The sum of all hopes, the sum of all fears, in one brief article
Here is one article that for me is the sum of all hopes, the sum of all fears. I don't think that ONE factor, such as Trump's personality on the stump, very different from in one-on-one exchanges, should be the basis for this decision. I hope this gives you pause.
Far from it. They are desperate to defeat Donald Trump by any means--ready to defame, distort, and destroy his reputation--NEVER discussing his position or ideas; they are falling all over themselves to advance the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.
Already the stories are pouring forth about plans of the extreme Left to co-opt the Clinton agenda; to be sure all her appointments, expecially to the Supreme Court, are far left; to be sure environmentalists, gays-lesbians-transgendered individuals are equally represented; to be sure Obama care moves toward full socialized medicine; to be sure that Clinton's statement that the most important single issue in our future is global warming is fully translated into law.
No, they don't see both candidates as useless. They see Clinton as the royal road to the next advance for collectivism; see Trump as anathema. Do you REALLY think they are terrified of Trump because he boasted of groping? Really, you think that has the gigantic mainstream media machine breathing like race horses?
In his speech at Gettysburg, this week, Trump offered a new contract with America: every plank, with the arguable exception of trade agreements and "the wall," would advance liberty. Quash the assault of economic regulation; defund global warming; back the new U.S, energy revolution, the most exciting economic advance in decades; focus federal money in education on school choice and charter schools; go seriously for term limits; and so it went.
Do I really have to paint the contrast with the Clinton agenda? Oh yes, there is a difference between the only two candidates on the menu, this year. Do you want the difference? It comes down to that.
ONE THING, by the way, is overlooked in its true implications: Donald Trump is an outsider in federal office. He has not built his career on political constituencies and lobbying groups. Most of them have opposed him in this election. (The National Rifle Association is a major exception, but their entire demand is to uphold on item on the U.S. Constituion Bill of Rights--not an expensive demand.)
A President Trump owes NOTHING to any of the big guys, the insiders, the lobbying giants. Nothing. If elected, Trump will be elected by group to which Ayn Rand pointed, again and again, as the commonsense, working class, sense-of-life core of Ameirca. How the media hates them!
"Share" and urge others to share if you agree. We have no other way of being heard over the blaring loudspeakers of the mainstream media.
It is crucial for independents and Johnson supporters to decide that Trump is WAY better on the issues; that much of the personality stuff comes from endless shovelfulls of shit the media has tossed--Trump fights back and the cry is "bully"; and that they can't bear the thought of having Clinton and her legions of self-righteous, identity-politics-crazed, anti-capitalist followers pour into Washington by the thousands next January to take over the levels of federal government.
The obvious rational choice after 8 years of destruction from with in, is Trump.
The issue that is causing the worst, most corrupt, lying, leftist statist to be a serious contender for the white house is as you say " --the vast majority of the Liberal-Left media, academia, and commentators" include the main stream networks and any "entertainment" affiliated with ex. SNL, They ignore the total hypocracy of these communists with a different name.
Also I have been impressed by Trump's verbal exposure of many Clinton's corrupt
transgression's that are now on the record from the debates.
If Johnson was in any real position of power, a la Perot before he sabotaged his own campaign, then I'd be all for voting for him, but he's not. This is a case where voting in support of principle is downright suicidal to those principles.
Trump is the only choice to slow down the rise of socialism and establishment control in this country. He is also the best electable choice to keep us out of dangerous conflicts with Russia. Johnson has some good ideas, but its way too soon for those ideas to get substantial traction.
The people who vote for Johnson should pull back political support for him, and concentrate on furthering education of free market ideas during the times BETWEEN elections.
My point is that in THIS election we actually have a decent chance of slowing down socialism, giving freedom loving people more TIME to do more education before the country falls deeper into decline. In previous elections, the differences between the candidates have been small. In this election, there is a successful business person with halfway decent ideas on freedom vs a definite posterchild for socialism and cronyism.
