Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Why Sen. Manchin is Wrong on Due Process

Why Sen. Manchin is Wrong on Due Process

How dare that stupid Constitution get in the way of tyranny!!

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has blamed due process as the reason why the government cannot pass more gun control.

From The Washington Examiner:

“The problem we have, and really the firewall we have right now, is due process. It’s all due process,” he said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“We can all say we want the same thing,” he continued, “but how do we get there?”

I wonder if he gets that THIS is why our awesome Founding Fathers put in the Fifth Amendment.

Gun control activists desperately want the government to ban people on the No Fly List from buying guns. Opponents, including the ACLU, said this violates the Fifth amendment.

The Fifth Amendment states:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The Due Process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Fifth Amendment applicable in state courts as well.

President Barack Obama has used the terrorists attack in Orlando to push this agenda, but the Republican controlled house correctly defeated the proposal:

“I think it’s very important to remember people have due process rights in this country, and we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said.

The ACLU (yes, that ACLU) cheered the defeat, but said no one should use the No Fly List to violate our natural rights until they fix it:

As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.

Deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy claimed “he had been stopped and interrogated on at least five occasions as he attempted to board flights at several different airports” because he appeared on the no fly list.

Rep. John Lewis even appeared on the list, causing 35 to 40 delays. His people reached out to federal agencies to remove him from the list, but no one ever did.

JetBlue removed an 18-month-old in 2012 because her name appeared on the list.

Unfortunately, the government can easily place a person on the list, but takes forever to get off of it. In 2014, The Intercept reported on the “March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance,” which explains how they put a person on the list. The reasons are vague and they can list people suspected of being a terrorist or “associating with people who are suspected of terrorism activity:”

“If reasonable suspicion is the only standard you need to label somebody, then it’s a slippery slope we’re sliding down here, because then you can label anybody anything,” says David Gomez, a former senior FBI special agent with experience running high-profile terrorism investigations. “Because you appear on a telephone list of somebody doesn’t make you a terrorist. That’s the kind of information that gets put in there.”

Weird, Dr. Sebastian Gorka saw Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn at O’Hare the other day.

If you cannot uphold the Constitution then do not run for political office.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Bill of Rights?” We don’t need no stnkin’ Bill of Rights!

    nordic_prince in reply to Romey. | June 16, 2016 at 10:28 pm

    Nothing new for Dims. Even in the 90s they were more concerned about the Rights of Bill than the Bill of Rights ~

DieJustAsHappy | June 16, 2016 at 7:43 pm

What is wrong with these people? Manchin refers to Mateen as “the gentleman.” He needs to take his head out of the PC barrel!

After watching Lois Lerner and the IRS target people for their political beliefs, does anyone honestly believe what these progs are pushing for is a good idea?

The way they keep coming back, trying over and over again, makes me think that they really don’t understand what would happen if they tried to confiscate.

    Eastwood Ravine in reply to Paul. | June 17, 2016 at 11:31 am

    Progs know exactly what they are doing. I have no doubt they want the civil war that would happen at this point. Why? Because they’ve convinced themselves that should it happen, Progs have the media, law enforcement, and other institutions on their side, so thinking they would win a civil war before it started would be natural in their arrogant thinking.

Manchin’s right to blame due process.

The proposal is “people on FBI terrorist watch list shouldn’t buy guns.” Take the Orlando shooter, he was put on the watch list based on one complaint by one coworker. (Then taken off the list in 2914 but I digress).

Should constitutional rights disappear based on a single complaint that may not have even been fully investigated by the FBI?

    Paul in reply to rotten. | June 16, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    If this sort of law passed, the prog drones would ‘flood the box’ by submitting millions of fraudulent complaints against known conservatives, thus denying them their rights. Flaming prog judges and tit-sucking prog ‘civil servants’ would be complicit.

    Nah…..come and take it motherfuckers.

rabid wombat | June 16, 2016 at 7:48 pm

“I wonder if he gets that THIS is why our awesome Founding Fathers put in the Fifth Amendment.”

