Never Have We Had a Better Crop of Lemons

[GunnyFreedom]

Suppose that there were two candidates running, Bob and Jones.

Bob is a strict Constitutionalist, except on gay marriage. He will repeal all unconstitutional laws if he wins, except those pertaining to gay marriage.

Jones is a strict Constitutionalist, no exceptions. If he wins, he will repeal all unconstitutional laws, including those pertaining to gay marriage.

If you vote for Bob, he will win, and all unconstitutional laws will be repealed, except those pertaining to gay marriage.

If you vote for Jones, he will lose, and no unconstitutional laws will be repealed.

For whom will you vote?

You are setting up a false dilemma. Your query assumes that one of the candidates running today would enforce most of the Constitution. Your premise is incorrect from the foundation, and therefore your syllogism does not apply. My opposition in GJ's case is to the perversion of the Constitution. I would rather have someone to ignore the Constitution than to pervert it.

I get it. Such things are not important to some people. They are important to me. Don't like it? Tough. If the LP wants my vote, then they will refrain from nominating someone who perverts the Constitution. Why is this so hard to grasp?

[Origanalist]

Suppose that there were two candidates running, Bob and Jones.

Bob is a strict Constitutionalist, except on gay marriage. He will repeal all unconstitutional laws if he wins, except those pertaining to gay marriage.

Jones is a strict Constitutionalist, no exceptions. If he wins, he will repeal all unconstitutional laws, including those pertaining to gay marriage.

If you vote for Bob, he will win, and all unconstitutional laws will be repealed, except those pertaining to gay marriage.

If you vote for Jones, he will lose, and no unconstitutional laws will be repealed.

For whom will you vote?

Except Bob won't win either, and he won't repeal all unconstitutional laws except for gay marriage.

[GunnyFreedom]

How about McAfee?

I like McAfee. I like him a lot. He is right down the line on philosophy, and while he is ignorant of the Constitution in some places, ignorant of the Constitution is a way, way, way, way, way smaller sin then the perversion of the Constitution.

[r3volution 3.0]

Except Bob won't win either, and he won't repeal all unconstitutional laws except for gay marriage.

The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate the insanity of sticking to principle when the practical effect of doing so moves reality further from your own ideals.

[GunnyFreedom]

The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate the insanity of sticking to principle when the practical effect of doing so moves reality further from your own ideals.

YOUR ideals. Not mine.

[Origanalist]

The point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate the insanity of sticking to principle when the practical effect of doing so moves reality further from your own ideals.

Oh muh gerd, we just went through all that with the Trump crowd. You're really not trying to run that by me now are you?

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh muh gerd, we just went through all that with the Trump crowd. You're really not trying to run that by me now are you?

Like I said up top. Sounds like he got infected by a Trumpaloompa. :-/ LOL I don't know what is going on anymore.

[r3volution 3.0]

You are setting up a false dilemma. Your query assumes that one of the candidates running today would enforce most of the Constitution. Your premise is incorrect from the foundation, and therefore your syllogism does not apply.

It wasn't meant to reflect the current situation.

See my post above to Origanalist.

My opposition in GJ's case is to the perversion of the Constitution. I would rather have someone to ignore the Constitution than to pervert it.

I get it. Such things are not important to some people. They are important to me. Don't like it? Tough. If the LP wants my vote, then they will refrain from nominating someone who perverts the Constitution. Why is this so hard to grasp?

What I want to know (what the hypothetical was designed to tease out), was whether your top priority is restoring the Constitution or voting for a strict constructionist, in cases where the latter is not the best means of achieving the former.

[GunnyFreedom]

It wasn't meant to reflect the current situation.

See my post above to Origanalist.



What I want to know (what the hypothetical was designed to tease out), was whether your top priority is restoring the Constitution or voting for a strict constructionist, in cases where the latter is not the best means of achieving the former.

What I want, is to elect someone who WANTS to obey the Constitution. Someone can know only one line of it, but want to uphold it; and someone else can know it inside and out, but he is willing to stretch and pervert bits of it according to his will.

