Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump Shills for Hillary Clinton

[LibertyEagle]

He is a Libertarian for sure. But for bonus points, he's also a libertarian. Anybody who goes on national TV, explains the NAP and says to end the wars justifies the label for me.

He's impure, but so was Ron Paul, who voted yes to H.J. Res. 64. and routinely funneled pork into house bills. As far as I'm concerned, Ron Paul is still a libertarian.

Actually, Ron would forward the request from his constituency. Whether it made it into a bill or not, was up to a committee. Ron would always vote against the final legislation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It makes strategic sense. They are more likely to pull a lukeworm Clinton supporter if they refrain from attacking her too much. And all the non Trump supporters know he is a crazy nutjob so attacking him helps with that demographic as well and probably does no harm with those who only support him because he is not Clinton. The diehard Trump supporters, anti immigrant, nationist, alt-right types would never defect anyway so there is no point targeting them.

Please stop conflating ILLEGAL ALIENS with immigrants. They are totally different things.

 

[francisco]

It makes strategic sense. They are more likely to pull a lukeworm Clinton supporter if they refrain from attacking her too much. And all the non Trump supporters know he is a crazy nutjob so attacking him helps with that demographic as well and probably does no harm with those who only support him because he is not Clinton. The diehard Trump supporters, anti immigrant, nationist, alt-right types would never defect anyway so there is no point targeting them.

Lucidly put. +rep

Agreed, but out of rep

 

[nikcers]

ITT Trump supporters try to convince libertarians to support big government authoritarians because cake.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Well. When I read/hear the word dogmatic I understand it to mean that someone is telling me that my view is a matter of opinion that is up for contestation. 10 times out of 10, I'm likely going to ask someone to support a claim like that.

If we're looking for opinions, I'd opine that Gary Johnson and his political promoters are doing Individual Liberty a disservice. Seems like they're pissing all over it. And in its name, no less. This is the nature of coercion. It's not new. It's just happening here now is all.

I'll tell you something. Once this election is over, some friends are likely going to be held accountable by way of example in the public eye for the disservice. In fact, I'm sure of it.

Dogmatic means that something is a matter of dogma, or a fact so heavily established that "the science is settled." Can also be 'a matter of faith' especially in re doctrine where something is universally accepted. Originates from a religious sense of critical doctrine. Dogma often correlates with beliefs so deeply held that transgression of it is considered heresy, in either the religious or the secular sense.

In a religious sense, it is Christian dogma that Christ rose from the dead. The contradiction to that dogma, whether a claim that He didn't rise or a claim that He didn't exist, is therefore heresy.

In a secular sense, it is libertarian dogma that the exercise of liberty demands a policy of nonaggression. The contradiction to that dogma, that governments can create liberty by aggressing against persons and groups, is therefore heresy.

While it is true that some dogmatic things are subject to the most vehement contention, that is not what the term means or implies. A lot of dogmatic things are against almost no contest at all (ie the Earth is an oblate spheroid). The term in it's essence simply means whatever set of beliefs you hold as axiomatic.

 

[Natural Citizen]

He's impure

No. He rejects Individual Liberty's most fundamental supporting principle. By default, he is anti-liberty fully. Impure is hardly the correct term, my friend. You're being intellectually dishonest.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

ITT Trump supporters try to convince libertarians to support big government authoritarians because cake.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What if it's not about the cake?

What if it's about the fundamental concept of “what is liberty?”

What if the failure of Johnson to promote liberty, in no way promotes authoritarians like socialist Hillary or nationalist Trump?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Dogmatic means that something is a matter of dogma, or a fact so heavily established that "the science is settled." Can also be 'a matter of faith' especially in re doctrine where something is universally accepted. Originates from a religious sense of critical doctrine. Dogma often correlates with beliefs so deeply held that transgression of it is considered heresy, in either the religious or the secular sense.

In a religious sense, it is Christian dogma that Christ rose from the dead. The contradiction to that dogma, whether a claim that He didn't rise or a claim that He didn't exist, is therefore heresy.

In a secular sense, it is libertarian dogma that the exercise of liberty demands a policy of nonaggression. The contradiction to that dogma, that governments can create liberty by aggressing against persons and groups, is therefore heresy.

