14 thoughts on “I Side With…”

  1. I hate Trump slightly less than Hillary, so I may be biased toward Thiel’s case. That said, a person who believes in other multi-century-old institutions of American governance, official and unofficial, APART from the presidency, might be inclined to suppose those institutions would be invigorated and united in opposition to a Trump presidency in ways that a Hillary presidency could never ever begin to emulate.

  3. Rand: Did you leave out the “84%” in your anchor text?

    I know that people argue against Johnson/Weld as being only spoiler candidates, and that a vote for them is a vote against whichever mainstream candidate they think you should be voting for instead, but supposing that they do become viable candidates (a realistic possibility), then what bothers the people here the most about them?

    Are many people here troubled by their “Socially Tolerant” stances? Is leaving the question of abortion up to the woman in question a problem for you? Is Marriage Equality something that you still want fought against?

    The biggest concern I have had is that Johnson might be soft on defense. I agree with him that much of our foreign adventurism of late has been counterproductive, but I do think there is a roll for NATO, and am not sure how strongly he would stand behind the alliance. (Not that Trump is reassuring there.)

    What concerns do the rest of you have?

    1. My biggest concern with Johnson is on foreign policy, but I’m also concerned that he thinks that the government should force cake artists to create art that violates their conscience. That’s not very libertarian.

    2. I oppose Johnson and Weld because Johnson, at least, is an open borders absolutist. He said so on a radio interview I heard a couple months back.

      I also oppose his views about American military interventions abroad. Obama has been very “Libertarian” in that respect and there is nowhere this policy has not made matters worse than they were when he took office.

      I also agree with Rand that Johnson’s libertarianism seems to be pretty hit or miss. I suspect that’s because he’s not really a libertarian. He’s more an antique liberal Republican of the Nelson Rockefeller/John Lindsay type.

      I don’t know what the Libertarian Party’s seeming fascination with “heirloom Republicans” is all about, but it definitely exists. Johnson is a 50’s-era liberal Republican. Ron Paul, a previous Libertarian presidential candidate, was pretty much a 30’s-era America Firster.

      Perhaps I should hope this proclivity reaches even further back to the founding years of the Republican Party when ending slavery was the big issue of the day. I could certainly get behind a Libertarian who wanted to march off to the strains of ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic’ to end slavery in the Middle East. Never gonna happen, of course.

      1. March off to battle Middle East slavery with who, Mr. Eagleson? Members of the US military who signed up to defend America? And if they don’t want to go, do we court martial them? And is this important enough to you to conscript soldiers for the task?

        That is the main problem with our “adventurous” foreign wars, that while we have a volunteer military, the ones who sign up can find themselves anywhere, fighting for anything that some politician finds temporarily important or diverting. Hence the libertarian call to only use our military to defend Americans in America.

        At least let us go back to the old ways, where a congress had to declare war, so the soldiers knew what their mission was and knew that the country was fully behind them.

        But if you want to free slaves in the Middle East, great! Put your money where your mouth is. Start a Kickstarter campaign to hire mercenaries for the purpose; where they go and for how long would depend on the amount raised and proven success would likely lead to more funding. Heck, I’d throw in fifty bucks. That would be the American way.

        That would be the libertarian way.

  4. 92% with Trump, 85% Darrel Castle [who??], 83% Gary Johnson.
    And descending order, Jill Stein [21%], Bernie Sanders [17%], and Hillary [11%}

  5. I side with…
    Donald Trump 91%
    Gary Johnson 86%
    Bernie Sanders 17%
    Hillary Clinton 16%
    Jill Stein 11%

  7. Really Trent, you know it is just compulsory attendance at a polling place to get your name crossed off, but yes, it is an obnoxious thing.
    Ah, Australia, everything is either compulsory or prohibited.

  9. A thought occurs to me: at the moment I probably agree with Hillary’ and Obama’s stated views on (for instance) Putin rather than Trump’s.

    BUT: Hillary and Obama are willing to state those views while writing Iran a 150 billion dollar check that paid for Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria. So: THEY don’t agree with their stated views if you look at their actions rather than their statements. And counting Johnson and Stein, I’m stuck with four candidates who are markedly more pro-Putin than I am.

    The only people in the West who have actually hindered Putin are a bunch of frackers in rural Texas who are about to be evicted from their trailers based on dumping by the Sauds and Democratic energy policies that I suspect Trump isn’t going to reverse. I’m beginning to think a big problem with the US is that BosWash is downhill from all the Russias… I mean flyover states.

    ANYWAY, to return to the original topic: add this all together, and the quiz only proves what the quiz-writer wants it to prove. All the candidates are standing on a stack of lies of one sort or another. We find out what Trump’s real policies are after we elect him. And the receipts handed out by the Clinton Foundation have more to do with what Clinton’s going to do than the party platform.

Comments are closed.