I will pick the guy who only knows one line of it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh muh gerd, we just went through all that with the Trump crowd. You're really not trying to run that by me now are you?

I've never been a purist: i.e. someone who will vote for a candidate only if they agree with him 100%.

If I had been, I wouldn't have voted for either Ron or Rand.

You supported Rand, correct? Were his views identical to yours on every issue?

If not, then you're not a purist either.

You're willing to make compromises to increase the odds of actually achieving some of your goals.

Of course, that doesn't mean you make just any compromise. And that's where prioritizing issues comes in.

As for Trump, LOL, I don't even see supporting him as too much of a compromise; I see no benefit at all in voting for him.

A quid with no quo.

[r3volution 3.0]

What I want, is to elect someone who WANTS to obey the Constitution. Someone can know only one line of it, but want to uphold it; and someone else can know it inside and out, but he is willing to stretch and pervert bits of it according to his will.

I will pick the guy who only knows one line of it.

Well, we have very different ideas about the purpose of political action.

[GunnyFreedom]

I didn't think this was such a confusing principle. What have children been learning over the last 25 years?

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, we have very different ideas about the purpose of political action.

Apparently, and too bad. If you get hooked up with the LP just remember, if you want my vote don't nominate anyone who plays fast and loose with the Constitution, and then I just might take a look. If they do nominate someone who plays fast and loose with the Constitution, then they simply do not want my vote. It's a pretty easy to apply standard, and it works well for me.

[r3volution 3.0]

And just to clarify something, which may have gotten lost in the mix:

Voting LP over CP isn't a compromise for a libertarian (such as myself). The LP is closer to libertarianism than the CP.

The compromise in question would be for Constitutionalists to vote LP over CP.

[r3volution 3.0]

And another thing, that anyone would even think to compare a Constitutionalist compromising to vote for the 99.99% Constitutionalist Libertarian Party with a libertarian compromising to vote for the 100% unlibertarian Donald Trump....

Well...

[afwjam]

Simple, vote or don't vote your principles.

[GunnyFreedom]

And just to clarify something, which may have gotten lost in the mix:

Voting LP over CP isn't a compromise for a libertarian (such as myself). The LP is closer to libertarianism than the CP.

The compromise in question would be for Constitutionalists to vote LP over CP.

As I said, the CP won't even be on my ballot. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

[GunnyFreedom]

And another thing, that anyone would even think to compare a Constitutionalist compromising to vote for the 99.99% Constitutionalist Libertarian Party with a libertarian compromising to vote for the 100% unlibertarian Donald Trump....

Well...

The Constitution is not important to you. Bully for you!

The Constitution is important to me. Now I'm an idiot.

Funny how that works.

[r3volution 3.0]

As I said, the CP won't even be on my ballot. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.

...my whole point is that, of the two libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative type parties (LP and CP), LP is the practical choice this cycle.

And I hope that CP people can overlook the LP's minor deviations from Constitutionalism to join with us.

That is the best way to advance their own goals.

If this doesn't apply to you, well okay.

What are you going to do BTW, write-in?

[r3volution 3.0]

The Constitution is not important to you. Bully for you!

The Constitution is important to me. Now I'm an idiot.

Funny how that works.

It's important to me, though less so than libertarianism.

The two mostly overlap, but where they diverge I'll choose libertarianism.

In any event, advancing either is best served by supporting the LP this year.

[GunnyFreedom]

...my whole point is that, of the two libertarian/constitutionalist/conservative type parties (LP and CP), LP is the practical choice this cycle.

And I hope that CP people can overlook the LP's minor deviations from Constitutionalism to join with us.

If this doesn't apply to you, well okay.

What are you going to do BTW, write-in?

Inventing fake "rights" out of whole cloth and arguing that they are Constitutional is not a "minor deviation" it is a deal killer. We got where we are today by people subverting the Constitution. Subverting it even further will not help to get us out from under this mess. Why would I vote to make things even worse than they already are?

