# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?

## Don Francis Frost

He's anti-interventionist. Strong on national defense and securing the border. He's for free markets. And lowere taxes. These are all policies in line with traditional Libertarianism. So what gives?

----------


## Bryan

bump

----------


## lilymc



----------


## Sola_Fide

> He's anti-interventionist.


No he's not.  He is an economic interventionist and a military interventionist. 




> Strong on national defense


No he's not.  Interventionism increases the threats to national defense.




> and securing the border.


A police state at the border is not a libertarian position. 




> He's for free markets.


No he's not.  He is a protectionist. 




> and lowere taxes.


"Lower taxes" is not a libertarian position...especially with the fraudulent monetary system that Trump endorses. 




> These are all policies in line with traditional Libertarianism. So what gives?


None of those are libertarian positions.  Trump is the worst thing for freedom that can be conceived of right now.  Hillary would be better.

----------


## Origanalist

> No he's not.  He is an economic interventionist and a military interventionist. 
> 
> 
> 
> No he's not.  Interventionism increases the threats to national defense.
> 
> 
> 
> A police state at the border is not a libertarian position. 
> ...


Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.


Hopefully that was sarcasm!  

I promise you that after 4 years, Molyneux will reject the alt right garbage he's succumbed to. 

Alex Jones...well, Alex Jones will probably still be Alex Jones.  He is not a libertarian. 

I don't know who the other person is that you mentioned.

----------


## specsaregood

> I don't know who the other person is that you mentioned.


Milo, is some sort of conservative gay guy  that all the trump cucks admire because they all secretly want trump to bang their girlfriends then finish all over their cuck faces.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Milo, is some sort of conservative gay guy  that all the trump cucks admire because they all secretly want trump to bang their girlfriends then finish all over their cuck faces.


Oh.

----------


## Origanalist

> Oh.


Don't listen to him. He's just a low energy loser who's jealous of the alpha male and his gay queen.

----------


## The Northbreather

Why you troll. Checkin to see if still sharp??

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

Why ? Because he's just an entertainer. 
And he's stupid. Normally nobody would pay attention to that...
This cycle however, everybody seems to have lowered themselves to his level. 

Tremendous, great.

But it's pretty obvious why this is happening... If there was a serious atmosphere with a media that was the least bit honest. Rand would have won the nomination and Trump had never made it past his announcement speech.

----------


## thoughtomator

> He's anti-interventionist. Strong on national defense and securing the border. He's for free markets. And lowere taxes. These are all policies in line with traditional Libertarianism. So what gives?


The folks you're talking about probably wouldn't have seen enough difference between Eric Cantor and Dave Brat to be worth the effort, either. They have an all-or-none attitude that normally only manifests itself in children under the age of 3.

With some, they aren't libertarians to begin with. They like to smoke pot, or they like gay marriage, or they like to hire illegal aliens, or some other specific policy where pop-libertarianism gives them what they want, and that's the full-stop end to their consideration of political philosophy.

Turns out that the open borders issue is an easy litmus test to tell a true libertarian from a false one.

Genuine libertarians are fiercely nationalist and have zero problem with a national government doing its basic duty of defending the borders of the nation - the absolute #1 thing on the list of what a sovereign is supposed to do.

Be aware that many other, rightfully-discredited philosophies (such as the various flavors of anarchism) claim to be libertarian, but are actually as opposed to liberty as Communism. The common failing here is the inability to distinguish true liberty from the natural right of violence. Probably none of them have the attention span to read Hobbes, or the intellectual capacity to understand it.

So when you hear something here as being allegedly pro-liberty, or libertarian, don't take it at face value. Be very, very, very skeptical.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Or, they just see him as yet another flavor of the same age-old erosion of liberty that we have suffered for 200+ years.

----------


## osan

> Why ? Because he's just an entertainer.


Not JUST an entertainer.  We don't have to like Donald, but we should be fair to the man or we become that which we proclaim to despise.

I am even fair to Obama and Hillary.  Thank God there's not much in it to make me queasy, so in a sense I luck out.




> And he's stupid. *Normally* nobody would pay attention to that...


I am surprised at you - calling him stupid.  To underestimate a potential foe in this manner could also be said to be stupid.  I will assume this is frustration speaking, which is well understandable.  Being "lead" by such people at the threat of their men with guns is endlessly aggravating.

Nornally?  Define "normal".  I'd say that drooling stupidity coupled with raving, barking insanity have become very much the norm in this era.  In fact, it appears to define the very age in which we live.





> But it's pretty obvious why this is happening... If there was a serious atmosphere with a media that was the least bit honest. *Rand would have won* the nomination and Trump had never made it past his announcement speech.


You're having a bad day, yes?  Now stop, take a breath, and look around.

Europe is committing suicide en masse.  Russia and China are prepping for nuclear war.  America is prepping to burn to the waterline, yet cares more about "talent" competitions.  Muslims are running about sawing the heads off of other human beings.