Dont worry. Trump is a one of a kind candidate. There wont be another one standing up to the establishment like him. We wont have this chance again. In the future it will be more of the socialist vs more socialist candidates.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-...
“Every Bernie supporter voting for Johnson needs to see this.” – Democratic Coalition against Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FufZB...
“Gary Johnson is Under Attack.” – NBCnews . com
http://www.nbcnews.com/card/gary-john...
Things are different now, though. Trump was a direct assault on the establishment and cronyism, and it was met with incrediblly unified opposition of the media, both political parties, and pundits all over the place. He has name recognition, more money that he could ever spend (so he spent HIS money on the campaign), and he is pretty old with nothing to really gain personally from being president. And he has stamina to withstand the attacks. I havent EVER seen that in the past in candidates. Who is crazy enough to spend their own money on this crazy election process? Thats why I say that until the establishment is weakened by its own policies (as in AS actually), we wont see another Trump for a long time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DhkY...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5CHY...
The difference today is that fewer people are buying into the propaganda. Even if Hillary wins (doubtful), it won’t be by the landslide that Lyndon Johnson enjoyed.
Of course if you live in a state that is not in play, such as I do in California, it doesn't really matter what you vote.
Could you generalize this statement to "If you think one mainstream candidate would be less damaging than the other, you voting third party will increase the likelihood of greater damage."?
If that's true, no one should vote third party?
But if I lived in Florida, we saw how that worked out. The people who voted for Nader would almost certainly have preferred Gore to Bush. But they got Bush.
In '96 I voted for Nader b/c I knew Clinton would win. I do not agree with that vote anymore. I believed the line that if we just had a president not beholden to special interests they could use the levers of power to solve the worlds problems. That was embarrassingly naive on my part.
I was in FL for the 2000 election. Before the election they mailed me a sample of the ballot and a thing showing which chad numbers should be poked for which candidate. I voted for Gore and checked the chad number, so I know my vote was executed properly. In a fair count Gore probably lost by a couple hundred votes.
Your comment brought back memories. Sorry for that trip down election memory lane. :)
Watching Perot's weird antics with respect to this wedding and getting in and out, I came to the conclusion that his goal was to block Bush. Once Clinton was ahead he backed out, when Bush recovered, he got back in. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it was because Bush was head of the CIA when we were trying to get MIA's out -- and Perot felt strongly about that. Just a guess.
Admiral Stockdale was intended to be a placeholder but wound up being stuck as a VP candidate when there wasn't time to get another. When a reporter commiserated with him on the two months of chaos he wound up involved in, his response was memorable. He said that it wasn't bad, that he had spent longer than that in North Vietnam lying naked on a cement floor with a broken hip.
OTOH, that last point is a good one, WS.
Winner take all by state should be unlawful, and it exists only to benefit the statist parties and to frustrate and prevent representation for the people, imo.
It is a discipline to judge people by what they do rather than what they say. Talking about girls and bragging about conquest is really a high school behavior that grows into adult BS. It's immature, disrespectful, and a distraction. Failing to answer the call for help from Benghazi, then blaming the whole thing on a video, followed by lying to the survivors of the dead are actions. As are quid pro quo regarding the foundation, and destroying subpoenaed emails. Judging by actions, my choice is clear
Vote for Hillary and you get the posterchild for socialism, 65% death tax, her claim she will not add to the national debt (but there is a current 500billion annual deficit that would have to be made up by tax increases on us), elimination of obamacare and replacement by Hillarycare (which means medicare for everyone including illegals), fast tracking of syrian refugees into citizenship, and increasing globalization.
Vote for Trump, and you get repeal of Obamacare, and replacement of government control with competition among insurance companies, lower taxes on corporations , and a pro business approach to regulations, a real shot at getting us respect from other countries like Russia (less chance of war), and most likely a more robust economy through his inspiration about making america great again (which means WE make america great through our own efforts, not him)
Is Trump a libertarian, NO. But he will slow down socialism in the next 4 years, and help get rid of the stranglehold of political correctness over what we can say.
