Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 255: A Holiday Present From Tulsi

(+) Yeah! (+)

If Gabbard won the nomination I would be absolutely convinced we live in The Matrix and the Machines were screwing with us.

---

I would vote for any of them, but Gabbard is the only one for which Id be disgusted with myself

---

xp1337 posted...

It also leads to super weird results if you look at the ideology of the candidates. I'm assuming you think Sanders's 87 is a "good" result here. So, logically speaking, Bloomberg's 82 has to be the second or third best result (to Buttigieg on the other side of it), right? In what universe does that make sense? Is Bloomberg among the Top 3 candidates the Democrats could choose?

Its not that simple.

Having a lower number isnt automatically better, but put it this way: If 97 percent of a certain candidates supporters say theyll vote for anyone who isnt Trump, doesnt it make logical sense that any other candidate can count on those voters? It doesnt work the other way around.

That being said, weve had data that weve discussed in this topic that supports Warren having the least crossover appeal.

So then you add in data showing she also has the most Blue supporters, and it compounds the reasons shes a bad strategic choice.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Having a lower number isnt automatically better, but put it this way: If 97 percent of a certain candidates supporters say theyll vote for anyone who isnt Trump, doesnt it make logical sense that any other candidate can count on those voters? It doesnt work the other way around.

Yes.

However, it's also strange hearing it from you because this is the exact same kind of logic and reasoning used by those who critcized Sanders supporters for either defecting to Trump, voting third-party, or sitting at home and allowing for Trump to be elected in 2016.

Because the reverse side is "If 13 percent of a certain candidate's supporters leave the door open to voting for Trump/third party/not voting doesn't it make sense that there's plausible sense in thinking that should that candidate not win the nomination a significant (even if no where close to the majority) number of their supporters will, one way or another, decide that a second term of Trump and the racism, xenophobia, and the continuing of the generations-long damage to the courts it will bring with it just isn't as important to them as getting their candidate? And that if, say, hypothetically, the race were decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states that this would be a very real problem?"

I'm not endorsing that line of thought, I'm just saying that that was largely the line of reasoning used to give you that argument and comes from very much the same place you're using to say it's bad news for Warren.

Like I said, I don't think this is a very informative question and only provides fuel for infighting if taken serious in any significant way (which again, dunking on Gabbard isn't because lol)

Just... you came here and opened with "Warren supporters don't even realize this is a bad poll for them." Well, I'm a Warren supporter and I don't think that's true. I don't really think it's any news at all! Again, I think you'd rather have a higher number than a lower number and I explained why I think that briefly but I assign no definitive truth value to that and wouldn't use it as an attack vector. It's why to the extent my post wasn't laughing at Gabbard it was a generic non-offensive positive statement about Warren. That's really about as far as I'd be willing to go with this poll!

---

xp1337 posted...

Because the reverse side is "If 87 percent of a certain candidate's supporters leave the door open to voting for Trump/third party/not voting doesn't it make sense that there's plausible sense in thinking that should that candidate not win the nomination a significant (even if no where close to the majority) number of their supporters will, one way or another, decide that a second term of Trump and the racism, xenophobia, and the continuing of the generations-long damage to the courts it will bring with it just isn't as important to them as getting their candidate? And that if, say, hypothetically, the race were decided by a handful of votes in a handful of states that this would be a very real problem?"

Ive explained this in regards to other topics, but those 13 percent of Bernie supporters who wouldnt vote blue no matter who are generally people who wont vote at all if its not Bernie.

Its not that they dont think Trump is bad, its that they think the Democratic Party isnt intrinsically good.

As for your second part, look at the replies to the tweet and youll see what inspired my post. Many Warren supporters crowing about her numbers who cant help but snipe at Bernie. Its extremely annoying.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ive explained this in regards to other topics, but those 13 percent of Bernie supporters who wouldnt vote blue no matter who are generally people who wont vote at all if its not Bernie.

Its not that they dont think Trump is bad, its that they think the Democratic Party isnt intrinsically good.

That literally does not dispute the argument as presented and was in fact covered by it.

The frustration and anger expressed by some Clinton supporters when using that argument doesn't require that all of those voters defected to Trump. It still applies if they voted third-party or stayed at home. Because in those cases they still made the conscious decision that faced with everything Trump was representing and promising it wasn't "enough" to get them to vote for the only person who could prevent that outcome.