These are not freakish outlier events.  They are now the rule.  THESE are the new normal.

Where, exactly, do we think this is all going to lead?  Does anyone here think that such a general atmosphere will bring us to happy fun time?

----------


## thoughtomator

> Or, they just see him as yet another flavor of the same age-old erosion of liberty that we have suffered for 200+ years.


Which would make them small-minded, childish idiots who lack knowledge, reason, perspective and a sense of proportion.

Which also now makes them my enemies. Because they're not just full of $#@!, they're dangerously full of $#@! at a critical moment in human history - and by affirmatively deciding NOT to be part of the solution to the epidemic of corruption that has destroyed liberty as surely as any dictator ever has, they can now be known for what they really are.

Cowards. Traitors. Children.

This quote used to be my sig line, perhaps it's been too long since.




> “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
> ― Samuel Adams


Get on board or be viewed forever more as a cowardly wretch who ran and hid when the battle for liberty was joined.

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by *Don Francis Frost*He's anti-interventionist.
> 
> 
> 
> No he's not. He is an economic interventionist and a military interventionist.


The worldview that your responses seem to imply is a mite simplistic.  I mean no insult in saying this, but it appears you suffer some myopia on these matters.

Free lands flourish only under certain circumstances.  Those circumstances are largely absent today.  A properly free land would be as a finger poking the eye of the rest of the world, especially the so-called "globalists".  Those latter would, in fact, be obliged to endeavor to destroy America for the dangerous example it would set countering their specifications of a workers' paradise where everyone is equally impoverished, oppressed, and miserable.  It simply could not be tolerated, and therefore it would become paramount to see to it that America as such was destroyed.  Anyone doubting this needs to look back into our history with greater care and get a good snootful of the human political habit.

Consider the many targets to which the covetous nations of the world would set their sights.

Money:  Being properly free, there would be proper money.  While it COULD be electronic in form, I am skeptical as to the chances of that becoming the case.  I would far more likely believe in traditional monies such as gold and silver.  Assuming physical money, globalists and our other avaricious neighbors would embark on campaigns to relieve us of our backing stores.  This is a given because this is what people _DO_.  The predictability is so perfect on this point that it rivals that of a cesium fountain clock.

So we would then be faced with a choice: be stripped to the bare walls of our stores of value or take measures to defend them.  The latter, which IMO would be necessary to avoid economic destruction, would be a step AWAY from proper liberty.

Borders:  A properly free land operating in a properly free world would have no need for border enforcement.  But existing in the context of a hostile world where said covetous neighbors would be scheming and endeavoring to take what you have, including the physical territories, the choice arises: erect and defend borders or be consumed by the mob.  Another step AWAY from proper freedom.

Defense: A properly free land has no standing armies, but their naughty neighbors do.  The stark reality is that a large, well trained, well commanded army is more powerful than loosely- or uncoupled part-time weekend warrior units.  Now, it can be well argued that Adm. Yamamoto's concern about a rifle behind every blade of grass was valid, but that does not remove the threat.  History is littered with examples of madmen doing madthings.  There would be no reason to believe for a New York minute that America's $#@!ty neighbors, perhaps at the goad of "globalists" would not be making military attempts upon the vast riches of the only properly free land on the planet.  I would be willing to gaRONtee it.  Again, it is what we as a species do.  Once again we come to a nexus: develop the means of repelling the barbarians or risk losing it all.  Assuming there are nifty and effective technological solutions hiding out there, somewhere, waiting to be discovered, we would still likely have to raise a standing army for at least some limited period of time until we actually discovered and proved those alternative remedies.  And let us not forget that the longer an army stands, the less likely that it will step down, come the time.  Large institutions have this bad habit of taking on lives of their own and, as with any other living thing, tend to want to keep going for as long as possible.  Given history and our known proclivities, all manner of mischief will tend to arise as a result.  Yet another step away from proper liberty.

Economics: A free land in America would be free to trade with other nations.  But where America's labor rates, for example, would be set by the free markets, those of nations such as China would remain artificially suppressed.  Where the American manufacturer would be paying (for example) $10/hour to make shoes, the typical Chinese manufactory is paying $0.50.  Free markets are competitive markets, yet American manufacturers would be unable to compete at the wholesale/retail level because they could not compete with China in terms of manufacturing costs due to the artificially low slave-labor markets.

And once again America is faced with a choice: take measures to protect itself from the rigged markets of other nations or be killed by them.  Free market trade works ONLY where all the trading partners operate in equally-free contexts.  That would imply restrictions on trade with non-free partners such as China.  It COULD be validly argued that even with a slaver state like China, free America should let trade happen, come what may.  I would suggest that this would be a disaster, for once China destroyed its competition (America) and held a monopoly-like position, they would then begin to raise their prices and limit production as is the micro-economic optimum for all monopolies.

Furthermore, America being a free nation with REAL money, would not be able to simply lower its wages in the face of Chinese slave labor competition.  To do so would distort the economy at home in ways too numerous and arcane to go into here.  And going back to the money issue, the resultant trade imbalances would lead to settlements where the "gold" would be expatriated to Chinese soil where, in all likelihood, it would remain in perpetuity.

