Donald Trump Wins a Poll at a Ron Paul Fan Site [Mod edit]

[Smitty]

One of the Trumpkins negged me with the text "commie entryist."

First, I'm amused to see you use the term "entryist."

You must be reading a lot of alt-right sites these days, to the point of parroting their language.

Second, which one of us is supporting a candidate who thinks socialized medicine works, or that central banking (a plank of the communist manifesto, incidentally) is a good idea, or that it's the state's function to "fight the recession" (which the aforementioned central bank caused) by doling out $800 billion taxpayer dollars to political cronies, or that some businesses are "too big to fail" and the state should spend $700 billion taxpayer dollars bailing them out, rather than allowing the market to operate?

Vote for Meemaw Clinton and be done with it, Murray

 

[r3volution 3.0]

We must deport the people who vote for socialistic, warmongering Democrats!

Therefore, let us vote for a socialistic warmongering (former?) Democrat!

He'll deport people like us, and the country'll be saved!

 

[Smitty]

We must deport the people who vote for socialistic, warmongering Democrats!

You should be used to it by now.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You should be used to it by now.

To the thoroughly retarded character of Trumpkin reasoning?

Yes, I'm used to it.

 

[Smitty]

Yes, I'm used to it.

So why wait until it's mandatory?

Delta is ready when you are.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Smitty, the oh so eloquent authoritarian.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

On the subject of irrationality...

Is Trumptardation an anti-intellectual movement? Well, I'd say it's mostly a non-intellectual movement, as all mass movements are, i.e. the average Trumptard just isn't very bright. However, there is something uniquely anti-intellectual within Trumptardation. The intellectual elite of the movement (if we can say such a thing with a straight face) come from the white-nationalist/pop-reactionary thing that we call the alt-right, which has a certain Romantic bent to it. They spill huge amounts of ink hurling insults at "universalism," by which they basically mean rationality itself. You find lots of grandiloquent odes to masculinity, or community values, or virtu, or howling in the woods naked while quoting Zarathustra, etc - i.e. Romanticism, as I said. This is not really surprising, I suppose, since this is the same witch's brew from which national socialism emerged in the first place (also Marxism, which is similarly anti-rational and aesthetics-driven, [just by different aesthetics]). The point of all this being that, difficult as it it to break through the irrationality of the average Trumptards, it may be even tougher with the relatively more intelligent Trumptards, if they actually anti-rational.

 

[Smitty]

On the subject of irrationality...

Is Trumptardation an anti-intellectual movement? Well, I'd say it's mostly a non-intellectual movement, as all mass movements are, i.e. the average Trumptard just isn't very bright. However, there is something uniquely anti-intellectual within Trumptardation. The intellectual elite of the movement (if we can say such a thing with a straight face) come from the white-nationalist/pop-reactionary thing that we call the alt-right, which has a certain Romantic bent to it. They spill huge amounts of ink hurling insults at "universalism," by which they basically mean rationality itself. You find lots of grandiloquent odes to masculinity, or community values, or virtu, or howling in the woods naked while quoting Zarathustra, etc - i.e. Romanticism, as I said. This is not really surprising, I suppose, since this is the same witch's brew from which national socialism emerged in the first place (also Marxism, which is similarly anti-rational and aesthetics-driven, [just by different aesthetics]). The point of all this being that, difficult as it it to break through the irrationality of the average Trumptards, it may be even tougher with the relatively more intelligent Trumptards, if they actually anti-rational.

The guy who spent time typing out all this drivel accuses others of spilling huge amounts of ink.

lol,...

 

[John F Kennedy III]

The guy who spent time typing out all this drivel accuses others of spilling huge amounts of ink.

lol,...

The ever so eloquent Trumpslurper, Smitty.

 

[Ender]

A person has to wade through an Autism parade to participate in a discussion on here. 4 or 5 normal people try to have a conversation on this forum and here they come,...flappin' their hands around and crowin' like a fuggin' Rooster.

It's fugged up,...I'm tellin' ya.

You just gave the best description of Trump I've seen yet.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Further reading on the relationship between Romanticism and national socialism (past or present), if anyone's interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkisch_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism#Twentieth-century_political_developments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-volkisch_movements

 

[Ender]

Ok, fine, name one policy issue where Trump HAS EVER been worse than Hillary and the globalists.

Name me one where he's better.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Name me one where he's better.

That he hasn't flip flopped on.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Further reading on the relationship between Romanticism and national socialism (past or present), if anyone's interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkisch_movement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romantic_nationalism#Twentieth-century_political_developments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-volkisch_movements

That is an excellent correlation. One I agree with. I like to look at how the religious element of romanticism informs their view of government.