You don't have to think the Democratic Party is good, you just have to believe they aren't as bad. Yeah, that's a shitty message, but welcome to FPTP Winner-take-all American elections. It's a shitty reality we all have had to deal with the entire time. And by sitting at home you aren't changing it, hell, you're helping entrench it by making no effort to oppose the party that gleefully tries to tilt the board even further in their direction.

~~~

And again, in all seriousness, most of the replies I see on that thread (I don't know how far you mean for me to, I went like 25-40 replies deep?) were dunking on Gabbard. I did see one or two anti-Sanders ones, yeah. But I'm not downplaying when I say one or two. FWIW maybe it's some algorithm thing? I opened in a private window not logged in (I don't have Twitter).

---

Thats the thing, there are plenty of people who dont think the Democratic Party is less bad at all, and theyre not Conservative or Republicans.

xp1337 posted...

And again, in all seriousness, most of the replies I see on that thread (I don't know how far you mean for me to, I went like 25-40 replies deep?) were dunking on Gabbard. I did see one or two anti-Sanders ones, yeah. But I'm not downplaying when I say one or two. FWIW maybe it's some algorithm thing? I opened in a private window not logged in (I don't have Twitter).

To be fair to you, Im counting the replies to the anti-Sanders replies that express support as replies themselves.

---

tl;dr of my position here personally: Fight like hell to get your candidate to win the primary, sure! (I mean, within some sane boundaries, like don't slander/lie.) No issues with that, that's what the primary is for! A contest of ideas and the direction the party should go.

But once it is over, even if your side loses out (obligatory reminder I voted Sanders in the 2016 primary!) unite behind the winning side. I will be immensely disappointed if Biden or Buttigieg win the nomination (and at this point I expect Biden to win) but I will crawl through glass to vote for them in 2020 should they win because the alternative is letting Trump and the GOP keep/gain power and that is far worse than a Democratic candidate I have real doubts on and a general philosophy I am not in agreement with.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Thats the thing, there are plenty of people who dont think the Democratic Party is less bad at all, and theyre not Conservative or Republicans.

Okay, but at that point I think we're starting to veer into "denial of reality" territory. For all the faults the Democratic Party has I don't know how you look at what the GOP has supported and is supporting - particularly with the advent of Trump - and go "both sides" here.

And I think that's even more true in 2020 than it was in 2016 now that Trump has an actual record. Like I'm not entirely sure what argument there is that the Democratic Party is "less bad" when the Trump administration is separating kids from their parents and putting them in cages because they think the cruelty will be a deterrent.

---

That poll posted a few topics back that showed that Biden voters took a similar hit in votes when asked to support Bernie as Bernie voters do when asked to vote for another Dem makes me think Tony is right. There some amount of the "vote blue no matter who" crowd that says that but doesnt apply it to Bernie because he isn't a Democrat. Though that's not really an argument that Bernie's D support is more robust, somehow.

However, Warren supporters did not have that same huge drop Biden supporters did so I dunno if her twitter stans are worth the energy

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

That being said, weve had data that weve discussed in this topic that supports Warren having the least crossover appeal.

So then you add in data showing she also has the most Blue supporters, and it compounds the reasons shes a bad strategic choice.

The thing is, it also chases people off when people say they'd vote for Bernie but not Warren. Especially Warren supporters! And when people say "Well, I wouldn't vote for Biden!" It makes it like they're trying to hold the Presidency and SCOTUS hostage. Just like when people say "I wouldn't vote for Bernie!" it's trying to hold those things hostage. I think a lot of reasons people don't like Bernie much is in large part because a number of his supporters are douchebags. And they really don't do themselves any favors by pushing this whole "BERNIE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE!" stuff.

---

I mean, I'm absolutely sure there will be Biden/Buttigieg supporters who will not vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination. In my view they're wrong too and I'd be making much the same argument to them as I just did here!

This doesn't just go one way with me!

basically the reason i think having a higher number than a lower number in that poll is better is because it means it's a group i'm less likely to have to make that argument to! that's about it. I don't really think it has much meaning beyond that, if that even qualifies at all, which I'm not entirely sure it does.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

