Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
I have come to the idea that a contested convention means a break in the GOP. The people who are more moderate and fiscally conservative will probably go to the Libertarians and those who are religiously conservative can make a new party with the Democrats disenfranchised by Bernie.
Why don’t the Libertarians try finding a candidate who isn’t a clown and we could vote for that party for real?
This year, it will be a battle to outclown the major parties. Libertarians can’t catch a break.
That is definitely an option.
My current thinking is I will not be able to vote for Trump or Hillary. (Eventually I’ll probably explain in a new post.)
But I am so voting in November. Elections for House, Senate, TX Supreme Court, and heaven knows what else will give me decisions I can make in good conscience.
Viable third party candidate for President? I’ll have to see who it is.
Why not just be honest and vote directly for Hillary?
Glad you asked, because a protest non-vote indeed has that dreadful effect.
In my case I’m thinking there may be one or two Trumpisms that fit my description of the overrider to the general rule that one must act to prevent greater harm: “There is such a thing as evil so bad that contributing to it is inexcusable; and such a thing is to be avoided, even if the results of inaction are even worse than the results of contributing to evil.”
I will not for for Hillary or Trump, that said I will vote down ticket as I believe Hillary will win of Trump is nominated.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/how_hillary_beats_trump_9_steps_she_must_take_to_defeat_the_dangerous_demagogue_partner/
I’ll probably got libertarian of that is on the KY ballot. I hope enough like mine voters turn out to retain the Senate
(Can’t insert a link on my tablet)
This year and every year the appeal of libertarianism is the same: being principled with no accountability.
Because honesty can’t be seen from the cold dark “Trump is Hitler” corner that they find themselves painted into.
I may vote Libertarian, but I think it is more important to vote for Hillary this year.
Not that my vote matters in Ilinois.
I’ve heard plenty of stupid things from Trump but nothing so irredeemably bad that I could, in could conscience, participate in handing the election to Hillary. So far, at least, Trump still deserves the benefit of the doubt. Hillary does not, not after using her office to sell political favors and endangering the security of the country to avoid detection.
I have never understood this. There is both a moral and a mathematical differences between voting for a third party and voting for the opposition (in this case, Hillary).
Is it good from Hillary’s perspective if a Republican stays home or votes third party? Of course it is. But it’s significantly better from her perspective if he votes for her.
His remarks about intentionally unleashing the military on civilians, critiqued by David French on NationalReview.com, were what really struck me as strong candidates for something that irredeemably bad. (I’d be happy to be wrong somehow.)
(I’m toying with a few other things that might possibly be candidates, but my thoughts on them are too fresh in this regard to say anything with confidence.)
Bernie is already offering legalized pot, and with a Socialist, he might just get the government to buy it for you. So what does that leave for the Libertarians? Self-reliance and person responsibility? Lots of luck trying to sell that in an age of free stuff. As for me, I want a pony.
Constitution Party. They’re usually on the ballot in Washington State.
Right. I’m going to vote for the candidate whose official party position is open borders and unlimited immigration….
We cannot elect Hillary, so the issue is getting to the convention without a winner and nominating Cruz. We have to know what Trump would take to get behind our candidate. Any candidate other than Trump or Cruz would lose to Hillary. How do we capture Trump? He is a liberal, his instincts are liberal if he wins, how do we influence him? We need two court nominees, the rest we can live with as long as we don’t lose the Senate.
How about we all wait until the fall to make broad statements about lesser evils and not voting and such? We have a campaign to go through. Let it happen.
I am hopeful that once the nominee is selected and those whose candidate lost no longer have any hope or dreams left to be quashed, they will take a look at who is running and make an independent decision at that time. It makes perfect sense to me if someone concludes in November that they will not vote for either Trump or Hillary, and it might even be the right call for me. It sounds like opportunistic carping to make that call today while there is a chance that your preferred candidate will find a way on the ticket.
Yeah, that’s a terrible idea. Libertarians lose out on everything.
Because she’s a criminal. And that line of argument is, frankly, ridiculous.
It’s the responsibility of those who supported Trump thus far to carry him across the finish line in November. I don’t want to hear any whining if he loses to the matriarch of a criminal enterprise.
I will definitely vote, because we have to hang on to the down-ticket offices. All the more important when Hillary (in her newest, socialist, incarnation) is going to be President.
Will I vote for Hillary? I have always advocated choosing the lesser of two evils, but there are some evils that are hard to live with. In the end, it will be a choice between abdicating my civic responsibility or being able to look at myself in the mirror. And since I still have to shave, I may just vote Libertarian. But I sure do wish the Libertarians would nominate a serious candidate, rather than another nutcase.
If it comes to that, I’ll probably pull the lever for Trump. I won’t like it. But I’ll do it.
A Trump Presidency will most likely be an unmitigated disaster.
But.
A Hillary Presidency will absolutely, positively be an unmitigated disaster!
The only counter-argument that make any sense to me is this… If we are going to have a disaster anyway, its best if it is left at the of the feet Democrats rather than the Republicans. So, in that case, vote Hillary. Like the joke slogan for Cthulhu-for-President … “Why settle for the lesser of two evils?”
The situation we are entering is unique. Romney, McCain, Dole — they weren’t evil like their opponents — they merely lacked sufficient good to justify enthusiasm. This November we’ll likely be forced to choose between equivalent evils or seek a third party. I have moral qualms with some positions of the Libertarian Party and will likely look elsewhere.
Part of my thinking on this is that Trump as the head of the Republican Party makes the Republican Party much worse than it is now. It would essentially end the mainstream debate on many issues in favor of the Left. Trump is fundamentally more like a Democrat than like a Republican. The Democratic Party is an organized crime syndicate pretending to be a political party, and Hillary won’t make them any worse than they already are.
My voting for someone other than Hillary will not elect Hillary–it will be those who selected a flawed candidate like Trump who did that combined with those who actually pulled the lever for Hillary. It’s not my fault neither party put forward a conservative candidate for president.
As a guy who wants to see dramatically reduced government, I should be easy to convince. However, here’s why I’m not:
There are many self-identifying people and pundits I admire and respect. My robust rejection of Objectivism sinks the deal every time.
Jonah summed up many of my reservations, here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426606/fusionism-60-years-later-jonah-goldberg
FYI: For conservatives who are concerned about the line between “libertarian” and “libertine”, LP presidential candidate Austin Petersen is a pro-life candidate who is skeptical (to say the least) of the Non-Aggression Principle. He’s also the founder of libertarianrepublic.com.
Not an endorsement. Just pointing out that the LP candidates aren’t cookie-cutter stereotypes.
Apparently some of them aren’t even libertarian.
Arrrggghh. Can we just get this election over with so that the Republican party can get back to the business of being the tax collectors for the welfare state.
I think that was sarcasm.