One of the mottos of romanticism was "everything is part and parcel of god". Of course human beings are part of everything, so they are part of God as well. This leads to a view of the absolute state and the divine state. Man in his greatest concentration is in the state. The state becomes divine.

It's an excellent correlation, one that fits the Trump movement perfectly.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

One of the mottos of romanticism was "everything is part and parcel of god". Of course human beings are part of everything, so they are part of God as well. This leads to a view of the absolute state and the divine state. Man in his greatest concentration is in the state. The state becomes divine.

Sounds like Hegel

"The march of God in the world, that is what the state is."

Course, Hegelianism wasn't a monolith; only some of his students became fascists.

...the others became communists.



Rothbard, "Hegel and the Romantic Age"

G.W.F. Hegel, unfortunately, was not a bizarre aberrant force in European thought. He was only one, if the most influential and the most convoluted and hypertrophic, of what must be considered the dominant paradigm of his age, the celebrated Age of Romanticism. In different variants and in different ways, the Romantic writers of the first half of the 19th century, especially in Germany and Great Britain, poets and novelists as well as philosophers, were dominated by a similar creatology and eschatology. It might be termed the "alienation and return" or "reabsorption" myth. God created the universe out of imperfection and felt need, thereby tragically cutting man, the organic species, off from his (its?) pre-creation unity with God. While this transcendence, this Aufhebung, of creation has permitted God and man, or God-man, to develop their (its?) faculties and to progress, tragic alienation will continue, until that day, inevitable and determined, in which God and man will be fused into one cosmic blob. Or, rather, being pantheists as was Hegel, until man discovers that he is man-God, and the alienation of man from man, man from nature, and man from God will be ended as all is fused into one big blob, the discovery of the reality of and therefore the merger into cosmic Oneness. History, which has been predetermined toward this goal, will then come to an end. In the Romantic metaphor, man, the generic "organism" of course, not the individual, will at last "return home." History is therefore an "upward spiral" toward Man's determined destination, a return home, but on a far higher level than the original unity, or home, with God in the pre-creation epoch.

The domination of the Romantic writers by this paradigm has been expounded brilliantly by the leading literary critic of Romanticism, M.H. Abrams, who points to this leading strain in English literature stretching from Wordsworth to D.H. Lawrence. Wordsworth, Abrams emphasizes, dedicated virtually his entire output to a "heroic" or "high Romantic argument," to an attempt to counter and transcend Milton's epochal poem of an orthodox Christian view of man and God. To counter Milton's Christian view of Heaven and Hell as alternatives for individual souls, and of Jesus's Second Advent as putting an end to history and returning man to paradise, Wordsworth, in his own "argument," counterpoises his pantheist vision of the upward spiral of history into cosmic unification and man's consequent return home from alienation.1 The eventual eschaton, the Kingdom of God, is taken from its Christian placement in heaven and brought down to earth, thereby as always when the eschaton is immanentized, creating spectacularly grave ideological social, and political problems...

The German Romantics were even more immersed in religion and mysticism than were their English counterparts. Hegel, Friedrich von Schelling, Friedrich von Schiller, Friedrich Hölderlin, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, were all theology students, most of them with Hegel at the University of Tubingen. All of them tried explicitly to apply religious doctrine to their philosophy. Novalis was immersed in the Bible. Furthermore, Hegel devoted a great deal of favorable attention to Boehme in his Lectures on the History of Philosophy, and Schelling called Boehme a "miraculous phenomenon in the history of mankind."

Moreover, it was Friedrich Schiller, Hegel's mentor, who was influenced by the Scot Adam Ferguson to denounce specialization and the division of labor as alienating and fragmenting man, and it was Schiller who influenced Hegel in the 1790s by coining the explicit concept of Aufhebung and the dialectic.2

In England, several decades later, the tempestuous conservative statist writer Thomas Carlyle paid tribute to Friedrich Schiller by writing a biography of that Romantic writer in 1825. From then on, Carlyle's writings were permeated with the Hegelian vision. Unity is good, and diversity or separateness is evil and diseased. Science as well as individualism is division and dismemberment. Selfhood, Carlyle ranted, is alienation from nature, from others, and from oneself. But one day there will come the breakthrough, the spiritual rebirth, led by world-historical figures ("great men") by which man will return home to a friendly world by means of the utter cancellation, the "annihilation of self (Selbst-todtung).