The thing is, it also chases people off when people say they'd vote for Bernie but not Warren. Especially Warren supporters! And when people say "Well, I wouldn't vote for Biden!" It makes it like they're trying to hold the Presidency and SCOTUS hostage. Just like when people say "I wouldn't vote for Bernie!" it's trying to hold those things hostage. I think a lot of reasons people don't like Bernie much is in large part because a number of his supporters are douchebags.

Everyone has douchebag supporters now. Bernie and Trump were just ahead of the curve.

---

xp1337 posted...

Okay, but at that point I think we're starting to veer into "denial of reality" territory. For all the faults the Democratic Party has I don't know how you look at what the GOP has supported and is supporting - particularly with the advent of Trump - and go "both sides" here.

Both sides are indeed just as nasty and vicious but the Democrats are just inept at channeling that sentiment into anything actionable. Their constant failures skew the perception that the GOP is more ideologically monstrous.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Everyone has douchebag supporters now. Bernie and Trump were just ahead of the curve.

Of course they do, but the problem is that Bernie has supporters who also essentially want to hold the candidacy hostage unless their guy gets it. Which is largely what makes them douchebags. I mean most of Tulsi's supporters are probably douchebags! So it's no wonder a large percent of them wouldn't vote 'blue no matter who'.

Donald Trump is a uniquely terrible person who repulses even some staunch conservatives. If this were Mitt Romney vs Joe Biden I could see people making the argument against "Blue No Matter Who". (Though with RBG getting older, if that seat turns conservative we're truly fucked)

Imagine if the Democratic party were as unified as the Republican party is. The Republican party as we know it probably wouldn't exist today. It certainly wouldn't be as far right-wing as it is.

---

Trump never pressured Republicans to vote for him - he let them form their own conclusions. And they saw how awful Hillary would be and fell in line behind Trump. These vote blue no matter who people are going to drive away swing voters in droves.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

Of course they do, but the problem is that Bernie has supporters who also essentially want to hold the candidacy hostage unless their guy gets it. Which is largely what makes them douchebags. I mean most of Tulsi's supporters are probably douchebags! So it's no wonder a large percent of them wouldn't vote 'blue no matter who'.

Donald Trump is a uniquely terrible person who repulses even some staunch conservatives. If this were Mitt Romney vs Joe Biden I could see people making the argument against "Blue No Matter Who". (Though with RBG getting older, if that seat turns conservative we're truly fucked)

Imagine if the Democratic party were as unified as the Republican party is. The Republican party as we know it probably wouldn't exist today. It certainly wouldn't be as far right-wing as it is.

A Democratic Party that was united the way the Republican Party is would be truly terrifying. They could achieve all their bad ideas. But I think it can't happen because foundationally, the Democratic Party is a coalition of interest groups while the Republican Party is a coalition of people with shared ideas. Every Republican knows the party has his back through thick and thin, every Democrat knows he is one misstep away from being thrown under the bus.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

The thing is, it also chases people off when people say they'd vote for Bernie but not Warren. Especially Warren supporters! And when people say "Well, I wouldn't vote for Biden!" It makes it like they're trying to hold the Presidency and SCOTUS hostage. Just like when people say "I wouldn't vote for Bernie!" it's trying to hold those things hostage. I think a lot of reasons people don't like Bernie much is in large part because a number of his supporters are douchebags. And they really don't do themselves any favors by pushing this whole "BERNIE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE!" stuff.

Ok so

If (some) Bernie supporters say I wont vote for your candidate if they win, it CAUSES other candidates supporters to not vote Bernie if he wins?

Wait, so chicken or egg here? Were these people ever going to vote Bernie? When I see people say theyre #neverbernie, am I allowed to not want to support their candidate in turn?

Why is all the scorn always on the Bernie supporters?

Dancedreamer posted...

Of course they do, but the problem is that Bernie has supporters who also essentially want to hold the candidacy hostage unless their guy gets it. Which is largely what makes them douchebags. I mean most of Tulsi's supporters are probably douchebags! So it's no wonder a large percent of them wouldn't vote 'blue no matter who'.

Like I said, theres literally a #NeverBernie movement. Why do they want to hold the candidacy hostage?

My only goal for any of this discussion is for awareness that Bernie and his supporters are constantly held to a different standard. There is plenty of evidence for this.

More Hillary supporters voted for John frickin McCain than Bernie supporters voted for Trump, and were expected to ignore that constantly. edit: before anyone talks about me bringing up Hillary, she is irrelevant, its the focus on Bernie supporters that is my point here.