While it is true that some dogmatic things are subject to the most vehement contention, that is not what the term means or implies. A lot of dogmatic things are against almost no contest at all (ie the Earth is an oblate spheroid). The term in it's essence simply means whatever set of beliefs you hold as axiomatic.

Yeah, I know what it means, Gunny. I'm talking about tone here. Not definitions. We have what equates to a cultural Marxist being promoted under the banner of Liberty whose position pisses all over its most fundamental supporting principal. That's absolutely contestation. In fact, it's aggression toward Individual Liberty fully. It's coercion. But yet I'm dogmatic. Like it's a bad thing. As if fundamental principles are a burden to "Liberty" all of a sudden.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What if it's not about the cake?

What if it's about the fundamental concept of “what is liberty?”

What if the failure of Johnson to promote liberty, in no way promotes authoritarians like socialist Hillary or nationalist Trump?

I've been through this a hundred times . They don't care. They laugh at it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What if it's not about the cake?

What if it's about the fundamental concept of “what is liberty?”

What if the failure of Johnson to promote liberty, in no way promotes authoritarians like socialist Hillary or nationalist Trump?

It's clear - The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

I know that you know that. I'm just telling you that we've been over this all over the board. They don't care.

So quit being dogmatic, Gunny. Apparently, that's not what libertarian candidates run on anymore. Now they're running on sending men with government guns to take your stuff. Now it's popular to love them for it.

 

[nikcers]

What if In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.” he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities.On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild."

After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980’s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders. It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr.(came out in support of Trumps nomination in March 2016, senior managing director of Rothschild Inc). that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.

Jacob Rothschild son - Nat Rothschild, also dated Ivanka Trump.

 

[nikcers]

I've been through this a hundred times . They don't care. They laugh at it.

I just want to know how you think the cake scenario matters. I don't understand your perspective and you won't even think about mine. Did Gary Johnson really say that he would bypass state government and use federal power to force someone to do something? Is that something that a president can do? I know one thing I learned from school of rock and that laws are written by congress, and Gary Johnson is the most conservative person on all 50 ballots running, so if the number one problem in the country is debt, and he is the only one saying it, then why are we so scared of rhetorical cake?

 

[nikcers]

They just have to sell the cake if its for sale-I don't want to pass legislation

Is this this big deal? I still don't understand? I guess it's your job, what do you do? Do you do your job for money or compensation or do you do it to give back to people? Is this more of a philosophical question that I just don't understand because I am a shallow person?
___________________________________________

1) The government isn't making you put your cake for sale.

2) The government isn't making you sell your cake for less then you want to sell it for or forcing you to give away your cake.

3) The government isn't making you sell cakes to ISIS, they are saying if you are an American and something is for sale you have right to buy it. (are they buying your labor or the cake?)

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Is this this big deal? I still don't understand? I guess it's your job, what do you do? Do you do your job for money or compensation or do you do it to give back to people? Is this more of a philosophical question that I just don't understand because I am a shallow person?
___________________________________________

1) The government isn't making you put your cake for sale.

2) The government isn't making you sell your cake for less then you want to sell it for or forcing you to give away your cake.

3) The government isn't making you sell cakes to ISIS, they are saying if you are an American and something is for sale you have right to buy it. (are they buying your labor or the cake?)

This position has been walked back from it's start to the point where it's just about tolerable now, which I suppose is admirable, he is listening to his base and adjusting tact.

I bear no ill will to Johnson supporters and voters. Zero. I have even less than zero desire to talk anyone out of it. Indeed, to my mind the more of it I see the better. If Johnsonfire took over the whole dam country I would be well pleased. But I am not supporter, nor will I vote for him.

I largely try to avoid discussions involving Johnson so that I don't get in the way of it. I am not trying to persuade anyone to abandon their support. You asked above about reasons. If you are genuinely curious, I do have a few of those.

After Ron Paul, I pledged honor before God I will only ever vote for people who I think will bring us more into compliance with the State and federal Constitutions and not less. Even would that his particular transgressions of the Constitutional balance of power be such that I like, I am still bound by honor to not support it. I just can't. The only thing that will save this nation is more Constitution, not less, and that's pretty much the end of it for me.

I also know I am particularly disturbed by what I perceive as a lack of willingness to defend religious liberty. As to my perspective on life, the freedom of conscience is the most fundamental liberty of all. It is like the ontology of liberty. If you do not have the freedom of your own thoughts and beliefs, then it matters not whether you wear chains you are equally a slave. Oppression of conscience means the thought police. He should know that thought police are not any more tolerable just because the victims happen to be religious.

