Isn't a Trump victory good for a libertarian takeover of the Republican Party?

[juleswin]

Electing a populist dictator who promises to expand the power of the executive branch and personally "fix" all of the country's problems from on high at the Federal level is just pure liberty amirite?


You've chosen a single tree on which to hang the star of liberty while completely ignoring the rest of the fascist forest surrounding it.

An older version of Stephan would have agreed with you.

 

[SilentBull]

This is not the correct reading of the situation and is also a very one dimensional way of thinking. A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment.

It does not mean that they support Trump's positions. Not everything is about supporting a position. When you know that there is going to be no change with the other candidates, why not encourage the candidate who will create confusion in the ranks of your enemies? Support for Trump is merely a FUD strategy.

Once the Establishment's grip on the party is destroyed, you can think over libertarians winning over the party. Otherwise, you have already let the Establishment define the process for you and convince you that the method of taking over the party is by voting in a democratic setup because such votes are along ideological lines. I for one do not buy that nonsense.

The only way you can claim that everyone who votes Trump is opposed to liberty is by accepting that the framework in which your thought process functions is the one constructed by the Establishment and you have accepted their framework.

The concern is that if Trump actually does win, republicans will fall in line. They'll have no reason to support small government because they'll be in power, and their new leader isn't a small government guy.

 

[AtlantaIconoclast]

Hell no he didn't he might of parroted a talking point, but the dude wants to bomb ISIS when we are the ones who created ISIS. He fundamentally doesn't understand that to stop ISIS you have to stop creating ISIS. I was talking more about Trumps RNC and his speeches henceforth, the guy is selling Islamic fear. He isn't selling any real change to foreign policy on the Republican ticket.

Bombing the hell out of ISIS, without Syrian permission may not be wise, but it is not regime change. He did say those things, and given that they aren't so popular with the GOP establishment, I believe him.

 

[AtlantaIconoclast]

For a change of pace now we're going to entangle ourselves supporting dictators rather than toppling them. For the American people that means no change.

Which dictators are you talking about?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Did you even listen to his foreign policy speech? Where did he say end all foreign nation building and entanglements.

Yeah, I listened to it a couple of times and if you actually did yourself, you would know that at least his words are that he is not for empire-building.

Why isn't Ron Paul supporting him?? Is it all spite? Do you think he hates the country that much that he would help Hillary in your perspective with the election??

Ron Paul is a purist. He apparently wants someone to state what they would like in never never land, even though, as he admitted himself while running, he would never be able to actually DO.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm voting libertarian and voting to get the libertarians past the 5% threshold. How that became full commie on this site is beyond me. If the libertarian party gets over 5% I feel like my vote will have mattered. There is no way in hell I am voting for liberal tyrant like Hillary or an emotionally unstable, meglomaniac who can't even string together a coherent thought past two sentences

So much for issues, right, Ghost?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

...A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment...

I wonder that paleo-libertarians are jealous seeing Trump employ their "David Duke" strategy. I still can't understand how they can justify supporting a paleo-authoritarian, but they certainly use a lot of logical fallacies to excuse it...

 

[LibertyEagle]

I wonder that paleo-libertarians are jealous seeing Trump employ their "David Duke" strategy. I still can't understand how they can justify supporting a paleo-authoritarian, but they certainly use a lot of logical fallacies to excuse it...

Huh? Is that akin to saying Ron Paul employed a "Don Black" strategy, or why else would you attribute an entire candidacy to one supporter?

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Huh? Is that akin to saying Ron Paul employed a "Don Black" strategy, or why else would you attribute an entire candidacy to one supporter?

You should know as well as any that the "David Duke" strategy is what attracted people like Don Black. This was not a RP strategy, but was of his associates...

 

[dirtdigger]

Setting enemies against each other is not support for one of them

I wonder that paleo-libertarians are jealous seeing Trump employ their "David Duke" strategy. I still can't understand how they can justify supporting a paleo-authoritarian, but they certainly use a lot of logical fallacies to excuse it...

It is just smart to set your enemies against one another and allow them to weaken/destroy each other. This does not mean you support the positions of the one you use to serve your purpose of weakening the enemy standing in your way.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You should know as well as any that the "David Duke" strategy is what attracted people like Don Black. This was not a RP strategy, but was of his associates...

Honestly, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Instead of beating around the bushes, why not just say whatever it is you are trying to say.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Honestly, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Instead of beating around the bushes, why not just say whatever it is you are trying to say.

