For someone who is voting for the libertarian, you seem to spend a lot of time defending Trump.

I looked up her platform. Somehow defunding the police is part of it. I have no idea what’s going on with the libertarian party but that isn’t one of their points. That’s an anarchist position, which is unacceptable for a functioning society.

In a sense, it fits. Reduction of government, and all. Just like with any party, there's going to be differences among the members on positions. But this seems more like a flavor of the day to me.

---

Yes, and? Trump is not the Left whom I despise, he is the moderate Right for whom I will not vote. I'd rather he prevail over his disgusting opposition today and I'll vote my conscience again in a few months for the ticket that best represents my principles, the Libertarian ticket. And when Trump wins again I'll sit back and enjoy the pain of his opponents on the Left. I'm sorry that nuance evades your meager comprehension.

Ah, again with the insults. What sad little Trumper you are. Bottom line, I don't believe you. I absolutely think you will be voting for Trump. It's not like you can't debate the left without supporting everything Trump does. And the libertarian candidate best aligns with your ideology? You agree with Trump using a public office to call for a boycott of a private company. I can assure you that no actual libertarian is for that. In fact, real libertarians disapprove of all of Donald's big government actions. So, spare me the bit about you being libertarian.

You can deal, ignore, or bolt kid. It's all the same to me.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ah, again with the insults. What sad little Trumper you are. Bottom line, I don't believe you. I absolutely think you will be voting for Trump. It's not like you can't debate the left without supporting everything Trump does. And the libertarian candidate best aligns with your ideology? You agree with Trump using a public office to call for a boycott of a private company. I can assure you that no actual libertarian is for that. In fact, real libertarians disapprove of all of Donald's big government actions. So, spare me the bit about you being libertarian.

You can deal, ignore, or bolt kid. It's all the same to me.

I'll do whatever I please with no advice from you, boy.

---

You can deal, ignore, or bolt kid. It's all the same to me.

I'll do whatever I please with no advice from you, boy.

You'll hear my advice whether you like it or not chump, so I guess it's deal then.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Have you not read anything I posted? It wasn’t the company’s policy and it never was. An employee at a manufacturing plant created an unauthorized slide and said this is Goodyear policy. Their policy has always been no political endorsements or activities at work. So how did they create this mess? It was a quick trigger finger by the cancel culture president he fired off boycott before he had the facts.

Im certain GY would say that after the effect on their stock price.

Based on his response, I'd have to say there is a 2% chance he read your post, and in the slight chance that he did read it, there's a 100% chance he didn't comprehend the post.

---

For someone who is voting for the libertarian, you seem to spend a lot of time defending Trump.

Yes, and? Trump is not the Left whom I despise, he is the moderate Right for whom I will not vote. I'd rather he prevail over his disgusting opposition today and I'll vote my conscience again in a few months for the ticket that best represents my principles, the Libertarian ticket. And when Trump wins again I'll sit back and enjoy the pain of his opponents on the Left. I'm sorry that nuance evades your meager comprehension.

Walk like a duck, quack (loudly) like a duck...you're a duck.

Not condemning a President who tramples on the Constitution is tacit approval, and is certainly not something a true Libertarian would do.

The couch denizens urge you to be true to yourself. Keep quacking.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

For someone who is voting for the libertarian, you seem to spend a lot of time defending Trump.

I looked up her platform. Somehow defunding the police is part of it. I have no idea what’s going on with the libertarian party but that isn’t one of their points. That’s an anarchist position, which is unacceptable for a functioning society.

My understanding is the libertarians support ending municipal police departments in favor of county sheriffs. The argument is police departments do not have elected leaders by the public so are not as accountable to the public.

---

Yes, and? Trump is not the Left whom I despise, he is the moderate Right for whom I will not vote. I'd rather he prevail over his disgusting opposition today and I'll vote my conscience again in a few months for the ticket that best represents my principles, the Libertarian ticket. And when Trump wins again I'll sit back and enjoy the pain of his opponents on the Left. I'm sorry that nuance evades your meager comprehension.

