Well, I Made My Pick

 

i_voted_sticker_american_flag2016 has been a miserable year for conservatarians like myself. Republican primary voters soundly rejected constitutionalists, budget balancers, and limited-government enthusiasts, opting instead for a shouty 70-year-old Hillary donor who’s more concerned with tweeting typos than getting out the vote.

When Reince Priebus and his feckless RNC attempted to silence lifelong Republicans such as myself, I stepped away from the party and declared my independence.

Over the past few months, I’ve seen a few “Never Trumpers” reluctantly endorse The Donald, apparently unclear on the meaning of the word “never.” But neither Trump nor Clinton is fit for the presidency so I cannot vote for either one. (Besides, I was assured throughout the primaries that my vote wasn’t needed for Trump’s November landslide, and who am I to doubt the predictive powers of @WhyteGen0cyde88?)

So that left three options: Make no choice for the presidency, vote for the Libertarian, or write-in the 11th hour candidate, Evan McMullin.

Though McMullin holds similar views to my own and seems a genuinely decent guy, he doesn’t have the qualifications I look for in the leader of the free world. I might enthusiastically vote for him as a congressman, but zero executive or political experience makes him a non-starter in my book. Of course, his candidacy was created in the event of a close race in which, by winning a state or two, the election would be sent to the House. However, looking at how quickly the GOP establishment caved to Donald Trump, I can’t imagine they would choose anyone other than the Republican nominee. The fact that McMullin’s name isn’t listed on my state ballot made that choice appear even more futile.

That leaves Libertarian Gary Johnson, who bizarrely has seemed more interested in reaching out to Bernie bros than to disaffected Republicans. But as the two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, he built an admirable record. Unlike most conservatives who never deliver on their small-government promises, Johnson vetoed 739 bills passed by the Democrat-dominated statehouse. To quote Calvin Coolidge, “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”

Johnson also instituted one of the strictest welfare reform programs in the nation, ended public employees’ collective-bargaining rights, cut taxes, and reduced regulations. This isn’t to mention his efforts to implement school vouchers, term limits, and mass privatization.

Despite all these accomplishments, in 2016 Johnson has made numerous gaffes on foreign policy, religious liberty, and climate change, causing even his staunchest supporters to facepalm weekly. But, let’s face it, Johnson isn’t going to come close to winning the Oval Office, even if he gets more votes than any Libertarian in history. However… if Johnson were to make a decent showing on November 8, the Libertarian Party would be far better positioned for a stronger nominee in 2020:

If Johnson snags 5 percent of the national popular vote, the Federal Election Commission will classify the Libertarians as an official “minor party,” granting the 2020 nominee a lump sum of cash for the fall campaign, courtesy of the American taxpayer. (And don’t you think for a second that the vehemently anti-big-government Libertarians won’t cash that big government check in a heartbeat.)

The exact amount of federal funds depends on the size of his vote, but Green Party officials – who have been chasing 5 percent for years – estimate that meeting the threshold would yield about $10 million. That may seem like chump change compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars major party presidential nominees routinely raise. But Johnson has gotten this far after raising only $8 million through August. The prospect of knowing the Libertarian Party’s nominee is guaranteed $10 million will allow him or her to hit the campaign trail running, improving the odds of getting into the debates, winning an even larger share of vote and fortifying the party’s place in the American political landscape.

I’m not enthusiastic about any of the candidates running this year. But this morning, I filled in my early ballot with Johnson as my pick.

There are 110 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Jon – nobody’s perfect – we still like you….

    • #61
  2. Lance Inactive
    Lance
    @Lance

    PJ:

    Lance:

    Hartmann von Aue:

    Lance:I am writing in Ben Sasse, out of respect for a hero of the Republican Civil War and in wishful thinking of a potential run down the line.

    Can you do that? My absentee ballot carried the warning that only votes for one of the listed write-in candidates would be counted.

    I don’t know, nor does it really matter. I don’t expect the vote to count in any real regard anyways. Except to me and the answer I will have to the question we will be asking each other for the rest of our lives…”Who did you vote for in 2016?”