---

I wish Bernie would just come out and say that Trump is categorically better than a number of the Democratic candidates because unlike them, he actually sees and understands the pain people are going through. And is doing something about it.

Then the centrist Democrats can go join the Never Trumpers and form their own party which will get thumped in the elections.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

More Hillary supporters voted for John frickin McCain than Bernie supporters voted for Trump, and were expected to ignore that constantly. edit: before anyone talks about me bringing up Hillary, she is irrelevant, its the focus on Bernie supporters that is my point here.

And they were wrong too! The PUMA movement wasn't looked on favorably in 2008 either, at least not in the circles I read from!

And, fair or not, the critical difference between the situations is the margin of victory. 2008 Obama won in a blowout, PUMA defectors didn't appreciably change anything.

Sanders -> Trump voters, while only 12% of his primary support from 2016, was well over Trump's margin of victory in each of WI, MI, and PA. More than double in all of them, up to nearly five times as high in MI. If you flip those three states... well I shouldn't need to tell you why such a situation is such a sore spot compared to 2008.

---

xp1337 posted...

And they were wrong too! The PUMA movement wasn't looked on favorably in 2008 either, at least not in the circles I read from!

And, fair or not, the critical difference between the situations is the margin of victory. 2008 Obama won in a blowout, PUMA defectors didn't appreciably change anything.

Sanders -> Trump voters, while only 12% of his primary support from 2016, was well over Trump's margin of victory in each of WI, MI, and PA. More than double in all of them, up to nearly five times as high in MI. If you flip those three states... well I shouldn't need to tell you why such a situation is such a sore spot compared to 2008.

If you wanted their votes, you should have actually tried to win their votes. What did Hillary do to win their votes? What did the Democratic Party do? What did Donald Trump do? Don't be surprised that people vote for the party that welcomes them, that promises policies they support, and don't vote for the party that bullies and threatens them.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Don't be surprised that people vote for the party that welcomes them, that promises policies they support, and don't vote for the party that bullies and threatens them.

I'm not! That's why the Democratic party has won the popular vote 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections!

---

xp1337 posted...

And they were wrong too! The PUMA movement wasn't looked on favorably in 2008 either, at least not in the circles I read from!

And, fair or not, the critical difference between the situations is the margin of victory. 2008 Obama won in a blowout, PUMA defectors didn't appreciably change anything.

Sanders -> Trump voters, while only 12% of his primary support from 2016, was well over Trump's margin of victory in each of WI, MI, and PA. More than double in all of them, up to nearly five times as high in MI. If you flip those three states... well I shouldn't need to tell you why such a situation is such a sore spot compared to 2008.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Since_convention_nominations

The polling for both elections showed a comfortable Democratic win.

Hillary herself even wrote Bernie a letter complementing all the work he did for her!

You cant really blame Bernie and his (smaller) group of supporters that she absolutely blew it against the most unpopular guy in history.

And its still being blamed, with all context stripped out, on Bernie Bros being selfish and bad, while any other (except Tulsi lol) candidates supporters are good.

Im not gonna lie, I have a fear that Bernie pulls off the Primary and then Dems (hypocritically) dont show up, and then blame Bernie for the loss.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The polling for both elections showed a comfortable Democratic win.

2008 showed Obama up about 8-10 points nationally. He won by a bit over 7.
2016 shows Clinton up about 3 points nationally (around 5ish pre-Comey letter). She won by a bit over 2.

Aside from the massive difference between an 8 point lead and a 3 point lead nationally. (And I'm not kidding or being sarcastic, comparing those election results is about the clearest way to show that a 5 point difference is massive) I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

The polls showed both winning, yes. They were both nearly right on the popular vote margin (which is what national polls are measuring.)

If Obama lost in 2008 and the margin of defeat could be covered by the Clinton defectors you can be sure it would have been a much, much bigger deal. Instead it was a blowout so no one really cared. If Clinton had won in a blowout the Sanders stuff would have dissipated too! Just like how PUMA was a bit of a deal during the actual 2008 election cycle but no one gave a fuck after Obama won.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You cant really blame Bernie and his (smaller) group of supporters that she absolutely blew it against the most unpopular guy in history.

