Rebirth of Reason

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread

Post 0

Wednesday, March 2, 2016 - 9:37pmSanction this postReply

It is stunning to think that this nation has come to the point where our leading choices for the president of the United States include Hillary whose Saul-Alinksy-Progressivism is only moderated by the intensity of her prediliction for corruption (to say nothing about the fact that the FBI may recommend her for indictment), then there is the fervid 74 year old socialist whose entire campaign seems to be balanced between a rabid hatred for business on one hand, and free stuff for everyone else on the other hand.  If that wasn't enough, there is the narcissistic, reality show host who is openly offering to be our very own fascist leader.  Will one of these people actually step up and swear an oath of office says, "I do solemnly swear that I will ... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." 


Needless to say, if any of those three appoint the next two or three Supreme Court justices, the concept of a constitutionally limited government will be toast.

Post 1

Thursday, March 3, 2016 - 5:13amSanction this postReply

Vote Libertarian?

Post 2

Thursday, March 3, 2016 - 8:17amSanction this postReply

Luke, there is a kind of linear thinking that we humans often fall prey to.  When we see a trend form, and become strong, like Trump's poll numbers and the primary votes he's won, we extrapolate, and in this case, predict that Trump wins.  Seems reasonable as predictions go.  But, humans have choices and react to things in ways that sometimes make trends look foolish.  Often it is the strong developing of the trend that results in the trends end.  There may be such a powerful outpouring of dislike for Trump during the next two week that his apple cart is upset.  Ted Cruz might end up being the GOP nominee.


There is different factor at work in the Democrat's race.  If the FBI requests that the Justice Department indict Hillary, she will be out of the race.  But that party's power structure is unlikely to let Bernie become the nominee, so they will jump in and put someone else in - like Biden.  It makes a mockery of the principle of voting, but the Democrats have always been a bit pragmatic on that, using it when it suits them and jiggering the system when it doesn't.  So, the general election candidates aren't final yet.  It could be Cruz - Biden.


As to your question, "Vote Libertarian?"  I honestly don't know.  If Clinton gets in, she might bring in a Democratic majority in the senate.  That would be the worst case scenario because of how it would let her stack the Supreme Court, which in turn would let her rule by edict, and I'd prefer the idiocy of Trump to that.  Sanders with a GOP senate would be a stalemate but it would give a kind of moral foothold, an acceptance of socialism that would be awful.  I guess I'll vote Libertarian unless it looks like Clinton is the nominee and the polls show her bringing in a Democrat majority to the Senate, in which case I'll adopt the ABC principle (Anyone But Clinton).  If Cruz is the GOP nominee, I'll be very happy to vote for him because of his adherence to constitutionallity and Originalism in interpreting the constitution (despite the huge differences between us on his religious motivations, and some of his policies).

Post 3

Friday, March 4, 2016 - 11:19pmSanction this postReply

I detest Donald Trump because of his use of government eminent domain authority to seize people's homes and other property for his development projects. The Vera Coking and Michael Forbes cases are well documented and there are undoubtedly many more where property owners have given up without a fight. I, for one, would never vote for him for that reason alone.


However, I am less afraid of Trump becoming President than Hillary, Rubio or Sanders.  Hillary pushed the war in Libya and the arming of so-called 'moderate' rebels in Syria which has led to the European refugee crisis, not to mention a great many deaths.  She has talked about a creating no-fly zone in Syria which would likely lead to (nuclear) war with Russia.  As the first woman president, she will be expected to show that a woman can be commander-in-chief.  If any NATO country such as Turkey, takes a pot shot at Russia and Russia responds appropriately, there will be tremendous pressure on her to 'stand up' to Putin.


Rubio wouldn't feel the pressure for war that Hillary would, but he boldly talks about shooting down Russian planes if necessary.  That would be utter madness.  Despite its large geographic size, Russia is puny in population and GDP (1/6 and 1/18 respective NATO aggregate totals).  It is no threat to US in a strictly conventional war which would likely result with Russia and Putin ending up like Libya and Qadaffi.  I suspect the Russians and Putin would rather be nuked than end up like Libya and Qadaffi and that is what makes the situation dangerous.  Trump enjoys the good life so he is less likely than other to get US into war.


Sanders is a socialist (as are most Republicans although they won't admit it).  'Nuff said on him.


Cruz was born outside the country so the Constitution would have to be bent for him to be President.


Trump's popularity rests primarily on the GOP establishment's unpopularity with Republican voters.  Republicans could have balanced the budget by refusing the raise the credit limit (debt ceiling).  They lost their Speaker of the House in a primary election over the immigration issue and that is the issue that Trump has exploited successfuly.