    I actually do think it is important to cast a vote that will be counted. Assuming Clinton wins, the more we reduce her plurality, the weaker she will be.

    That’s a fair point.  But the story I am going to have to tell my girls about this misadventure, and what I have learned through it, is better served with writing in Sasse.

    • #62
  3. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Jamie Lockett:

    James Of England: Really? So if I were to believe that a strong Libertarian Party advanced the cause of limited government, then it would follow that I should want government funding for it? Is this also true of, say, the Boy Scouts? If I believe that the musical Hamilton is good for America (which, to be clear, I do), does that mean that a principled limited government position would see me wanting to fund it?

    I have told you I would prefer that there was no public funding of campaigns, but that’s not the world we live in.

    Sure it is. Other than the Libertarian Party, no party is likely to get public funding next cycle. The only people who are intentionally and meaningfully promoting it are people like Jon and, when the mood takes you, you. On this issue, the “Libertarian Party” is unique in its opposition to liberty.

    The system is also designed and ruled by the two major parties so that third parties have little to no ability to get their message out on par with the major parties. Now would I prefer that we switch the system to something like the STV that would allow for third-party growth without moral hazard of public funding? Sure. I would also like it if my dog pooped gold and my faucets ran with Lagavulin, unfortunately, I have to shovel crap and brush my teeth with water – alas.

    America’s First Past The Post system was designed by people who did not have an attachment to a major party. Indeed, one of the fonder wishes of many of our founders was that no party should exist. The Tenth Federalist Paper does stand as a testament to the possibility that “factions” might be a positive thing, but it would be absurd to suggest that there was anyone among them who wanted to silence the political speech of those who might organize around ideas or regions. Under the current system there is, so far as I know, no institutional barrier to third parties gaining an influence in American elections by disbanding as a political party and taking part in primaries. Johnson, of course, tried and failed to do this in 2012, but the reason that Johnson can’t win primaries is not because of a conspiracy or because of any institutional barriers. Better men than he have tried and done similarly well (Jim Gilmore stands out as an example). Competent libertarians, like the Pauls and the Kochs, win elections and/ or influence politics in this manner.

    James Of England:The key word in this statement is “again”. The bits that are excised from Jamie’s quote of me are the bits where I respond to Jamie’s statement that whether you support the public financing of private speech ” Whichever way you go on the question of support for the party being paramount in politics, Jamie thinks that you may support federal spending on speech he likes, speech that in this instance focuses on slanders against America. In other words, the answer doesn’t depend on party supremacy. The answer just depends on whether the ends justify the means.

    An expanded answer would include some valuable end that was achieved by the corruption of libertarian politics by using federal money to empower people who call themselves libertarians while advocating for greater government spending, reduced civil liberties, and belief in conspiracy theories.

    Come on James, if Jill Stein got 5% of the vote I would be just as ok with her party taking the money too. And you know what – Republicans and Democrats have that offer open to them as well.

    Do you see how this seems at odds with your stated preference for not having the government fund political speech?

    As for the rest of your answer implying that I’m somehow unamerican and support anti-American speech – I’ll just chalk that up to emotion since I don’t think I’ve ever uttered a single Anti-American thing in my time here.

    I’m not suggesting that you are unamerican. I’m suggesting that you’re supporting the government funding of LP speech, which frequently is Anti-American, with the nominees this cycle drawing equivalencies between US immigration enforcement and the Holocaust, and between American troops and Assad’s. The guys who were runners up engaged in a diversity of awful slanders that I know you think are awful slanders; it’s anti-American, for instance, to say that the US started WWII by implementing sanctions against Japan and that the US should apologize to Japan for the people America killed. I’m not saying that these are your views, merely that you want the government to fund the propagation of these views.

    Your last paragraph is why I’m still giving serious consideration to voting for Johnson – you doth protest too much, my friend.