I'm... not? Remember where this discussion started. You took a shot at Warren supporters so I came and argued my own view on the meaning (or lack thereof) of that poll. As it continued, I expressed that I felt the reasoning you were using to support your view was largely the same as the reasoning that those Clinton supporters who blame Sanders for 2016 employed using that same kind of polling data about "loyalty if another candidate wins." I did so because I know you disagree with that and so I thought it'd be the clearest argument I could make in support of my point of view over that poll over yours!

Then you started asking why the Sanders 2016 situation is constantly brought up and not 2008 and I'm telling you why! Because in 2016 if you move those Sanders-Trump voters over to Clinton she wins the election and in 2008 Obama won by so much it didn't matter what the Clinton defectors did! It's a pretty facile argument that ignores how there are always defectors in every election and ignores all the other factors in play that contributed to Clinton's loss but you asked why the situations are treated differently and I told you!

The truth of the matter is the margin was so close you can blame any one thing for Clinton losing. I choose to go with the Comey letter but it's so close that you could pick any one factor and flipping it probably makes up the difference! People were disappointed and hurt and outraged over the results and real harm has occured to many people and so it shouldn't be shocking that there is lashing out at various targets even if they don't really deserve it. When you can make a "simple" statement like "If all Sanders supporters who voted for Trump voted for Clinton she would have won the election" well that's appealing to people who are looking for someone or something to blame! Nevermind that that's not the whole picture and that if you dig into it you find it's not really the most accurate one either.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im not gonna lie, I have a fear that Bernie pulls off the Primary and then Dems (hypocritically) dont show up, and then blame Bernie for the loss.

I mean, wait until that actually happens tbqh. I think a lot of the friction between Sanders supporters and the "establishment" for lack of a better term is that it often seems like the Sanders side can't help but take swipes at the Democratic party to the point where it feels overly hostile.

Maybe that's an intentional choice by some, but if it is, those people shouldn't be shocked or dismayed when the natural human reaction of the "establishment" is to act defensively and fire back. honey not vinegar.

---

why

why is it just about 2020

and we still have to talk about Clinton

that poor horse has decomposed


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

If (some) Bernie supporters say I wont vote for your candidate if they win, it CAUSES other candidates supporters to not vote Bernie if he wins?

Wait, so chicken or egg here? Were these people ever going to vote Bernie? When I see people say theyre #neverbernie, am I allowed to not want to support their candidate in turn?

Why is all the scorn always on the Bernie supporters?

If you treat people like they're the enemy, don't be surprised when they become the enemy.

NeverBernie is just as bad as BernieOrBust. Both fail to realize the importance of the next election.

A lot of scorn is on Bernie supporters because they tend to go after other progressive candidates that they deem 'not progressive enough' while Biden supporters tend to go after progressive candidates rather than moderate candidates who aren't considered moderate enough. Attacking potential allies isn't the best strategy.

---

If RBG dies in the next 11 months, the election really isn't that important after all

---

FFDragon posted...

why

why is it just about 2020

and we still have to talk about Clinton

that poor horse has decomposed

we are living in hell and hell is endless re-litigation of 2016

prove me wrong

---

Learn from our mistakes?

Lol who does that?

---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, wait until that actually happens tbqh. I think a lot of the friction between Sanders supporters and the "establishment" for lack of a better term is that it often seems like the Sanders side can't help but take swipes at the Democratic party to the point where it feels overly hostile.

Maybe that's an intentional choice by some, but if it is, those people shouldn't be shocked or dismayed when the natural human reaction of the "establishment" is to act defensively and fire back. honey not vinegar.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Wait, so chicken or egg here? Were these people ever going to vote Bernie? When I see people say theyre #neverbernie, am I allowed to not want to support their candidate in turn?

Like I said, and like @Dancedreamer mentioned, its happening both ways, and yet 99% of the attention is on the vinegar of the Bernie supporters, and I posit that its not only unfair, but more harmful than anything Bernie has done.

---

No, you're positing a hypothetical that IF Sanders wins the nomination and IF he loses the general and IF there's similar or higher levels of democrats not voting for him all before a single vote has been cast in the primary.

