An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

[HoughMade]

Was this an open letter?

I'll admit that I may deny being a complete blowhard a little too strongly.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Again I'll say this - the Libertarians have an opportunity of a lifetime if it's Trump v Hillary.

There's a gaping hole in the offering this time around - and nature abhors a vacuum.


As for the "Reagan and Trump" are similar crap. They are, in that they both followed completely incompetent Democrat administrations. That is where the similarity ends. Jimmah Carter was well meaning but utterly incompetent. Obama was not well meaning at all but only in it for himself. Reagan was, as much as some folks may not like to hear it, closer to someone like Romney - EXCEPT with more conservative backbone. He made everyone feel GOOD about themselves , unless they were communists. And he went after them with a smile - not meanness. The world was a simpler place. Reagan was popular - but not a populist. His actions were based on principles. And most folks in the country approved of the principles he followed.

Big diff with Trump. He is a Populist writ large. He REFLECTS what he believes folks want to hear. He can and will say ANYTHING to keep "riding the populist wave". Such folks are very dangerous in government , in my opinion. I vastly prefer a person of principle. I intend to find one and vote for one this year. If one stood up and got loud enough, I think that there is a chance. I know that others disagree with me. But I know a LOT that don't , too. And it doesn't have diddly jack squat to do with the Establishment (or a lot of the other crap that is currently being Trumpeted).

 

[indiucky]

Ding.... I think he failed statistics or has a poor understanding of detail

For the second time in as many days I have to agree with Kut....I have come to see the Democratic Party (as it is now) as the party of big money, Wall Street, and wealth....I no longer see it as the party of "poor"....Those Occupy Protesters sure had some nice clothes and I Pads.....

 

[tbhausen]

A vote for neither Trump nor Clinton is a vote for Clinton. As distasteful as some of us (or our Dads) may find the concept, sometimes you have to vote against someone rather than for someone.

I hope we all start warming up a bit to this line of thinking before it's too late.

 

[T.Lex]

A vote for neither Trump nor Clinton is a vote for Clinton. As distasteful as some of us (or our Dads) may find the concept, sometimes you have to vote against someone rather than for someone.

I hope we all start warming up a bit to this line of thinking before it's too late.

Dude. Some of us have felt that way for 20+ years.

 

[tbhausen]

...and others of us seem ready to have Hillary become president because, well, Trump.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A vote for neither Trump nor Clinton is a vote for Clinton. As distasteful as some of us (or our Dads) may find the concept, sometimes you have to vote against someone rather than for someone.

I hope we all start warming up a bit to this line of thinking before it's too late.

Maybe the Republicans will wake up, then, and give us someone we can vote for. I'm not voting for Jerry Springer style politics, period. If you want to vote against someone, knock yourself out. I'm fed up with the platform being "I'm the lesser of two evils" myself, and want someone to vote FOR. It seems that plenty of staunch Republicans feel the same, let alone independents and swing voters.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I hope we put up a candidate against Hillary that is not a Populist -with no filter on his mouth. Before its too late. I used to disagree with ATM on this point - and tended to think more like you, tbhausen. More and more I find myself agreeing with ATM's line of thinking. We need to do better than Trump vs the Witch. I still believe that we can.

 

[eatsnopaste]

Maybe the Republicans will wake up, then, and give us someone we can vote for. I'm not voting for Jerry Springer style politics, period. If you want to vote against someone, knock yourself out. I'm fed up with the platform being "I'm the lesser of two evils" myself, and want someone to vote FOR. It seems that plenty of staunch Republicans feel the same, let alone independents and swing voters.

AMEN

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

...and others of us seem ready to have Hillary become president because, well, Trump.

Question: If you are BBI - who is the more direct threat to you? Trump or Hillary?

Hillary - threatened to take on the NRA and UNQUESTIONABLY will go after the 2A in the Supreme Court. NO DISAGREEMENT that she's a HUGE threat to freedom.

Trump - threatened due to populist pressure to register BBI in a database for his religion alone, and potentially monitor his actions due to the same. His words (wittingly or unwittingly) stirred hatred towards folks like BBI.

I, sir , would choose none of the above. If I HAD to pick, it would be Trump. But I don't. And neither do the rest of us.

You're asking guys like BBI (and all of the rest of us) to pick one freedom over the others.

I can no more stand for the taking away of BBI's rights than I can for the taking away of someone's 2A rights.
I choose to stand WITH freedom on both counts.

We can do better.

