Prediction: Rhinos Will Throw T-Party Under Obama Bus

[mvanwink5]

Just as Rhinos threw Libertarian's under the bus and threw away the 2012 election, the Prog-pubs will do it again. 2014 was a clothes-pin election for a good reason (Rhinos stink), but backing the Repubs was a no-win bargain. So expect the Rhinos to stick to their true heart and throw in with Obama's Democans. You see, these faithless Rhinos always believe that the TeaP's and Libertarians will always dig out that clothes pin for the next election.

Condi Rice just paid the Bush's their due and endorsed Jeb, just like Colin Powell backed GW Bush. Rhino's delusional belief in the clothes-pin vote (as just happened in the 2014 midterm) is only equal to the delusional belief by Democans that race and gender baiting will always muster minorities and women to vote for them. There is only one way to break these crony backed progressive Repub and Democ politicians...

vote rebellion. Next election, vote only for true independents (not the faux ones).

[paperburn1]

I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your solution, it is in the parties that are the problem but is the voting system itself that is the truly genuine problem. Right now we have first past the post voting. What this does is forces us into it two-party system. And unfortunately with the two-party system you end up with about 66% of the electoral voters being dissatisfied with the outcome of the election. The other side effect of this is called the spoiler effect. If you run is a third-party in a two-party system you end up hurting the party you are most closely aligned to. This allows the other party to win by a large margin then controlling the Senate and the House.

What we need to think about implementing if we ever plan to keep democracy intact in United States's is a system called preferential voting. This system allows you to list your candidates in the order of preference and redistributes your vote if your candidate is not in the running to the next viable candidate on your list. I'm going to enclose a link that explains this better I hope you enjoy it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

[mvanwink5]

A thoughtful reply. Thanks. Here is a person entering into the fray that makes sense to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO89G2hj2AY
Dr. Ben Carson: A Plan To Save America From Tyranny
I like his analysis on the fundamental issues.

[mvanwink5]

One of the problems with alternative voting is that one has much more investigation and analysis to do. Usually, the fringe candidates don't get the scrutiny as other candidates, but in alternative voting, not only does each candidate require full scrutiny, but also ranking as well as strategic ranking. Few have that time or intellect (just my opinion). Furthermore, the issue I have is not incrementalism, or which is incrementally better. It means I might not have a ranking; there might not be an alternate.

In my case, the problem is that both political parties are fundamentally the same, namely both are 'Progressive' which is a 'Forward' sounding word that really means the opposite, namely socialist, and socialist has two variants, fascist and communist.

My point was that the need for the clothes pin was that underneath the Rhino exterior is the progressive, and that leads to what we have had which is progressive movement to Socialism. Therefore for me, the choices only leaves a protest vote, or threat of a protest vote, which only works when one starts to vote that way. I have reached that point, I have reached my tipping point where a protest vote is what comes next; I'll never vote Rhino again.

[hanelyp]

First past the post is the worst of the simple "fair" election methods. But it was long established as the standard before modern election theory was more than a glimmer. I personally favor approval (binary weighted range) voting for the combination of simplicity, not favoring a subset of dominant parties, and reduced problems with voters who don't get right away how the ballots have changed. But rank voting would also work.

[MSimon]

We have a one Party system. The Party has two wings.

The Left Wing Progressives and the Right Wing Progressives.

The Left Wing Progressives focus on economic control and the Right Wing Progressives focus on social/individual control. In the Progressive era the two wings were united.

And it turns out that on the right those most committed to progressive policies accord themselves Christian Conservatives although in fact with their emphasis on punishment for crimes which are in fact not crimes they are neither Christian nor Conservative.

This book explains the politics quite well. It was never about the Drugs. It was about power and control. The enforcement of culture.

Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure

It was about enforcing a minority social code/culture on the general population. A progressive code (think Alcohol Prohibition). That theme runs through the book which is almost 20 years old.

Another theme that runs through the book is the shredding of Constitutional protections to get at the dopers (pot heads mostly).

If it's a dope case, I won't even read the petition. I ain't giving no break to no drug dealer. - Justice Thurgood Marshall, to Life magazine, 1987

Fortunately the Progressives on the Right are a dying breed. Once the social/cultural control fad is over we can attack the economic controllers. We have in fact had a Maoist type "Cultural Revolution" without the mass murders. Just a steady 2,000 a year. For 50 years. Prohibition related murders. Only 100,000 dead. And at such a rate that it is hardly noticeable. Turf wars. Just like Alcohol Prohibition.

The surveillance (police) State got its start with "Conservatives". Too funny.

