Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

CID1990 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If I was ever a Republican, I was not recently. I have been registered as a Libertarian for as long as I can remember. At the same time, I was born in 1957 and can only remember one case in my lifetime where i voted for a Democrat prior to 2016. And I am a person who votes in every election local, state and national.

I did not vote Republican because I thought the Republican Party is great. I did it because I thought it was the lessor of two evils among realistic choices. That has changed. I now see the Democrat Party as the lessor of two evils as the Republican Party has really plunged into darkness in association with this Trump thing. Just completely thrown any semblance of integrity out the window and is all in with a totally corrupt, dishonest, and mentally ill guy.

You calling yourself a Libertarian while supporting any Dem candidate currently in the field is just as incongruent as Republicans supporting runaway deficit spending under Trump

You just make it sound as though you are ill yourself when you try to reconcile that.

Each Party has Libertarian aspects. I consider the Republicans to be a bigger threat to Liberty over the long term right now.

I do not think Elizabeth Warren is a good candidate. She's got extreme positions. She also comes off as shrill.

That's why it amazes me that she continues to run ahead of Trump in popular vote polls. She's farther ahead of him in the Real Clear Politics average of polls, to a fairly substantial degree, then Clinton was on election eve 2016.

Right now her margin in that average is 5.2 percentage points. On election even 2016, Clinton's edge in that average was 3.2 percentage points. Also, as I posted earlier (in this thread I think), maximum extent to which the Real Clear Politics average of polling has been off in the most recent 10 national elections (President and House) going back through 2006 (as far back as I could find averages) is 3.6 percentage points. So Warren being up by 5.2 on Trump in that average is notable.

That's not the only result that makes me think Republicans may over estimate the extent to which people are afraid of the "Socialist" label. The last Real Clear Politics average for Sanders vs. Trump in 2016, reported on June 6, 2016, had Sanders up by 10.3 percentage points. On the same date, the average had Clinton up on Trump by just 2 percentage points. If anybody didn't know Sanders was a Socialist at the time, they must've been hiding under a pretty thick rock. Actually I'm sure some people didn't know because we have a pretty uninformed population. Still, Sanders was widely known to be openly Socialist.

Similarly, I think Warren's general approaches to government is pretty well known. And her voice is like fingernails on a blackboard for those of us old enough to remember that. Yet polling consistently suggests more people nationally would vote for her than for Trump. And if she to be the candidate and win the popular vote by something like 5 percentage points I think her chances of also winning the Electoral College would be good.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

If you're talking about for the current cycle, no. If you're talking about Libertarian candidates running in general elections in the past, yes.

I am registered as a Libertarian because a higher proportion of my own positions are held by the Libertarian Party than are held by Democrat or Republican Parties. I am not involved in Libertarian Party processes like selecting candidates. And, as I've said before, I will not vote in a general election for someone who has no chance to win.

Now, if they would go to "instant primary" or "ranked" voting as I wish they would, I would.

John you calling yourself a libertarian and supporting the current crop of Donk candidates is like evangelicals supporting Trump.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

That’s something I’ve always thought about and there’s never a good answer - what happens to all the people who work in health insurance when you eliminate their jobs. Bring them over to the govt? Not sure what the right answer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:I do not think Elizabeth Warren is a good candidate. She's got extreme positions. She also comes off as shrill.

That's why it amazes me that she continues to run ahead of Trump in popular vote polls. She's farther ahead of him in the Real Clear Politics average of polls, to a fairly substantial degree, then Clinton was on election eve 2016.

Right now her margin in that average is 5.2 percentage points. On election even 2016, Clinton's edge in that average was 3.2 percentage points. Also, as I posted earlier (in this thread I think), maximum extent to which the Real Clear Politics average of polling has been off in the most recent 10 national elections (President and House) going back through 2006 (as far back as I could find averages) is 3.6 percentage points. So Warren being up by 5.2 on Trump in that average is notable.

That's not the only result that makes me think Republicans may over estimate the extent to which people are afraid of the "Socialist" label. The last Real Clear Politics average for Sanders vs. Trump in 2016, reported on June 6, 2016, had Sanders up by 10.3 percentage points. On the same date, the average had Clinton up on Trump by just 2 percentage points. If anybody didn't know Sanders was a Socialist at the time, they must've been hiding under a pretty thick rock. Actually I'm sure some people didn't know because we have a pretty uninformed population. Still, Sanders was widely known to be openly Socialist.

