For President, there were two and only two viable choices.
Regardless of how you spin it, those are the cold hard facts.
So, you have made your case for voting 3rd party, while expecting Trump supporters to accept your position. I myself see things a little differently. I believe in voting for the candidate best matching my ideology with a chance to win.
My position is every bit as valid as yours is, yet you seem to be unable to accept it, choosing instead to denigrate those who don’t see things exactly as you do.
Where is that coming from? It has nothing to do with who is better. It is all about ideology.
If I am a pro-lifer, fiscal conservative and socially conservative - why in Gods name would I vote for a pro-choice, Keynesian who is socially liberal???
Blind adherence to a political party makes one ripe for abuse. A two party system is an I forseen consequence of the constitution and inherently flawed. It needs to be fixed or the abuse will continue.
I did not read @wonderingrover reply to be denigrating in the least.
Ideologically are you fiscally conservative and socially liberal? I believe I read that from you. If so, then how does President Trump’s lack of both fiscal conservatism and social liberalism square with your support of him, and suggestions that you will vote for him again in 2020? If you are truly an issues only voter as you claim, then it seems your issues are being left in the rear view by this man. Lol
Today there are two parties. In 2016, that is what we had. So rather than pontificate on the possibilities, why not simply work within the structure currently in place.
Of course, that’s your opinion. Myself, I’ve known that Trump has been morally corrupt since the 90’s, so no amount of Media could have skewed my perception otherwise.
As if this way of thinking earns you a freakin badge of honor. If anything it further proves how tribal and partisan we are as a country. This “my team vs. your team” and “at whatever costs to win”, mentality is not only un-American it’s going to tear this country apart. This is the type of BS one should not be proud of, yet here we are.
Trump and the people he has surrounded himself with are Fiscal Conservative Supply siders. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn’t really understand what a Fiscal Conservative is.
Stop focusing on deficits, because that in and of itself has nothing to do with Supply Side or Keynesian Economics.
So you have two grossly flawed candidates for President. Rather than trying to figure out which one is less corrupt, why not simply focus on their politics. How they will govern?
You are asking people to not focus on the deficit (presumably the debt as well) in their analysis of whether President Trump is governing in a fiscally conservative fashion? That does not make any sense. Nor does him not governing in a socially liberal fashion, if that is what you claim is your ideology, and it being ignored. You say you are an issues voter, but the issues you raise are not being taken on and governed by President Trump. He is not promoting fiscally conservative policy or socially liberal policy at all. So how do you reconcile your support for him?
The U.S. is a constitutional Republic. It will never be like the European democracies. Those who are so enthralled by European democracy should probably look to move there rather than try and make the U.S. into Europe.
Do you understand the difference between Keynesian economic theory and Supply side economic theory? Your response kind of leads me to believe that you don’t.
Being fiscally conservative includes belief in limited spending by a small government with said spending being at or below the level of income received by the government.
In other words, running continuing deficits is not fiscally conservative.
You are projecting your views on who is an eligible candidate on someone else. There weren’t only two options for me, there were quite a few. I know, mind blown.