It is the reason why there is the Second Amendment

How dare these idiots remain in office.

https://ricochet.com/trump-backs-democrats-no-fly-list-gun-ban/

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns.
8:50 AM – 15 Jun 2016

12,848 12,848 Retweets
40,030

The observation has been made that T-rump is to the left of the ACLU on this.

It is not an unfair conclusion…

    murkyv in reply to Ragspierre. | June 16, 2016 at 9:44 pm

    What “observation”?

    You, nor any of the other #never Trumpers have any clue as to the outcome of that meeting.

    If he was who you childishly believe he is, he wouldn’t be meeting with them

    According to Rag’s if we’d just kill “T-rump” all the bad crap would go away. “T-rump’s” never held any legislative office, never held an executive position, never been appointed a judge but all the bad crap is directly traceable to him. Methinks Rag’s has some kind of psycho fixation on “T-rump”. Some kind of Jodie Foster, John Hinckley thing.
    It makes one wonder if Rag’s goes to the Goodwill “T-rump” donates his old suits to & has an arrangement with the store to buy “T-rumps” castoffs.
    I don’t even want to speculate what sick things he does with or in them afterwards.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to secondwind. | June 17, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      I have never heard Rags threaten the life of any of the presidential candidates, Trump included. So I would suggest that you refrain from accusing members here of felony behavior without evidence. It is completely inappropriate and beneath you.

        Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 17, 2016 at 4:16 pm

        secondwind didn’t accuse Rags of threatening anything, but merely of believing that it would be a good thing if someone were to kill Trump. That’s not a crime. I can’t read Rags’s mind, but I readily admit that I do believe that. I hope Trump does not end up being the GOP candidate, and I’m OK with that happening because he’s assassinated. I think the assassins would be doing the USA and the GOP a favor. And it’s my first amendment right to express that opinion. No legislature has the power to make it illegal.

        But I have no plans to do the deed myself. If I were to make such a plan, and to disclose it in a way that would cause a reasonable person to believe that I would carry it out, that would be an illegal threat.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2016 at 4:34 pm

          “According to Rag’s if we’d just kill “T-rump” all the bad crap would go away.”

          That is a direct accusation it is inappropriate. He is implying that Rags has threatened to kill or has suggested that Trump should be killed, both of which are threats and meet the criteria to warrant Secret Service at least looking at them.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | June 19, 2016 at 12:23 pm

          Gremlin, implying (or outright saying) that Trump should be killed is not a threat, and is fully protected by the first amendment.

          There are no criteria for the Secret Service looking at someone. They have the right to look at anyone, for any reason or for no reason at all. It’s a free country, after all. But they can’t do anything to someone merely for advocating someone’s murder, let alone merely for wishing someone dead.

        I hadn’t checked back on this thread for a few day’s as I’d figured it to be pretty much dead & over.
        Gremlin 1974 ;
        Appropriate handle. A dead automaker & one of its last models that was all ass & no motor. Always in the shop with a guy under the hood doing God knows what.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to secondwind. | June 18, 2016 at 6:54 am

          Ohh, aren’t you smart! Except my handle has nothing to do with a car and never has. Also, if you actually understood things like grammar and basic English you would know that to appropriate way to refer to a car would be with the year first. Therefore to refer to the car you would put 1974Gremlin.

          Gremlin1974 happens to be a combination of my call sign from my military days and the year I was born.

          I just love people who think they are intelligent, its always so much fun to watch them make fools of themselves, so I find you very entertaining.

    VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | June 17, 2016 at 8:12 am

    Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) on display.

    The least likely explanation of his words is the one offered. If he were going to oppose them, why would he meet with them? Far more likely is that he went there to get a briefing on the issue from people he respected.

    TDS appears to be as destructive to the minds of adults as Zika is to the unborn.