    To be clear, because I say that Johnson favors increasing federal spending, you favor voting for Johnson? Do you deny that he’s on the wrong side of the issue on Social Security, which he promises not to cut and says that you should get a death benefit from, or on an emergency program for African American jobs, or on an emergency program for African American education, or on more intensive training for state and local police on racism, or that he promises more FBI officers for counter-terrorism? Do you know of a specific cut that he promises this cycle that he has not substantially withdrawn when faced with a supporter of the thing he’s suggesting promising?

    Alternatively, you like Johnson because I suggest that he’s bad on civil liberties. Do you deny that he wants to reduce the criminal due process rights for those who are facing investigation by the FBI, or that he wants to keep all current gun control measures and expand them for the mentally ill and for criminals, or that his support for restaurant menu mandates and such are problems for commercial speech? That his instincts, as shown in comments he withdrew (eg. we should ban burqas because they make it more difficult for the state to investigate domestic violence) or by his implementing of occupational licensing and eminent domain in New Mexico are contrary to libertarian values?

    Alternatively, you like Johnson because I suggest that his conspiracy theories are repugnant. Is it your belief that Paul Ryan supports more defense spending because of the (non-existent) bases in his constituency? Do you think that the polls were skewed against Johnson in efforts to keep him from reaching 15%? Is that what you mean when you talk about third parties no ability to get out their view?

    When you read about the Pauls or the Kochs wanting nothing to do with Johnson, does that also make you like him more? Is everyone who writes about Johnson either Reason affiliated or ruled by emotion?

    • #63
  4. PsychLynne Inactive
    PsychLynne
    @PsychLynne

    Kudos John for your thoughtful post!

    I have voted for McMullin a d the best part of the entire experience was my 10 year co-opting my sticker to take to school to te and convince his friends he had voted.

    With such a poorly conceived lie, his future does not lie politics!

    • #64
  5. Lois Lane Coolidge
    Lois Lane
    @LoisLane

    PsychLynne: With such a poorly conceived lie, his future does not lie politics!

    I think he might go straight for the White House!!!  Poorly conceived lies are like… the most popular of all!!!  :)

    Perhaps he will have someone clobber him with the truth though, and that will be the girl he marries one day….

    • #65
  6. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    James Of England: Sure it is. Other than the Libertarian Party, no party is likely to get public funding next cycle. The only people who are intentionally and meaningfully promoting it are people like Jon and, when the mood takes you, you. On this issue, the “Libertarian Party” is unique in its opposition to liberty.

    This is nonsense. Public funding of campaigns is law, I would prefer it not be, but until it isn’t why would anyone not play by the rules as established?

    I look forward to your upcoming piece entitled “Why Republicans Who Cash Social Security Checks Are Anti-Liberty Hypocrits”

    • #66
  7. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    James Of England: Do you see how this seems at odds with your stated preference for not having the government fund political speech?

    I will work with you as much as you want to repeal this law, until that time I think it’s ridiculous to set the rules and then complain when people play by them.

    • #67
  8. Tyler Boliver Member
    Tyler Boliver
    @Marlowe

    I see James has has started his “Damn you Gary Johnson!” skit.

    It’s like the sun rising, or me trashing Trump, at this point it’s just expected and a bit comforting.

    • #68
  9. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    James Of England: I’m not suggesting that you are unamerican. I’m suggesting that you’re supporting the government funding of LP speech, which frequently is Anti-American, with the nominees this cycle drawing equivalencies between US immigration enforcement and the Holocaust, and between American troops and Assad’s. The guys who were runners up engaged in a diversity of awful slanders that I know you think are awful slanders; it’s anti-American, for instance, to say that the US started WWII by implementing sanctions against Japan and that the US should apologize to Japan for the people America killed. I’m not saying that these are your views, merely that you want the government to fund the propagation of these views.

    I don’t agree with everything the Libertarians say especially regarding foreign policy, it is why in a normal election year I probably wouldn’t vote for them. Unfortunately both major parties decided to nominate people unfit for the office. I agree with @jon in his analysis that Johnson exceeds this very low barrier, if only barely.

