If Trump is the Republican nominee, is the general election going to be close?

[5280]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

[Ljube]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

[Ljube]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremists use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

[Ljube]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

Ok, explain to me how saying "never" to anyone makes me extremist?

[Ljube]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

Ok, explain to me how saying "never" to anyone makes me extremist?

Whether you support a candidate or not depends on the circumstances and the other candidates. Logically, one should always support someone in an election and that someone should be the candidate that holds the closest positions to the positions of that voter.

What happens if no candidate is a good fit for the voter's positions? Judging by your political matrix score, you and I are both libertarians, so I can tell you, from my perspective, how this thought process continues. It should apply to you too.

Out of the remaining candidates (TRUMP, Clinton, Sanders, maybe Bloomberg), you should pick the one who is closest to your positions, but who does not jeopardize your key positions.

Clinton and Sanders, like all Democrats save Webb, are against personal liberty. They will try to regulate the minute details of people’s lives, thus making the life hell and not worth living. Of the two, I still have preference for Clinton, since she is less extreme.

Bloomberg has some crazy ideas about particular pet topics, but other than that, could probably be tolerated, though he would increase various taxes and so on.

TRUMP is a businessman. We know that he wants to introduce protectionist tariffs to jump start US industries. We also know that he is a LIBERAL socially. He is no practicing Christian and he couldn't care less about conservative agenda.

Out of these four viable candidates, TRUMP is the closest to libertarian policies you can get. Saying never to him, just because he personally offended you, is either stupidity or extremism and I hope it's extremism.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

Ok, explain to me how saying "never" to anyone makes me extremist?

Whether you support a candidate or not depends on the circumstances and the other candidates. Logically, one should always support someone in an election and that someone should be the candidate that holds the closest positions to the positions of that voter.

What happens if no candidate is a good fit for the voter's positions? Judging by your political matrix score, you and I are both libertarians, so I can tell you, from my perspective, how this thought process continues. It should apply to you too.

Out of the remaining candidates (TRUMP, Clinton, Sanders, maybe Bloomberg), you should pick the one who is closest to your positions, but who does not jeopardize your key positions.

Clinton and Sanders, like all Democrats save Webb, are against personal liberty. They will try to regulate the minute details of people’s lives, thus making the life hell and not worth living. Of the two, I still have preference for Clinton, since she is less extreme.

Bloomberg has some crazy ideas about particular pet topics, but other than that, could probably be tolerated, though he would increase various taxes and so on.

TRUMP is a businessman. We know that he wants to introduce protectionist tariffs to jump start US industries. We also know that he is a LIBERAL socially. He is no practicing Christian and he couldn't care less about conservative agenda.

Out of these four viable candidates, TRUMP is the closest to libertarian policies you can get. Saying never to him, just because he personally offended you, is either stupidity or extremism and I hope it's extremism.

Lol at Trump being considered even CLOSE to libertarian. He's no libertarian, calling for mass surveillance on houses of worship, putting a religious community inside databases, outright banning that religious community from entering the U.S, building a wall and mass deporting people while being in absolute LOVE with eminent domain is NO libertarian, I'll tell you that right now.

And why should I vote for the candidate who is outright hostile and detrimental to my community?

And in ideology quiz after quiz, I am closer to Clinton than Trump any ways, so how is that going against my beliefs?

[Ljube]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

Ok, explain to me how saying "never" to anyone makes me extremist?

Whether you support a candidate or not depends on the circumstances and the other candidates. Logically, one should always support someone in an election and that someone should be the candidate that holds the closest positions to the positions of that voter.

What happens if no candidate is a good fit for the voter's positions? Judging by your political matrix score, you and I are both libertarians, so I can tell you, from my perspective, how this thought process continues. It should apply to you too.

Out of the remaining candidates (TRUMP, Clinton, Sanders, maybe Bloomberg), you should pick the one who is closest to your positions, but who does not jeopardize your key positions.

Clinton and Sanders, like all Democrats save Webb, are against personal liberty. They will try to regulate the minute details of people’s lives, thus making the life hell and not worth living. Of the two, I still have preference for Clinton, since she is less extreme.

Bloomberg has some crazy ideas about particular pet topics, but other than that, could probably be tolerated, though he would increase various taxes and so on.

TRUMP is a businessman. We know that he wants to introduce protectionist tariffs to jump start US industries. We also know that he is a LIBERAL socially. He is no practicing Christian and he couldn't care less about conservative agenda.