      The interesting thing about TDS is that it affects his supporters as much as his detractors. Not to mention the man himself. Since when are obsence, vaguely anti-semitic terms legitimate for Republicans? (The Dems, of course, know no bottom.)

        VaGentleman in reply to mzk. | June 17, 2016 at 5:57 pm

        And so #NeverTrump’s solution to these (unspecified) ‘obsence, vaguely anti-semitic terms’ is to vote for that paragon of virtue, Hillary Clinton! No one better to uphold the Republican virtues of small government, the constitution, the bill of rights (all of it) and the primacy of individual freedom. Who better to break the backs of the ruling elites, the K Street lobbyists and the influence peddlers and buyers. How could I have been so stupid not to see all her virtues?

        She wants to take away the 2nd amendment rights of all americans, and the first amendment rights of ‘climate deniers’ and anyone else who disagrees with her. At least we will have 8.5 of the first 10 amendments left – and that’s good enough for #NeverTrump.

        Manchin is Hillary Clinton. What you despise (rightly) in him, she is also guilty of – and more. Any criticism you have of Trump applies to her 10x over. Voting for her is an act of suicide, not an act of conscience.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to VaGentleman. | June 18, 2016 at 6:48 am

          I keep hearing this stuff about #nevertrump voting for Hillary, but you know I never can seem to find a #nevertrump that says that’s what they are going to do. Its almost as if it is made up propaganda by someone who realizes that pissing off more than half the party doesn’t lead to good outcomes.

          VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | June 18, 2016 at 1:00 pm

          Gremlin1974

          Here is one of many articles on #NeverTrump and their vote for Hillary.

          http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/03/when-nevertrump-becomes-imwithher.html

          You will find many on this site who have flat out said they will vote Hillary to stop Trump.

          I wish it was made up.

          Va. G.
          I seem to remember edge of the catbox telling Rags he’d vote for Hillary to stop Trump a little over a week ago.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to VaGentleman. | June 19, 2016 at 3:37 pm

          The dailybeast is a left with website and always has been, so I would presume that it is a pack of lies, since that is what 99% of their content is, I refuse to give them the traffic to find out. But anyone who gave the daily beast an article isn’t a conservative.

“Due process is killing us”?

Um, no. Progressive policies are “killing us”. Due process is the only thing that protects us from them.

Day after day, I am constantly reminded about how smart that bunch of old, white, elite, male politicians were when they put together our constitution.

Only fascists don’t believe in ‘due process’. Hitler would have loved the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin.

Was the Orlando shooter on the No Fly list? I don’t know if this would make any difference.

Now, if we just modify the background check for firearms purchases to prevent Democrats from buying weapons, that WOULD have stopped him from legally buying a firearm.

So forget the No Fly list… just treat registered Democrats the same way we treat felons, and things might actually get done.

If you cannot uphold the Constitution then do not run for political office.

And if they’re already in office, they should resign or otherwise be removed.

JUST WHAT PART OF YOUR OATH OF OFFICE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ????

U.S. Senate: Oath of Office. Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will “support and defend the Constitution.” The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.
U.S. Senate: Oath of Office
http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index…/Oath_vrd.htmUnited States Senate

Pettifogger | June 16, 2016 at 8:47 pm

How long before the conservative blogosphere and those who read it are all on the terrorist watch list?

    rabidfox in reply to Pettifogger. | June 17, 2016 at 10:47 pm

    Weren’t veterans and TEA party types on the DHS terrorist list at one point? Are we still on the DHS list of potential terrorists?

I’m astonished by the number of “conservatives” who are on board with denying the sale of firearms to people on government “watch lists.” These “conservatives” are referring to this suggestion as “common sense,” when “constitutionality” is the standard by which legislation is to be judged. But set the precedent, and what other right will collapse before the onslaught “common sense”? It’s “common sense,” for instance, that warrantless searches of entire neighborhoods in places like Los Angeles and Chicago would result in the seizure of much contraband, drugs and firearms included. Is this sufficient excuse to dispose with the 4th Amendment on the grounds of “common sense” for the public safety value of such searches?