Therefore, economically speaking, the harsh realities of the lower denominator would press upon the normative ideals of properly free people, thereby driving them to have to make some hard choices.

Without a critical mass of freedom in terms of a proportion of the global populations or of "nations", proper freedom simply cannot be made real.  That is the hazard and the tragedy of spreading tyranny - of Empire.  Once you pass a threshold, those not wishing to be consumed must follow suit. Why?  Because in the short term at the very least, tyranny is more powerful than freedom.  Hearken back to the Chinese example to see how this is so bitterly true: when the "free trade" hack job was foisted upon Americans, there was only one way for things to go.  Take any market segment - say shoes once again.  Remember when top-drawer Addidas and Nikes were many hundreds of dollars?  I remember it clearly as in 1980 I worked as a ski mechanic at Princeton Ski and Skate in Manhattan.  We sold high end athletic shoes and they were all $180 and up... back when that was REAL money (so to speak).  Those shoes were ALL made in the USA and Europe and the prices reflected the labor costs, as much as anything else such as branding.

Once the first shoe manufacturer of market repute moved to China, the future was cast for all others.  If Uknown Athletic Shoes Inc. made the move, not really a big deal in immediate terms - perhaps never.  But the moment Nike moved there, all the other big players HAD TO.  Why?  Because Nike has brand credibility, and thereby market power.  The moment their labor costs go from $15/hr average to $0.60, their competition would be poised for the kill.  When Addidas is still charging $300 per pair, Nike comes in at $225 and eats Addidas' lunch.  If Addidas fails to match Nike's costs, etc. to compete at retail, they go out of business.  Therefore, they close shop in America and go to China, as do all the rest, and the price wars ensue, resulting in top-drawer athletic shoes for $60, which was previously impossible.

The lowest denominator, once adopted my one player, must be adopted by all who wish to survive.  This applies both in economics, national defense, and so forth.  It is a very ugly truth, but true nonetheless.  It will remain true so long as humans on average have no love of liberty and remain avaricious and lazy such that they think they will get over on someone else's nickel.

We as a species are stuck in a death spiral.  We could get out at any time, but that would require eating some bitter.  We do not want to do that, and so here we remain, tunneling ourselves ever deeper into the ground.  This will NOT end well for us, I am 99.9% certain.

Therefore, without far greater specificity, your objections to Trump miss any valid mark.  And once again to repeat myself unto everyone's nausea: this does not make me a Trump fan.  It does, however, show that I am cognizant of the extremely distasteful realities of our current circumstances, realizing that our ideals are nowhere to be achieved in our lifetimes.  The best we are LIKELY to accomplish are incremental moves toward liberty.  I realize that $#@! could happen to change things, but until it does, we stand where we stand.

While I do not believe it to be the case, one should still recognize that Trump may well be the best we can do at this moment in time.  It's a really $#@!ty thought, but nobody else has been offered up. Rand never had the least chance due to the corruption of just about everything, the people of America being the most significant element of it.





> Strong on national defense





> 





> No he's not. Interventionism increases the threats to national defense.


Agreed.





> and securing the border.
> 
> 
> A police state at the border is not a libertarian position.


Establishment and defense of borders does NOT perforce imply a police state.  That it likely leads to one, given current mental landscapes, is a different issue.





> He's for free markets.
> 
> 
> No he's not. He is a protectionist.


Given certain circumstances, some brands of protectionism make sound strategic sense pursuant not to optimum freedom, but to economic survival as per my argument, above.  We are today operating at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy.  We are in a state of growing entropy and probably cannot soundly indulge our ideals in the ways we would want.  At best, I see them as goals toward which to work in a deliberate but piecemeal fashion.  A flash-cut to full liberty would be a disaster.




> and lowere [sic] taxes.
> 
> 
> "Lower taxes" is not a libertarian position...especially with the fraudulent monetary system that Trump endorses.


Now this is just silly.  Just imagine the response, were Trump to start talking about non-money (FRN), the corrupt Fed, and so on.  He'd be in a rubber room on a heavy thorazine load.  You are expecting too much of a candidate.  Not because what you want it wrong, but because Americans are so far removed from what is right that they would have the conniption of all conniptions if you seriously attempted to make them free in, say, an eight-year period.  Just imagine the denizens of "the projects" when told their EBT cards were going away and that they would soon have to get jobs.  The cities of America would burn to street-level in about five minutes.  THAT is the reality of the corner into which we have painted ourselves.  This is some seriously $#@!ed-up $#@! - dangerous as all hell, and very unlikely to see any substantive improvements any time soon.






> None of those are libertarian positions. Trump is the worst thing for freedom that can be conceived of right now. *Hillary would be better.*


That is decidedly unknown at this time.