When you lower the corporate tax rate from 35% to let's say 15%, you create an incentive for domestic small businesses to open. At the same time you also create an incentive for companies world wide to consider doing business in USA. Consider this, if most of the manufacturing is physically done by robot, then tax treatment and regulation become the real sticking points. So, if a CEO can create a better ROI for stockholders because of the tax treatment and regulatory environment in the USA, then many foreign companies will buy or lease real estate, build or remodel to suit their needs, then hire permanent staff, which moves us toward a career economy and away from a gig economy. With that same set of incentives, the corporate profits held offshore to avoid taxes will migrate back to USA because of the favorable tax treatment. Oh, and one other thing, those foreign companies now doing business here will keep the profits here for exactly the same reason our companies have left money overseas. We would have a better treatment of the profits here, rather than sending it back to Europe or Asia. And this is a revenue booster because all of the new activity is being taxed, rather than taxing the prior activity to a stand still. Over time this activity creates a huge pile of capital. Funny thing, capital seeks ROI. And, new ideas seek capital to get up and running. With the capital sitting here, the next big thing will find us, instead of us running around the world trying to pick winners and losers. Think of it. The next big thing would be and American product or service.
On the other hand, progressives know nothing, or little, of incentives. Their motivators are usually punishments. A progressive fine for not enrolling in Obamacare. Higher taxes so they may have "their cut" first. Before a shovel of earth is turned they must have permits, fees, licenses, etc. Then when the product begins to flow they must inspect it, fine companies for not meeting their standards, demand that you have healthcare, talk through both side of their mouth by encouraging hiring and then taxing employment. In our rental properties, mostly progressive tenants, I can't tell you the number of times I have found the bedroom locks modified to keep the children locked into their rooms. Is that an incentive to stay in your room and study, or is that a punishment to be locked in your room? You be the judge.
In my view, the candidate that hands out incentives is greasing the wheels so the factory of innovation can once more begin creating wealth, the American way. The other candidate wants to make us look like western Europe. A hundred bucks a week take home pay, and health, housing, food, and clothing provided by the government. Not what I wish for my grandchildren.
I have a small business and I agree with your analysis totally. I got OUT of medical equipment manufacturing because of the incredible FDA regulations, fines, inspections, etc. I make off road LED equipment now, so far unregulated for the most part. 35% corporate taxation makes me less desirous of working harder and making more money, just to have it taken away anyway. Hillary with her 65% estate tax makes me want to not work as hard only to lose 65% of what I built up during my life go to the unwashed.
She is from Maryland, a state that has a reputation of be in favor of big government instead of individual liberty. (Apologies, I don't have time to find the articles I read in support of that assertion right now as I am being paged, but later I will when I have time.)
The problem with Trump is not just his personality. It's his lack of ethics and use of government for his own enrichment.
Fear mongering instead of principle.
Yes, that has worked so well in the past, let's keep making that stupid mistake until we are all enslaved.
WAKE UP and get some courage to fight for your liberty.
Trump is the last chance we will have to buck this socialist establishment. After this, no one will want to buck the establishment in the future (look at how the media trashed trump and how much negativity he faced), and we will be on a slow decline until all the wealth in the country has been spent by the socialists. Only THEN will it make sense to politically support a Johnson. That was even the case in AS as Galt didnt surface until the establishment was weak
(Very unsanitary)
I don't understand why that so very hard for some to understand. It seems so obvious to me. If Trump doesn't win, it is very likely that freedom and justice and the pursuit of happiness will be kaput after 4 or possibly 8 years of a felonious, lying, bribing politician(s).
Back to the topic. A vote for anything other than Trump is a vote for tyranny for this country, and that includes any third party or abstinence vote. The only things to consider are the real issues and where we agree or disagree with the candidates, we must all ignore the rest.
Now, given this, why would I want to expand my business and invest in new products and take the risks of that. My answer is that I wouldnt. My desire to make the business bigger would be diminished and I will be more inclined to just retire and go have a nice life without working so hard.
Thats the kind of SHRUGGING that will happen now. Its slow and relentless, but over the years will bring down the country.