    • #69
  10. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    James Of England:To be clear, because I say that Johnson favors increasing federal spending, you favor voting for Johnson? Do you deny that he’s on the wrong side of the issue on Social Security, which he promises not to cut and says that you should get a death benefit from, or on an emergency program for African American jobs, or on an emergency program for African American education, or on more intensive training for state and local police on racism, or that he promises more FBI officers for counter-terrorism? Do you know of a specific cut that he promises this cycle that he has not substantially withdrawn when faced with a supporter of the thing he’s suggesting promising?

    Alternatively, you like Johnson because I suggest that he’s bad on civil liberties. Do you deny that he wants to reduce the criminal due process rights for those who are facing investigation by the FBI, or that he wants to keep all current gun control measures and expand them for the mentally ill and for criminals, or that his support for restaurant menu mandates and such are problems for commercial speech? That his instincts, as shown in comments he withdrew (eg. we should ban burqas because they make it more difficult for the state to investigate domestic violence) or by his implementing of occupational licensing and eminent domain in New Mexico are contrary to libertarian values?

    Alternatively, you like Johnson because I suggest that his conspiracy theories are repugnant. Is it your belief that Paul Ryan supports more defense spending because of the (non-existent) bases in his constituency? Do you think that the polls were skewed against Johnson in efforts to keep him from reaching 15%? Is that what you mean when you talk about third parties no ability to get out their view?

    When you read about the Pauls or the Kochs wanting nothing to do with Johnson, does that also make you like him more? Is everyone who writes about Johnson either Reason affiliated or ruled by emotion?

    I just don’t agree with your analysis that on a macro level Johnson wants to increase spending. I think that his desire to shift our tax system to a consumption based tax instead of an income tax would do more to unleash economic growth than any other policy proposed this year – we can disagree on that, and have, but what is important to me for a President is his philosophy and vision. To that end Johnsons basic philosophy and vision for American government is miles.  ahead of any of the other candidates.

    Yes, Johnson is a nightmare on social issues, and if I don’t vote for him this will be why but unfortunately this year I don’t have a lot of good choices there.

    • #70
  11. Basil Fawlty Member
    Basil Fawlty
    @BasilFawlty

    Jamie and James.  The battle of the prolix stars.

    • #71
  12. Jon Gabriel, Ed. Admin
    Jon Gabriel, Ed.
    @jon

    For the many saying that Johnson is a lousy candidate because of A, B, or C, please note that I agree. I could hardly have issued a more reluctant endorsement. It’s just that, in my view, the other options were even worse.

    • #72
  13. Isaac Smith Member
    Isaac Smith
    @

    Z in MT:SMOD 2016!

    That’s what I was going to say, until it was pointed out that write ins aren’t counted.

    Then I realized: Count.  Don’t count.  It really doesn’t matter – everybody dies.  SMOD 2016.

    • #73
  14. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you.  What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    • #74
  15. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    I reached the same conclusion Jon and voted Johnson last week.  Best of the weak field.

    • #75
  16. Chris Campion Coolidge
    Chris Campion
    @ChrisCampion

    So glad you came out from behind that coffee cup to state your opinions clearly, opinions un-muffled by the delicious slurpings of the filtered robusta beans, and water.

    Unchained Gabriel.  I am yours.

    Image result for i am yours

     

     

    • #76
  17. Quinnie Inactive
    Quinnie
    @Quinnie

    Disappointing.   “Moral Preening” is how I think Bill Bennet described Republicans shunning Trump.   I won’t be listening to any more of your pontificating on podcasts.   Thanks for electing Hillary.

     

     

    • #77
  18. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.:For the many saying that Johnson is a lousy candidate because of A, B, or C, please note that I agree. I could hardly have issued a more reluctant endorsement. It’s just that, in my view, the other options were even worse.

