Justin Raimondo: Why I Didn’t Vote for Trump (And why I’m cheering on the movement he created)

[Cleaner44]

Again, I'm going to see better verification than "I think."

Will this do?

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, but those things "banned from public discourse" that the mass of his supporters are so excited about are the deportation rhetoric, general political uncorrectness and the American exceptionalism aroma of his big slogan. I don't hear mainstream trump supporters praising him for non-interventionism. The whole "trump is a non-interventionist" idea seems to be ghettoized to a handful of fantasists on hardcore libertarian enclaves like this forum. If he actually said out loud that wants to close all our bases and withdraw the troops from overseas, things would take quite a different turn. He doesn't say it out loud because the non-interventionist idea has never crossed his mind. That is, except to condemn Ron Paul (for saying things that were essentially banned from public discourse).

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to undergroundrr again.

 

[Smitty]

This is why they're voting for him.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/05/patrick-j-buchanan/great-white-hope/

 

[CPUd]

 

[phill4paul]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/18/poll-just-6-percent-people-say-trust-media/

Dude, it ain't nothing new. The decline has been steady. Might as well credit Bush and Obama for it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171740/americans-confidence-news-media-remains-low.aspx

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, but those things "banned from public discourse" that the mass of his supporters are so excited about are the deportation rhetoric, general political uncorrectness and the American exceptionalism aroma of his big slogan. I don't hear mainstream trump supporters praising him for non-interventionism. The whole "trump is a non-interventionist" idea seems to be ghettoized to a handful of fantasists on hardcore libertarian enclaves like this forum. If he actually said out loud that wants to close all our bases and withdraw the troops from overseas, things would take quite a different turn. He doesn't say it out loud because the non-interventionist idea has never crossed his mind. That is, except to condemn Ron Paul (for saying things that were essentially banned from public discourse).

Spot on

It isn't about him or his supporters.. it's about people like Milo and Stefan Molyneux talking about feminism for what it is

Trivia

or discussing racial issues honestly

Trivia

or conservative/libertarian economics

Trump is in not promoting conservative/libertarian economics, exactly the opposite.

He's the most openly anti-market GOP candidate in a very long time.

even foreign policy

Trump is not promoting non-interventionism.

Granted, he did claim (falsely) to have been opposed to the Iraq and Libya Wars, but this is not a major theme of his campaign.

He is not growing the ranks of genuine non-interventionists.

...though he is evidently conning a handful of them into supporting a warmonger such as himself.

without Donald Trump these kind of issues and conservatism in general were totally marginalized and now people are actually talking about them more openly..the mainstream media is dying, 6% of the population trusts the MSM...they were dying before but the process was sped up very quickly..all in large part because of Donald Trump.

Trump's only legacy will be a leftward drift in the GOP on economic issues and a reinvigorating of the pointless/distracting culture wars.

..well, that and 4-8 years of Hillary.

 

[CPUd]

Trump has been known to brag from time to time about the spoils of war:

Trump day after Iraq invasion: It’s ‘a tremendous success’

Republican primary front-runner Donald Trump claimed on the second day of Operation Iraqi Freedom that it appeared to be “a tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

Speaking to Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on March 21, 2003, Trump predicted the war would continue to bolster Wall Street.

“Well, I think Wall Street’s waiting to see what happens, but even before the fact they’re obviously taking it a little bit for granted, and it looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint, and I think this is really nothing compared to what you’re gonna see after the war is over,” Trump said, as first reported by BuzzFeed News.

The billionaire businessman said he was optimistic that international protests to the war would not harm the U.S. economy.

“Well, I guess the French never liked us much except when we’re bailing them out, you know, to be totally honest with you,” he said. “But certainly we’re going to have to work on our public relations, because there’s no question that there are a lot of countries in the world right now that aren’t too fond of us, but I think that can be solved and probably pretty quickly."

Trump also speculated in the interview as to what kinds of weapons of mass destruction the Iraqi regime was hiding.

“The main thing is to get the war over with and just make it a tremendously successful campaign, and it’ll be very interesting to see what kind of weapons they uncover,” he said.

Trump has made his prescient opposition to the Iraq War a central talking point on the campaign trail.

After audio was uncovered from 2002 in which he expressed support for the invasion, Trump said by the time the war started, he was against it.

He has also accused former President George W. Bush, brother of primary rival Jeb Bush, of lying about the reasons for the invasion.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-after-iraq-invasion-its-a-tremendous-success

 

[cajuncocoa]

I just said one of his most viewed race video was made before Trump started running, normally your audience grows when you start catering to a new community and obvious it grew his audience grew a bit after he started kissing Trump's asshole. But he never had any problem attracting viewers to his race and feminist videos.

Also did you ever wonder how people like Sargon of Akkad and Milo made their name? it wasn't from anything Trump related, they made their names and the vast majority of their audience from the backlash against gamergate. All this anti SJW, feminism, political correctness stuff started with gamergate not Trump. If anything, he piggybacked on the whole campaign to gain supporters for his presidential run.

But here giving credit to Trump for building the campaign.

bingo
+rep

 

[Antischism]

What is "the movement he created" that should be cheered and encouraged? A hodgepodge of white nationalism, American exceptionalism, sexism and xenophobia? No, thanks.

 

[cajuncocoa]

What is "the movement he created" that should be cheered and encouraged? A hodgepodge of white nationalism, American exceptionalism, sexism and xenophobia? No, thanks.

In other words, he made it safe for average Republicans to come out of the closet.

