Barack Obama now more libertarian than Donald Trump

[jmdrake]

Wow, just going off the headline here, this makes me like Trump more if he is less libertarian.

In clown libertarian world, there are only two choices: socialism or libertarianism. Retarded.

Clown world is liking Trump more based on his recent authoritarianism.

The concept denoted by the word "libertarian" has no business being applied to either Barack Obama or Donald Trump - not even comparatively.

https://x.com/jimmy_dore/status/1977145236058255721

Obama prosecuted more journalists using the Espionage Act than all presidents before him combined.

He arrested, jailed & tortured Chelsea Manning for revealing war crimes committed in our name.

He repealed the Smith-Mundt act which now allows the CIA/FBI to directly propagandize American citizens & infiltrate unions/ NGO’s/school boards/ & organizations of all kinds.

He deported 3 million Hispanics & built the cages Democrats protested against under Trump.

Obama took us from 2 wars to 7 wars while ramping up the drone bombings killing innocent people left & right.

He effectively repealed Habeas Corpus & gave the government the authority to jail people indefinitely without a trial.

Obama is a Myth pushed by the establishment & their bought media to make you think there was someone fighting for you while he was serving Banks, Big Pharma, the MIC & his corporate masters.

I'm not sure Jimmy Dore still feels that way.

'Jimmy Dore : Trump is destroying his own legacy.'

Oct 30, 2025

• jmdrake
• Replies: 6
• Forum: U.S. Political News

• 

 

[acptulsa]

Clown world is liking Trump more based on his recent authoritarianism.

And clowns are socialists who think they aren't.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not sure Jimmy Dore still feels that way.

Jimmy Dore never said he felt that way.

I just used the points Dore made in his tweet to illustrate why I do.

As far as I'm concerned, arguing over whether Obama is "more libertarian" than Trump (or vice versa) is grade-A prime Clown Show material.

 

[acptulsa]

As far as I'm concerned, arguing over whether Obama is "more libertarian" than Trump (or vice versa) is grade-A prime Clown Show material.

Is a Roma apple or a Winesap apple a better mattress?

 

[jmdrake]

Jimmy Dore never said he felt that way.

I just used the points Dore made in his tweet to illustrate why I do.

As far as I'm concerned, arguing over whether Obama is "more libertarian" than Trump (or vice versa) is grade-A prime Clown Show material.

I think you're missing the bigger point. Tyranny is accelerating. Trump does more evil because Biden did more evil because Trump did more evil before that because Obama did more evil before that because Bush did more evil before that and so on. People acted lik we were somehow turning the corner with Trump. We weren't. And now we're on the cusp of martial law and some people (Alex Jones for example) are actually calling for it after spending decades speaking against it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I think you're missing the bigger point. Tyranny is accelerating. Trump does more evil because Biden did more evil because Trump did more evil before that because Obama did more evil before that because Bush did more evil before that and so on. People acted lik we were somehow turning the corner with Trump. We weren't. And now we're on the cusp of martial law and some people (Alex Jones for example) are actually calling for it after spending decades speaking against it.

I'm not missing the point at all.

I have not argued against the claim that "tyranny is accelerating". I agree with that claim.

I am arguing against the absurd notion that Obama can somehow in any meaningful sense be characterized as "more libertarian" than Trump.

He cannot be so characterized.

Both of them have added their share to the increase in tyranny. The mere fact that Obama came before Trump - and thus, that things were not yet as tyrannical under him - does not in any way make Obama the "more libertarian" of the two. That's like saying Lenin was "more libertarian" than Stalin. Without Lenin's utterly unlibertarian tyranny, Stalin would have had nothing to add his tyranny to. Likewise, without Obama, Trump would have nothing to add his tyranny to - and without Bush Jr., Obama would have had nothing to add his tyranny to, and without Clinton, ... etc. By that "logic", Bush Jr. was "more libertarian" than Obama, and Clinton was "more libertarian" than Bush Jr. ... etc.

Crediting one tyrant with being "more libertarian" than another simply because the former just coincidentally happened to precede the latter in the "progression of tyranny" is ridiculous.

 

[acptulsa]

The lesser of two tyrants will never move the ball the right way. Choosing him is 100% self-defeating.

 

[Anti Globalist]

So does this mean that the next president after Trump will be less libertarian than him?

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not missing the point at all.

I have not argued against the claim that "tyranny is accelerating". I agree with that claim.

I am arguing against the absurd notion that Obama can somehow in any meaningful sense be characterized as "more libertarian" than Trump.

He cannot be so characterized.

Both of them have added their share to the increase in tyranny. The mere fact that Obama came before Trump - and thus, that things were not yet as tyrannical under him - does not in any way make Obama the "more libertarian" of the two. That's like saying Lenin was "more libertarian" than Stalin. Without Lenin's utterly unlibertarian tyranny, Stalin would have had nothing to add his tyranny to. Likewise, without Obama, Trump would have nothing to add his tyranny to - and without Bush Jr., Obama would have had nothing to add his tyranny to, and without Clinton, ... etc. By that "logic", Bush Jr. was "more libertarian" than Obama, and Clinton was "more libertarian" than Bush Jr. ... etc.

Crediting one tyrant with being "more libertarian" than another simply because the former just coincidentally happened to precede the latter in the "progression of tyranny" is ridiculous.