    This is why I didn’t respond to you with that. I responded by noting that many of the things you like about Johnson were either false (eg. the claim that Johnson is a budget balancer or a constitutionalist; so far as I know, no other candidate has declared an intention to violate the constitution and I’m certain no other candidate has as bad a record for increasing deficits) or disgusting (support for government funding of political campaigns).  Johnson’s claiming, for instance, that ISIS has wiped out the current government of Libya wasn’t part of my rebuttal. Although it’s the sort of thing that shouldn’t be acceptable in a candidate you were clear that you’re happy to accept a moral cretin so long as he’s not Trump or Clinton.

    Also, so long as he’s not McMullin, although I felt that your explanation there really required you to look at Johnson as a positive good. It also rested in part on an assertion that the GOP House would prefer Trump/ Pence to McMullin/ Pence (or Trump/ Kaine to McMillan/ Kaine) if given the choice, which seems implausible to me.

    • #78
  19. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Cato Rand:

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you. What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    No one else has a right to your vote. It’s your choice. Your speech and more particularly your thoughts are also your choice, but it is possible to say morally reprehensible things.

    • #79
  20. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you. What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    No one else has a right to your vote. It’s your choice. Your speech and more particularly your thoughts are also your choice, but it is possible to say morally reprehensible things.

    huh?

    • #80
  21. Gini Member
    Gini
    @Gini

    I was a New Mexico citizen when Gary Johnson was Governor. I was a huge supporter and I think he was a very successful governor. However, now we are faced with a Hillary Clinton presidency. The idea of her Presidency is travesty. Donald Trump was never #1 on my list but he has a better chance of defeating Hillary Clinton than Gary Johnson. Everyone has a vote – I will vote for Donald Trump. He may not win, but I can say with certainty, Gary Johnson won’t!

    • #81
  22. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Jamie Lockett:

    James Of England:To be clear, because I say that Johnson favors increasing federal spending, you favor voting for Johnson? Do you deny that he’s on the wrong side of the issue on Social Security, which he promises not to cut and says that you should get a death benefit from, or on an emergency program for African American jobs, or on an emergency program for African American education, or on more intensive training for state and local police on racism, or that he promises more FBI officers for counter-terrorism? Do you know of a specific cut that he promises this cycle that he has not substantially withdrawn when faced with a supporter of the thing he’s suggesting promising?

    Alternatively, you like Johnson because I suggest that he’s bad on civil liberties. Do you deny that he wants to reduce the criminal due process rights for those who are facing investigation by the FBI, or that he wants to keep all current gun control measures and expand them for the mentally ill and for criminals, or that his support for restaurant menu mandates and such are problems for commercial speech? That his instincts, as shown in comments he withdrew (eg. we should ban burqas because they make it more difficult for the state to investigate domestic violence) or by his implementing of occupational licensing and eminent domain in New Mexico are contrary to libertarian values?

    Alternatively, you like Johnson because I suggest that his conspiracy theories are repugnant. Is it your belief that Paul Ryan supports more defense spending because of the (non-existent) bases in his constituency? Do you think that the polls were skewed against Johnson in efforts to keep him from reaching 15%? Is that what you mean when you talk about third parties no ability to get out their view?

    When you read about the Pauls or the Kochs wanting nothing to do with Johnson, does that also make you like him more? Is everyone who writes about Johnson either Reason affiliated or ruled by emotion?

    I just don’t agree with your analysis that on a macro level Johnson wants to increase spending.

    Okay. What do you base this on? Do you have identifiable spending cuts that he promises that offset the identifiable spending increases that he promises?

    I think that his desire to shift our tax system to a consumption based tax instead of an income tax would do more to unleash economic growth than any other policy proposed this year – we can disagree on that, and have,

    We disagree about several things here, which is partly why I didn’t bring up taxation, but even if it was true that a FAIR Tax at 28% (the Huckabee plan) was a boost to the economy, that isn’t what Johnson calls for. Calling for a single year almost 40% increase in tax revenue (39 is almost 40% more than the revenue neutral 28%), is not calling for a boost to growth. It’s also more evidence that he’s not driven by principles; until he discovered a political constituency in the form of FAIR Tax backers, Johnson was not numbered among the governors who advocated switching from an income tax to a consumption tax, even at a level where it does make economic sense.

    but what is important to me for a President is his philosophy and vision.

