if those who have manipulated themselves into power aren't going to be prepared to hold onto it. We have plenty of modern-day examples of dictators and the lengths they will go to (Mao, Stalin, Castro, Assad, etc.) to maintain power.

"People want to burn down their neighborhoods let them sleep in the snow."

Yep, but what about when the fires spread to consume not only their houses, but yours as well? I'm all for supporting personal responsibility, but unfortunately, some others' bad choices also affect me.

Again. You are not reading my words with any attempt to understand. You are inserting your own and ignoring mine. Your conclusions are yours, not mine, and are not rational after reading my posts. There is no point in my repeating them. They are quite clear.

Again, present to me an alternative and I'm more than happy to take a look. You seem to be in favor of the theory that collapse is the only way we're going to get our freedoms back. I see collapse as a total loss of the freedoms we have with absolutely no guarantee that things will return to even the level we enjoy now. If the People aren't willing to vote for their own freedom now, what makes you think that they would overthrow the chains a collapse would bring - a collapse the Democrats are more than eager to bring to fruition?

I think that true evil would welcome a collapse and all the chaos that would result: the looting, the violence, the raping and pillaging - the complete abandonment of law and natural rights. The Constitution wasn't born of such and I don't believe it would be re-born of such. The Constitution was built from a time where the people were sufficiently organized and self-sufficient that they could turn their attentions to weighty intellectual matters. I look to Maslow's Hierarchy and how it would apply in a time of upheaval and know that reforming a "more perfect Union" would be the last thing on my mind. The recent riots and such underscore my apprehension. The mobs aren't calling for more reason or a redress of grievances, but for vengeance out of bloodlust and mindlessness.

"I have explained this several times and you aren't listening."

I'm not agreeing. There is a huge difference.

WS, you are to be lauded, not blamed, for supporting Perot. You rejected evil in favor of the chance for a return to liberty. The time to be blamed is choosing either evil because that is the action that gives the power to evil.The system is corrupt; it won't change by choosing either evil.

"When you start with a definition that "Republicans (voters and candidates alike) are evil", you're creating your own straw man."
You said this. I did not. Your straw man, not mine.

The GOP is controlled. You continue to believe that will change if you can change a few elected officials who have no power over the party. You refuse to recognize that any position of power is appointed and voters have no voice whatsoever in that process. Any and all efforts to change this have been failures because they don't get close to the power and they never will. The GOP is corrupted. (The Democratic party is corrupted, too, but supporters of it are getting what they ask for, socialism. They are beyond listening to reason.) Republican voters are living in a dream world, indoctrinated by the system to believe that their votes matter. That just isn't so as long as you continue to waste them on the GOP. You respond to my posts but you aren't seeing reality. You continue to make excuses for your actions supporting the GOP. There is no excuse for supporting evil. Until you recognize this you are enslaved. I have explained this several times and you aren't listening, so I am not going to explain it again. Republican voters have the fate of American liberty in their hands and they are chosing to be slaves.

this is another disgusting step towards the cliff. . this nation
is in deep trouble and the "leaders" are killing it. -- j
.