Time and again, Mr. Trump appears to maintain a strong following among angelicals, particularly the politically active bloc.
True, but in fairness how many of those vote Republican because the Democrat candidate (whoever they may be) is the antichrist incarnate and, well, everybody knows Jesus would vote Republican because, well, duh.
I think you're exaggerating just a WEE bit. I don't believe the Democratic Party is the spawning ground of the antichrist. But, yes, by and large, they do seem to support many "liberal" and "progressive" policies. Which, as far as I can tell, the vast majority of which is very ungodly and immoral.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could not conscionably vote for either this election, and no longer see virtue in tossing the vote away by going third party. The notion of choice is absurd these days- I have the option of voting a demonstrably high-risk administration into power, period. Both parties invoke religious, Christian themes to garner equally vague support from the church community and both resort to cheap mudslinging in the name of God. Saying one is prolife won't get one into heaven anymore.
I know, it's just the way some people talk you'd think their candidate was practically the Christ come again and The Other Guy was practically the devil incarnate. In a lot of ways some of the liberal and progressive policies are little more than about people being given free choices, much like God gives us free choices. He tells us not to do something but leaves it up to us whether to obey or not. It's curious to see the way the right increasingly tends towards economic freedom but Nanny State interfering in our private lives, while the left increasingly tends towards private and personal freedom but Nanny State interfering in our economic lives. In many ways I think that if the right were to just learn to mind their own business and stop fussing over what consenting adults are doing in private they would become a lot more attractive. As things stand an objection to right-leaning policies I hear more and more seems to relate to things like gay rights and why they are so obsessed with which bathroom people use. I can't help thinking that if the right proposed some sensible policies (e.g. individual cubicles with decent screening so all bathrooms could become unisex and nobody would need to worry about who was in the next cubicle or what they were doing) that catered for everyone they could create a clear divide between themselves and the left without sacrificing the 99% on the altar of the 1%. As things stand on the transgender bathroom issue those on the left are effectively saying the 99% can just learn to deal with it because the 1% can't be subjected to anything they dislike, and those on the right are saying the 1% can deal with it because the 99% are the majority. Why not create something where nobody has to deal with it, throw up some walls for privacy and everybody gets treated exactly the same? It may seem odd to folks in the US, just as it did when they first appeared in the UK (they still aren't anywhere near universal in the UK, probably because existing infrastructure takes time to replace), but anything that truly treats people the same can surely only be a good thing. Where things like gay marriage is concerned, instead of banging the drum about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", why not focus on the role of the state in the first place and reduce the secular benefits of marriage? If a couple wants to call their relationship a marriage leave them to it, in the meantime tweak the way government works so we don't end up with all sorts of stupid mismatches where two elderly sisters living together end up with a tax situation that's a world apart from two elderly lesbians living together. There's no point fighting battles that are ultimately little more than semantics, so rather than sticking to something largely arbitrary and defending it as if it were a last stand, dodge the battle completely and focus on the underlying issues.
The big problem with this idea of "tossing the vote away" is that it's the kind of self-perpetuating meme that results in the two-party system continuing a stranglehold on the nation's politics. If there's a growing group of people unsatisfied with the status quo but refusing to kick the system because a vote for the third party is effectively a vote for the opposition nothing will ever change. What I'd really like to see is enough people willing to give the system a good kick that they do vote third party in great numbers, even if only as a protest vote. If a candidate like the Green or Libertarian suddenly got 20% of the vote or so it would be a wake-up call to the establishment and embolden more people to vote third party at the next election. It would be a shame if the third party votes were overwhelmingly supported by people who would normally vote one way, splitting the vote for their guy and effectively handing the election to the other guy but if a third party candidate really does represent a new way of doing things they would hopefully appeal to both sides. I always think the libertarian perspective blends the economic freedom promised by the right with the personal freedom offered by the left, so the real question is whether the right can tolerate the personal freedom and whether the left can tolerate the economic freedom. You'll always get the hardcore types who refuse to budge on anything but I can't help thinking that in terms of a football field the two main parties are increasingly moving towards the endzones and a party like the libertarians are more or less in the middle, the main question being how much of each half they could realistically expect to take. From what I see online it looks like Gary Johnson is polling at ~20% in some states, nowhere near enough to unseat Donald or Hillary but I'd have thought enough to encourage people to regard him as a potentially viable third party candidate.