Walk like a duck, quack (loudly) like a duck...you're a duck.

Not condemning a President who tramples on the Constitution is tacit approval, and is certainly not something a true Libertarian would do.

The couch denizens urge you to be true to yourself. Keep quacking.

Hyperbole you have a call on the white courtesy phone, hyperbole, white courtesy phone please.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Im certain GY would say that after the effect on their stock price.

Based on his response, I'd have to say there is a 2% chance he read your post, and in the slight chance that he did read it, there's a 100% chance he didn't comprehend the post.

I read and understood, that doesn't mean I have to agree because Eric is misinformed as more and more information makes its way into the light. It is Goodyear's self professed policy to permit "some" politics by specific exclusion, ie "Refrain from workplace expressions...advocacy that fall outside the scope of racial justice and equity issues."

https://www.wkbn.com/news/national-world...ce-policy/

tl;dr: Goodyear is just fine with political messaging so long as it's political messaging like BLM or SJW that they endorse. As such they chose to willingly enter the realm of politics and that has consequences. But we can always count on some folks to always be #orangemanbad no matter what, so I do wish he'd come out against breathing so we could eliminate a large swath of that group.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, and? Trump is not the Left whom I despise, he is the moderate Right for whom I will not vote. I'd rather he prevail over his disgusting opposition today and I'll vote my conscience again in a few months for the ticket that best represents my principles, the Libertarian ticket. And when Trump wins again I'll sit back and enjoy the pain of his opponents on the Left. I'm sorry that nuance evades your meager comprehension.

Walk like a duck, quack (loudly) like a duck...you're a duck.

Not condemning a President who tramples on the Constitution is tacit approval, and is certainly not something a true Libertarian would do.

The couch denizens urge you to be true to yourself. Keep quacking.

It's obvious, isn't it? But I guess in his mind he has everyone fooled.

---

I looked up her platform. Somehow defunding the police is part of it. I have no idea what’s going on with the libertarian party but that isn’t one of their points. That’s an anarchist position, which is unacceptable for a functioning society.

In a sense, it fits. Reduction of government, and all. Just like with any party, there's going to be differences among the members on positions. But this seems more like a flavor of the day to me.

The idea of a minimal government is true. But Police/prisons/military/judiciary are some the more universal things that Libertarians agree need to be government. I think she is trying to appeal to the day. Now if she had said get rid of the DEA, well that would be well within what the Libertarians would have wanted in the past as it is seen as a waste of money/infringing on individual freedom (although there is definitely a good argument that hard drugs have a significant cost to society and should not be freely available, which I agree with). Anyway, I considered her before I read the police thing, I am not voting for any candidate who wants less police right now when people are getting crazier.

---

I looked up her platform. Somehow defunding the police is part of it. I have no idea what’s going on with the libertarian party but that isn’t one of their points. That’s an anarchist position, which is unacceptable for a functioning society.

Hey, HEY! (finger wag)

Lol, your minds in the gutter! It took me a couple seconds to get there but I did laugh.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

In a sense, it fits. Reduction of government, and all. Just like with any party, there's going to be differences among the members on positions. But this seems more like a flavor of the day to me.

The idea of a minimal government is true. But Police/prisons/military/judiciary are some the more universal things that Libertarians agree need to be government. I think she is trying to appeal to the day. Now if she had said get rid of the DEA, well that would be well within what the Libertarians would have wanted in the past as it is seen as a waste of money/infringing on individual freedom (although there is definitely a good argument that hard drugs have a significant cost to society and should not be freely available, which I agree with). Anyway, I considered her before I read the police thing, I am not voting for any candidate who wants less police right now when people are getting crazier.

It's a protest vote regardless.  your Candidate is not going to win, they only exist to put certain ideas out there. You should never consider casting a protest vote unless you are truly ambivalent about which of the two main party candidates will win. if you think the two main candidates are equally bad, then go ahead and cast that protest vote. but if you think one is more evil than the other, you're pretty much ethically obligated to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I looked up her platform. Somehow defunding the police is part of it. I have no idea what’s going on with the libertarian party but that isn’t one of their points. That’s an anarchist position, which is unacceptable for a functioning society.

My understanding is the libertarians support ending municipal police departments in favor of county sheriffs. The argument is police departments do not have elected leaders by the public so are not as accountable to the public.

If so, that is a bit more nuanced, and not a bad position. I certainly would not hitch up with the defund the police movement tho.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

The idea of a minimal government is true. But Police/prisons/military/judiciary are some the more universal things that Libertarians agree need to be government. I think she is trying to appeal to the day. Now if she had said get rid of the DEA, well that would be well within what the Libertarians would have wanted in the past as it is seen as a waste of money/infringing on individual freedom (although there is definitely a good argument that hard drugs have a significant cost to society and should not be freely available, which I agree with). Anyway, I considered her before I read the police thing, I am not voting for any candidate who wants less police right now when people are getting crazier.

It's a protest vote regardless.  your Candidate is not going to win, they only exist to put certain ideas out there. You should never consider casting a protest vote unless you are truly ambivalent about which of the two main party candidates will win. if you think the two main candidates are equally bad, then go ahead and cast that protest vote. but if you think one is more evil than the other, you're pretty much ethically obligated to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

This line of thinking is why there are only 2 major parties. Every candidate is equally valid on their own. If enough people ‘protest’ vote a third party can win. The two party system is how the Dems ended up so extreme in the first place. Choosing not to support that (two party) is a reasonable thing, but I admit it’s scarier to vote 3rd party when you see some of the positions adopted by the mainline. I am still not certain how I will vote, other than Biden will not be it.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Walk like a duck, quack (loudly) like a duck...you're a duck.

Not condemning a President who tramples on the Constitution is tacit approval, and is certainly not something a true Libertarian would do.

The couch denizens urge you to be true to yourself. Keep quacking.

It's obvious, isn't it? But I guess in his mind he has everyone fooled.

To believe I have everyone fooled implies that I am fooling. Sadly the only fool here is the one to whom I'm responding. And Mikesez, but that's for different reasons.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

In a sense, it fits. Reduction of government, and all. Just like with any party, there's going to be differences among the members on positions. But this seems more like a flavor of the day to me.

The idea of a minimal government is true. But Police/prisons/military/judiciary are some the more universal things that Libertarians agree need to be government. I think she is trying to appeal to the day. Now if she had said get rid of the DEA, well that would be well within what the Libertarians would have wanted in the past as it is seen as a waste of money/infringing on individual freedom (although there is definitely a good argument that hard drugs have a significant cost to society and should not be freely available, which I agree with). Anyway, I considered her before I read the police thing, I am not voting for any candidate who wants less police right now when people are getting crazier.

---

We mostly agree. That’s what I meant about "flavor of the day". 

But really, a candidate running for the executive branch of the federal government pitching the idea of defunding the police is silly, considering all state and local police departments are not under the federal government's purview. Sure, she could be thinking federal, like DEA, FBI, ATF, etc, but those agencies aren't who the "defund the police" crowd have a beef with. Really, it's just lip service. 

And on the subject of drugs, my take is the federal government shouldn't be involved in any way. Let the states decide. It's just one example of how the federal government is bloated and overgrown. So yes, if it's defund the DEA, I'm all for it.

---

It's obvious, isn't it? But I guess in his mind he has everyone fooled.

To believe I have everyone fooled implies that I am fooling. Sadly the only fool here is the one to whom I'm responding. And Mikesez, but that's for different reasons.

Why aren't you voting for Trump again? Didn't you say in this very thread he's great for America? Maybe that was sarcasm? 