I think most leftists are domestic cultural terrorists, can we remove their 1st amendment rights? I thought not. Now I’ll be on a list somewhere, amirite?

One of Ted Kennedy’s problems was that his fly was always open.

    Paul in reply to Rick. | June 17, 2016 at 8:19 am

    And he was stoned drunk half the time. And he was a coward. And he was a murderer.

    mzk in reply to Rick. | June 17, 2016 at 2:25 pm

    Also, apparantly, a zombie:

    Deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy claimed “he had been stopped and interrogated on at least five occasions as he attempted to board flights at several different airports” because he appeared on the no fly list.

    But, seriously, Ted Kennedy belongs on a no-fly list. And a no-gun-purchase list. And a no-vote (convicted felon) list.

Well then I guess Mr. Munchkin will be very understanding when we raid his offices and home and seize his records and bank accounts so that we can investigate his ties to…….Wait I don’t have to tell him that part, no due process, yaay!!!

Liberals have a two-step process for dealing with gun violence which will work perfectly (in their twisted little heads).

1) Ban all crazy people from having guns.
2) Declare that anybody who wants a gun, is crazy.

See? Problem solved. (/snark)

Today seems to be a day of absolute insanity …

From Drudge:
AR-15’S FLYING OFF SHELVES…
Sales surge among gays, lesbians…
West Hollywood Inundated With Pro-Gun, Pro-Gay Posters…
Calls for expanded ‘watch list’ tests civil liberties…
CIA WARNS: ISIS COMING…
Countries in visa-free travel program not sharing terror info…
Algorithm aims to predict attacks…
441 Syrian Refugees Admitted to USA Since Orlando Attack…
White House sees SURGE in coming months…
Iraqi Man Clutching Koran Harasses Diners At TX IHOP…

If this appeared while George W Bush was President, there would be calls that he had lost control of the situation and a change of party was needed in the White House and Congress

… but with Barack Obama …

Ever notice how close “media” is to “Medea”, the evil witch of Greek mythology?

Manchin is right. Due process is killing us, and has been for decades. There is no question that the streets would be a lot safer for almost all of us if the police could lock up anyone they reasonably suspected of a violent crime. Even better, if they could lock up anyone they had good reason to believe is likely to commit a violent crime. We’d be safer if acquittals of violent criminals could be appealed, and if truthful evidence of violent crimes were not excluded from trials merely because of how it was obtained. We’d be a lot safer if demagogues were not allowed to preach violence and hatred to easily swayed audiences, and professors were not allowed to teach envy and hatred to students (but I repeat myself). We’d be safer if violent criminals could be convicted by, say, 10 jurors instead of 12, and if the police had the right to inspect every home twice a year, as they do in Japan. Manchin is 100% correct that all of the liberties we enjoy cost lives. We paid for them in blood in the 1770s, and we continue to pay for them in blood every year since then. I think they’re worth the price; evidently he doesn’t. I just wonder where he’s been till now.

    Dr P in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2016 at 8:13 am

    Lets start with you and throw you in jail until you can understand the situation.

      Paul in reply to Dr P. | June 17, 2016 at 8:22 am

      Re-read his last four sentences. What he’s saying is that freedom isn’t free.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to Paul. | June 17, 2016 at 4:14 pm

        And he is absolutely correct. Freedom is messy, dangerous, and costly, but that is the price you pay for it.

    mzk in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    “We’d be a lot safer if demagogues were not allowed to preach violence”

    Just a note – preaching violence isn’t always legal.

      Milhouse in reply to mzk. | June 17, 2016 at 4:26 pm

      Preaching violence is legal. Inciting it isn’t. Incitement is preaching that is both subjectively intended and objectively likely to bypass its audience’s conscious minds, turning them into automatons who immediately commit a crime without making a conscious decision to do so.

Joe Manchin is a traitor.

