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

[MarcusI]

I'm not saddened about those who question themselves if they can vote / support Gary Johnson, but I'm saddened about those who try to make you believe Trump is better than Johnson and call themselves libertarians.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm not saddened about those who question themselves if they can vote / support Gary Johnson, but I'm saddened about those who try to make you believe Trump is better than Johnson and call themselves libertarians.

And I'm saddened by those who don't recognize there are people here who are voting for Johnson, AND find that Trump is MUCH better on key issues (especially TPP) who positively ARE libertarians. It is frankly bizarre to find people here who are selectively aware of or understand the strategic usefulness of supporting Johnson, yet are suddenly not understanding of the strategic usefulness factor when it comes to supporting Trump.

It is also bizarre to find others sourcing from things like the Spotlight, LOL, in order to defame Trump, who would have been the first people to object to somebody sourcing from the Spotlight to defame Paul. This kind of thing points to a cult of personality, not commitment to libertarianism, as the driving factor behind the liking or disliking.

 

[Ender]

I'm not saddened about those who question themselves if they can vote / support Gary Johnson, but I'm saddened about those who try to make you believe Trump is better than Johnson and call themselves libertarians.

Pretty much my take, as well.

 

[dannno]

What if the prostitute had just eaten a sandwich for lunch?

You sure have a weird idea about how prostitutes eat sandwiches.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not saddened about those who question themselves if they can vote / support Gary Johnson, but I'm saddened about those who try to make you believe Trump is better than Johnson and call themselves libertarians.

Anyone who is supporting someone who has said he will sign TPP legislation is not for liberty at all.

 

[Sujan]

Gary is much more a libertarian, overall, than the Donald. Fact.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Gary is much more a libertarian, overall, than the Donald. Fact.

Donald is getting much more accomplished for liberty, overall, than Gary. Fact.

 

[CPUd]

Donald is getting much more accomplished for liberty, overall, than Gary. Fact.

How is Trump helping liberty when he wants to close down the internet, while calling people foolish for opposing his plan?





How does it help liberty when his answer to police brutality is to sue the police department?




What good does it to for liberty to have a man con his way into the GOP nomination, just so he can go and do more of the same?

CNN
✔
@CNN

Trump: "I hold, in the highest esteem, Senator John McCain. ... and I fully support and endorse his re-election"
7:32 PM - 5 Aug 2016

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/761721567537684480

https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/761721183008067584

 

[euphemia]

Gary is much more a libertarian, overall, than the Donald. Fact.

Except it's not comparative. It's one or the other. Gary is not a Libertarian.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Pray tell, I forgot who I am reporting to and must find my handler. It's about time for another steak dinner. Which major party candidate am I shilling for?

I was just thinking the same thing.

"Silly pet issues" include gun control which Weld is clearly in favor of and Johnson ambivalent, at best.

That's a deal breaker for me.

I'll be writing in Ron Paul again.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

How is Trump helping liberty when he wants to close down the internet, while calling people foolish for opposing his plan?

He's not, though he thinks his intentions are good (holding people more accountable).

How does it help liberty when his answer to police brutality is to sue the police department?

He thinks that's one way of holding the police accountable. In this case, removing immunity from government workers helps liberty.

What good does it to for liberty to have a man con his way into the GOP nomination, just so he can go and do more of the same?

He didn't con his way to the nomination, he's conning the establishment now (by buttering up Ryan and McCain) to shut them up. He may not have wanted his non-endorsement to be blamed for their losing their primaries.

As stated before, we should stay on target about the three things the liberty movement must do to make advances, (promote liberty positions, win elections, confront the establishment). Many people are stuck at just the first part. Strategic candidacies who are not in our camp ideologically, but did reach out to voting blocs as we should have done, indirectly help the movement by showing us how to do likewise. Where they have successfully taken on the elite and MSM while we have not, they have set the stage for us to benefit in later cycles. That is how the outsider dynamic, overall, has been helpful.

 

[MattRay]

This whole idea is beyond silly. I expect better from Ron Paul supporters than to buy into the 2 party, lesser of 2 evil nonsense. 3rd parties have nothing to do with supporting either indistinguishable candidate in the 1 party monopoly. Johnson is a weak attack dog, but he's certainly not a shill for the person he says is beholden to donors, profits from public service and criticizes for her big government promises and neocon foreign policy. Weld isn't even a shill for Hillary. The truth is, Weld has known Hillary since watergate and unfortunately, happens to agree with her on too many things since he's a neocon establishment Republican. The few times he doesn't agree, he'll criticize her, like her tax hikes. If they were shills, they wouldn't be trying to get so many votes from the left, which I'm not even happy with since I think it's a bad strategy.