Trump is an unknown quantity as a politician.  He might prove a disaster.  We KNOW Hillary will be.  I say take the sliver of hope, no matter how impossibly thin.  This is my inner pragmatarian speaking.  I don't like it, but this is the hand we have been dealt.  Act is if it is not the case at your own peril.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Which would make them small-minded, childish idiots who lack knowledge, reason, perspective and a sense of proportion.
> 
> Which also now makes them my enemies. Because they're not just full of $#@!, they're dangerously full of $#@! at a critical moment in human history - and by affirmatively deciding NOT to be part of the solution to the epidemic of corruption that has destroyed liberty as surely as any dictator ever has, they can now be known for what they really are.
> 
> Cowards. Traitors. Children.
> 
> This quote used to be my sig line, perhaps it's been too long since.
> 
> 
> ...


So, let me try to cut past your tourettes and figure out exactly what you are charging me with and why.


I am an enemy of liberty and a traitor to the United States, as well as an oligarchy's puppet, because I am unwilling to cast a vote, for an oligarchic tyrant who holds nothing but contempt for the US Constitution?


Is that about what you are trying to say?

----------


## Jesse James

the OP is gone, why was this bumped?

----------


## scm

> Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?


If you understand libertarianism, How is this even a question?

----------


## Origanalist

> I feel you understand libertarianism, How is this even a question?


Exactly! They should all be supporting Trump because he's going to smash the establishment! MAGA

----------


## scm

> Exactly! They should all be supporting Trump because he's going to smash the establishment! MAGA


ROTFLMAO

----------


## Leighton

> Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.


Your argument became invalid at Alex Jones

----------


## Carlybee

Because the lesser of two evils is still evil and he is not a libertarian.

----------


## CPUd

> Stefan Molyneux, Alex Jones and Milo support him. Your argument is invalid.


Also Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.

----------


## dannno

> Oh.


Milo tours college campuses and trolls the SJWs and tries to educate everybody on the huge flaws of modern leftism, and all the lies they put out.. it's awesome.. he is flaming gay, and brags about banging black and brown guys all the time, so he can't be called out as racist or misogynist or anti-LGBT, so he can get the message out better. Anybody else who tries to say what he says is just called a racist/misogynist and so their views are automatically dismissed. 

The alt-right likes him for that reason.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Why are some Libertarians rejecting Trump?


LOL. That's like asking, "Why are some Christians rejecting Satan?" ...

----------


## robert68

> ...
> That is decidedly unknown at this time.
> 
> Trump is an unknown quantity as a politician. * He might prove a disaster.  We KNOW Hillary will be.*


Please. No we don't know that. It's highly likely if Trump wins, both houses of Congress will be Republican controlled. That's unchecked power for an extremely vindictive thin skinned authoritarian white nationalist. If Hillary wins, the House will be Republican controlled, and if the Senate isn't Republican controlled, they can still filibuster. And as the figures below show, Republican Presidencies aren't more likely to result in better economic growth than Democrat ones. 

*
GDP's of past Presidents:*
Kennedy/Johnson  5.3%
*Clinton  -           3.8%* -- Republican controlled Congress 6 of his 8 years in office.
Reagan-                 3.4%
Carter   -                 3.4%
Nixon/Ford   -         2.7%
Eisenhower -          2.4%
Obama -                 2.0%
GHW Bush  -          2.0%  
Truman   -             1.9%
GW Bush -             1.6%






> I say take the sliver of hope, no matter how impossibly thin.  This is my inner pragmatarian speaking.  I don't like it, but this is the hand we have been dealt.  Act is if it is not the case at your own peril.

----------


## Jerry C

Because Donald Trump is just as much of an authoritarian as Hilary Clinton, he was never a non interventionist on anything. His solution to ISIS is to "bomb the $#@! out of them". He stated he wants to "build up the military" but this would be a good thing why exactly? America spends more than the other top 10 military powers put together and has more bases around the world than any other nation. The closest Trump has said to changing this is to charge nations where we have bases, granted it is a step up from the current policy and does make sense but it is not non interventionism. Non interventionism would be getting rid of those bases entirely and having countries like Germany and Japan be solely responsible for their own security and to not have entangling alliances. One positive thing I will say about Trump is that his proposed idea of actually talking to Russia instead of saber rattling them would actually help if it was implemented.

Though I agree that the border should be secured his solution of building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it is incredibly unrealistic. The wall part is one thing, but how does he propose to get Mexico to pay for it? Donald Trump is not free market, he is a protectionist. He is correct that trade deals like NAFTA and the proposed TPP are complete and total ripoffs that are screwing the poor and middle class. But his proposed solution of raising tariffs to bring back American jobs would likely result in trade wars which will both harm American workers as well as further harm US relations with the rest of the world. Donald Trump talks a decent game on taxes, I will give him that but I will believe it once I see some action (assuming he wins the election).

----------


## Superfluous Man

> He's anti-interventionist.


No he isn't.




> Strong on national defense and securing the border.


Not exactly libertarian positions there.




> He's for free markets.