The Liberals better be careful. I’m seeing more and more people on-line flat out saying they are ready to start the next Civil War. If they pass this crap, they may kick off something they’ll wish they hadn’t.

Joe Manchin’s statement doesn’t fly here.

We don’t “all say we want the same thing.” That’s a for-the-media lie. The Ruling Class and its trough feeders want gun control. Your rights do not matter to them. Their power over you and the narrative is all that matters.

American liberty comes with responsibility, with self-control and not government control. The Constitution’s framers knew this but there are some in Washington do not give a damn about why America exists at all.

The NO FLY list needs serious work – flagging is fine, but those put on it should be vetted immediately and the errors cleared – to be both fair & effective; it is inherently unfit for purposes of restricting Constitutional rights.

Due process isn’t some technical inconvenience, it is the linchpin in any system of laws over men. Without it, the independence of our courts and legal system cannot be guaranteed.

– –

Free societies face this type of risk; it’s a trade-off. Our country was founded on that balance tilting to the individual’s rights. Most other countries do not hold the principle of due process inviolate as we do. Senator Manchin should consider relocating to one of them if he finds our Constitution too onerous for his Big Government ideology.

    Milhouse in reply to Estragon. | June 17, 2016 at 9:47 am

    The “no fly” list works for one reason only: it is not used to restrict anyone’s fundamental rights. Not being allowed to board a commercial flight is an inconvenience, but doing so is not a right, so it can be denied on the basis of reasonable suspicions, and can be shielded from judicial review. Better safe than sorry.

    But the moment you try to apply it to a fundamental right such as buying weapons it no longer works. You need due process, and you need at least probable cause. That means some truly dangerous people will be kept off the list for lack of solid and admissible proof, which will make flying less safe. So the end of this process is less security, not more.

    The Republican counter-proposal is sensible. We already have a no-buy list, which is based on rigorous due process; why not add to that, by creating a process for names from the no-fly list to be added to the no-buy list on an as-needed basis, upon the establishment of probable cause?

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2016 at 4:25 pm

      The problem is the same even with what you suggest. What level of Probable cause? Also, Probable cause for what? Suspected terrorists ties? Being a suspected anti-government radical? Also, who gets to make the decision as to if the probable cause is sufficient? We already have one shadow court going, that needs to be shut down we don’t need another.

      Also, you are forgetting that the establishment of probable cause costs man hours, i.e. money, so where do you see that going? I can see it just morphing into it being easier and less costly to just approve putting people on the list and/or it will fall to the already over worked regular court systems and judges with already to much on their plates will just sign off on them en mass because it is easier and less time consuming.

      No, that due process has to remain.

      Also, I don’t know why the no fly list is in such hot discussion, since the terrorist wasn’t even on the no fly list after 2 or 3 federal “investigations*”.

      *investigations that were more than likely completely hogtied by PC culture bull.

        Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 17, 2016 at 4:31 pm

        Probable cause is already an accepted legal standard, and we have a system for establishing it. Probable cause, established by a judge, is enough to justify an otherwise-unreasonable search of someone’s personal papers, or to arrest a person. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be enough to prevent the person from buying a gun.

        The problem here is that the no-fly list isn’t based on probable cause, and shouldn’t be, because there are dangerous people against whom probable cause can’t be established, at least not without expending, as you correctly point out, scarce resources. We don’t want such people boarding a commercial flight. Turning the list into one that’s based on probable cause would mean dropping those people from it, which would make us less safe.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2016 at 5:04 pm

          I understand that, but once again “probable cause” of what? That is where we get into the sticky, so to speak. And even if you say “terrorism” what does that mean? Say, its links to terrorists groups, that sounds great, unless that list is taken from the Southern Poverty Law Center or some other left wing organization. Also, remember our wonderful President has removed several organizations form the terrorist that any reasonable person knows are still at least supporting terrorism. In the end, who gets to make these decisions that set the standards and make the definitions.

          In the words of Milton Friedman; “Where in the world are you going to find these Angels to arrange society for us?” He was speaking of capitalism at the time, but it still holds true here.

        Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 17, 2016 at 4:33 pm

        Oops, those italics should just be around the phrase “and shouldn’t be”.

          Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2016 at 4:50 pm

          Here is the interesting part about those italics. In the e-mail notice I got for your comment they are in exactly the correct place and nothing else is supposed to be italicized, lol. So you typed it correctly.

The time for refreshing the tree of liberty is getting closer and closer.

The people that we elect to Congress, should know & follow the US Constitution, or give up the office. If they try to go against the Constitution, they should be removed from office. ANYONE WHO BREAKS A FEDERAL LAW, IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR A FEDERAL OFFICE. Let us start enforcing it.

    Milhouse in reply to bobgood1. | June 19, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    ANYONE WHO BREAKS A FEDERAL LAW, IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR A FEDERAL OFFICE

    This is not true at all. Where did you get such an idea? Perhaps you should follow your own advice, and “know & follow the US Constitution”.

VaGentleman | June 18, 2016 at 5:51 am

A question for the #NeverTrump group. When I vote for Hillary, should I vote for candidates like Manchin too? They are joined at the hip on this issue, so I don’t see a reason not to vote for them both.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to VaGentleman. | June 18, 2016 at 6:46 am

    Actually, speaking as a #nevertrump I would encourage you to vote for Gary Johnson. So neither Hillary or Trump. The return to the republicans down the ticket.

      VaGentleman in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 18, 2016 at 8:01 am

      Thanks for the reply. Since a vote for Johnson is effectively a vote for Hillary, I don’t see it as a solution. It still begs the question – If I am going to vote #NeverTrump, how far down the ticket do I go in destroying the republican chances? Do we vote out all of them and let the dems have a 4 year ride with no opposition? How do we recover from that? If not that, how does #NT determine the granularity of the vote – where do we stop opposing and start supporting? If you don’t support Trump and he loses, how will you get the Trump folks back into the party for the next election? If you don’t support Trump and he wins, why would he give you access and support your agenda during his term? Either way, it seems like you’re screwed, or is the goal just to block Trump and then sit back and wait and watch? In other words, I don’t see where #NT leads to anything that helps us in any way. Conversely, I see lots of ways where it harms us, perhaps fatally.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to VaGentleman. | June 19, 2016 at 3:31 pm

        If you really believe that a vote for Johnson is just like a vote for Hillary then you really have no idea how our electoral system works and the assertion simply isn’t true with the way we do elections.

        Leon Wolf over at Redstate said it much better than I could.

        “See, it would be true if, for instance, Donald Trump had to reach some arbitrary threshold (like 50%) in the general election in order to win all the electoral votes for that state. But that isn’t how it works. Let’s take a hypothetical swing state like Ohio: If Trump gets 35%, and Hillary Clinton gets 34%, and David French gets 31%, Trump wins all the electoral votes from Ohio exactly the same as if he had beaten Hillary 80%-20% straight up.

        So the simple fact is that it matters to Trump in equal measures that a) you vote for him and b) you don’t actually vote for Hillary. Voting for a third party candidate deprives Trump of positive outcome a) but allows him to preserve the equally important positive outcome b).

        Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical state that has exactly six residents.

        Imagine that the first five residents all go vote, and the result is Donald Trump 3, Hillary Clinton 2. Right now, Trump is leading 60%-40%. Last guy is trying to decide how he’s going to vote. Trump would probably prefer that last guy votes for Trump, giving him the 67%-33% win. However, if the last guy is making a decision between voting for Hillary (which would result in the race ending up a tie) and voting for Third Party candidate David French (resulting in Trump winning the state 3-2-1), or just not voting at all (resulting in Trump winning the state 3-2), Trump would sure as hell rather have the guy vote third party (or not vote) than actually vote for Hillary.

