Libertarians For Trump - "The perfect is the enemy of the good"
There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.
And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.
But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.
When put in this way, it is clear that The Donald is the most congruent with our perspective. This is true, mainly because of foreign policy. And, of the three, foreign policy, economic policy and person liberties, the former is the most important. As Murray Rothbard and Bob Higgs have demonstrated over and over again, US foreign policy determines what occurs in economics and in the field of personal liberties. Foreign policy is the dog that wags the other two tails.
libertarianism is a philosophy
simply put it is a couple of principles
a) non-aggression
b) property rights
if one strays from those then that isn't a libertarian position
this seems to be very difficult for a lot of folks to understand, especially for those invested in political thoughts/narratives
the good news is that practically every person on the planet at one time or another embraces some version of one or both of those principles
Libertarians For Trump - "The perfect is the enemy of the good"
There are several issues upon which libertarians do not and cannot support Donald Trump. For example, protectionism. But, typically, regarding the issues where Mr. Trump deviates from libertarianism, so do the other candidates.
And, also, we readily admit that the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party (unless they nominate someone like, ugh, Bob Barr) will very likely have views much closer to ours than those of Mr. Trump.
But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.
When put in this way, it is clear that The Donald is the most congruent with our perspective. This is true, mainly because of foreign policy. And, of the three, foreign policy, economic policy and person liberties, the former is the most important. As Murray Rothbard and Bob Higgs have demonstrated over and over again, US foreign policy determines what occurs in economics and in the field of personal liberties. Foreign policy is the dog that wags the other two tails.
The Chicago protestors are agents of Hillary and Soros seeking to discredit Bernie. They are using the left wing tactics of Saul Alinsky to undermine the first amendment. The media are in on it too with Rubio, Kasich and Cruz toeing the line.
PS: IIRC, Wright was almost universally reviled by conservatives because he wasn't "exceptionalist" enough, as opposed to The-Greatest-Christian-Nation-Evah-touting religious right clergy.
Location: No longer in a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA Gender:
Posted:
Mar 14, 2016 - 2:04pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
"How do we turn our country around? Very simple: If every Bible-believing Christian simply showed up in 2016 and votes our values, we don't just win, we win overwhelmingly. The mainstream media are astonished, are befuddled, are confused, and we turn the country around by getting back to those values, and nothing matters more than that awakening. It's both a spiritual awakening and a political awakening where Christians simply stand up and vote our values. That's how we preserve the fundamental liberties on which this country was built"
It's hard to find specifics on Ted + Dominionism that aren't on lefty sites, but it's hard to even read google results and not think, "oh, crap."
Hmm. So lunatic comments made by one's dad and a goofball pastor are to be taken as disqualifies for the son/candidate running? Was that same standard applied to Obama/Rev Wright? Me, I'd examine the candidate's own spoutings for signs of lunacy, not his those of parents or others. I'm sure not a clone of my dad - his professed beliefs are different than mine.
"How do we turn our country around? Very simple: If every Bible-believing Christian simply showed up in 2016 and votes our values, we don't just win, we win overwhelmingly. The mainstream media are astonished, are befuddled, are confused, and we turn the country around by getting back to those values, and nothing matters more than that awakening. It's both a spiritual awakening and a political awakening where Christians simply stand up and vote our values. That's how we preserve the fundamental liberties on which this country was built"
It's hard to find specifics on Ted + Dominionism that aren't on lefty sites, but it's hard to even read google results and not think, "oh, crap."
The Chicago protestors are agents of Hillary and Soros seeking to discredit Bernie. They are using the left wing tactics of Saul Alinsky to undermine the first amendment. The media are in on it too with Rubio, Kasich and Cruz toeing the line.
Ah, no, that's not at all what I think the author is suggesting.
Again, he said: ""The good news for people who support Trump and the bad news for those of us who find him to be a repulsive, narcissistic con man is that by staying in the race this long, John Kasich and Marco Rubio have nearly guaranteed Trump the nomination.""
With more than two left standing - four no less! — the resultant vote-splitting to the other three not-Trump candidates means ... Trump cleans up.. If the non-Trump faction had coalesced earlier, then the voter choice would be clearer - Trump or not-Trump. So rotate the names about - the names and support levels don't matter much - vote splitting is indiscriminate in its harm. If Rubio hadn't stumbled early in the debates, he could easily be where Cruz is right now.
As for a number of things you are saying about Cruz, I can't say that I'm up to speed on his platform or views, other than I repeatedly keep hearing that he's slimy and not well-liked by his fellow legislators. These facts may or may not be good things. Slimy being of course a typical characteristic of many pols.