I have increasingly considered Johnson and my support would actually be more positive for him, as opposed to negative against the leading candidates.
Gotta admire this kid: http://www.kmov.com/story/32807204/12-year-old-running-trump-campaign-office-in-colorado
Here is a summary of his policies (wiki, FWIW) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson I noticed some of them appear a few years out of date. 43% budget cuts across the board Goodbye medicare/medicaid Free market solves everything Screw regulations Like most libertarians he seems to have some complete failure of understanding human nature.
I'm really, really hoping voters will take a hint and start voting third (or fourth or fifth) party in earnest this election year. I think this year's presidential candidate situation is merely a logical result of 200 years of the 2-party system that has run its course and there's no fixing it; there's only changing it. While I highly doubt that's going to make a difference in this presidential election, because people are so very entrenched already, it certainly will make a difference at the local and state levels, which will ultimately feed into the federal level and begin to affect true and lasting change. Because this constant flipping back and forth between the same 2 flavors of poo that somehow both try and convince people they are at less stinky than the other side, has got to stop at some point. I'll take neither. Thanks! Seriously. Because they both stink! And you can bet that's going to be reflected in my vote this year, and every election year. Which (granted) may actually not make a discernible difference in national politics, but it certainly will make a difference in me being able to sleep at night, after having voted in actual good conscience, rather than having to douse myself with rubbing alcohol afterwards to get the slime off that is "voting for the lesser of 2 evils" or somesuch justification people manage to delude themselves with. I don't have the energy for those kinds of mental gymnastics, sorry. 8)
A truly free market can solve a lot of things. Basic human nature is the kind of thing that rises up to bite political frameworks in all sorts of ways but the idea of a bigger government faces the same problems of fighting human nature. The more government tries to regulate the more people fight to be free; the more government tries to tax the more people will try and avoid paying the tax, and so on. A full-blown "screw regulations" approach isn't helpful because in many ways anarchy and totalitarianism are much the same, it's just a question of who is in charge. But cutting down on endless regulations would seem like a good idea. Just look at things like the side of a bottle of vitamins, that lists the benefits of taking vitamins but just about every statement is appended with an asterisk to advise that the statement has not been evaluated by the FDA and the product is not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease. Look at the insanely convoluted tax systems in desperate need of an overhaul. Where I live I have to file a federal tax return, a state tax return (that contains much the same numbers but with slightly different rules so I have to go through everything again), then a local earned income tax return. Then there's property tax paid twice yearly, a per capita tax paid twice yearly, a local self-employment tax that only cuts in once my self-employment income goes over a certain threshold (but in the next town the threshold is different, as is the tax). When I needed to ask a question about the federal tax forms and called the IRS helpline they couldn't answer my question over what a form meant and suggested I "seek professional advice". That's right, the IRS can't tell me what the question on the IRS form means but think a firm of accountants might be able to do better. If I want to buy milk that hasn't been processed in some way it's nigh on impossible to do it. The local stores carry homogenized milk, milk enriched with this vitamin or that mineral or whatever, but if I want someone to squeeze a cow and pasteurize it I'm out of luck. I could probably buy raw milk from an Amish farmer but if I want something pasteurized but otherwise left alone, no can do. If I want to go and buy a bottle of beer that's another minefield. I can buy a single 22oz bottle but not a single 12oz bottle. I can buy a six-pack from some retailers but they can't sell me more than 192oz at a time, or I can go to a distributor but they can only sell me a case. If I want to buy a six-pack of beer and a bottle of wine I can't do that in one place, I have to go to the beer retailer and then find a wine retailer. More regulations that appear to achieve nothing except maintaining some kind of stranglehold on the market. I certainly don't want to see all regulations washed away because I don't want to live in a place like Somalia. But neither do I want endless rules and regulations because I don't want to live in North Korea either.