So as far as I'm concerned, Trump can have it.  Every one else running is just as bad.

Post 4

Saturday, March 5, 2016 - 8:34amSanction this postReply



Just a few notes:  Cruz was "natural born" - i.e., given birth by a citizen of the united states.  There aren't ANY unbiased legal authorities that say otherwise.  Trump's claim to the contrary just isn't taken seriously by legal scholars who aren't also progressives.


I like Rubio as a person, but I think he lacks a strong enough core.  When he smells victory just around the corner (even if that is mostly wishful thinking) he will bend his ethical rules just a bit.  His hunger for getting the win is too strong when compared to his ethical ideals. He is strongly anchored in his sense of himself as foriegn policy guru but doesn't have the underlying set of core political principles of when and why we should go to war.  If he moved more towards libertarian principles and became more grounded in his ethics and with a bit more time getting seasoned... then I'd take another look at him, but not now.


I agree with everything you said about Hillary - she is a known danger.  My biggest problem with Trump is the degree to which he is an unknown danger.  We know he doesn't have the normal constraints.  We know that he is comfortable with violating individual rights in some ways.  But we don't know how far he would go or in which direction.  We don't know if he has any principles what-so-ever, or if he has told the truth with anything he has said.  Someone could say that a President Trump might NOT see a major war as getting in the way of his continuing to live the good life.  We know next to nothing about what he really believes or what standards he uses to make his judgments.


I'd argue that Cruz is far, far better for us than anyone else.  His knowledge of the constitution and his respect for it are baked in and well documented.  His call for small government is believable as opposed to just campaign rhetoric.  I hate how religious he is, but when weighed in with everything else, there isn't any comparison with a corrupt progressive only inches away from being a full-blown socialist and under investigation by the FBI, an avowed socialist openly calling for a Marxist revolution, and a narcissistic con-man with strong fascist tendencies.


The next president will nominate two, maybe three, Supreme Court justices.  That will, as things stand now, be the ultra-progressive Hillary, the socialist, Bernie, the totally unknown Donald, or Ted Cruz who clerked at the Supreme Court, and wouldn't accept anyone as a court nominee that wasn't a strict constitutionalist.  Nothing else is as important to whether or not United States government's power is in any way limited as we move forward.

Post 5

Saturday, March 5, 2016 - 2:51pmSanction this postReply

Another one.

Post 6

Saturday, March 5, 2016 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply

I find a couple of things worth digging into on that Atlas Society article on Trump. 




There is a legitimate argument about a closed versus an open border.  A person, like me, can be infavor of stopping illegal immigration and reforming the immigration system, and not be a racist or nativist.  I'm totally opposed to Trump, but wanted to point out that even though some of the people supporting Trump may be racist or nativist, there are many who are not.  Also, I'd point out that Trump might not even stand by his claim that he will build a wall and round up all illegals - those might be total lies.




This is purely a play on people too stupid to realize that a trade war will destroy their economy.  It is just another area where he is saying what will get a base riled up.


Tradition and Faith:


Trump is one of the least traditional in his values and has simply told the voters that he is a religious person.  A great many evangelicals split off for him, but I think it has NOTHING to do with religion (since he isn't religious) and everything to do with those people who are comfortable with making non-rational decisions.  His supporters simply take him on faith - which is what they do with other parts of their lives,  They stand by him, faithfully, even on when he is caught flip-flopping from one day to another.


Gun sales have never been higher.  Why?  Obama.  Everytime he talks about gun control, people stream into the gun stores.


In a similar fashion, we can say that angry, outsider candidates are the most popular.  Why?  The Republican establishment has never been as hated. The Tea Party, a grass-roots uprising, sent people to Washington - taking the House and then the Senate.  The elected candidates promised that they would do whatever it took to reduce government spending, reduce regulations, and repeal ObamaCare.  They did nothing, apart from lying, and Trump is pretending that he doesn't lie.


The problem is not the anger at Washington - that's a good thing - it is that a segment of the population acts on emotion without an understanding of the minimal level of political or economic principles needed to be effective.


A President Trump would be a disaster. His instincts are dictatorial: he views the job as being CEO of the country, but a CEO is like an emperor, not a constitutional executive in a system of separated powers. A President Trump could significantly increase state control over us, expanding the powers of the Presidency and corrupting the rule of law, all for the sake of goals that will make most of us suffer greater poverty and insecurity. That is a recipe for destroying the American spirit, not making the country truly great.


Couldn't agree more.

Post to this thread

User ID Password or create a free account.