I think the vast majority of conservatives are also hoping for a brokered convention. It would seem the only way to put forward a candidate that will be respected by a majority of conservative voters.
Right; he's advocating those two drop out to give Cruz a clear shot. If they stay in and do passably well, they can force the brokered convention by denying Trump his majority. If the author had his way, it'd be a 2-man race and he sees that as the best route to a non-Trump candidate.
The elder Cruz told the congregation that God would anoint Christian “kings” to preside over an “end-time transfer of wealth” from the wicked to the righteous. After this sermon, Larry Huch, the pastor of New Beginnings, claimed Cruz’s recent election to the U.S. Senate was a sign that he was one of these kings.
According to his father and Huch, Ted Cruz is anointed by God to help Christians in their effort to “go to the marketplace and occupy the land ... and take dominion” over it. This “end-time transfer of wealth” will relieve Christians of all financial woes, allowing true believers to ascend to a position of political and cultural power in which they can build a Christian civilization. When this Christian nation is in place (or back in place), Jesus will return.
Rafael Cruz and Larry Huch preach a brand of evangelical theology called Seven Mountains Dominionism. They believe Christians must take dominion over seven aspects of culture: family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. The name of the movement comes from Isaiah 2:2: “Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains.”
Just because he isn't 'owned' by the traditional powers doesn't mean he isn't 'owned'. I bet there are a lot of skeletons rattling in that closet. And just because he isn't 'owned' doesn't really mean he'll be able to do anything. There is a very complex machine that turns the wheels, it takes cooperation of a lot of people to keep it up. Look at what one or two sticky wickets have been able to do in recent history. Imagine someone this bipartisanly unpopular...
One would have to be pretty naive not to know all that. On the same token, I would think that someone in Trump's position knows who has what skeletons in their closets and that is the best kind of leverage to get things done. Isn't that how the world really works ? I believe that is one of the key parts of power and using it to get things done.
Ok. We aren't in Cleveland yet, but I am ... Anyway, missing from the article is the fact and its a big one, Trump is not owned by the usual suspects and therefore has a better chance of actually doing the things that matter, if elected. Its a 50 / 50 chance, still better than anyone else. The others, cept Bernie are all bought and paid for. No chance of keeping any promises.
The other thing not mentioned is that Trump is the ultimate insider. Again a 50 / 50 chance of who he will use this knowledge for. Will he sell them out or sell us out ? Judging by all the hoopla going on in establishment circles and that meeting on that island in Georgia, they think that he will sell them out and will stop at nothing to stop him.
Long way to go. There is also a damned good chance that our next POTUS isn't even running yet.
Just because he isn't 'owned' by the traditional powers doesn't mean he isn't 'owned'. I bet there are a lot of skeletons rattling in that closet. And just because he isn't 'owned' doesn't really mean he'll be able to do anything. There is a very complex machine that turns the wheels, it takes cooperation of a lot of people to keep it up. Look at what one or two sticky wickets have been able to do in recent history. Imagine someone this bipartisanly unpopular...
Interesting point in your last sentence. I disagree, but when in recent history have the leading contenders from August been the leading contenders in April? Have we ever had a leading contender very early in the process ride it out for a full cycle (too lazy to google foo that)?
Tis political season once again, every fours years. Kind of like a leap year, only with much more, umm ... commentary!
As one of the well-known holders of an opinion or six that I'm rarely a-feared to share, with the scars to prove it, I'm inclined to let most go at it, so long as it doesn't get extremely personally nasty. Of course, it's also not my forum.
All the 'regular's here are well-known to each other, so our opinions and character is well-known. With the exception of the relatively new arrivals, who may nor have a vested interest in the character and quality of this community, I'd say have at 'er to the regulars. Tis only their personal reputation they can either harm or improve - so it's on them. And as long as any newly arrived troll factors are not allowed to provoke the gentle folks here from their usually reasonably respectful opinions, it would seem a good way to allow some venting.
Everyone participates differently, as inclinations, experience and circumstance allow. In reading dissenting views here over the years, I know I've certainly both learned new things, - and - had my own opinions on topics altered. I think political convo here is a good thing. There's plenty of political convo here some days - and it's not all about the coming general. Selectively blocking discussion of a topic due to the behaviour of one or two seems like penalizing all for the over the line behaviour of few. JMHO, of course.
Maybe we could make February 29th all out nasty name calling day. Get it all out of our system and then insist on civil discourse the rest of the time. The timing is about right - lots of early furor should have been stirred up by then, but plenty of time to dial it back in and be gracious when your candidate loses.
