SteveWolfer

Michael, we've been friends for a long time and that makes this on-going argument about Trump uncomfortable. I'm going to follow Stephen Boydston's lead and exit till sometime after the election.

Very true. There are some very bright people (twisted maybe) who sit around in the Hillary campaign gaming tactics... and progressives like to demonize and they are good at putting out bait, anticipating responses, then closing the trap. This is what they do. They have a goal, they marshal resources, they plan out moves, and they know that a theme, like a marketing campaign, needs lots of hits for it to become a meme, then a deep belief, than a viewing prism.

So, if the father says something that is immature, it is okay for the candidate for president to say something immature? You say, "If I wanted to snark..." you then do snark and then you say you won't snark. What kind of argument is that. I'm not altruistic. If you disagree, and seriously think I made some point that arises out an altruism that you believe I harbor, then man-up and make an intelligible argument to that end. I don't mind condescending, which is what that seemed like (I don't like it) but I'd sure rather have arguments that can be addressed and not sneak attacks. Clearly this is not an environment for saying anything negative about anything Trumpian.

If Johnson is courting anyone, for money or votes or to get into the debates, by advocating the appointment of a Supreme Court justice who is big government, then he has sold out - lost his integrity. Or he has eaten so many brownies that he mind doesn't make enough connections anymore to see where he is relative to where libertarian principles are. I still think that Neocons would only support him in hopes of throwing the election to the house, or to Hillary if they think she will fight the wars they favor. In the later case, that is but another sign that politics is now a train that has left the tracks - "principles! I don't need no stinking principles!"

Michael, I didn't have you in mind. But I have to say that I see an emotional intensity in many Trump supporters that appears to drive their arguments. I see emotion first, then use of the reason to create some justifying rhetoric. They seem to almost never see anything negative about Trump. They are all on the Trump train as opposed to saying something like, "I wish Trump would do this, or not do that, but I'll vote for him anyway" - instead they appear to see every single thing he says in a favorable way, they have endless explanations for what they think Donald will actually do when elected. They always explain what he has said when others say it is vague and their explanations are sometimes so out of thin air as to be embarrassing. Most of the arguments and explanations are justifications rather than principles. I don't know Dr. Hurd, or who he is, or what he has written. I just know what I took out of his explanations of Trump's way of dealing with the Muslim mother and father. I didn't see his explanation of that incident as coming from an objective place. And I was clear about how I thought it could have been handled. Consistent, on-going disagreements between parties, neither of which are 'retards,' will mean something. One side is likely to be ignoring some glaring error in their processing. Phrasing may or may not become heated, or condescending, or off the top, but there is still that likelihood that at least one side isn't thinking critically.

Judges around the country have been overturning state laws requiring voter ID. In Virginia, the governor, a long-time Hillary operative and former chair of the DNC has issued an executive order to let felons vote. Not enough time to get any of these reversed by the tattered remains of the Supreme Court (as if that would happen). The progressives are on an all out push to get undocumented aliens to vote, felons to vote, and even get some of the base to vote two or three times. They are targeting key swing states. All in all, I think we are living in that period of history where a great transition takes place. Liberty had been fought for and won with emancipation and suffrage, but then it was going the other way and slowly taken away law by law, regulation by regulation, and now I think we are at a pivot point where the democratic election of representatives and the president and the application of law will all become a farce - a façade. Then open tyranny shouldn't be far down the road - easily assembled behind the facade.

It is a subtle attack, better called a "deflection" with some negative overtones. People who insist on seeing some of his attacks as "questions" or, saying he was attacked first, are just showing that they no longer look at any given incident objectively, regardless of their decision of who to vote for. The fact that Islamic culture is totally screwed up is so NOT the subject, that this must be seen as a deflection. There are only two issues here. There son's death, and Trump's "sacrifice" and he could have hit them head on. No deflection needed. I'm all for attacking Islamic traditions that force submission (on women, on gays, on non-believers, on all but fundamentalists), but not as the response to their son's death. That is like a child's argument. "Nobody saw me take any cookies. How do you know I took cookies. Besides, Tommy takes cookies all the time, why aren't you after him?"