    Johnson doesn’t have a philosophy, or a vision. He has some shibboleths, but he doesn’t have those down, either. So he’ll say on foreign policy, for instance, that he’s against all regime change, but supported it in Bosnia and Afghanistan. He’ll say that he’s against intervention against people who haven’t attacked the US, but he got upset with Obama for not sending enough troops to fight Joseph Kony, who definitely had not attacked the United States. He thinks that destroying ISIS is certain to produce another group in the same place that is as bad or worse, but still advocates doing it. He thinks that what our troops are doing constitute atrocities, but that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t do it.

    Those aren’t problems with his facts or details (although they’re exacerbated by his having no idea what he’s talking about). They’re problems with his basic view; if your vision has more exceptions to it than moments of coherence, it’s probably not an actual vision. Given the choice, he says that his differences with Clinton is that he’s a “chess player”, who sees the consequences of foreign policy choice far down the line, whereas she’s a hapless do gooder who ends up causing trouble. He only falls back on false claims of principle when he’s called out on the fact that he doesn’t know where the chess pieces are, or how they move.

    To that end Johnsons basic philosophy and vision for American government is miles. ahead of any of the other candidates.

    Johnson references a basic philosophy, but that philosophy is at odds with his actions and his responses on specifics on a nearly continual basis. If you sincerely believe in limited government, you have no business celebrating Bloomberg reducing Coke can sizes. If you’re honestly all about ending crony capitalism, you wouldn’t be one of the worst abusers of tax credits for favored industries. If you really mean that the government should get out of the way, you’re not going to expand government licensing and accreditation for businesses. If cutting spending is really your passion, you’re not going to see the budget metastasize. People who are dominated by a philosophy show signs of that philosophy in their views on things and their actions.

    Yes, Johnson is a nightmare on social issues, and if I don’t vote for him this will be why but unfortunately this year I don’t have a lot of good choices there.

    I barely touched on social issues. That Johnson isn’t coherent in his policies is only a part of the problem; just as big a problem is his total lack of interest in those parts of policy in general that he does not have a financial interest in. When his company was getting state construction contracts, he seems to have been very interested in expanding construction. When he moved toward pot, those economics may have interested him, but his interest in philosophy seems limited to Ayn Rand, and she isn’t a terribly helpful guide to policy.

    Johnson’s philosophy is like his interest in cutting spending; he will drop bombs, like his claims to want to abolish departments, but then he’ll continue speaking and make it clear that anything you heard in the headline was untrue. So he’d increase federal spending on urban renewal and education while abolishing HUD and Ed. When Joe Scarborough suggested it was slightly odd that he wasn’t interested in cutting the functions of these Departments, Johnson was irritated with the question; the important thing was that he’d said he’d abolish the departments. He’d checked the box, and the details aren’t important to him.

    • #82
  23. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Cato Rand:

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you. What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    No one else has a right to your vote. It’s your choice. Your speech and more particularly your thoughts are also your choice, but it is possible to say morally reprehensible things.

    huh?

    Doctor Robert doesn’t need to have a right to Jon’s vote or yours to condemn your decision as disgusting.

    • #83
  24. James Of England Moderator
    James Of England
    @JamesOfEngland

    Quinnie:Disappointing. “Moral Preening” is how I think Bill Bennet described Republicans shunning Trump. I won’t be listening to any more of your pontificating on podcasts. Thanks for electing Hillary.

    It still blows my mind that Bennet condemned moral preening.

    • #84
  25. JcTPatriot Inactive
    JcTPatriot
    @JcTPatriot

    Well Jon, I moved money from my precious Savings account to join Ricochet, so I could ask you a question. I plan to stay and write comments, and maybe I’ll write an article one of these days.