That's what I'm saying chill and wait on. If it turns out that scenario plays out as you fear then crow about it if you like. But to say it now before anything has happened feels like either playing the victim or just another framing to take another shot at "establishment dems."

Yes, there's vitriol being tossed about between Sanders supporters and the more moderate wing of the party. Both sides are engaging in it. It's not really anything new. Hell, I'm not even sure we've reached peak 2008 levels of "jesus christ" yet either here or 2016. I mean, that one got so acrimonious we had Clinton state she wasn't conceding the race yet because what happened to RFK could happen to Obama. I remember because I was livid that she actually said that.

I'm not saying that there isn't trash being thrown at Sanders or anything. There absolutely is. But not only are his supporters also throwing it (even Warren of all people is becoming some neoliberal sellout if I'm to believe some pro-Sanders people and media personalities) but I don't even really think any of it is atypical really. Charitabily I'm left with the impression that for a lot of Sanders supporters their knowledge of how primary dialogue goes began in 2016 and don't realize what they're "going through" is not new or unusual. Like I said, PUMA was treated in much the same way as "BernieBros" back in 2008. They were mocked, they were challenged on supporting GOP policy/Bush policy just because they didn't get their candidate, racism was brought up, and the media gave them more coverage than they should have gotten.

You want to know why we don't talk/care about them anymore and Sanders is still brought up in the context of 2016? Because Obama won. They were laughed at for a few days after the election and then forgotten about. That's why. Maybe you don't think that's fair, but if you're claiming that the treatment of Sanders supporters/Bernie or Bust is something unprecedented. It really isn't.

---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, if you're going to read it that way, then isn't the logical extension that Gabbard has by far the best result in that poll lol?

Yes, she does

---

I'm a "blue no matter who" but I don't know if I could actually vote for tulsi. fortunately I won't have to

I dive pretty deep into the muck and both Aanders supporters and other candidates have some yikes people.

That being said some Democrats are for sure my enemy btw. It is hard to hear I am sure but yeah.

---

My take: the worst of the Bernie Sanders supporters are more overbearing to deal with the worst of the supporters of say, Warren or Biden. This is partially because Sanders is often screwed over by the media and this can get aggravating for them, but it's still my perception.

This is partially fueled by knowing several Bernie Bros in real life who switched to Trump.

---

Progressives still think they have some form of principle even though most still prefer fascists to libertarians

---

Id take a legitimate Libertarian over a Bloomberg any day.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Id take a legitimate Libertarian over a Bloomberg any day.

Who is a legitimate libertarian?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Who is a legitimate libertarian?

Literally nobody registered Republican, Im referring to a theoretical one.

---

Theoretical legitimate libertarians are just as much of a fantasy world concept as libertarianism itself

foolm0r0n posted...

Progressives still think they have some form of principle even though most still prefer fascists to libertarians

I love facists.

---

I too would elect a magical gumdrop fairy over Bloomberg
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Who is a legitimate libertarian?

Ron Paul?

---

To even remotely approach libertarianism, you need to oppose the civil rights act, so that's a nonstarter in our dumb modern reactive political culture.

---

Ron Paul is pretty looney, but yeah, Id take a President who supports 100% of the social beliefs I want and 0% of the economic ones over someone like Bloomberg who is like the worst of both worlds, plus wants to ban things like soda.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Ron Paul is pretty looney, but yeah, Id take a President who supports 100% of the social beliefs I want and 0% of the economic ones over someone like Bloomberg who is like the worst of both worlds, plus wants to ban things like soda.

What social beliefs does Bloomberg not support?

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

To even remotely approach libertarianism, you need to oppose the civil rights act, so that's a nonstarter in our dumb modern reactive political culture.

Ah, I forgot about this one.

Well Id hope the support for actually following through on that would be pretty non-existent for obvious reasons, but Id need to be sure thats not at risk.

That being said, Bloomberg pushed Stop and Frisk policy, and theres zero chance Ron Paul would support that, so another point Paul.

---

You know, I say I'd vote Democrat no matter what, but I'm pretty sure I'd vote for Trump over Bloomberg.

The last thing you want running through both parties minds is that it takes a billionaire to beat a billionaire.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Who is a legitimate libertarian?

Amash

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Amash

Not really

---