George Will: In Case of Trump Nomination, Break Glass

[Petar]

Then why did he support the bank bailouts?

Why did he support Bernanke's money printing?

Why did he support the Iraq War?

Why did he support the Libya war?

Why are his current foreign policy advisors neocons?

Why does he support the PATRIOT ACT and NSA spying?

Do all of his horrific political judgements (see above) diminish it?

If making a lot of money is the sole criterion, well then nominate George Soros.

He made a lot more money and started with a lot less.

LMAO

...all of which he supported.

I realize that Attila the Trump has a history of being a goon, and still kind of is a goon, but who actually gives a shyzer?

The fact that he is going up against the establishment in some way and actually managing to sell his revolution to the public is all that really matters at this point.

Being married to losertarianism at all costs will accomplish nothing aside from maintaining the status-quo.

Wake me up when someone like Ron Paul actually has a chance of getting elected President.

Oh, that makes such a difference. If he destroys the USA unintentionally that's just fine.

He's going to destroy the carefully crafted, bi-partisan effort to swallow the USA into a globalist, fascist system.

Ron Paul fails to understand how useful the chaos that Trump is bringing will be to future, libertarian efforts.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I realize that Attila the Trump has a history of being a goon, and still kind of is a goon, but who actually gives a shyzer?

If you don't care about any of that (bank bailouts, Fed, the wars, civil liberties, etc), why not just support Hillary?

The fact that he is going up against the establishment

He isn't going up against the establishment in any way whatsoever (see list of his positions above).

He is promoting the status quo (and worse), and conning a bunch of rubes with emotionally charged but meaningless rhetoric.

in some way and actually managing to sell his revolution to the public is all that really matters at this point.

Why would that matter?

If Mitt Romney had been nominated on a wave of populist sentiment, manufactured by a clever marketing strategy, would you be supporting him?

...well, I guess you would, if you'd fallen for the aforementioned marketing strategy.

Being married to losertarianism at all costs will accomplish nothing aside from maintaining the status-quo.

Yes yes, opposing the status quo means maintaining it.

...makes sense.

Wake me up when someone like Ron Paul actually has a chance of getting elected President.

Go to sleep until you have the sense to vote for someone who will at least not make things worse.

He's going to destroy the carefully crafted, bi-partisan effort to swallow the USA into a globalist, fascist system.

There's that meaningless, emotionally charged rhetoric.

Ron Paul fails to understand how useful the chaos that Trump is bringing will be to future, libertarian efforts.

He also fails to understand that the world is flat and the moon is made of Gouda.

 

[FindLiberty]

YES, INTERESTING - JUST A HUNCH

The heat under this POTUS 2016 election appears to be high enough to boil
up well over 60% of the electorate to vote and make some new recent history!

 

[Petar]

If you don't care about any of that (bank bailouts, Fed, the wars, civil liberties, etc), why not just support Hillary?



He isn't going up against the establishment in any way whatsoever (see list of his positions above).

He is promoting the status quo (and worse), and conning a bunch of rubes with emotionally charged but meaningless rhetoric.



Why would that matter?

If Mitt Romney had been nominated on a wave of populist sentiment, manufactured by a clever marketing strategy, would you be supporting him?

...well, I guess you would, if you'd fallen for the aforementioned marketing strategy.



Yes yes, opposing the status quo means maintaining it.

...makes sense.



Go to sleep until you have the sense to vote for someone who will at least not make things worse.



There's that meaningless, emotionally charged rhetoric.



He also fails to understand that the world is flat and the moon is made of Gouda.

You are either daft or dishonest to claim that he is not challenging the status quo at all.

A losertarian in 1776 could just as easily have said that you might as well support King George III because George Washington had slaves.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You are either daft or dishonest to claim that he is not challenging the status quo at all.

You're daft or dishonest to claim that a guy who supported the entire post 9/11 foreign policy, and bank bailouts, is challenging the status quo.

My money's on daft.

 

[Petar]

You're daft or dishonest to claim that a guy who's supported the entire post 9/11 foreign policy, and the bank bailouts, is challenging the status quo.

My money's on daft.

At least I can acknowledge the fact that Trump has some tendency to speak from both sides of his mouth.

You are the one who only wants to talk about the side that supports your own biased point of view.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

At least I can acknowledge the fact that Trump has some tendency to speak from both sides of his mouth.

I'm well aware that Trump constantly lies and flip-flops.

...you think that's a good thing?

 

[Petar]

I'm well aware that Trump constantly lies and flip-flops.

...you think that's a good thing?

No, but I don't pretend that it is something that simply nullifies the ways in which he is actually damaging the establishment.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

No, but I don't pretend that it is something that simply nullifies the ways in which he is actually damaging the establishment.