He's the most anti-free market candidate the GOP has ever nominated in its entire history.




> And lowere taxes.


He's for higher spending. That equates to higher taxes. The only question is which form those taxes will take.

----------


## Superfluous Man

The second post in this thread is telling.

----------


## presence

> and securing the border.


Compare Trumps call for rounding up illegals and building a wall with Ron's immigration policy:




> FIRST AND FOREMOST:
> END THE FED
> 
> 
> YAY:
> 
> ONLY LEGAL CITIZENS VOTE
> GOVERNMENT SERVICE ENGLISH ONLY
> SPONSORED PRESENCE
> ...


citations: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation+border

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Compare Trumps call for rounding up illegals and building a wall with Ron's immigration policy:
> 
> 
> citations: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...luation+border


RP is not just for unmolested interior travel, he's even for unmolested crossing of borders, as in, he says we should all be free to leave and reenter the USA without a passport.

He's also against making employers enforce federal immigration laws.

All the anti-immigration people who say that they want us to enforce the laws that are already on the books are taking a totally opposite approach to what Ron Paul supports.

----------


## otherone

> He's anti-interventionist. Strong on national defense and securing the border. He's for free markets. And lowere taxes. These are all policies in line with _traditional Libertarianism_. So what gives?


RPF _REALLY_ needs a FAQ.

----------


## osan

> Please.


No. 




> No we don't know that.


Actually, we pretty well do.  I don't need to see further proof of Clinton.  Don't really want it with Trump, but I've been given no choice in the matter.  I am made subject to Empire against my will in gross violation of my rights as a free man.  At this point I am indulging my curiosity and nothing more.

OTOH, another morbidly curious corner of my frighteningly twisted intellect would like to see Clinton win just as a test of whether there is any degradation to which Americans can be subjected that they would actually and actively reject.




> It's highly likely if Trump wins, both houses of Congress will be Republican controlled. That's unchecked power


Both were R-controlled and they gave Obama just about everything for which he whinged and whined.  Don't be naive in thinking that things such as separation of powers are actually functioning as intended.  Deep threads are in operation between the two sides of the coin.  It is an oligopoly of governance and the entrenched interests own both sides of the aisle.




> for an extremely vindictive thin skinned


Says you?  I grew up in NYC and was a young adult when Trump was making his bones.  He's a character, to be sure, but you have no idea how he will perform as president.  Your speculations may prove out, or not.




> authoritarian white nationalist.


This is just stupid.  Given his huge ego and the fact that he won't keep himself in check at times when discretion strongly recommends itself, why would he then be making solicitous speak to the so-called "minorities"?  Men with egos that large often call it as they see it, which is at times a strength while at others a weakness.  I see nothing of WHITE nationalism in anything he has said; not even the stupid things.  Therefore, you are on the hook to demonstrate that race is the issue you imply.  I know the personality type represented by Trump.  Were he the frothing racist the lying dullards claim, he would either be calling black knyggers or he would keep his mouth shut, rather than say anything good about them. Clearly he has done neither, so I will repair to innocent until proven guilty on such matters.

He may well make a crap president - would not surprise me in the least.  But I know HRC will be.  Her record is there for all to see and I don't think she is the type to suddenly find religion, so...




> And as the figures below show, Republican Presidencies aren't more likely to result in better economic growth than Democrat ones.


First of all, presidents have little influence on economics.  Most of the hay or feces are made by the markets and the corrupt nitwits in Congress.  Signing and vetoing are not insignificant, I agree, but without Congress the president is nary more than a bump on a log in such matters.





> *Clinton  -           3.8%* -- Republican controlled Congress 6 of his 8 years in office.


Oh please, I just have to know the gory specifics as to how Slick Willy was responsible for the cited figure.  No, really - illuminate us.

I contend he had NOTHING to do with it.  The dot-com scam was the greatest factor in that era of growth and it came crashing down just as GW Bush took the oath.  To blame Bush for low growth is as absurd as crediting Clinton with marginally higher gains.  I suppose you will say that Clinton also left the nation with a surplus of cash, eh what?

I never cease to be amazed at the simplistic views so many people hold on issues as complicated as the US economy.

----------


## robert68

> ..
> *Both were R-controlled* and they gave Obama just about everything for which he whinged and whined. Don't be naive in thinking that things such as separation of powers are actually functioning as intended. Deep threads are in operation between the two sides of the coin. It is an oligopoly of governance and the entrenched interests own both sides of the aisle.


You have the simplest of facts wrong. The Democrats had control of both houses of Congress in Obama’s first 2 years. That’s when Obamacare was passed, with every Republican in both houses of Congress voting against it; and it's why the Democrats then lost control. And the reason, btw, the Dem's got control was because of the disastrous results of the unchecked power of Republicans during the W regime. 



> Says you?  I grew up in NYC and was a young adult when Trump was making his bones.  He's a character, to be sure, but you have no idea how he will perform as president.  Your speculations may prove out, or not.