 

[jamil]

Again I'll say this - the Libertarians have an opportunity of a lifetime if it's Trump v Hillary.

There's a gaping hole in the offering this time around - and nature abhors a vacuum.


As for the "Reagan and Trump" are similar crap. They are, in that they both followed completely incompetent Democrat administrations. That is where the similarity ends. Jimmah Carter was well meaning but utterly incompetent. Obama was not well meaning at all but only in it for himself. Reagan was, as much as some folks may not like to hear it, closer to someone like Romney - EXCEPT with more conservative backbone. He made everyone feel GOOD about themselves , unless they were communists. And he went after them with a smile - not meanness. The world was a simpler place. Reagan was popular - but not a populist. His actions were based on principles. And most folks in the country approved of the principles he followed.

Big diff with Trump. He is a Populist writ large. He REFLECTS what he believes folks want to hear. He can and will say ANYTHING to keep "riding the populist wave". Such folks are very dangerous in government , in my opinion. I vastly prefer a person of principle. I intend to find one and vote for one this year. If one stood up and got loud enough, I think that there is a chance. I know that others disagree with me. But I know a LOT that don't , too. And it doesn't have diddly jack squat to do with the Establishment (or a lot of the other crap that is currently being Trumpeted).

I hope we put up a candidate against Hillary that is not a Populist -with no filter on his mouth. Before its too late. I used to disagree with ATM on this point - and tended to think more like you, tbhausen. More and more I find myself agreeing with ATM's line of thinking. We need to do better than Trump vs the Witch. I still believe that we can.

Well, it's probably not going to be a Libertarian. Their purity tests are so stringent they only attract people who are not electable. A guy like Rand Paul could probably do well running as a Libertarian candidate against the likes of Hillary and Trump, but he's just not Libertarian enough. And I don't think there are enough people who place the balance between liberty and safety as far as he does. They want either the kind of national safety that Trump is peddling, or economic safety that Sanders and Clinton are peddling. **** liberty when you can kick out everyone that doesn't look like you, or you get free **** at the expense of others.

 

[T.Lex]

Question: If you are BBI - who is the more direct threat to you? Trump or Hillary?

Hillary - threatened to take on the NRA and UNQUESTIONABLY will go after the 2A in the Supreme Court. NO DISAGREEMENT that she's a HUGE threat to freedom.

Trump - threatened due to populist pressure to register BBI in a database for his religion alone, and potentially monitor his actions due to the same. His words (wittingly or unwittingly) stirred hatred towards folks like BBI.

I, sir , would choose none of the above. If I HAD to pick, it would be Trump. But I don't. And neither do the rest of us.

You're asking guys like BBI (and all of the rest of us) to pick one freedom over the others.

I can no more stand for the taking away of BBI's rights than I can for the taking away of someone's 2A rights.
I choose to stand WITH freedom on both counts.

We can do better.

Speaking of fascists:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ArmedProgrammer again

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Well, it's probably not going to be a Libertarian. Their purity tests are so stringent they only attract people who are not electable. A guy like Rand Paul could probably do well running as a Libertarian candidate against the likes of Hillary and Trump, but he's just not Libertarian enough. And I don't think there are enough people who place the balance between liberty and safety as far as he does. They want either the kind of national safety that Trump is peddling, or economic safety that Sanders and Clinton are peddling. **** liberty when you can kick out everyone that doesn't look like you, or you get free **** at the expense of others.

I fear, sir, that you are right. I hope like heck that you are wrong. But I'm also logical - and your reasoning is not far off the mark.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, it's probably not going to be a Libertarian. Their purity tests are so stringent they only attract people who are not electable. A guy like Rand Paul could probably do well running as a Libertarian candidate against the likes of Hillary and Trump, but he's just not Libertarian enough. And I don't think there are enough people who place the balance between liberty and safety as far as he does. They want either the kind of national safety that Trump is peddling, or economic safety that Sanders and Clinton are peddling. **** liberty when you can kick out everyone that doesn't look like you, or you get free **** at the expense of others.

It'll be interesting to watch but if I had to bet money on whether the LP would surpass their all time high percentage of votes cast, I'd have to have odds.

 

[tbhausen]

If we "do better", I'll be happy to vote for better. I'm not willing to cede power to Clinton for four years to make that point, though.

 

[Lowe0]

...and others of us seem ready to have Hillary become president because, well, Trump.

Because either Trump or Cruz, really. When the Rs find a candidate with a true laser-like focus on jobs, instead of social issues, then I'll be extremely interested in what they have to say. But, the Rs don't need or want my vote, so it's not gonna happen.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Question: If you are BBI - who is the more direct threat to you? Trump or Hillary?