Out of these four viable candidates, TRUMP is the closest to libertarian policies you can get. Saying never to him, just because he personally offended you, is either stupidity or extremism and I hope it's extremism.

Lol at Trump being considered even CLOSE to libertarian. He's no libertarian, calling for mass surveillance on houses of worship, putting a religious community inside databases, outright banning that religious community from entering the U.S, building a wall and mass deporting people while being in absolute LOVE with eminent domain is NO libertarian, I'll tell you that right now.

And why should I vote for the candidate who is outright hostile and detrimental to my community?

None of that is going to happen and you know it. TRUMP is a LIBERAL and he would never do anything like that.

EDIT: Except for eminent domain.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

Ok, explain to me how saying "never" to anyone makes me extremist?

Whether you support a candidate or not depends on the circumstances and the other candidates. Logically, one should always support someone in an election and that someone should be the candidate that holds the closest positions to the positions of that voter.

What happens if no candidate is a good fit for the voter's positions? Judging by your political matrix score, you and I are both libertarians, so I can tell you, from my perspective, how this thought process continues. It should apply to you too.

Out of the remaining candidates (TRUMP, Clinton, Sanders, maybe Bloomberg), you should pick the one who is closest to your positions, but who does not jeopardize your key positions.

Clinton and Sanders, like all Democrats save Webb, are against personal liberty. They will try to regulate the minute details of people’s lives, thus making the life hell and not worth living. Of the two, I still have preference for Clinton, since she is less extreme.

Bloomberg has some crazy ideas about particular pet topics, but other than that, could probably be tolerated, though he would increase various taxes and so on.

TRUMP is a businessman. We know that he wants to introduce protectionist tariffs to jump start US industries. We also know that he is a LIBERAL socially. He is no practicing Christian and he couldn't care less about conservative agenda.

Out of these four viable candidates, TRUMP is the closest to libertarian policies you can get. Saying never to him, just because he personally offended you, is either stupidity or extremism and I hope it's extremism.

Lol at Trump being considered even CLOSE to libertarian. He's no libertarian, calling for mass surveillance on houses of worship, putting a religious community inside databases, outright banning that religious community from entering the U.S, building a wall and mass deporting people while being in absolute LOVE with eminent domain is NO libertarian, I'll tell you that right now.

And why should I vote for the candidate who is outright hostile and detrimental to my community?

None of that is going to happen and you know it. TRUMP is a LIBERAL and he would never do anything like that.

Sorry, I'm not taking a chance, if he hadn't started spewing vitriol to pretty much everyone, as this forum probably knows, I would have considered Trump, but now? Hell would have to freeze over first.

[Ljube]

No, especially if Hispanic turnout is strong and is even MORE Democratic than it is now. Moderate Republicans will probably go for Hillary too, I know I will.

Change your avatar to a democrat if you do so, or vote Gary Johnson.

Lol @ that stupid logic, it makes no sense. Party loyalty is BS any ways, no thanks.

You are no moderate. You belong to the 5% most extreme posters here.

"Most extreme" how?

Only extremests use words like "never" when talking about candidates.

Nice "logic" there, until you can give factual evidence that I'm "extreme", I don't need to hear your opinions on anything.

There you go. Dismissing me because you don't agree with the factual evidence I gave you, giving more eveidence to the claim that you are an extremist.

Classic Type Beta.

Ok, explain to me how saying "never" to anyone makes me extremist?

Whether you support a candidate or not depends on the circumstances and the other candidates. Logically, one should always support someone in an election and that someone should be the candidate that holds the closest positions to the positions of that voter.

What happens if no candidate is a good fit for the voter's positions? Judging by your political matrix score, you and I are both libertarians, so I can tell you, from my perspective, how this thought process continues. It should apply to you too.

Out of the remaining candidates (TRUMP, Clinton, Sanders, maybe Bloomberg), you should pick the one who is closest to your positions, but who does not jeopardize your key positions.

Clinton and Sanders, like all Democrats save Webb, are against personal liberty. They will try to regulate the minute details of people’s lives, thus making the life hell and not worth living. Of the two, I still have preference for Clinton, since she is less extreme.

Bloomberg has some crazy ideas about particular pet topics, but other than that, could probably be tolerated, though he would increase various taxes and so on.

TRUMP is a businessman. We know that he wants to introduce protectionist tariffs to jump start US industries. We also know that he is a LIBERAL socially. He is no practicing Christian and he couldn't care less about conservative agenda.