Finally, in Past and Present (1843), Carlyle applied his profoundly anti-individualist (and, one might add, anti-human) vision to economic affairs. He denounced egoism, material greed and laissez-faire, which, by fostering the severance of men from each other, had led to a world "which has become a lifeless other, and in severance also from other human beings within a social order in which "cash payment is … the sole nexus of man with man." In opposition to this metaphysically evil "cash nexus" lay the familial relation with nature and fellow men, the relation of "love." The stage was set for Karl Marx.3

...unsurprisingly, Carlyle's very popular with the alt-right crowd.

Some Rothbard lectures on related topics:

https://mises.org/library/1-ideology-and-theories-history

https://mises.org/library/2-emergence-communism

 

[Sola_Fide]

in which God and man will be fused into one cosmic blob. Or, rather, being pantheists as was Hegel, until man discovers that he is man-God, and the alienation of man from man, man from nature, and man from God will be ended as all is fused into one big blob, the discovery of the reality of and therefore the merger into cosmic Oneness. History, which has been predetermined toward this goal, will then come to an end. In the Romantic metaphor, man, the generic "organism" of course, not the individual, will at last "return home." History is therefore an "upward spiral" toward Man's determined destination, a return home, but on a far higher level than the original unity, or home, with God in the pre-creation epoch.

+rep

Rothbard is right on.

 

[Dangergirl]

I haven't been on here since Ron Paul's run which proved to be both disheartening and a political revelation. It was the revolution we hoped for. 4 years later and another election cycle, I was watching Rand and Ben Carson this time around hoping the roots of revolution would widen and conquer.

I came back on here to see the climate of fellow political pioneers and visionaries, people who taught me so much about our system and to push myself to strive for a better country and way of life. I admit, I'm surprised to find my path has differed for some names on here. Though I can't know for certain what a Trump presidency will be, I can't imagine for the sake of liberty to allow an evil as formidable as his opponent to grasp the reins of our future. Politics has to be played and though Trump may not be the all around "ideal guy", I don't think anyone could argue that the path towards liberty will be easier survived from his presidency then hers. We've seen her and her kind so many times before, we've been watching this path of decline. Now here is a person who has brought things to light about corruption that I haven't heard any candidate touch on before, things that we were furious over when "our guy" was fighting for us. Here's this guy fighting those same demons and those same elements that discouraged me from giving a screw about politics for the past 4 years.

Trump hasn't defined himself as a politician yet. That's a scary thought in it's own right. He's not sure of some positions, he might change his mind on something but he seems to generally care about the benefit of all of us. He gets what the position of government is supposed to be. He's not looking for a position for fame and money, he already has it. He's not looking for a political career. He wasn't primed and polished for presidency. He's a guy, a smart man and a resourceful man, a family man who's too open and too human at times for his own good. Who can cast the first stone in that regard? If he can keep his integrity he'll listen. If he's smart he'll listen too. He didn't get to where he is by stepping on others. He listened to others, he took their advice and took their help and he returned the gratitude by sharing success. It's a chance, maybe even a fantasy at this point in American politics but if we actually had the chance and didn't take it, shame on us if we instead handed it to certain death.

I still can't believe she ran. I still can't believe she got the nomination. I don't believe for a second she has any majority of support or votes. remember Ron's rallies? we outnumbered everyone. We were pumped, we were winning. We know what hope is and what the enemy looks like. I don't see an enemy in Trump. The system is rigged, there's only two choices until things change. Ron knew it too. This is how things change, one step at a time. The corruption is outted. Maybe we'll get some sensible policies back. Maybe the media will take the people serious again? Maybe the establishment will back down. Maybe they'll get wiser too. No matter what, freedom is going to be a fight and I don't knock anyone for their choice in taking a stand, just as long as they finally do take one.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Trump has spoken out numerous times about not arming jihadi proxies in Syria that eventually turn on us. This is the first time a Republican nominee has spoken snipets of non-intervention.

Coupled with folks extreme hate of the Clinton crime syndicate, it doesn't surprise me at all that most Ron Paul supporters will vote for Trump over the others.
(BTW I voted for Gary Johnson 4 years ago, but am dissapointed at how flakey the guys seems in most interviews)

Bush 2000.

 

[dannno]

Name me one where he's better.

Ron Paul said that Trump was better than Hillary on the Fed. He also seems to have a much more restrained foreign policy. He also has better economic policies, overall. Subsidizing open immigration is leading toward a more leftist voting block.

 

[vita3]

The entire Neo-Con team is openly against Trump & backing Clinton.

This makes me think his non-intervention talk is real.