Who wrote the newsletters? Aren't most of that wing now supporting Trump?

 

[Ender]

So much for issues, right, Ghost?

How about REAL issues?

Trump Speech
We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies.
He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry.
Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors. (BS)
In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win.

At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.

Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.

Events may require the use of military force. But it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned.

A great country also takes care of its warriors. Our commitment to them is absolute. A Trump Administration will give our service men and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve, and the best care in the world when they return as veterans to civilian life.

In the Middle East, our goals must be to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clear-sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies.

After I am elected President, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies, and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges.

For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure – grown out of the Cold War – to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.

I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must fight to win. I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary – and will only do so if we have a plan for victory.

I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very persuasive – but we need to use them selectively and with determination. Our power will be used if others do not play by the rules.

Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it.

Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries. (Unless, of course, they are Muslim.)

Looks like a War-Monger to me- but hey, let's just look at the "issues".

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

It is just smart to set your enemies against one another and allow them to weaken/destroy each other. This does not mean you support the positions of the one you use to serve your purpose of weakening the enemy standing in your way.

While some may consider it smart, I think it is one the stupidest ideas anyone who claims to support liberty (and justice for all) has ever come up with. Not only do these fools get in bed with people who salivate at the idea of ethnic cleansing, but they also taint ethical libertarians with guilt by association.

BTW - Machiavelli failed and was lucky to keep his head

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Who wrote the newsletters? Aren't most of that wing now supporting Trump?

When it comes to a certain wing at RPF, when all else fails, act like liberals and accuse paleos of racism.

Bombing the hell out of ISIS, without Syrian permission may not be wise, but it is not regime change. He did say those things, and given that they aren't so popular with the GOP establishment, I believe him.

Also keep in mind that Trump knows from advisors like General Lynch, or from the email leaks, or from admissions by Putin, that ISIS are mostly mercaneries supported by funding from oil sales from Turkey and other nations and covertly by US intelligence. This support is provided as a means of maintaining a pretext for the US intervention in Syria, the goal of which remains regime change by ousting Assad.

The real way to stop ISIS, he thus also knows, is to cut off the funding of ISIS and seal off the Turkish border, which would starve them out and make them easy to finish off within a few weeks of a military mop-up operation. Quick and temporary, done and done. But all of this too complicated to say in a sound bite or at a rally, so Trump has just collapses it into a "I'll bomb" or quickly take out ISIS. When Hillary talks about fighting ISIS, by contrast, she means the full neo-con regime change program of endless bombing, long war engagement and no-exit nation building.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

When it comes to a certain wing at RPF, when all else fails, act like liberals and accuse paleos of racism.

That is a strawman. I haven't accused paleos of being racist. (see my comment above about persistent use of logical fallacies) To suggest they didn't have a "David Duke" strategy is ignoring historical fact though.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That is a strawman. I haven't accused paleos of being racist. (see my comment above about persistent use of logical fallacies) To suggest they didn't have a "David Duke" strategy is ignoring historical fact though.

Nice evasion. If they had a certain strategy that you are describing using a term that is short hand for racism, that is a distinction without a difference.

 

[adissa]

This is not the correct reading of the situation and is also a very one dimensional way of thinking. A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment.

It does not mean that they support Trump's positions. Not everything is about supporting a position. When you know that there is going to be no change with the other candidates, why not encourage the candidate who will create confusion in the ranks of your enemies? Support for Trump is merely a FUD strategy.

Once the Establishment's grip on the party is destroyed, you can think over libertarians winning over the party. Otherwise, you have already let the Establishment define the process for you and convince you that the method of taking over the party is by voting in a democratic setup because such votes are along ideological lines. I for one do not buy that nonsense.

The only way you can claim that everyone who votes Trump is opposed to liberty is by accepting that the framework in which your thought process functions is the one constructed by the Establishment and you have accepted their framework.

Why is it that so many can say they're voting for Gary Johnson even though they don't support most of his stances on positions, yet at the same time not understand that this can also be true of those who are voting for Donald Trump? In many cases, both are making a statement.

 

[nikcers]

Why is it so many people can say they're voting for Gary Johnson even though they don't support most of his stances on positions, yet at the same time not understand that this can also be true of those who are voting for Mitt Romney? In many cases, both are making a statement.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Nice evasion. If they had a certain strategy that you are describing using a term that is short hand for racism, that is a distinction without a difference.

You seem to be suggesting, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement" was never written...