Similarly, I think Warren's general approaches to government is pretty well known. And her voice is like fingernails on a blackboard for those of us old enough to remember that. Yet polling consistently suggests more people nationally would vote for her than for Trump. And if she to be the candidate and win the popular vote by something like 5 percentage points I think her chances of also winning the Electoral College would be good.

And you will vote for her, principles be damned, solely because she has a chance to win. Got it.

Ibanez wrote:That’s something I’ve always thought about and there’s never a good answer - what happens to all the people who work in health insurance when you eliminate their jobs. Bring them over to the govt? Not sure what the right answer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

State Farm, Geico and Progressive will hire them out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

UNI88 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:That’s something I’ve always thought about and there’s never a good answer - what happens to all the people who work in health insurance when you eliminate their jobs. Bring them over to the govt? Not sure what the right answer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

State Farm, Geico and Progressive will hire them out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Naturally.


But not Liberty Mutual. Those bastards and their emu are heartless scum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I do not think Elizabeth Warren is a good candidate. She's got extreme positions. She also comes off as shrill.

That's why it amazes me that she continues to run ahead of Trump in popular vote polls. She's farther ahead of him in the Real Clear Politics average of polls, to a fairly substantial degree, then Clinton was on election eve 2016.

Right now her margin in that average is 5.2 percentage points. On election even 2016, Clinton's edge in that average was 3.2 percentage points. Also, as I posted earlier (in this thread I think), maximum extent to which the Real Clear Politics average of polling has been off in the most recent 10 national elections (President and House) going back through 2006 (as far back as I could find averages) is 3.6 percentage points. So Warren being up by 5.2 on Trump in that average is notable.

That's not the only result that makes me think Republicans may over estimate the extent to which people are afraid of the "Socialist" label. The last Real Clear Politics average for Sanders vs. Trump in 2016, reported on June 6, 2016, had Sanders up by 10.3 percentage points. On the same date, the average had Clinton up on Trump by just 2 percentage points. If anybody didn't know Sanders was a Socialist at the time, they must've been hiding under a pretty thick rock. Actually I'm sure some people didn't know because we have a pretty uninformed population. Still, Sanders was widely known to be openly Socialist.

Similarly, I think Warren's general approaches to government is pretty well known. And her voice is like fingernails on a blackboard for those of us old enough to remember that. Yet polling consistently suggests more people nationally would vote for her than for Trump. And if she to be the candidate and win the popular vote by something like 5 percentage points I think her chances of also winning the Electoral College would be good.

And you will vote for her, principles be damned, solely because she has a chance to win. Got it.

Are those the same polls that had Beta beating Trump 52-48? And yet he polled at 0% in his own fucking primary?

UNI88 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:That’s something I’ve always thought about and there’s never a good answer - what happens to all the people who work in health insurance when you eliminate their jobs. Bring them over to the govt? Not sure what the right answer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

State Farm, Geico and Progressive will hire them out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

I have heard that 2 million jobs would be lost with her health plan.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:That’s something I’ve always thought about and there’s never a good answer - what happens to all the people who work in health insurance when you eliminate their jobs. Bring them over to the govt? Not sure what the right answer is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you miss this gem? Pocahontas has a plan:
https://championshipsubdivision.com/for ... 5#p1274869

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
If you're talking about for the current cycle, no. If you're talking about Libertarian candidates running in general elections in the past, yes.

I am registered as a Libertarian because a higher proportion of my own positions are held by the Libertarian Party than are held by Democrat or Republican Parties. I am not involved in Libertarian Party processes like selecting candidates. And, as I've said before, I will not vote in a general election for someone who has no chance to win.

Now, if they would go to "instant primary" or "ranked" voting as I wish they would, I would.

John you calling yourself a libertarian and supporting the current crop of Donk candidates is like evangelicals supporting Trump.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

No it's not. The phenomenon that led to Trump being where he is is not a phenomenon friendly to the cause of Liberty.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And you will vote for her, principles be damned, solely because she has a chance to win. Got it.

Are those the same polls that had Beta beating Trump 52-48? And yet he polled at 0% in his own fucking primary?

There is, for obvious reasons, no current Real Clear Politics average of polls for that match up. But it doesn't matter. The reason Beto dropped out is because he could see he wasn't going to win the Democrat nomination. That does not mean he would not have had a solid chance at beating Trump if he COULD get the Democrat nomination.

JohnStOnge wrote:

UNI88 wrote:John you calling yourself a libertarian and supporting the current crop of Donk candidates is like evangelicals supporting Trump.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

No it's not. The phenomenon that led to Trump being where he is is not a phenomenon friendly to the cause of Liberty.