Lots of Trump's "attacks" are indirect. Sort of a "just saying" or "reports are" type of attacks - National Enquirer stuff. For him, or at least his base, the unstated reference to that couple being Muslim is enough. It works as a deflection. He should have shown sympathy for them, ignored the guys attack on him, and turned it against Hillary. Their son was killed by terrorists and Obama and Hillary are the ones who have made the terrorism worse with their incompetence and failed policies. Hillary is politicizing this poor couple's grief. He will prevent this from happening in the future. He could have shown warmth and compassion, picked up women's votes, showed clear reasoning, and lashed Hillary. The Dems are good at baiting.

After showing that Johnson is either NOT really a libertarian or will say anything, the author writes one of my favorite lines: "Is Hillary Clinton the only candidate running this year who’s actually a member of her own party?" Well, as a progressive, she is, but at her level of corruption I'd say she is party of her own. Maybe historians will look back and say that this is the year that political principles were totally abandoned and it was visible in the way that parties broke down and fractured. ---------------------- The article's author attempts to make sense of Johnson saying he'd appoint a Stephen Breyer type to the Supreme Court. The author asks if maybe it is a strategic ploy by Johnson-Weld, and they are trying to attract votes that would otherwise go to one of the major party candidates. What? That just doesn't make sense. Or, maybe they are trying to look like the nice guys where Hillary and Donald are looking like the mean ones. "Nothing says 'reasonable' to independents and low-information voters quite like a moderate Republican turned libertarian endorsing Democratic justices." Seriously? What says "integrity"? What will happen is that about 12 people who were GOP will vote for Johnson as a nice guy, and about 13 registered Democrats will decide that Johnson has the right idea on the Supreme Court, and about 100,000 Libertarians will decide "Fuck it! I'm not voting for him." ------------ "If you’re #NeverTrump, your dilemma here is this: Do Johnson’s flirtations with the left make it impossible to vote for him, even though everyone understands that he’s never going to be in a position to act on those flirtations? If you’re thinking of casting a vote for a guy who can’t win, it doesn’t matter what his positions are, really. All that matters is whether he’s gone too far in muddling the message you want to send with that vote." Put a bit more straight forward: it isn't totally throwing your vote away as long as the vote represents the principles you demand. But, when that's not the case, the reason for heading to the polling booth is gone. ---------- "Johnson is, in theory, the candidate of smaller government; in practice, if he’s willing to entertain the idea of appointing another Breyer to the Court, then maybe he isn’t." I see only two explanations. Johnson has become someone who will say anything for a vote or for attention, or Johnson has been into the cannabis way, way to much and has come adrift. Simplifies my vote. Trump or stay home (actually, I'd go vote the down ticket)

Me too.

You don't think he wants to expand the boundaries or current Russia? Russia has lots of choices with Hillary - blackmail, bribe, or threaten force. I am a NeverHillary person. Still not a vote Trump person.

Putin and his intentions are upsetting. He wants to reinstitute the USSR. I don't have any great answers to these problems. As long as there are people like Islamic fundamentalist with regional power and money, as long as an ex-KGB thug like Putin wasn't to make Russia into another USSR, there won't be any easy answers. If there was a thug in a neighborhood that kept mugging people and robbing them, they wouldn't be tolerated. If most of the governments of the world were mature and rational they wouldn't tolerate the Islamic Theocracies, North Korea, Putin, etc. And it isn't our government's job to fix the world - only to protect us. Protecting us means deciding when and where to intervene. If it were up to me I'd intervene in Iran at this point. The rest... not sure.

Your suggestion?

I didn't say I was certain, I said, "I think the Koch brothers have integrity" - That's based upon watching an hour long interview with Charles Koch, reading their Wikipedia page, knowing where they put their political support money, and about some of their political campaigns - what evidence I do have says they have integrity. I have zero evidence to the contrary and I've already seen that the slur about supporting Hillary is phony. You've already participated in making a negative evaluation of them without evidence when you passed on that statement about them being globalists and cronies. I don't know why I'm the one trying defend men who aren't guilty of anything worse than not wanting to give money to Trump. This business of treating them like bad guys and suggesting that if the research were done it would prove them bad is not how I roll. I get the evidence first. Sorry, Michael, but this feels to me like the kind of argument I want no part of.

It is a slur until there is some reasonable evidence that would make it a fact.