    My question for you is the same one I ask everyone who tells me they “voted early”: Right now, right this minute, where is your vote, and where is your vote from now until November 8th?

    If you tell me “It’s under lock and key” like my dad did, then I have to ask, where is that lock and key, and who has the key? We all know there is really no such thing as an “Independent” – ask them how they feel about Roe v Wade and you’ll find out what they are – so that means they are either left or right. Who has YOUR key?

    I ask because I am completely unable to find out where the early votes are stored. On November 8th, someone is going to drive up to the vote-counting place in your County and they will hand over some boxes they claim to be “early votes”. How would you feel if it was Nancy Pelosi driving up with those boxes? I asked Governor Abbott if he knew (in a tweet) and he didn’t answer. I am not going to vote until November 8th, myself, for this reason.

     

    It would be interesting if you found out and made it the subject of your next article.

    • #85
  26. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Basil Fawlty:Jamie and James. The battle of the prolix stars.

    I thought my responses were rather short and to the point.

    • #86
  27. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    JcTPatriot:Well Jon, I moved money from my precious Savings account to join Ricochet, so I could ask you a question. I plan to stay and write comments, and maybe I’ll write an article one of these days.

    My question for you is the same one I ask everyone who tells me they “voted early”: Right now, right this minute, where is your vote, and where is your vote from now until November 8th?

    If you tell me “It’s under lock and key” like my dad did, then I have to ask, where is that lock and key, and who has the key? We all know there is really no such thing as an “Independent” – ask them how they feel about Roe v Wade and you’ll find out what they are – so that means they are either left or right. Who has YOUR key?

    I ask because I am completely unable to find out where the early votes are stored. On November 8th, someone is going to drive up to the vote-counting place in your County and they will hand over some boxes they claim to be “early votes”. How would you feel if it was Nancy Pelosi driving up with those boxes? I asked Governor Abbott if he knew (in a tweet) and he didn’t answer. I am not going to vote until November 8th, myself, for this reason.

    It would be interesting if you found out and made it the subject of your next article.

    giphy

    • #87
  28. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you. What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    No one else has a right to your vote. It’s your choice. Your speech and more particularly your thoughts are also your choice, but it is possible to say morally reprehensible things.

    huh?

    Doctor Robert doesn’t need to have a right to Jon’s vote or yours to condemn your decision as disgusting.

    I know you have a huge bugaboo about Johnson.  I would have thought “disgusting” was a bridge too far though.  And FWIW, right back at both of you.  I think a vote for the Orange One is disgusting.

    • #88
  29. Jamie Lockett Inactive
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Cato Rand:

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you. What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    No one else has a right to your vote. It’s your choice. Your speech and more particularly your thoughts are also your choice, but it is possible to say morally reprehensible things.

    huh?

    Doctor Robert doesn’t need to have a right to Jon’s vote or yours to condemn your decision as disgusting.

    I know you have a huge bugaboo about Johnson. I would have thought “disgusting” was a bridge too far though. And FWIW, right back at both of you. I think a vote for the Orange One is disgusting.

    James isn’t voting for Trump because he can’t, but I doubt he would even if he could.

    • #89
  30. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Jamie Lockett:

    Cato Rand:

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    James Of England:

    Cato Rand:

    Doctor Robert:Shame on you, Jon.

    Shame on you. What right do you have to Jon’s vote, or mine, or anybody’s?

    No one else has a right to your vote. It’s your choice. Your speech and more particularly your thoughts are also your choice, but it is possible to say morally reprehensible things.

    huh?

    Doctor Robert doesn’t need to have a right to Jon’s vote or yours to condemn your decision as disgusting.

    I know you have a huge bugaboo about Johnson. I would have thought “disgusting” was a bridge too far though. And FWIW, right back at both of you. I think a vote for the Orange One is disgusting.

    James isn’t voting for Trump because he can’t, but I doubt he would even if he could.

    You think maybe he’s a Kremlin plant?  Being a mild mannered Brit is good cover, no?

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.