If you do not have freedom of conscience, then you do not have any kind of liberty at all.

You don't have to be a good spokesman, but I do want my spokesman to at least understand that much.

 

[nikcers]

You don't have to be a good spokesman, but I do want my spokesman to at least understand that much.

I think i understand the cake thing now,lesser evil is still evil, you described my feelings on Gary Johnson to a Tee, If we start supporting false messages then our base becomes undermined. I guess that's why voting for Gary Johnson always feels like a protest vote. I think I just assumed he was pandering to liberals but a watered down message won't win.

 

[Ender]

This position has been walked back from it's start to the point where it's just about tolerable now, which I suppose is admirable, he is listening to his base and adjusting tact.

I bear no ill will to Johnson supporters and voters. Zero. I have even less than zero desire to talk anyone out of it. Indeed, to my mind the more of it I see the better. If Johnsonfire took over the whole dam country I would be well pleased. But I am not supporter, nor will I vote for him.

I largely try to avoid discussions involving Johnson so that I don't get in the way of it. I am not trying to persuade anyone to abandon their support. You asked above about reasons. If you are genuinely curious, I do have a few of those.

After Ron Paul, I pledged honor before God I will only ever vote for people who I think will bring us more into compliance with the State and federal Constitutions and not less. Even would that his particular transgressions of the Constitutional balance of power be such that I like, I am still bound by honor to not support it. I just can't. The only thing that will save this nation is more Constitution, not less, and that's pretty much the end of it for me.

I also know I am particularly disturbed by what I perceive as a lack of willingness to defend religious liberty. As to my perspective on life, the freedom of conscience is the most fundamental liberty of all. It is like the ontology of liberty. If you do not have the freedom of your own thoughts and beliefs, then it matters not whether you wear chains you are equally a slave. Oppression of conscience means the thought police. He should know that thought police are not any more tolerable just because the victims happen to be religious.

If you do not have freedom of conscience, then you do not have any kind of liberty at all.

You don't have to be a good spokesman, but I do want my spokesman to at least understand that much.

^^THIS^^
YES, YES, YES!

 

[69360]

double post

 

[69360]

I think you will almost always find the motivation behind those who seek to dismiss Johnson over his lack of Libertarian "purity" are really shilling for a major party candidate. Especially on here.

It's a fairly simple choice when you break it down. Clinton and Trump are crooks. One of them is going to be potus. Probably Clinton, but it really doesn't matter, they both equally suck. Johnson isn't going to win, but maybe he gets enough votes to push the LP closer to being a real party with matching funds and ballot access. He is at least a decent human being. So it just makes sense to put aside your silly pet issues and go for Johnson.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

It makes strategic sense. They are more likely to pull a lukeworm Clinton supporter if they refrain from attacking her too much. And all the non Trump supporters know he is a crazy nutjob so attacking him helps with that demographic as well and probably does no harm with those who only support him because he is not Clinton. The diehard Trump supporters, anti immigrant, nationist, alt-right types would never defect anyway so there is no point targeting them.

I agree it makes strategic sense and I don't think it hurts the effort to educate people on the ideas of liberty as much as some try to suggest. Most voters could care less, and those that do end up caring will most likely take the path that I have seen others take. It was less about Ron Paul and more about their own studies and interactions with liberty folk.

What if In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.” he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities.On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild."

After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980’s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders. It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr.(came out in support of Trumps nomination in March 2016, senior managing director of Rothschild Inc). that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.

Jacob Rothschild son - Nat Rothschild, also dated Ivanka Trump.

Well, you don't say... I'll be looking more into this

I think you will almost always find the motivation behind those who seek to dismiss Johnson over his lack of Libertarian "purity" are really shilling for a major party candidate. Especially on here.

It's a fairly simple choice when you break it down. Clinton and Trump are crooks. One of them is going to be potus. Probably Clinton, but it really doesn't matter, they both equally suck. Johnson isn't going to win, but maybe he gets enough votes to push the LP closer to being a real party with matching funds and ballot access. He is at least a decent human being. So it just makes sense to put aside your silly pet issues and go for Johnson.

For me, and most Johnson supporters, ballot access is the peimary goal