        So, if you are a Trump supporter, then someone voting third party is not as good as someone voting for Trump, but neither is it as bad as someone actually voting for Hillary. Not by a long shot.”

        http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/06/03/vote-nevertrump-vote-hillary/

        Granted the article is a few weeks old now, but it that doesn’t change the fact that it is absolutely correct.

        Gremlin1974 in reply to VaGentleman. | June 19, 2016 at 3:32 pm

        In answer to your questions about returning to the party, I have no intention of returning to the party myself, why would I encourage others to do so?

      VaGentleman in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 18, 2016 at 8:23 am

      Jeeze, we need an edit feature.
      One more thing. If you believe that we can vote Hllary for pres and then control her by voting republican down ticket, why can’t we vote Trump and control him the same way? Wouldn’t that also give us a better chance at getting good judges, etc?

      ConradCA in reply to Gremlin1974. | June 20, 2016 at 12:51 am

      The libertarian party will accomplish nothing positive by running their sure loser candidate for president. If they cared about the country and their movement they would negotiate a deal where they would support Trump in exchange for his promise to support some of their goals. This would help save the country from the progressive fascist movement, stop the criminal Hillary from winning the election and allow their party to actually achieve something.

    DieJustAsHappy in reply to VaGentleman. | June 18, 2016 at 9:36 am

    I must say that I am at a great state of dismay and despondency at the state of this year’s presidential race. Yet, given the last 7+ years of the present administration and with the divide that exists between the populace, it may not be reasonable for me to expect anything than the contentious circumstance we’re confronted by.

    This is when I turn to one bit of guidance from the past that I’ve found applicable for more than just the political arena.

    “The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of government policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.” ~ Abraham Lincoln

    So, despite that I might have my druthers, when election day comes and I’m among the living with a between Hillary and Trump, I’ll mark the ballot for Donald Trump. I doubt it will be smooth sailing, regardless of who’s elected. Nevertheless, I’d much rather he be at the helm than her.

      Ragspierre in reply to DieJustAsHappy. | June 18, 2016 at 3:17 pm

      As is often the case, life will (eventually) imitate “The Simpsons”.
      https://youtu.be/4v7XXSt9XRM

      And you’ll notice (I hope) that nobody here is trying to gainsay you, call you a traitor, assume your position is because of any fell motive on your part (butt-hurt because blah, blah), etc.

      You thought about it and came to your conclusion.

      Others of us have thought about it for months, and concluded we can’t vote for either stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud. In my case, I went on record with that not long after Mr. Establishment announced, and it wasn’t hard given the wealth of information he provided.

        VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | June 18, 2016 at 4:42 pm

        Thank you Homer Simpson for that deep insight.

        If your point is that #NeverTrump is based on a cartoon understanding of politics, I agree completely.

        As usual, you fail to offer a plan to deal with the down side that will occur from your decision. As of today, no 3rd party candidate has a chance. Whether you vote 3rd party or vote Hillary or stay home, she or Trump will be elected. The lack of a plan to choose and support a viable conservative got us Trump as a candidate. Apparently no lesson has been learned.

        You have at least 2 examples. Those who couldn’t support Romney got us 4 more years of Obama. Those who chose Perot got us the Clinton era. What lessons have you learned and how will you deal with the fallout? Can you play the chess game that far ahead?

        I give Gremlin1974 credit for trying to answer. The rest of #NT just tells me how much they hate him. Hatred is easy – no thought necessary.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 18, 2016 at 5:26 pm

        First, I note nobody was addressing your stupid ass.

        Second, you seem hell-bent on continuing a campaign of attempting to insult, bully, or cadge by any means others who disagree with you. Stop it, stupid. It won’t work.

        You constantly repeat the lie that “either…or”. It’s bullshit. Every voter has many choices.

        You additionally chant the lie that someone here owes anybody a “plan”. Fluck that! I own my vote, and I don’t owe you or any other T-rump sucking asphole anything.