Hillary - threatened to take on the NRA and UNQUESTIONABLY will go after the 2A in the Supreme Court. NO DISAGREEMENT that she's a HUGE threat to freedom.

Trump - threatened due to populist pressure to register BBI in a database for his religion alone, and potentially monitor his actions due to the same. His words (wittingly or unwittingly) stirred hatred towards folks like BBI.

I, sir , would choose none of the above. If I HAD to pick, it would be Trump. But I don't. And neither do the rest of us.

You're asking guys like BBI (and all of the rest of us) to pick one freedom over the others.

I can no more stand for the taking away of BBI's rights than I can for the taking away of someone's 2A rights.
I choose to stand WITH freedom on both counts.

We can do better.

Read your words. Don't repeat them, read them. Now think honestly. Do you value your guns more than you value people? I don't. What has been repeated ad naseum about why we don't like the registration of firearms....because registration is the precursor to confiscation. Do you buy into that? Because if you do, then what do you figure the registration of people means? Now them me honestly, honestly. How far do you think Clinton go with going after the Second Amendment? Do you think she has the actual ability to deprive people of weapons they actually own? I do not. Now let's say it's Trump in the big chair, how likely (given the current climate) do you think he would have the actual ability to keep tabs on our Muslim-American brothers; either overtly or convertly? It could happen, and there would more than few willing (some amongst us here) to don their armbands and do the work. My guns aren't worth that much to me, and they never will be. I'm not throwing any group of Americans under the bus, and I'm certainly not voting for either of those two.

 

[Tombs]

Maybe the Republicans will wake up, then, and give us someone we can vote for. I'm not voting for Jerry Springer style politics, period. If you want to vote against someone, knock yourself out. I'm fed up with the platform being "I'm the lesser of two evils" myself, and want someone to vote FOR. It seems that plenty of staunch Republicans feel the same, let alone independents and swing voters.

I find it distasteful(Putting it lightly...) that you'd rather soapbox than keep us from losing the supreme court to a bunch of radical leftist anti-gun judges that we will have to put up with for the rest of our lives.

This isn't 4 years you're talking about, it's a lifetime.

Vote to save the supreme court. If you think you'll be registered for your beliefs, you've been listening to too much liberal media. Trump was pushing registration and databases for Syrian refugees, which we already have and apparently he didn't know about.

He wanted to stop IMMIGRATION of muslims into the US, IMMIGRATION, which is a executive power the president has in the constitution.

 

[Tombs]

Read your words. Don't repeat them, read them. Now think honestly. Do you value your guns more than you value people? I don't. What has been repeated ad naseum about why we don't like the registration of firearms....because registration is the precursor to confiscation. Do you buy into that? Because if you do, then what do you figure the registration of people means? Now them me honestly, honestly. How far do you think Clinton go with going after the Second Amendment? Do you think she has the actual ability to deprive people of weapons they actually own? I do not. Now let's say it's Trump in the big chair, how likely (given the current climate) do you think he would have the actual ability to keep tabs on our Muslim-American brothers; either overtly or convertly? It could happen, and there would more than few willing (some amongst us here) to don their armbands and do the work. My guns aren't worth that much to me, and they never will be. I'm not throwing any group of Americans under the bus, and I'm certainly not voting for either of those two.

Yes, the second amendment matters more than people.

The second amendment is what protects all of our other rights, it's the fire extinguisher to put out an out of control government. Without it, the government has nothing to fear if they step over the line with the general public. Handguns are not going to be enough to stop an out of control government.

Our forefathers valued the ideals and principles of liberty far more than human life.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I find it distasteful(Putting it lightly...) that you'd rather soapbox than keep us from losing the supreme court to a bunch of radical leftist anti-gun judges that we will have to put up with for the rest of our lives.

Maybe the Republicans will wake up, then, and give us someone we can vote for.

Looks like a win-win to nominate someone other than Trump, then, eh? I'm certainly not alone, not even in this thread, of people who WILL NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP. If you insist on nominating him despite those objections being known, don't push it on us when you lose the general election. To put in the terms of this thread, a vote for Trump in the primaries is a vote for Hillary in the general election.

If you consider voting your principals soapboxing, we're unlikely to see eye to eye. If the Republicans can't put forth a better candidate than Trump and the Democrats can't put forth a better candidate than Clinton, neither is interested in my vote.