And Warren’s a friend of Liberty? Turn in your Libertarian card, John. You just don’t get it. And you don’t do anything for the party. You’re a drone.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Are those the same polls that had Beta beating Trump 52-48? And yet he polled at 0% in his own fucking primary?

As I've tried to get you guys to see, there is a historical record on the Real Clear Politics average of polls and it provides an idea as to how far off it might be. The maximum extent to which it has been off in national elections is 3.6 percentage points. The average is 2.01 percentage points.

When you see something like Warren leading Trump by 5.2 percentage points in that average, that is notable. If you are a Trump fan and you are dismissing her leading him by that much in that average you are sticking your head in the sand.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No it's not. The phenomenon that led to Trump being where he is is not a phenomenon friendly to the cause of Liberty.

And Warren’s a friend of Liberty? Turn in your Libertarian card, John. You just don’t get it. And you don’t do anything for the party. You’re a drone.

Based on what I've seen you post I have been a Libertarian for a lot longer than you have been. The Republican Party is a greater threat to Liberty right now than the Democratic Party is. The Republican Party, in the cause of protecting Trump, is actively engaged in attacking the institutions and procedures that protect Liberty.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And Warren’s a friend of Liberty? Turn in your Libertarian card, John. You just don’t get it. And you don’t do anything for the party. You’re a drone.

Based on what I've seen you post I have been a Libertarian for a lot longer than you have been. The Republican Party is a greater threat to Liberty right now than the Democratic Party is. The Republican Party, in the cause of protecting Trump, is actively engaged in attacking the institutions and procedures that protect Liberty.

You are not a libertarian. Not even remotely. You’re delusional if you still think so.

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Are those the same polls that had Beta beating Trump 52-48? And yet he polled at 0% in his own fucking primary?

As I've tried to get you guys to see, there is a historical record on the Real Clear Politics average of polls and it provides an idea as to how far off it might be. The maximum extent to which it has been off in national elections is 3.6 percentage points. The average is 2.01 percentage points.

When you see something like Warren leading Trump by 5.2 percentage points in that average, that is notable. If you are a Trump fan and you are dismissing her leading him by that much in that average you are sticking your head in the sand.

You didn’t answer my question. Per usual.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And Warren’s a friend of Liberty? Turn in your Libertarian card, John. You just don’t get it. And you don’t do anything for the party. You’re a drone.

Based on what I've seen you post I have been a Libertarian for a lot longer than you have been. The Republican Party is a greater threat to Liberty right now than the Democratic Party is. The Republican Party, in the cause of protecting Trump, is actively engaged in attacking the institutions and procedures that protect Liberty.

You can make an argument for Trump being a statist ... even a threat to institutions. But you cannot make an argument for Warren being a better alternative along those lines. Anyone who tries either hasnt been listening to her or is on her campaign staff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Are those the same polls that had Beta beating Trump 52-48? And yet he polled at 0% in his own fucking primary?

There is, for obvious reasons, no current Real Clear Politics average of polls for that match up. But it doesn't matter. The reason Beto dropped out is because he could see he wasn't going to win the Democrat nomination. That does not mean he would not have had a solid chance at beating Trump if he COULD get the Democrat nomination.

You would have a better chance of beating Trump than Beto, which is a very low bar for Beto.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: And Warren’s a friend of Liberty? Turn in your Libertarian card, John. You just don’t get it. And you don’t do anything for the party. You’re a drone.

Based on what I've seen you post I have been a Libertarian for a lot longer than you have been. The Republican Party is a greater threat to Liberty right now than the Democratic Party is. The Republican Party, in the cause of protecting Trump, is actively engaged in attacking the institutions and procedures that protect Liberty.

Oh, I’ll admit that you’ve been a do-nothing, name-only Libertarian for years. The fact that you don’t work for the party or support its candidates speaks volumes. Although I’ve been a member for only two years, I’ve done both.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
Based on what I've seen you post I have been a Libertarian for a lot longer than you have been. The Republican Party is a greater threat to Liberty right now than the Democratic Party is. The Republican Party, in the cause of protecting Trump, is actively engaged in attacking the institutions and procedures that protect Liberty.

Oh, I’ll admit that you’ve been a do-nothing, name-only Libertarian for years. The fact that you don’t work for the party or support its candidates speaks volumes. Although I’ve been a member for only two years, I’ve done both.