        You are the hater here, and you hate Hellary enough to vote for another stinking, lying pathological Collectivist fraud. I don’t HATE either of them as people, though I surely DO hate them as candidates for POTUS. I actually WOULD piss on them if they were on fire. You, too. Probably.

        You are lost in a loop. Stop it.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | June 19, 2016 at 12:25 am

          Dear rags,
          I note that this is a public forum and that when you post here you are addressing EVERYONE’s ‘stupid ass’.

          I keep asking because #NeverTrump refuses to answer (except with ad hominem attacks). Every voter is free to choose, and every choice has consequences. I’m sorry you don’t have a plan. I’m sorry you can’t think of a plan. I’m sorry you’re angry because you don’t have a plan. I’m sorry you don’t think you need a plan. I’m NOT sorry that I ask you for your plan. I’m NOT sorry for pointing out that you lack a plan.

          FYI – that is the whole purpose of the 1st A. You have proposed that I and others follow you and defeat Trump. You went beyond simply stating that you intended to do it, you said we should join you. It’s reasonable for us to ask you to explain why we should. That explanation includes the direct action and the consequences of the action. This is how we decide whether you are worth following. When you propose an action, you owe an explanation as a matter of logic and courtesy. Otherwise, you’re saying – don’t think for yourself, just follow me! That’s bullying. That’s insulting another’s intelligence.

          If I’m caught in a loop it’s only because #NT continues to tell me I should follow them, but won’t give its plan and move the discussion along.

          FWIW – after accusing me of hating, you go on a hate filled rant. Not the stuff great arguments are made of.

          On a personal note – you really should work on the potty mouth issue. Civility is another thing you owe people in a discussion.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 19, 2016 at 11:37 am

          “I’m sorry you can’t think of a plan.”

          I’m sorry you are a lying SOS. I have a plan, often articulated, but recognizing it would rob you of your lying-point.

          My plans is elegant in simplicity, and allows me to be true to my standards/values/and what some of you T-rump suckers sneeringly refer to as my “principles”.

          I won’t vote for a stinking, lying, pathological Collectivist fraud. You will. OK. Your choice, your responsibility.

          IF you mean that I have to articulate a “plan” that pulls the nation’s fat out of the fire, you’re more a fool than even I would have said you are. I’m not Miracle Max. Neither, BTW, are you. Your “plan” is to vote for a guy who you HOPE is marginally better than Hellary. Some plan.

          “If I’m caught in a loop it’s only because #NT continues to tell me I should follow them…”

          That’s another lie. I don’t give a good shit who you vote for. I WILL push back when you T-rump sucking aspholes assault others who don’t follow your dogma.

          You will note (or not, IDGAS) the difference in my response to DieJustAsHappy and to you, who swooped in to insult me for the sole reason that I oppose your religion.

          As to hate, you exceed all lies. Who here has called others here “traitors”? That would be you, I do believe.

          “You have proposed that I and others follow you and defeat Trump.”

          Put up a link, liar. I don’t care about “defeating T-rump”. I won’t vote for him. This is a variation on your “either, or” lie.

          And I DO, and WILL, invite others to join me, and I’ve always articulated WHY. But I won’t try to tell you what to do, since you’re simply a gone goose, and you can’t deal with reality any longer.

          VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | June 19, 2016 at 7:37 pm

          Rags,

          As I was composing a reply to your last post it dawned on me that I have had it with you. The verbal abuse, ad hominem attacks and scatological references that are your stock in trade were never funny and have grown to the point where they make the LI experience less than it should be. In my last post I asked you to be civil. Instead, your reply ‘doubled down’. Apparently you intend to ignore polite reminders and requests for civility.

          This is to let you know that I intend to pass this link to Prof J. I’m sure he has better things to do than deal with foul mouthed children, but in this case that seems to be the necessary next step.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 20, 2016 at 11:07 am

          Awww, honey!

          Don’t be a pussy (in the parlance of your little yellow god)!

          You don’t even know what “ad hominem” means. You should PLAN to look up “logical fallacies…!!!

          Heh…!!!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend