That’s exactly the point. I can do whatever I damn well please. I can vote for anyone I want. I’ll give you a liberal spin, Trump is evolving.
And nice dodge on my question. What possible alternative is there? Enlighten me.
It's not the point because no one ever said you couldn't do whatever you damn well please. The point is what kind of an idiot claims to be a conservative, says a liberal never changes and then votes for a former liberal for the highest office in the country. The libertarian candidate is an alternative.
Vit knows how I feel about that aspect of Drumpf. He is allowed to disagree with me, and we continue to be fine. He's alot less anti Drumpf that I am, and I'm mainly anti Drumpf because of his Muslim ban and registration policies. They ARE Hitler like, and as a Jew I'm very sensitive to it. Unlike the sick cult down here who have to be lockstep, smart, normal people can disagree.
I know your opinion and understand it for sure. I just have a different opinion and that happens among sane people.
Im not as opposed to Trump because he is not a conservative or really even a republican. I agree with his stance on gw Bush, Iraq war, and he's liberal with some issues. I would says he's less dangerous in the White House than Ted Cruz.
Johnson needs some rich libertarian to pull a Perot and just buy 1/2 hour worth of time on network TV. Only problem is I think the media loves Hillary vs Trump way too much to give him the time of day. It's just two hugely polarizing, divisive figures which makes it a media wet dream.
If he had more name recognition then I absolutely think his message would resonate with a lot of voters across the ideological spectrum. Trump and Hillary are the two most disliked people facing off in a general election ever.
A law is a law, so follow the law.
Prosecuting business owners and corporations that hire illegals would force the hiring of citizens, make the American workers have more of an advantage in negotiating wages, and eliminate the incentive for the illegals to come to the country. It seems like a no-brainer.
I wonder who opposes this idea?
the only thing Ross Perot accomplished was to make sure Bubba was elected twice. It was clearly his objective in 1992, he disliked Poppy
a strong libertarian candidate would guarantee a democratic victory
That's my point. Security has got to be priority #1 for a president and Congress. Without it, there's no point in arguing about anything else...because there won't be much of a nation left.
But as I said before, border security affects every aspect of our lives. So, let's lock down the borders. Keep the scumbags out (frankly, if it were up to me...we'd send their heads back in boxes to the place they came from if they were discovered to have terror network associations). Then, after we're safe and secure, we can argue about all the other petty domestic bullshit amongst ourselves.
It's probably all moot, he likely won't get coverage or support but I do think there is a chance he could peel off from both sides. Obviously easier to peel off from Republicans since so many don't even like Trump. Still, a lot of younger Dems hate Hillary and they like his message on criminal justice reform, social issues and foreign policy. The caveat emptor with libertarians is always that they're way too isolationist with foreign policy, but I think once you get that 1st national security briefing that it changes your perspective pretty quickly.
He doesn't come off as a kook like Perot or Paul. Just a regular politician that happens to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Which is a view most Americans align with.
Re: Bush1. He really got a raw deal with the Perot thing. If he could've hung on for a 2nd term and was able to ride the initial wave of the tech boom he would've left the country with a strong economy and been considered 1 of the most successful presidents ever. The times make the man just as much as the man makes the times.