 

[Jamesiv1]

I’ve written a lot about Donald Trump in this space, basically arguing that his views signify a sea change in the foreign policy discourse in this country. His rise, I’ve averred, augurs the end of the neoconservatives as a viable political force within the GOP, and the beginning of an “isolationist” (i.e. anti-interventionist) trend in American politics that will upend the Establishment of both parties.


So why didn’t I vote for him when I had the chance?


I have to admit I was sorely tempted: the opportunity to make Bill Kristol a very unhappy man was almost too much to pass up. And yet, in the end, when I got my mail ballot, and I sat down and looked at it, I just couldn’t bring myself to do it for a very simple reason: the man isn’t the movement.


The Trump phenomenon is one thing, and Donald Trump the person is quite another. While the former is to be cheered and encouraged, for reasons I’ll get into in a minute, the latter is a very mixed bag.

• He wants to increase domestic surveillance in the name of fighting the “war on terrorism.” At once point he suggested we would have to shut down “parts of the internet.”
• He advocates torture of alleged terrorists and says he would murder their families.
• While opposing US intervention in Syria – he once asked Bill O’Reilly “Do you want to own Syria?” – he now says he wants to create a “safe zone” in Syria so the refugees don’t have to come here. Call me crazy, but that looks like military intervention to me.
• He wants to deport 11 million illegal aliens, an operation that – assuming it isn’t stopped by the courts – would be inevitably ugly and provoke massive resistance.

Nobody cares about his policies except people who are into politics (and that is a very precious few)

 

[charrob]

And Raimondo didn't go ga ga over Bush the way he has for Trump. Very disappointed in him.

Yes but when Bush came to office we hadn't been at war for 15 straight years. The longest war in American history. Millions of innocent people dead. Endless troop "heroism" jammed down our throats wherever we turn in life -- taking my Dad to an Orioles game and the whole thank the troops bs on the ballfield, going to church and having to "pray for the troops", going to a local restaurant and being asked to donate to the troops... always a need to "thank the troops" for their "heroism". This crap makes me want to vomit. The only thing the vaunted "troops" have accomplished is making millions of more enemies for everyday Americans -- people that have seen their families blown apart by U.S. trained "rebels", people that have lost everything-- their lives, their families, their homes, their businesses. All because of "the troops" and the idiots that give them their "orders".

I'm not disappointed in Raimondo because he's only human and he has a driving force inside him that wants to see these wars end. As does any sane person. And Trump offered hope -- at least temporarily during the debates -- until later we found that he actually supported going into both Iraq and Libya.

I just can't fault Raimondo for that.

 

[Antischism]

In other words, he made it safe for average Republicans to come out of the closet.

Pretty much!

 

[Todd]

It isn't about him or his supporters.. it's about people like Milo and Stefan Molyneux talking about feminism for what it is, or discussing racial issues honestly, or conservative/libertarian economics, even foreign policy.. without Donald Trump these kind of issues and conservatism in general were totally marginalized and now people are actually talking about them more openly..the mainstream media is dying, 6% of the population trusts the MSM...they were dying before but the process was sped up very quickly..all in large part because of Donald Trump.

Then maybe it's you that doesn't understand Raimondo's line of reasoning. He sees Trump as another McCarthy. Someone who isn't controlled by the elite and who's gotten away from them. Heard it straight from the horses mouth.

Bullshit.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Then maybe it's you that doesn't understand Raimondo's line of reasoning. He sees Trump as another McCarthy. Someone who isn't controlled by the elite and who's gotten away from them. Heard it straight from the horses mouth.

Bullshit.

That analogy would only make sense if McCarthy had been a communist.

 

[Rad]

I actually had a direct conversation with Raimondo on Twitter in the winter. I know Raimondo's direct line of thinking on this...so yeah thanks for the tip...

He has no clue what he is talking about. Trumps people aren't "catching on". They will jump on anything spoon fed to them and 4 years later the "issues" Raimondo thinks Trump brought to light will go right back in the old memory hole.

He's a desperate man who has jumped from supporting politicians from Obama to Rand to Trump. I like Justin but he does himself no favors when he pumps a politician. His man crushes always end in heart break and disillusionment for him except for Ron Paul.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

GWB ran on a non-interventionist platform.

If that is the really true, how come he was not awarded Nobel Peace Prize right after he won election?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

And Raimondo didn't go ga ga over Bush the way he has for Trump. Very disappointed in him.

One difference being that the Bushes are 100% neoconservative, while the neocons have done everything in their power to stop Trump.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

One difference being that the Bushes are 100% neoconservative, while the neocons have done everything in their power to stop Trump.

In 2000, Donald Trump attacked Pat Buchanan, calling him a NAZI for opposing US entry in WWII and so forth.

This was in the service of the Bush family, which won the general election as a result.

Look into the history between Roger Stone (i.e Nixon bagman, CREEP member, Watergate co-conspirator) and Trumpelstiltskin.

Don the *** isn't what you think he is..

 

[juleswin]

One difference being that the Bushes are 100% neoconservative, while the neocons have done everything in their power to stop Trump.

How could he have known that the Bushes are neocons when he was running, remember the elder Bush withdrew from Iraq and the younger Bush ran on a less adventurous foreign policy as a rebuke to Clinton for making the US the policeman of the world.

I really don't think the bushes are full blown neocon instead they just filled their cabinets with neocons just like Trump is about to do. I think he just abandoned principles and is chasing the Trump dollar. Hopefully, the next fundraiser would be their last and the website can just quietly die out. Justin is due for a vacation ):