Out of these four viable candidates, TRUMP is the closest to libertarian policies you can get. Saying never to him, just because he personally offended you, is either stupidity or extremism and I hope it's extremism.

Lol at Trump being considered even CLOSE to libertarian. He's no libertarian, calling for mass surveillance on houses of worship, putting a religious community inside databases, outright banning that religious community from entering the U.S, building a wall and mass deporting people while being in absolute LOVE with eminent domain is NO libertarian, I'll tell you that right now.

And why should I vote for the candidate who is outright hostile and detrimental to my community?

None of that is going to happen and you know it. TRUMP is a LIBERAL and he would never do anything like that.

Sorry, I'm not taking a chance, if he hadn't started spewing vitriol to pretty much everyone, as this forum probably knows, I would have considered Trump, but now? Hell would have to freeze over first.

There is yet time for you to reconsider and prove to yourself you are not Type Beta.

[Torie]

Interesting discussion guys, but you left out the most important things when it comes to being POTUS, temperament and judgment. Issues come and go, and politicians tack, but temperament and judgment are always in play.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Interesting discussion guys, but you left out the most important things when it comes to being POTUS, temperament and judgment. Issues come and go, and politicians tack, but temperament and judgment are always in play.

Exactly, temperament does play a big factor also in who I support and I don't believe Trump, nor do I believe Sanders, O'Malley, Santorum, Huckabee or Sneed have it

[ElectionsGuy]

No. Everything that makes him more popular with Republicans is simultaneously making him less popular with the rest of the county

[5280]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

Spare me your stupid ideological purity

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The unpredictable economy, which grew sharply in 3rd & 4th Quarter, which caused Reserve to raise interest rates, is back to its flat 2 percent growth, making this race a close one.

[5280]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

Spare me your stupid ideological purity

Ideological purity? Right, voting for Clinton sure is helping your freedom cause.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

Spare me your stupid ideological purity

Ideological purity? Right, voting for Clinton sure is helping your freedom cause.

Gary Johnson is NEVER going to win and i do not want Trump therefore Hillary would be my choice grow up and I'm not fully libertarian thank you I only lean towards it

[ElectionsGuy]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

Spare me your stupid ideological purity

Ideological purity? Right, voting for Clinton sure is helping your freedom cause.

Gary Johnson is NEVER going to win and i do not want Trump therefore Hillary would be my choice grow up and I'm not fully libertarian thank you I only lean towards it

You know who else was NEVER going to win? Barry Goldwater. So you might as well have voted for Johnson in 64 right (if we lived in the time period)? That logic breaks down very quickly. If you want to feel authentic and true about your vote, then you vote for whoever you agree with on policy the most, not who is most likely to win. I'll admit I used to think like this too, but especially with Trump and Clinton being the likely nominees, this is the worst election for a libertarian since 1968, so don't be the person who will contribute to putting Hillary Clinton in the white house, show your disdain for her and Trump by voting third party.

[Kalimantan]

Would like to think he will get slaughtered, but he understands his electorate and will change tack in the general, probably completely reverse his positions.

Maybe. Or maybe he really is a completely offensive buffoon.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

Spare me your stupid ideological purity

Ideological purity? Right, voting for Clinton sure is helping your freedom cause.

Gary Johnson is NEVER going to win and i do not want Trump therefore Hillary would be my choice grow up and I'm not fully libertarian thank you I only lean towards it

You sound like a statist. And no, I'm not being a purist

So being pragmatic makes me a statist... no wonder I never associated with other libertarians

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

How is voting for Clinton over Gary Johnson even a logical choice for a 'Libertarian' like TheShadowyAbyss?

Spare me your stupid ideological purity

Ideological purity? Right, voting for Clinton sure is helping your freedom cause.

Gary Johnson is NEVER going to win and i do not want Trump therefore Hillary would be my choice grow up and I'm not fully libertarian thank you I only lean towards it

You sound like a statist. And no, I'm not being a purist

So being pragmatic makes me a statist... no wonder I never associated with other libertarians

Supporting Hillary is pragmatic? You don't have to associate yourself with us because you have already admitted you are not a libertarian.

for me any vote that is NOT for the Anti-Trump (I.e Clinton) is a vote for Trump I voted for Adrian Wyllie in my gubernatorial race and we almost got Charlie back. I would rather have Hillary in the white house than Trump.