And more insults. Go, angry Trumper, go! There's some clouds to shout at.

---

It's a protest vote regardless.  your Candidate is not going to win, they only exist to put certain ideas out there. You should never consider casting a protest vote unless you are truly ambivalent about which of the two main party candidates will win. if you think the two main candidates are equally bad, then go ahead and cast that protest vote. but if you think one is more evil than the other, you're pretty much ethically obligated to vote for the lesser of the two evils.

This line of thinking is why there are only 2 major parties. Every candidate is equally valid on their own. If enough people ‘protest’ vote a third party can win. The two party system is how the Dems ended up so extreme in the first place. Choosing not to support that (two party) is a reasonable thing, but I admit it’s scarier to vote 3rd party when you see some of the positions adopted by the mainline. I am still not certain how I will vote, other than Biden will not be it.

In my more than 30 but less than 40 years on this planet, the only independent candidates who ever won a statewide race are Jesse Ventura, Angus King, and Bernie Sanders. That's just three examples. But a third party candidate for president has to win not one but between 20 and 30 statewide races. All at the same time. the last third-party candidate to win the presidency of the United States was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But in most of the states he ran in, he was one of only two candidates on the ballot. 


in each of these three cases, polling indicated that the candidate had a good chance to win, well in advance of the election date.

if the polls indicate that it's actually a three-way race, sure, voting for the third party might not be a waste. Otherwise, it expresses that you don't care which candidate wins

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The idea of a minimal government is true. But Police/prisons/military/judiciary are some the more universal things that Libertarians agree need to be government. I think she is trying to appeal to the day. Now if she had said get rid of the DEA, well that would be well within what the Libertarians would have wanted in the past as it is seen as a waste of money/infringing on individual freedom (although there is definitely a good argument that hard drugs have a significant cost to society and should not be freely available, which I agree with). Anyway, I considered her before I read the police thing, I am not voting for any candidate who wants less police right now when people are getting crazier.

---

We mostly agree. That’s what I meant about "flavor of the day". 

But really, a candidate running for the executive branch of the federal government pitching the idea of defunding the police is silly, considering all state and local police departments are not under the federal government's purview. Sure, she could be thinking federal, like DEA, FBI, ATF, etc, but those agencies aren't who the "defund the police" crowd have a beef with. Really, it's just lip service. 

And on the subject of drugs, my take is the federal government shouldn't be involved in any way. Let the states decide. It's just one example of how the federal government is bloated and overgrown. So yes, if it's defund the DEA, I'm all for it.

---

To believe I have everyone fooled implies that I am fooling. Sadly the only fool here is the one to whom I'm responding. And Mikesez, but that's for different reasons.

Why aren't you voting for Trump again? Didn't you say in this very thread he's great for America? Maybe that was sarcasm? 

And more insults. Go, angry Trumper, go! There's some clouds to shout at.

It's ok little fella, we know your sore after your convention flopped. But take heart, this election will eliminate the Albatross Harris from running again in the future and that can only help your party. Plus now that they have to let him out of the basement maybe old Uncle Joe will come give you a sniff to perk you up.

And yes, Trump's been better for America than I expected he would, but what I really enjoy is how much he pisses of the left, it's terrific entertainment watching those people lose their minds every damn day. He's of course still too moderate for my tastes, so I'll vote Jorgenson in November, but in the meantime, boy is it fun to laugh at you.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This line of thinking is why there are only 2 major parties. Every candidate is equally valid on their own. If enough people ‘protest’ vote a third party can win. The two party system is how the Dems ended up so extreme in the first place. Choosing not to support that (two party) is a reasonable thing, but I admit it’s scarier to vote 3rd party when you see some of the positions adopted by the mainline. I am still not certain how I will vote, other than Biden will not be it.