I think I'm going to vote for Trump. Not because I think he's "the One," the semi-Messianic term Oprah infamously dubbed President Obama with while he was running for office, but because Trump at least has some good ideas in principle. Clinton, like most liberals, would love to amend the Constitution for all kinds of nefarious reasons, among them to do things like get rid of the right to bear arms. Trump is fine with the Constitution as is. Trump is for more border security, Clinton currently is not...even though years ago she was fine with a wall along the Mexican border, too. Do some research. I watched a video where she stated such. However, somehow, she's not racist for saying such but Trump is. : Not that I own a gun, or even desire to own a gun, but I really don't like the idea of a government like ours trying to disarm it's citizenry, especially when the founding fathers bluntly indicated it's citizens may need a means to protect itself from a corrupt government. Yes, I know. It' a very unpleasant thing to think about American citizens using guns to fight against a military force that would probably win anyway, but the Constitution allows for it. Leave it alone. I just cannot stand how hypocritical Clinton and her supporters are. What "hypocritical" things about Clinton and her supporters can't I stand? How about the fact that Clinton and her supporters calls Trump "racist," despite him not really saying anything racist, but I've done some digging on Clinton and found all kinds of actual racist things she has said and done and she gets a free pass. Sorry, sometimes Trump does have a problem with tact, but I've seen nothing inherently racist in anything he's said. He said illegal Mexican immigrants, not those here legally or those born here, shouldn't be here. I agree with him. He's not being racist. He doesn't care that illegal Mexicans are Mexican (if he did, that would be racist), he cares that they're here illegally. Let's be honest, shall we? There are all kinds of problems with illegal immigrants being here. They're a drain on our welfare system. They take jobs, and not just the "crappy ones nobody wants, anyway." Many, if not most, commit some form of identity theft. They often work "under the table" and don't pay into the tax system. Yes, many are hardworking and mostly decent people on a personal level, but there are also some who are criminals and involved in violent crime and drug dealing, etc. The United States already has plenty of citizens that cause problems here. Should we really be ok with allowing more trouble to come here by means of illegal immigrants to add to the problem? ??? Also, like Trump, I like the idea of people wanting to come here from nations known for hotbeds of Islamic terrorism not being allowed here until a thorough background check has been done on them to make sure they don't have ties with terrorist organizations, especially since many terrorist organizations openly brag that they have plans on infiltrating our country to attack us. Wanting background checks is not "Islamophobic." It's just being smart. Sorry that I don't want to see another 9/11. I know, that must make me a horrible person, right? I can't stand liberalism and Clinton is a liberal. I can't stand socialism and she's a socialist. Despite any issues I have with Trump, and I do have a few, I'll still pick him over her any day. And, no, it's not because Clinton has a vagina, either. I get real tired of that claim by Clinton supporters. : I have no problem with a female President. But I certainly have a problem with her being President...
If I was a citizen, I'd be voting Johnson, without question. Clinton doesn't represent my ideals, has too questionable a history, an appalling link between the government and her foundation, and scary, scary, scary friends. Also, its hard to tell what she believes. Liberals spin that as "capacity to change her mind". I'm more like John Steward: What does she *actually * believe? Trump is the same on the waffling. He says yes and no to the same things with such absolute language, its hard to know what he's doing besides making a power play. He's confused the words brazen and courageous, demonstrated an absolutely petty attitude to detractors, and gushes over characters like Putin for the most passing compliments. I can easily imagine the heavy boot of government landing squarely on my neck under both of those candidates. Johnson on the other hand, seems to have a clear agenda. I think Johnson at the head, with the two other branches of government running as normal today is the best possible outcome for the next 4 - 8 years. Further, it will likely produce a *centrist* Supreme Court, which will do a ton to restore people's confidence in institutions in this country. Oh, Johnson didn't know what Aleppo was? Good thing we have Secretaries of State for that. Also, maybe its time we give the world what its been wishing for for ages: a world where Russia and China demonstrate *their* values globally, while we get some much needed attention at home.
You can't vote only because you are from Canuckistan. Where you live, if only you were dead... Then you could vote, early and often. ;.;.
Buddy, I live in Chicago, where *every* election cycle, Democratic canvasers assure me that my not being a citizen should pose no problem at voting time.
Right? I mean, why should only American citizens be allowed to vote in American elections? Hell, let's give Chinese and Mexican citizens some ballots and let them vote in our elections, too. After all, shouldn't they be allowed to decide how Americans live? Hmm. Maybe I can vote in their elections, too. No? Are you sure?
Hey, you could then take the free bus, get a free pancake breakfast, then go to the after voting bbq and concert before your ride home.