Your hair splitting missing the fact that Trump 45 could ARGUABLY be viewed as more libertarian than Obama if for no other reason than Trump 45, unlike Obama, didn't start any new wars. Trump 47 has started a brand spanking new war in Venezuela (yes there were regime change efforts but no actual full scale military mobilization before now) and also has directed U.S. troops and U.S. cities. I could see a Tulsi "no more regime change wars" Gabbard in good faith joining Trump 47 based on Trump 45's record. I'm not sure why she's STAYING with Trump 47 though.

 

[Snowball]

Your hair splitting missing the fact that Trump 45 could ARGUABLY be viewed as more libertarian than Obama if for no other reason than Trump 45, unlike Obama, didn't start any new wars. Trump 47 has started a brand spanking new war in Venezuela (yes there were regime change efforts but no actual full scale military mobilization before now) and also has directed U.S. troops and U.S. cities. I could see a Tulsi "no more regime change wars" Gabbard in good faith joining Trump 47 based on Trump 45's record. I'm not sure why she's STAYING with Trump 47 though.

She hasn't been a Democrat for years, and her cred with Republicans needed buffering.
This gives her experience at a high level and allows her to forge alliances and/or make changes which are not visible or spoken of.
It assures she stays in the game as a prospective VP or P candidate within the GOP.

 

[jmdrake]

She hasn't been a Democrat for years, and her cred with Republicans needed buffering.
This gives her experience at a high level and allows her to forge alliances and/or make changes which are not visible or spoken of.
It assures she stays in the game as a prospective VP or P candidate within the GOP.

So the desire for power trump's (no pun intended) principles. You're probably right.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Your hair splitting missing the fact that Trump 45 could ARGUABLY be viewed as more libertarian than Obama if for no other reason than Trump 45, unlike Obama, didn't start any new wars. Trump 47 has started a brand spanking new war in Venezuela (yes there were regime change efforts but no actual full scale military mobilization before now) and also has directed U.S. troops and U.S. cities. I could see a Tulsi "no more regime change wars" Gabbard in good faith joining Trump 47 based on Trump 45's record. I'm not sure why she's STAYING with Trump 47 though.

The phrase "hair splitting" (or "splitting hairs") is an idiom denoting the making of excessively fine or overly narrow distinctions between two or more things. If anything, I have done exactly the opposite, and have "joined hairs" by noting the essential lack of distinction between Trump and Obama when it comes to the notion that one might be "more libertarian" than the other.

But you nevertheless accuse me of "hair splitting" (without even identifying any particular "hair" I have tried to "split") ... and then you immediately proceed to "split hairs" over whether "Trump 45 could ARGUABLY be viewed as more libertarian than Obama [because he] didn't start any new wars" ...

As far as I'm concerned, arguing over whether Obama is "more libertarian" than Trump (or vice versa) is grade-A prime Clown Show material.

QED

 

[jmdrake]

The phrase "hair splitting" (or "splitting hairs") is an idiom denoting the making of excessively fine or overly narrow distinctions between two or more things. If anything, I have done exactly the opposite, and have "joined hairs" by noting the essential lack of distinction between Trump and Obama when it comes to the notion that one might be "more libertarian" than the other.

But you nevertheless accuse me of "hair splitting" (without even identifying any particular "hair" I have tried to "split") ... and then you immediately proceed to "split hairs" over whether "Trump 45 could ARGUABLY be viewed as more libertarian than Obama [because he] didn't start any new wars" ...



QED

You're hair splitting between the phrases "Trump is now less libertarian than Obama" and "Each administration is less libertarian." And you're ignoring the fact that Trump 45 was arguably more libertarian than Obama. In fact it was you who posted the Jimmy Dore tweet about Obama's 7 wars! Jimmy Dore has actively pushed the narrative, up until very recently, that Trump was better than Obama at least on war and peace. And now that's no longer true. So yes, you're the one splitting hairs this time. Tulsi "No new foreign wars" Gabbard joined Trump 47 and it was seen by many as a good move because Trump 45 didn't start any new foreign wars. But don't take my word for it. Go to your favorite AI and ask the following questions:

1) Did Obama start or engage in any military conflicts that were not U.S. involved conflicts when he took office?

2) During his first term, did Trump start or engage in any new military conflicts that were not U.S. involved military conflicts when he took office?

3) During his second term, has Trump started or engaged in any new military conflicts that were not U.S. involved military conflicts when he took office?

If you ask ChatGPT you'll have to get past it's knowledge limit by making sure it knows that it's November 2025 and Trump was innaugurated for his second term in Januanary 2025.

 

[TheTexan]

You're hair splitting between the phrases "Trump is now less libertarian than Obama" and "Each administration is less libertarian."

Maybe a more productive debate would be to take two piles of rocks and determine which pile of rocks is more libertarian

 

[jmdrake]

Maybe a more productive debate would be to take two piles of rocks and determine which pile of rocks is more libertarian

LOL. Actually rocks make a good analogy here. In Greek mythology King Sisyphus was cursed to forever try to roll a rock uphill. Going by that analogy, for awhile people within this movement were strongly arguing that Trump's election represented "progress" up the Liberty hill.

 

[nikcers]

LOL. Actually rocks make a good analogy here. In Greek mythology King Sisyphus was cursed to forever try to roll a rock uphill. Going by that analogy, for awhile people within this movement were strongly arguing that Trump's election represented "progress" up the Liberty hill.

The argument was and has always been that its better to get some of what you want than none of what you want.

The liberty argument is simple.

If your perceived liberty is a strictly and absolutely a strictly libertarian government then even Ron Paul wasn't libertarian enough for some of the libertarians when he ran in 1988.

He said that the libertarians complained about his platform because he wasn't for open borders.

Thats what a lot of people liked about Trump. He was able to win in the election and he wasnt for open borders.