Trump's vindictive thin skin is commonly spoken of by people who've had dealings with him and is observable to all. He's even admitted to it. 



> First of all, presidents have little influence on economics.  Most of the hay or feces are made by the markets and the corrupt nitwits in Congress.  Signing and vetoing are not insignificant, I agree, but without Congress the president is nary more than a bump on a log in such matters.
> 
> Oh please, I just have to know the gory specifics as to how Slick Willy was responsible for the cited figure.  No, really - illuminate us.


3.8 % GDP for his time in office is the widely given figure. You obviously don't have a better one. I didn't credit Bill Clinton with it, I credited the combination of his Presidency and the Republican controlled congress. Republican candidates for President often talk a good game about economic growth, but their records in office typically don't back it up.  



> I contend he had NOTHING to do with it.  The dot-com scam was the greatest factor in that era of growth and it came crashing down just as GW Bush took the oath.  To blame Bush for low growth is as absurd as crediting Clinton with marginally higher gains.  I suppose you will say that Clinton also left the nation with a surplus of cash, eh what?

----------


## osan

> You have the simplest of facts wrong. The Democrats had control of both houses of Congress in Obama’s first 2 years. That’s when Obamacare was passed, with every Republican in both houses of Congress voting against it; and it's why the Democrats then lost control. And the reason, btw, the Dem's got control was because of the disastrous results of the unchecked power of Republicans during the W regime.


And what about all the rest since R gained control of both houses?  That was the reason the voters were so pissed after the mid-terms.  That is why men like Paul Ryan are viewed as traitors.

Don't talk to me about facts when you cherry pick a small subset and attempt to present it as the conditions of predominant significance, ignoring the rest.





> Trump's vindictive thin skin is commonly spoken of by people who've had dealings with him and is observable to all. He's even admitted to it.


And once again the relevancy remains undemonstrated because we have no idea how he will respond as president.  This is a man with a LOT to lose.  Or is it your contention that he is so ill-possessed of himself that he would launch a first nuclear strike against a nation because someone criticized his choice of tie?  Think about your answer at least a little bit before typing.  The man has built and runs 500+ businesses.  If he were the scumbag a small handful of people claim, NOBODY would do business with him.  Your apparent opinion is not well hinged to reason.  Nobody to my knowledge is putting guns to the heads of those with whom Trump does business.  I've lived in the world of big business for 30 years and can tell you as someone who cut his teeth on Wall Street that bad reputations grow almost instantly and are nearly impossible to repair.  Were Trump as bad as claimed, he would have no business partners because nobody would trust him.  Contrary to what so many people believe, CEOs tend to be some of the most upstanding, honest, honorable, and trustworthy people on the planet.  There are notable exceptions, but those represent a vanishingly small minority.  I've had lunches with a few Fortune 50 CEOs in my day and can tell you first hand that they were all men in whom my esteem was well placed.  The bad ones, once caught at it, ALL go by the wayside and become as lepers to their colleagues.  I see no evidence of this having happened to Trump.

Some harp on the fact that he has declared four or six bankruptcies.  That represents about a 1% failure rate, which is impressively low.  I am not saying he's never pulled a fast one, but I also cannot say that he has.  Were he as guilty as claimed, by now there would be thousands of people coming forward and that has not happened.  Reality does not align with your professed opinion.




> 3.8 % GDP for his time in office is the widely given figure. You obviously don't have a better one. I didn't credit Bill Clinton with it, I credited the combination of his Presidency and the Republican controlled congress. Republican candidates for President often talk a good game about economic growth, but their records in office typically don't back it up.


Oh BALONEY.  The implication of your post was clear.  You wrote:




> *Clinton - 3.8% -- Republican controlled Congress 6 of his 8 years in office.*


Given the context, it was clear that you were crediting Clinton IN SPITE OF republican control of the Congress and not as sharing credit with.  Don't try to backpedal your way out because nobody will buy it.

As for a better figure, nowhere did I say or imply that I did.  You are grasping at straws in an attempt to save the credibility of your untenable position through deflection.  I did nothing more than point out that Clinton had NOTHING to do with the GDP.  That growth was mostly due to the furious activity of the dotcom market at that time.  You could have put a chimpanzee into the Oval Office and the GDP would have not altered a whit from what it was because THAT market was paying Slick Willy no heed whatsoever.  It was doing its thing, regardless of the clown in the White House.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> RPF _REALLY_ needs a FAQ.


No one would be able to agree on a definition of the word.  Most of the posters here nowadays are libertarians or even Ron Paul Republicans anymore.

----------


## robert68

> And what about all the rest since R gained control of both houses?  That was the reason the voters were so pissed after the mid-terms.  That is why men like Paul Ryan are viewed as traitors.
> 
> Don't talk to me about facts when you cherry pick a small subset and attempt to present it as the conditions of predominant significance, ignoring the rest.
> 
> You said: 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Both were R-controlled and they gave Obama just about everything for which he whinged and whined.