From since I have been here, I believe you are a libertarian as I agree with a little more than half of your posts, which fits thar party for me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JohnStOnge wrote:

UNI88 wrote:John you calling yourself a libertarian and supporting the current crop of Donk candidates is like evangelicals supporting Trump.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

No it's not. The phenomenon that led to Trump being where he is is not a phenomenon friendly to the cause of Liberty.

John, you're missing the point. The evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump because they felt the end (supreme court justices) justified the means. You will hold you nose and vote for Warren or another Donk because you feel the end justifies the means (the defeat of Trump). If you are really a libertarian, than you are a hypocrite just like they are.

UNI88 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No it's not. The phenomenon that led to Trump being where he is is not a phenomenon friendly to the cause of Liberty.

John, you're missing the point. The evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump because they felt the end (supreme court justices) justified the means. You will hold you nose and vote for Warren or another Donk because you feel the end justifies the means (the defeat of Trump). If you are really a libertarian, than you are a hypocrite just like they are.

No I'm not. First of all, each of the two major parties is more Libertarian than the other in certain ways. For example: Elizabeth Warren is, I think, far more likely to support legalizing marijuana on a Federal level and also to support tamping down the War on Drugs than Trump is. I think the Libertarian position on the all-important restroom issue would be to let anybody of any sex go to any bathroom they want to go to.

I think that, in general, Republicans are more Libertarian with respect to economic matters and Democrats are more Libertarian with respect to social matters. It's not a perfect dichotomy. But in general I think that's the case.

We have an extremely corrupt person in the Presidency right now. And no it's not like we typically talk about corruption. It's much worse. And that person has been successful in convincing around 45% of the population that when the media report on how corrupt he is it's fake news. This is an extremely dangerous situation wherein a very corrupt person is succeeding in destroying the institutions that protect our liberties. This thing needs to be defeated and if it means making Elizabeth Warren President that's the way it is.

JohnStOnge wrote:

UNI88 wrote:
John, you're missing the point. The evangelicals held their nose and voted for Trump because they felt the end (supreme court justices) justified the means. You will hold you nose and vote for Warren or another Donk because you feel the end justifies the means (the defeat of Trump). If you are really a libertarian, than you are a hypocrite just like they are.

No I'm not. First of all, each of the two major parties is more Libertarian than the other in certain ways. For example: Elizabeth Warren is, I think, far more likely to support legalizing marijuana on a Federal level and also to support tamping down the War on Drugs than Trump is. I think the Libertarian position on the all-important restroom issue would be to let anybody of any sex go to any bathroom they want to go to.

I think that, in general, Republicans are more Libertarian with respect to economic matters and Democrats are more Libertarian with respect to social matters. It's not a perfect dichotomy. But in general I think that's the case.

We have an extremely corrupt person in the Presidency right now. And no it's not like we typically talk about corruption. It's much worse. And that person has been successful in convincing around 45% of the population that when the media report on how corrupt he is it's fake news. This is an extremely dangerous situation wherein a very corrupt person is succeeding in destroying the institutions that protect our liberties. This thing needs to be defeated and if it means making Elizabeth Warren President that's the way it is.

Glad to hear that you think a person can take a dump wherever he or she wants, John. But Warren has absolutely no instinct or core belief in personal liberty. She’s an unrelenting statist. Which makes you a fellow traveler, and (as 88 correctly points out) a hypocrite of the first order.

Ivytalk wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No I'm not. First of all, each of the two major parties is more Libertarian than the other in certain ways. For example: Elizabeth Warren is, I think, far more likely to support legalizing marijuana on a Federal level and also to support tamping down the War on Drugs than Trump is. I think the Libertarian position on the all-important restroom issue would be to let anybody of any sex go to any bathroom they want to go to.

I think that, in general, Republicans are more Libertarian with respect to economic matters and Democrats are more Libertarian with respect to social matters. It's not a perfect dichotomy. But in general I think that's the case.

We have an extremely corrupt person in the Presidency right now. And no it's not like we typically talk about corruption. It's much worse. And that person has been successful in convincing around 45% of the population that when the media report on how corrupt he is it's fake news. This is an extremely dangerous situation wherein a very corrupt person is succeeding in destroying the institutions that protect our liberties. This thing needs to be defeated and if it means making Elizabeth Warren President that's the way it is.

Glad to hear that you think a person can take a dump wherever he or she wants, John. But Warren has absolutely no instinct or core belief in personal liberty. She’s an unrelenting statist. Which makes you a fellow traveler, and (as 88 correctly points out) a hypocrite of the first order.

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/where-p ... marijuana/

She's got an "A" grade from NORML.