In my more than 30 but less than 40 years on this planet, the only independent candidates who ever won a statewide race are Jesse Ventura, Angus King, and Bernie Sanders. That's just three examples. But a third party candidate for president has to win not one but between 20 and 30 statewide races. All at the same time. the last third-party candidate to win the presidency of the United States was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But in most of the states he ran in, he was one of only two candidates on the ballot. 


in each of these three cases, polling indicated that the candidate had a good chance to win, well in advance of the election date.

if the polls indicate that it's actually a three-way race, sure, voting for the third party might not be a waste. Otherwise, it expresses that you don't care which candidate wins

Regarding your last sentence, one could also be in a state that’s dead red or dead blue where it doesn't matter what you do. Free to vote your conscience. 

Really, I doubt we'll ever see some third party candidate win a presidential election. The closest I've ever seen was Perot, and he only got close to 19%. It certainly won't be the Libertarian party. Too many people afraid of their own ox being gored.

---

We mostly agree. That’s what I meant about "flavor of the day". 

But really, a candidate running for the executive branch of the federal government pitching the idea of defunding the police is silly, considering all state and local police departments are not under the federal government's purview. Sure, she could be thinking federal, like DEA, FBI, ATF, etc, but those agencies aren't who the "defund the police" crowd have a beef with. Really, it's just lip service. 

And on the subject of drugs, my take is the federal government shouldn't be involved in any way. Let the states decide. It's just one example of how the federal government is bloated and overgrown. So yes, if it's defund the DEA, I'm all for it.

---

Why aren't you voting for Trump again? Didn't you say in this very thread he's great for America? Maybe that was sarcasm? 

And more insults. Go, angry Trumper, go! There's some clouds to shout at.

It's ok little fella, we know your sore after your convention flopped. But take heart, this election will eliminate the Albatross Harris from running again in the future and that can only help your party. Plus now that they have to let him out of the basement maybe old Uncle Joe will come give you a sniff to perk you up.

And yes, Trump's been better for America than I expected he would, but what I really enjoy is how much he pisses of the left, it's terrific entertainment watching those people lose their minds every damn day. He's of course still too moderate for my tastes, so I'll vote Jorgenson in November, but in the meantime, boy is it fun to laugh at you.

Oh, you think I'm a Democrat. Are ever right about anything? 

Back to the subject, Trump's too moderate? In what way(s) exactly?

---

In my more than 30 but less than 40 years on this planet, the only independent candidates who ever won a statewide race are Jesse Ventura, Angus King, and Bernie Sanders. That's just three examples. But a third party candidate for president has to win not one but between 20 and 30 statewide races. All at the same time. the last third-party candidate to win the presidency of the United States was Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But in most of the states he ran in, he was one of only two candidates on the ballot. 


in each of these three cases, polling indicated that the candidate had a good chance to win, well in advance of the election date.

if the polls indicate that it's actually a three-way race, sure, voting for the third party might not be a waste. Otherwise, it expresses that you don't care which candidate wins

Regarding your last sentence, one could also be in a state that’s dead red or dead blue where it doesn't matter what you do. Free to vote your conscience. 

Really, I doubt we'll ever see some third party candidate win a presidential election. The closest I've ever seen was Perot, and he only got close to 19%. It certainly won't be the Libertarian party. Too many people afraid of their own ox being gored.

---

It's ok little fella, we know your sore after your convention flopped. But take heart, this election will eliminate the Albatross Harris from running again in the future and that can only help your party. Plus now that they have to let him out of the basement maybe old Uncle Joe will come give you a sniff to perk you up.

And yes, Trump's been better for America than I expected he would, but what I really enjoy is how much he pisses of the left, it's terrific entertainment watching those people lose their minds every damn day. He's of course still too moderate for my tastes, so I'll vote Jorgenson in November, but in the meantime, boy is it fun to laugh at you.

Oh, you think I'm a Democrat. Are ever right about anything? 

Back to the subject, Trump's too moderate? In what way(s) exactly?

Far more frequently than you are.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato