Trump for Pres?

[RidgeHunter]

The only thing is that when independent thinkers flee the republican party, there is no chance for someone like brogdon. I'd like to be registered "I" but I don't want to give up my primary vote to lean the republican party to libertarian principles.

There is still hope and reasons to be involved on state level issues, but the logical part of me says presidential elections don't matter.

 

[ignerntbend]

Well, this would be the time in which poor ignernt exposes all the details in his voting life. I turned 18 in 1975, and voted in the Texas primary for no less a personage than Ronald Reagan. In November I voted for Gerald Ford. Then I left my daddy's poor dirt farm for the great big city of Austin. There were school teachers there who siezed my mind and grappled my thoughs. Poor ignernt became a Democrat and G-- alone can save him.
I've voted Republican for county commisioner and sherrif on many occasions. That's about all I have to say about that.

 

[dlbleak]

This whole thread has morphed from Trump for prez to "why did you vote the way you did, and you all are stupid for voting at all"

Lets get back to the OP.

I listened to Trump the other day on Hannity, and he was asked up front why he contributed money to Chicago elections, both dem and rep. It was a back door answer, like most wannabe politicians than never gives an answer.
He said that he is a businessman and has to acclimate to the political area, as a developer to make sure he has a shot at the job.

That told me that he is nothing more than a main line politician that will waft with the winds to assure they get a vote at election time.

So, how do we vote? They are all the same?

i agree dennis, trump sounded good until he was asked about his contributions to shumer and rahn emmanuels campaign. i'm sure they were primarily business based. that is the problem with trump though. he is so entangled in his business that i don't think he can seperate the politics. he would just have two platforms to scratch backs from.

 

[Cinaet]

This whole thread has morphed from Trump for prez to "why did you vote the way you did, and you all are stupid for voting at all"

Lets get back to the OP.

You're right dennis.

I really do think that Trump is a sideshow. I think he's in this for the exposure (all publicity is good publicity for his Trump brand) and for his ego, which seems to be massive. He threw out a couple of easy hot button issues to grab attention and make a splash. Now he's riding the wave. He's getting huge exposure. I don't think he'll ever file papers and make it official. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, especially this early in the process, but it does and can pull focus away from candidates who might actually have a chance to win. No serious candidate is going to base his platform on China and the birther issue. At lest no serious candidate who has a chance of defeating Obama. Right now it's all just entertainment.

 

[LightningCrash]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[henschman]

So not voting Republican regardless of the candidate ensures an Obama win?

Do any of you really think that Oklahoma has any chance of going blue in this election even if all of us libertarian folk don't vote in the general election?

The best we can hope to do is to make the statist neocon's margin a little less comfortable than he would have liked, and possibly to contribute to a low voter turnout, in an effort to register our discontent.

Like I've always said, voting is about the least effective thing you can be doing to influence the political process. If that is all you're doing, it is not nearly enough.

 

[vvvvvvv]

The only thing is that when independent thinkers flee the republican party, there is no chance for someone like brogdon. I'd like to be registered "I" but I don't want to give up my primary vote to lean the republican party to libertarian principles.

That's the only reason I'm registered "R".

 

[vvvvvvv]

Because at least you're voting for the best you can get Veggie.

Or are you fueling the "two-party" shell game? When both candidates on the ballot are nearly identical, and both "parties" have the same goals, how is a vote for one or the other voting for "the best you can get"?

 

[Nraman]

Or are you fueling the "two-party" shell game? When both candidates on the ballot are nearly identical, and both "parties" have the same goals, how is a vote for one or the other voting for "the best you can get"?

Because the two parties are not identical.
The people that control them don't give them a list of their daily duties. It seems that as long as they take care of certain issues the parties are allowed to pursue their own policies.
That's where we come in, we have the right to determine our own destiny for the issues that we are allowed to. Not voting would take away your ability to affect change on the issues you are allowed to.
Voting matters, parties matter...some.

 

[cjjtulsa]

Because the two parties are not identical.
The people that control them don't give them a list of their daily duties. It seems that as long as they take care of certain issues the parties are allowed to pursue their own policies.

But the end game's pretty much the same.

Sure, we get to argue about gun control or abortion, or whether or not grandma's going to starve if they take the extreme measure of cutting 1½% of the budget, but otherwise this train is headed to the same station, regardless of who's in the locomotive.