Good read. Be sure to read it all the way through - the author is quite sympathetic to Trump supporters, though essentially calls on them to be rational and realistic.
Ok. We aren't in Cleveland yet, but I am ... Anyway, missing from the article is the fact and its a big one, Trump is not owned by the usual suspects and therefore has a better chance of actually doing the things that matter, if elected. Its a 50 / 50 chance, still better than anyone else. The others, cept Bernie are all bought and paid for. No chance of keeping any promises.
The other thing not mentioned is that Trump is the ultimate insider. Again a 50 / 50 chance of who he will use this knowledge for. Will he sell them out or sell us out ? Judging by all the hoopla going on in establishment circles and that meeting on that island in Georgia, they think that he will sell them out and will stop at nothing to stop him.
Long way to go. There is also a damned good chance that our next POTUS isn't even running yet.
Good read. Be sure to read it all the way through - the author is quite sympathetic to Trump supporters, though essentially calls on them to be rational and realistic.
"The good news for people who support Trump and the bad news for those of us who find him to be a repulsive, narcissistic con man is that by staying in the race this long, John Kasich and Marco Rubio have nearly guaranteed Trump the nomination."
This means the author would rather have Cruz in there. Cruz scares me more than Trump. Trump is survivable. Cruz does not care whether I live or die and has the political will and wile to do lasting damage to this country. He's every bit the loose cannon that Trump is in foreign policy; has no compunction about launching a full-scale crusade, and is just fine with the idea that every human on earth might die because he's going to heaven for doing His Will. Maybe his statements are a little more nuanced than that but Cruz is a religious nutjob, every bit as big a scam artist as Trump. It's almost as if Trump went out there with the express purpose of making the most crazy candidate in the race seem sane by comparison. I'm to the point that if it's between those two, I'm hoping for a brokered convention and they draft Ryan. Who also hates me. That's how bad Trump and Cruz are to me: I hope Ryan gets in.
Ah, I may have missed some, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the only people dumping hate seems to be the newbs or the America-bashers. eg the stupid cartoons. Those are the kind of posts that should be unwelcome here, IMO.
Criticism of your preferred candidate is not dumping hate. It's criticism, and often well-founded. The issue I have with Trump-bots, is that in their haste to support a guy who appeals to their disgust with the system, they're completely unwilling to examine the practicality of his utterances and pronouncements, nor measure the number of times - during just this election cycle! - he's reversed his position on a given topic. The pubic is supposed to despise pols who say one thing to get elected and then deliver next to zero on those promises once in office. If Trump-bots can't see what's taking place right before their eyes (willful ignorance if you will), then, as they say —- be careful what you wish for - you may indeed get it.
Same blah-de-blah goes for supporters of the other candidates still in this race, and yes, both parties.
We had a federal election up here not that long ago. Mr Liberal got in on his rainbows, unicorns and happy speak. The Lib supporters are only now coming to terms with the number of broken promises that are starting to pile up - and the guy is still in his first year in office. A firm example of 'be careful what you wish for, if there ever was one'. Same goes for our recent provincial elections...
I agree with your other post and for the most part, this as well. Criticism is A / OK with me. You know I love a good discussion and I have a very thick skin. I know what comes with Trump. Discussing his views and changes are fine and are fair game. He does have some problems.
But I'll have to say that the devolution into anatomy discussions and Hitler just doesn't do it for me. I'm too old for this stuff anymore. This seems to be the only place this still goes on here. What is distressing is that this mirrors what is happening in the real world. It is getting ugly and violent. Those who wish the protected free speech to burn a flag (and get away with bombing government buildings) are denying the reciprocal to those they disagree with and apparently have no problem with violence in making their feelings known.
Rightly or wrongly,Trump is the lightning rod for all this. Me, I'm approaching Trump with eyes wide open. Can't speak for anyone else. I want the house of corruption burned down to the ground. No one else seems willing or capable.
Not at all. There are plenty of Obama supporters here, and many more than those who disagree with him.
Here with Trump, there are only two supporters and only one can vote. So what purpose does this thread serve in the grand scheme of things, besides giving you an opportunity to call me a teabagger ? Doesn't bother me, just sayin ...
The other threads devoted to other candidates seem pretty civil, even when there is disagreement. Not at all the case here. Things seem to get personal here.
But so what, eh ? Little more to say that hasn't been said. Just another dead horse.
Have fun ...
It's not as dire (yet) as you paint it. I've seen more than just two (at least two more voters) who profess their love for the small-handed oracle.