Voters were pissed off at the passage of Obamacare, which was passed when Democrats controlled both houses. Excuse me for being right.  When I have more time I may look up the spending growth rate as percentage of GDP in each of the Obama years. 



> Oh BALONEY.  The implication of your post was clear.  You wrote:    
> 
> Given the context, it was clear that you were crediting Clinton IN SPITE OF republican control of the Congress and not as sharing credit with...


Rubbish. I criticized the "unchecked power" a President Trump would have, and also stated that Republicans controlled Congress 6 out of Clinton's 8 years in office. I don't have to belabor the point for you.  




> As for a better figure, nowhere did I say or imply that I did.  You are grasping at straws in an attempt to save the credibility of your untenable position through deflection.  I did nothing more than point out that Clinton had NOTHING to do with the GDP.  That growth was mostly due to the furious activity of the dotcom market at that time.  You could have put a chimpanzee into the Oval Office and the GDP would have not altered a whit from what it was because THAT market was paying Slick Willy no heed whatsoever.  It was doing its thing, regardless of the clown in the White House.


The facts say otherwise:
US GDP by year:
Dec 31, 1993 	2.63% 
Dec 31, 1994 	4.13%
Dec 31, 1995 	2.28%
Dec 31, 1996 	4.45%
Dec 31, 1997 	4.39%
Dec 31, 1998 	5.00%
Dec 31, 1999 	4.69%
Dec 31, 2000 	2.89%
http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-gr.../table/by-year

----------


## JohnM

> No one would be able to agree on a definition of the word.  Most of the posters here nowadays are libertarians or even Ron Paul Republicans anymore.


Did you leave out the word "not"?

----------


## JohnM

> Also Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods.


Tom Woods does not support Trump.  

I doubt that Lew Rockwell does, but he dislikes the Republican Party establishment so much that he took great pleasure in Trump getting the nomination, and he dislikes HRC (& the Democratic Party establishment) so much that he would take great pleasure in a Trump victory.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> OTOH, another morbidly curious corner of my frighteningly twisted intellect would like to see Clinton win just as a test of whether there is any degradation to which Americans can be subjected that they would actually and actively reject.


A corner of my brain would like to see Trump win for that same reason.

One bad side effect of his losing will be that his supporters will just go on continuing to believe he would have been a good president. The only effective way to disabuse them of that will be if he wins and they get to see how terrible he turns out to be. It's very possible that he could be worse than Clinton.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I doubt that Lew Rockwell does


It sure seems like he does to me.

He has ridden the fence well enough to avoid explicitly saying so, and to give an occasional token place on his website for people who don't support him (which articles are greatly outnumbered by pro-Trump articles). But he has been a Trump cheer leader all along, including when he was running against Rand.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did you leave out the word "not"?


Yes sorry.

----------


## JohnM

> It sure seems like he does to me.
> 
> He has ridden the fence well enough to avoid explicitly saying so, and to give an occasional token place on his website for people who don't support him (which articles are greatly outnumbered by pro-Trump articles). But he has been a Trump cheer leader all along, including when he was running against Rand.


Seems.  

I don't think he has a high view of Trump's views.   He cheers Trump because he hates Trump's enemies, and he hopes that Trump will inflict a lot of damage on the system.

And I must confess that the way he talks about Trump does irritate me, and I wish he wouldn't do it.  But hey, that's Lew Rockwell.

I much prefer the way Ron Paul talks about Trump.  And since Lew is very close to Dr Paul, I suspect that he basically agrees with him.  

Of course, I could be wrong . . .

----------


## MelissaWV

> The second post in this thread is telling.


You saw that too, eh?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Seems.  
> 
> I don't think he has a high view of Trump's views.


I think he does have a high view of Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric. This is one of Lew's greatest flaws.

----------


## JohnM

> I think he does have a high view of Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric. This is one of Lew's greatest flaws.


I agree.  But then I'm one of these "open borders" types, and really like Bryan Caplan on this.

----------


## robert68

> Seems.  
> 
> I don't think he has a high view of Trump's views.   He cheers Trump because he hates Trump's enemies, and he hopes that Trump will inflict a lot of damage on the system.
> 
> And I must confess that the way he talks about Trump does irritate me, and I wish he wouldn't do it.  But hey, that's Lew Rockwell.
> 
> I much prefer the way Ron Paul talks about Trump.  And since Lew is very close to Dr Paul, I suspect that he basically agrees with him.  
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong . . .


Completely agree with Superfluous Man on this. I'm on his email list and even just his headlines show that. He and many in his circle are neo-Confederates (not be confused with just anti-Lincoln) to begin with. 
Also, as his words below show, he actually believes Trump opposed the Iraq war:
"Does it matter to him that Hillary pushed the war in which his son was killed, and Trump opposed it? Nope."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/politica...r-khan-hitman/

----------


## JohnM

I don't doubt that Trump opposed the war.



Of course, he also supported it, either a couple of days before or a couple of days after he opposed it.  



But neo-confederates?

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't doubt that Trump opposed the war.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, he also supported it, either a couple of days before or a couple of days after he opposed it.  
> 
> 
> 
> But neo-confederates?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> 


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again._

----------


## robert68

> But neo-confederates?


In this context, the idea the Confederacy wasn't formed to protect slavery, but to oppose high tariffs.

----------


## JohnM

> In this context, the idea the Confederacy wasn't formed to protect slavery, but to oppose high tariffs.


Ah.  I was thinking you meant that they preferred the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

----------


## spudea

Because some Libertarians require absolute purity, and aim to tear down anyone and everyone that don't fit their purity tests.  While purity can make you feel good, it will also cause apathy because so few leaders fit their purity test.  We had a chance with Ron Paul and failed.

I believe we must now fight and make gains in freedom wherever possible, and it is 100% impossible with open borders Hillary.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Because some Libertarians require absolute purity, and aim to tear down anyone and everyone that don't fit their purity tests.  While purity can make you feel good, it will also cause apathy because so few leaders fit their purity test.  We had a chance with Ron Paul and failed.
> 
> I believe we must now fight and make gains in freedom wherever possible, and it is 100% impossible with open borders Hillary.


Failure to support Trump does not auto-magically make someone a hyper purist bent on eliminating everyone but themselves.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Because some Libertarians require absolute purity, and aim to tear down anyone and everyone that don't fit their purity tests.


Is that also your explanation for why libertarians don't support Hillary?

Because that would make the same amount of sense.

----------


## Jesse James

> Tom Woods does not support Trump.  
> 
> I doubt that Lew Rockwell does, but he dislikes the Republican Party establishment so much that he took great pleasure in Trump getting the nomination, and he dislikes HRC (& the Democratic Party establishment) so much that he would take great pleasure in a Trump victory.


Lew
do

----------


## Jesse James

> Seems.  
> 
> I don't think he has a high view of Trump's views.   He cheers Trump because he hates Trump's enemies, and he hopes that Trump will inflict a lot of damage on the system.
> 
> And I must confess that the way he talks about Trump does irritate me, and I wish he wouldn't do it.  But hey, that's Lew Rockwell.
> 
> I much prefer the way Ron Paul talks about Trump.  And since Lew is very close to Dr Paul, I suspect that he basically agrees with him.  
> 
> Of course, I could be wrong . . .


it's the opposite. Lew Rockwell and Walter Block think Ron is nuts for not favoring Trump to Hillary. they also claim Rothbard would be a huge Trump fan. I basically agree with Walter Block, support Trump in swing states and anybody else in non-swing states. although he says support Gary and I say write in Ron Paul

----------


## Jesse James

> Completely agree with Superfluous Man on this. I'm on his email list and even just his headlines show that. He and many in his circle are neo-confederates (not be confused with anti-Lincoln) to begin with. 
> Also, as his words below show, he actually believes Trump opposed the Iraq war:
> "Does it matter to him that Hillary pushed the war in which his son was killed, and Trump opposed it? Nope."
> https://www.lewrockwell.com/politica...r-khan-hitman/


are you a Neo-Unionist?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Because some Libertarians require absolute purity, and aim to tear down anyone and everyone that don't fit their purity tests.  While purity can make you feel good, it will also cause apathy because so few leaders fit their purity test.  We had a chance with Ron Paul and failed.
> 
> I believe we must now fight and make gains in freedom wherever possible, and it is 100% impossible with open borders Hillary.

----------


## Jesse James

> In this context, the idea the Confederacy wasn't formed to protect slavery, but to oppose high tariffs.


you
don't think the Confederacy had anything to do with free trade?

----------


## robert68

> you
> don't think the Confederacy had anything to do with free trade?


It's wasn't the reason for it, as the Declarations of the Causes given by 4 of the states linked below shows. Using a word search for all of them, the word slave comes up 80 times, while the word tariff doesn't come up even once. In Jefferson Davis's farewell address to the Senate, tariff's weren't mentioned once, while the slavery issue was addressed significantly.  
http://www.civilwar.org/education/hi...nofcauses.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras277.../stephens.html

Further, at the time of the 7 original secessions, the Democrats controlled the Senate and tariffs were very low. The secessions are what gave the Republicans control of the Senate and allowed tariff increases like the Morill Tariff to get through the Senate.





> are you a Neo-Unionist?


No

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I'm not a purist, I can tolerate imperfect candidates who move things in the right direction, even if only slightly.  But a Trump Presidency would be moving things in the wrong direction.

----------


## Jesse James

> I'm not a purist, I can tolerate imperfect candidates who move things in the right direction, even if only slightly.  But a Trump Presidency would be moving things in the wrong direction.


as
opposed to Hillary?

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> as
> opposed to Hillary?


She would also move things in the wrong direction.

----------


## Origanalist



----------


## guest

> "Lower taxes" is not a libertarian position...


 Wait...wha ...  HUH???  Where did you get this idea?

----------