[r3volution 3.0]

Inventing fake "rights" out of whole cloth and arguing that they are Constitutional is not a "minor deviation" it is a deal killer.

We're still talking about gay marriage, right?

If so, yes, that's minor.

Very very minor.

In comparison to say, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, EPA, FDA, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Education, etc, etc.

^^things on which LP and CP see eye to eye, but which the LP is better able to fight

[GunnyFreedom]

It's important to me, though less so than libertarianism.

The two mostly overlap, but where they diverge I'll choose libertarianism.

In any event, advancing either is best served by supporting the LP this year.

Advancing a further perversion of the US Constitution does not in any way, shape, or form advance my interests. It only continues the ongoing destruction whereby the United States is being destroyed. If you want to recruit people to help destroy the United States, then look elsewhere. I will not be helping that cause.

[GunnyFreedom]

We're still talking about gay marriage, right?

We could be talking about pink fluffy unicorns farting rainbows and the argument would be the same. The topic is irrelevant.

If so, yes, that's minor.

Very very minor.

You think so. I do not believe that subverting the Constitution is ever "minor."

In comparison to say, the Fed, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, EPA, FDA, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Education, etc, etc.

We got all that stuff because of people like you willing to subvert the Constitution in the first place. Subverting it further will only lead to more of that stuff.

^^things on which LP and CP see eye to eye, but which the LP is better able to fight

Muh 2%.

[GunnyFreedom]

If I reject Party Loyalty as a valid argument for 49% of the vote, then what makes you think I would accept Party Loyalty as a valid argument for 2% of the vote?

[r3volution 3.0]

Advancing a further perversion of the US Constitution does not in any way, shape, or form advance my interests.

Does growing the liberty movement advance your interests?

Would it not increase the odds of you succeeding in restoring Constitutional government in the future?

We could be talking about pink fluffy unicorns farting rainbows and the argument would be the same. The topic is irrelevant.

So you don't have any priorities?

If you could choose between repealing unconstitutional marriage laws and repealing the Federal Reserve Act, you would do nothing, unable to decide?

These issues are of equal importance?

You think so. I do not believe that subverting the Constitution is ever "minor."

Again, priorities.

We got all that stuff because of people like you willing to subvert the Constitution in the first place. Subverting it further will only lead to more of that stuff.

Except we're not talking about suberting it further. Exactly the oppoosite.

We're talking about voting for the 99.99% constitutional party because it will do more to actually advance constitutionalism than the 100% constitutional party.

Muh 2%.

Better than muh 0.1%, with no ballot access in more than half the country.

In a way, this is all kind of silly. Both options are extreme long shots. But the LP is nonetheless a bit better positioned to do something productive.

If I reject Party Loyalty as a valid argument for 49% of the vote, then what makes you think I would accept Party Loyalty as a valid argument for 2% of the vote?

Who said anything about party loyalty? I have zero loyalty to the LP.

...just as I have zero loyalty to the GOP, with whom I registered to vote for Rand in the primaries.

I want to support the party who will most advance the libertarian cause.

Currently, that's the LP.

If it were the CP, I'd support them without a second thought.

[acptulsa]

Okaaaaaaay....

Did anyone watch that Darrel Castle vid? Does anyone have an opinion on his speaking voice, his charisma, his relative merits to other candidates?

What about a McAfee/Castle unity ticket? If we can't use Johnson's actual political experience as a selling point because he once expressed an opinion on a deliberately engineered wedge issue--a thing designed to keep intelligent and principled voters all stirred up and useless while the idiots gather in a herd and run freaking wild--then can we combine McAfee's name recognition and charisma with Castle's--what, exactly?

That would be Question Two. Does Castle bring anything to the table but a healthy respect for the Constitution, a handful of die hard CP fans and nice suits?

[Bern]

acptulsa - I did not watch the vid (yet?). I don't know who Darrel Castle is, but IMO, the reality is that he is (currently) a nobody. No one outside of a very narrow slice of America knows his name. The fictional Frank Castle character would likely get more votes than the real Darrel Castle based upon the popularity of Netflix's Daredevil TV show IMO.