So he's damaging the establishment by agreeing with them on every important issue (wars, police-state, Fed, bailouts, welfare, etc)?

 

[Petar]

So he's damaging the establishment by agreeing with them on every important issue (wars, police-state, Fed, bailouts, welfare, etc)?

You aren't being honest by framing it that way.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You aren't being honest by framing it that way.

Those are facts.

If you'd like citations, see the Trump Opposition Research Thread.

 

[Petar]

Those are facts.

If you'd like citations, see the Trump Opposition Research Thread.

Not exactly.

What you are doing is cherry-picking only those "facts" that appear to show Trump as being on the side of the establishment - and even there you are not completely correct.

Foreign-policy is an area where Trump shows a lot of disagreement with the establishment.

Just ask John McCain.

The fact that you (mod edit).

The agenda that you exhibit can only be described as (mod edit).

 

[erowe1]

No, but I don't pretend that it is something that simply nullifies the ways in which he is actually damaging the establishment.

You have never shown any ways that he has damaged anyone, nor how that has done me any good.

 

[Petar]

You have never shown any ways that he has damaged anyone, nor how that has done me any good.

Another possibility is that you are kind of (mod edit).

 

[r3volution 3.0]

What you are doing is cherry-picking only those "facts" that appear to show Trump as being on the side of the establishment

Show me some facts to the contrary.

and even there you are not completely correct.

Oh? How so?

Foreign-policy is an area where Trump shows a lot of disagreement with the establishment.

Are you denying that he supported the Iraq and Libya wars?

Or just dismissing that as unimportant?

Just ask John McCain.

In comparison to whom, Trump is actually worse on civil liberties (which is quite the accomplishment).

The fact that you (mod edit)

Ignore what? You didn't cite any facts or evidence of any kind.

Your apparent agenda can only be described as (mod edit).

No, it could be described as arguing against a radically anti-libertarian candidate, because I'm a libertarian.

What's your political ideology exactly?

...because the candidate you're supporting is a nationalistic progressive.

 

[Petar]

Show me some facts to the contrary.

Oh? How so?

Are you denying that he supported the Iraq and Libya wars?

Or just dismissing that as unimportant?

In comparison to whom, Trump is actually worse on civil liberties (which is quite the accomplishment).

Ignore what? You didn't cite any facts or evidence of any kind.

No, it could be described as arguing against a radically anti-libertarian candidate, because I'm a libertarian.

What's your political ideology exactly?

...because the candidate you're supporting is a nationalistic progressive.

You are intentionally ignoring all of the areas in which Trump acts in opposition to the establishment because it does not suit your (mod edit) to constantly failing in the most spectacular way possible.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You are intentionally ignoring all of the areas in which Trump acts in opposition to the establishment because it does not suit your (mod edit) to constantly failing in the most spectacular way possible.

I asked you to provide some examples of those.

You haven't.

Is it because you can't, because they don't exist?

 

[Krugminator2]

In comparison to whom, Trump is actually worse on civil liberties (which is quite the accomplishment).

That is true. McCain is very much against torture. Trump thinks waterboarding is like a fraternity hazing and wants to amp up torture. Donald Trump isn't just bad. He is bad on almost every issue. He somehow manages to take the worst parts of conservatism and liberalism and make them his own.

"Donald Trump vows to "strengthen" laws to allow torture, waterboarding" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...to-allow-torture-waterboarding-election-2016/

 

[erowe1]

Another possibility is that you are kind of daft.

Since we can safely rule that out, we're back at the first option.

 

[Petar]

I asked you to provide some examples of those.

You haven't.

Is it because you can't, because they don't exist?

You know that they exist and you don't care.

For you, all of this is just some passive-aggressive exercise in playing dumb.

In the end, I guess that losertarians really only care about preserving the status-quo.

I guess that you feel like you would be out of a job or something, if the establishment were to actually take a hit from someone that is capable of inflicting major damage upon it.

That is true. McCain is very much against torture. Trump thinks waterboarding is like a fraternity hazing and wants to amp up torture. Donald Trump isn't just bad. He is bad on almost every issue. He somehow manages to take the worst parts of conservatism and liberalism and make them his own.

"Donald Trump vows to "strengthen" laws to allow torture, waterboarding" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-...to-allow-torture-waterboarding-election-2016/

McCain manages to be "anti-torture" for the sole purpose of bolstering his image as a "war hero".

The guy is part of the cabal that is coordinating to destroy the USA, and the fact that he so vehemently opposes Trump's foreign policy ideas should serve as some kind of a clue for you.

Since we can safely rule that out, we're back at the first option.

Except that not understanding how damaging Trump is to the establishment is so daft that it really stretches incredulity.

Guys like you may very well just be playing dumb as a form of sabotage.