Wrong thread but it fits here. Objective examinaiton of goals.

Hillary is a let wing extremist but in their ruling class not their main collective. In Socialist terms she is a statist/cororatist fascist.

Johnson at the other end of the scale is a Constitutionalist or at least supports a Constitutional Republic with some issues.

Now for Trump. Knowing his background I asked one simple question. Since Trump is for himself which direction would he lean to continue that goal?

He isn't a Hillary style leftist as their mantra is nobody owns anything and everybody owns everything UNLESS he's a more equal pig but tht invites a lot of competition. Frankly I don't see him jeopardizing his own pesonal goals.

He works within a socialist leaning system especially in NYC which means he knows how sociaist statism works and could be like all other businesses in the Big Apple a Socialist Corporatist supporter. I bet the don't kee their money there. Even Soros isn't that stupid.

So Trump thnks about it and says should I lean left or right? Left I stand a good chance of having everything taken at the stroke of Hillary's or someone else's pen. Pelosi comes to mind. She hates people who give jobs to the unemployed.

Trump we list as flawed as he has no hands on political experience as an insider but plenty from the citizen side of the fence

Or shoud I lean right since they are basically capitalists working within a socialist system and if I become President which way do I lean.

Let's see left for confiscatory taxes on me and all my employees or right for making that second eight billion.

Is he more or less stupid than George Soros who is n the evil class with Hillary?

We know what Hillary will do.

We're hopeful for what Johnson can do. But his all or nothing right now strategy doesn't seem to be working as well as hoped which is ....standard for the libertarians.

We don't know what Trump will do and can only watch the indicators. That's fine. Voting isn't open for business yet.



Your choose.

Just to sweeten the deal a little bit

check out these polls and graphs .... whatever we're doing it's working.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvesp...


why here instead of elsewhere? This thread and Trump the moral Choice threads are the jackpots.

like any good pinochle players one keeps a bit of sugar in the pot.

Some get stuck in a rut. Then can't get out. So they stay. As an example and because one of he posters asked about books giving the truth of history I thought great place to provide both. David Ledbetters series America's Forgotten History. The idea of republicanism as opposed to supporting a Constitutional Republic did not start with Lincoln nor with Jackson but with the first three Presidents and was summed up rather neatly by Thomas Jefferson.

Here's an excerpt with quoted material you won't find in school texts.

THE SUM OF GOOD GOVERNMENT

On March 4 1801, one month to the day after he took office as Chief Justice, John Marshall administered the oath of office to Thomas Jefferson and sat down. He was there at Jefferson’s invitation, the beginning of the tradition that the Chief Justice administer the oath of office to the incoming President.

He was one of the few sitting close enough to actually hear the weak-voiced new President’s First Inaugural Address. He came away guardedly impressed.

For Adams and Hamilton, Jefferson had been the lesser of two evils. To them, Vice President Burr, now sharing the podium with the Chief Justice and President, was an amoral power-mad politician whose superior skills only made him all the more dangerous.

For Marshall, though, cousin Jefferson was the man more likely to bring the nation to ruin. Burr would have invested the presidency with authority and power, as the first two presidents had. Jefferson, the mere “speculative theorist” with no understanding of the nation’s need for a strong center and leader, would gut the office and leave nothing to prevent the nation from unraveling.

But he had to concede the speech was a masterpiece of reconciliation, especially the famous appeal for both sides to unite. …every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans; we are all federalists.

Readers of the original speech would see the subtle distinction inaccessible to the listening audience.

The reconciliation was lowercase. Jefferson was not talking about actual political parties. He meant that most Americans accepted both republican principles and a federal government. In fact, the election had proven that point. Whatever their disagreements on interpretation, both sides preferred to operate within the bounds of the Constitution even when that would exclude them from power, even when they were certain that election of the other side would bring disaster.

The transfer of power had been carried out peacefully because both parties were loyal to the idea of a constitutional transfer; both were brethren of the same principle. Foreign policy, too, would be reconciled.

The need for election rhetoric now gone, Republicans could admit that the French Revolution was not going as it should. It had first collapsed in a reign of terror and then found its footing only with anti-republican institutions such as standing armies, militarism, and centralization of power.

Federalists also could see more clearly now the dangers of tying America’s interests too closely to England’s. Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address echoed Washington’s Farewell Address in voicing the principle that would mostly guide American foreign policy until 1898(_). …'peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.'

Addressing Federalist fears that a Republican government would not be strong enough to defend the nation from attack, Jefferson gave a lesson in the origins of republican strength.

"In republics the people are the true government and true source of strength. Leave standing armies to other systems that cannot afford to place their trust in the loyalty and devotion of the people. I believe [ours] the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. There would be no sedition acts. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."

He addressed Federalist fears that human fallibility makes strong government necessary. Rather, he explained, human fallibility makes strong government dangerous."

Ledbetter, Mark David. America's Forgotten History, Part 1: Foundations

(Kindle Locations 5463-5489). Mark David Ledbetter. Kindle Edition.

*1898 The year the revolution of progressive socialism began - led by Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt among others. thus the beginnings of what became the Republican Party and it's reason for existing. In short order the Democrat party began and it's began in hte belief that slavery was the natural order. the rest is history. The Republican ideals you just read a sad remnant without leadership. Trump is their last chance. If he is not the one -thee is no one and no more Constitutional Republic. 240 years ...Average length of any nation and proof to many that man Cannot Govern himself.

Ditto Don't know about the Libertarians don't need our voes they need the perception of our vote. Which method will get them a seat a the table the fastest.

Run for office until they win

Do a litle coalition politics and trade what they have to Trump for a seat at the table say...Secretary of Interior?

Seriously which route is going produce real dividends for them?

Which will provide four more years of waiting.

And which will provide nothing to wait for?