McAfee has already chosen a VP candidate (a move that I've repeatedly mentioned in these forums as a mistake). I don't see how he dumps his current VP running mate to bring Mr. Castle on board. I don't see McAfee agreeing to be anyone elses VP running mate either.

Darrel Castle might be that rare, powerhouse political figure whose charisma, gravitas on the issues and political acumen in pivoting/sparring with the media attracts masses of followers, but I doubt it. Such people are exceedingly rare.

If the LP chooses a ticket this year comprised of candidates without wealth or broad name recognition, they will be flushing a golden opportunity down the toilet. Likely GOP and Dem candidates have historically high negatives and are already busy trying to further tear the other down. There is a small window of opportunity for an LP candidate to establish some credibility with the media and get included in some polling. Any candidate could be awesome if given a platform to reach the masses, but there is a bit of a catch 22 in reality. You have to have some angle to get on the stage.

$.02

[acptulsa]

Well, Gunny said this seems to be the cycle for clowns. And it certainly has been so far. I think I smell a backlash. I think this is the year an anti-clown could go far. For that reason, and for his practical, yet outsider (governor of a very sparsely populated state two thousand miles from D.C.) experience, and yes, for his crossover positions (bear with me) I like Johnson. I think he takes the non-clown thing a little far. There are times I'd like to stick a cattle prod up his rump to get him energized. But he might just do, if the perfect storm develops. I'd rather have Ron Paul, if the old man doesn't mind four more years of service to his country, but Johnson would do in a perfect storm.

Because, you see, if we can expose the WWE cage match soap opera script behind this amazingly scripted election, expose the engineering behind flooding the field with halfway reasonable choices so that the one who gets the most media coverage wins, and expose how completely all of these forces (even Fox, though they worked at camouflaging their role in the thing) are coordinating to put Clinton over and if a million other things happen to make the conditions just right, we could trigger the perfect storm. And like drawing a card to a potential straight flush, you have to draw the card. You have to give yourself a chance to win.

They are insulting our intelligence. We have to try one more time to wise people up. This time, it's enough to piss intelligent people off.

Now, in order to make this work, someone has to put forth some kind of alternative that almost anyone who is now disgusted with the duopoly can at least hold their nose and vote for them. The siren song of draining the Washington swamp and turning things over to the states does have some appeal even for the commies at this point. But the siren song of peace is the clincher.

As far as abortion goes, well, this battle could make that one easier eventually. Anti-abortion people have been lied to and given promises so often over the last forty years that I certainly won't make any. But there are so many other problems that just can't wait--and because of that, the political noise is so loud right now that I'm not sure it could be heard anyway. Besides, he could pick a VP that doesn't agree with him on the subject. You never know. So, I have to say, maybe this is the bit of pandering that gets the Sanders people on board, and try to live with it. Though I like Ron Paul's platform more.

The thing is, I want to make the LP appealing to Sanders peaceniks who don't want to vote for That Warmongering Bitch. Because when they do settle on a third party, and I'm betting that they do, when they do I might have to vote with them. And I really, really don't want to vote for the Greens. I really, really don't. I'd feel guilty about the people of West Virginia if I did. But I'd feel guiltier about the people of the Middle East if I didn't.

No, I'd rather follow the lemmings to the peaceniks of the LP. But, of course, I realize that, in order to make that possible, we are going to have to herd the lemmings to the LP.

Well, cowboys? Even if we're only drawing to an inside straight? What do you say?

[cajuncocoa]

@acptulsa This cowgirl is on board with your proposal. To the concerns some will have about the abortion issue, I would remind them that the perfect opportunity existed for 6 years under uber-conservative George W. Bush, the evangelical's favorite president. He did nothing. I'm convinced the GOP doesn't really want to do anything, because as soon as they lose that, there's no other reason for anti-abortion voters to continue to vote for their candidates. If they're not going to do anything, there's no reason NOW. So, do something different. Vote Libertarian.