And the thing that is most noticeable about Progressives and especially Culture War Progressives? They double down on known failure (Alcohol Prohibition). Well the left wing (economic regulators) will get its turn.

I'm optimistic.

[MSimon]

BTW The TEA Party Express - formerly a member of the Culture War - featured a Libertarian, Wayne Allyn Root - in a recent mailing.

As I said - I'm optimistic.

[MSimon]

A thoughtful reply. Thanks. Here is a person entering into the fray that makes sense to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO89G2hj2AY
Dr. Ben Carson: A Plan To Save America From Tyranny
I like his analysis on the fundamental issues.

Dr. Ben is a Progressive. A Culture Warrior. A Prohibitionist. A Cultural Socialist. He is one of the tyrannizers.

I think you have been fooled.

I always look at where they stand on Prohibition. And Dr. Ben stands at the Gates of Hell inviting all good "Christians" and their sympathizers in. Where is Wm. Buckley when you need him?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Drugs.htm

Religion kept me away from 1960s sex and drugs

Medical use of marijuana in compassionate cases has been proven to be useful, but recognize that marijuana is what is known as a gateway drug-- a starter for people who move on to heavier duty drugs. I don't think this is something we really want for our society. -- Source: Fox News Politics: "Ramifications of legal marijuana" , Jan 2, 2014

The only way to enforce Prohibition is a Police State.

[mvanwink5]

Thanks for that link. I had looked for his position on prohibition and had not found it. Oh, well. Typical, another well meaning progressive.

[MSimon]

Thanks for that link. I had looked for his position on prohibition and had not found it. Oh, well. Typical, another well meaning progressive.

Yes.

Well - just exactly how do you stop recreational use? If he was out front he would say something like, "I'm against recreational use of drugs and especially alcohol - but it is none of the government's business. You own your body."

Of course that would start a fight with the people who want to control women.

You own your body.

is cultural heresy. http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Abortion.htm - but again - no where does he say government should keep out.

I don't think the "limited government" message can be implied any more. I think it must be spoken to directly. And because he is unwilling to do that I do not trust him.

And you are correct about the "Christian" right and their sympathizers. They embody the principle of the fasces. And are correctly called fascists.

[Diogenes]

And of course, another thread having nothing to do with the topic has been turned into a childish Libertarian rant about weed.





"We want our weed!!!!!!"

[MSimon]

Actually we want an end to Prohibition II. It is just as stupid as Prohibition I. As are its supporters. Who make the same arguments about Prohibition II that the supporters of Prohibition I made about that Prohibition.

The parallels are uncanny.

And the waste of resources and the support for criminals are another parallel. You have to wonder about the love for criminals these fake "Conservatives" have. Real conservatism is going back to the way things used to be before the Progressives changed the laws.

And I might add that the Progressives have seen the error of their ways. But "Conservatives" can't see it. This is not a new phenomenon either. It happened during Prohibition I.

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G.K. Chesterton

Evidently the "Conservatives" have been stupid this way forever. I suspect it is congenital.

[MSimon]

And then of course we have the "morality" of so many people dying from cancer because of the laws denying them access to a cure. Cannabis will cure some cancers. And it might cure all of them.

I wrote about them: Christians Oppose Healing The Sick On Moral Grounds.

The American people are becoming more and more estranged from that kind of "morality" every day.

I'm so glad to call those types what they are. Losers. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Alaska. D.C. And 58% in Florida. And more coming in 2016 and perhaps some sooner. And Florida plans to go over the 60% mark in 2016.

Repent. The end is nigh.

[mvanwink5]

I took a look at the top two Rhino's, Jeb-n-Christie, positions on the issues. These two guys swim on the shallow pool end for vision for the country. Typical for Progressives as they really can't come right out and say their vision is Socialism... yet, so they put in a bunch of populist disconnects.

D, my issue with the war on drugs is twofold, it criminalizes users destroying their lives and criminalizes their supply chain, and thusly funds a massive criminal industry. That in itself is catastrophic and expensive. Second is more fundamental, it establishes that people don't own themselves, and then that begs the question of who does? The answer to that question is the truly big disaster.

However, if you take paperburn1's point, which is also msimon's point also, you pick your key issue and vote on it, with the hope that once that issue is breached that the next issue can be addressed without losing ground. I am unsure this works in real life as it hasn't so far. But, my rope's end is that any vote for a Progressive is a devil's deal, and that deal has been the only one offered by what has become the Rhino party.

Hence, I've come to my ropes end and my vote rebellion.

[mvanwink5]

So, MSimon, would you trade prohibition's end for loss of internet's independence via its regulation for the 'good' of its users?