The two shills in this election are the two candidates who are actually getting support from all the big donors, Hillary and Trump. Just look at Trump's shameless pandering to the Israel lobby earlier this year.

Trump is not a globalist. That would be Johnson and Hillary.

So what? Bernie isn't a globalist either. And like comrade Sanders, Trump thinks "the government" pays for healthcare and both have a history of praising single payer healthcare. Nationalism means nothing if it's used to support an authoritarian regime. Hitler used nationalism more than anyone to rise to power. Trump supports illegal NSA spying, shutting down parts of the internet, war with ISIS, increased military spending, the war on drugs, says "security will rule", will use executive orders if he doesn't get his way with congress, supports war crimes like going after civilians and torture, he supports a managed economy, doesn't even want to cut the welfare state and most damning of all, he not only supports using government force for personal gain, he's actually done it meaning he's literally the opposite of a libertarian. Plus, he's economically illiterate and thinks printing money is a solution for the debt.

If you're a nationalist with authoritarian leanings then Trump is your guy. I don't support open borders, particularly with a welfare state and I don't support managed trade deals thousands of pages long, but Trump doesn't even offer adequate solutions to those problems. A number of Trump's proposals indicate he could even expand the police state beyond what Bush and Obama did. The man openly admires strong arm government tactics and has since Tiananmen Square.

 

[MattRay]

Donald is getting much more accomplished for liberty, overall, than Gary. Fact.

Trump is completely irrelevant to liberty. Fact. He doesn't promote it at all in anyway. All he promotes is strongman, authoritarian tactics and promotes the belief that government can fix problems. Literally every argument you're making applies to Bernie as well and while I was even more opposed to a Sanders presidency than Trump presidency, Bernie was more genuinely anti-establishment than Trump and certainly set a more applicable strategy to emulate because a large part of Trump's success was predicated on being a celebrity in a field of 17 candidates. It's the reason why Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in a recall election. His advisors told him it was his chance with so many candidates because his name recognition would make him stand out in a crowded field.

But more importantly, anti-establishment isn't automatically relevant to liberty. Not to mention the fact that Trump isn't even as anti-establishment as you think. Plenty of the establishment fell in line once Trump won the nomination and Trump is getting support from a decent amount of the donor class. Another reason, he doesn't set a template for liberty candidates to follow is because Trump basically won the nomination the same way any politican does, which is lie repeatedly on the campaign trail and make promises he can't keep.

The only reason I see Trump winning the nomination as a net positive is because I believe he's weakened the GOP, which can either make it easier for a 3rd party, present an opening in the fractured GOP or both. But there's nothing to gain for the liberty movement by actively supporting him in the general election, especially since if he wins, the GOP will more likely be reinvented in Trump's image as a populist, nationalist, authoritarian party, not a libertarian party.

 

[undergroundrr]

The big fallacy of trump supporters is simple - strong executive. They seem to have not learned from Bush and Obama.

The shift in the balance of power to the Executive Branch that happened prior to Obama allowed him to cram Obamacare down our throats. It's somewhat miraculous that Americans can still own guns, because Bush and congress gave Obama just about everything he needed to outlaw anything.

So imagine trump beats Clinton (unlikely) - is he going to grow the executive or shrink it? Answer: He's going to grow it. And the next progressive or neocon president will be equipped to go all the way with gun control, surveillance, war, police militarization, health care, socialization of groceries, you name it.

Who's talking about actually shrinking government and executive branch military action? “The future is small government, the future is no one dying in foreign interventions.” - Gary Johnson

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The only reason I see Trump winning the nomination as a net positive is because I believe he's weakened the GOP, which can either make it easier for a 3rd party, present an opening in the fractured GOP or both. But there's nothing to gain for the liberty movement by actively supporting him in the general election, especially since if he wins, the GOP will more likely be reinvented in Trump's image as a populist, nationalist, authoritarian party, not a libertarian party.

Your mind is made up about Trump, that is clear. So, set him aside, is the larger issue of how our movement needs to advance---namely building the coalitions needed to win elections and defeating establishment obstacles to liberty---something you can support? Can you compose long posts about that, instead of just long posts against Trump?

 

[MattRay]

The big fallacy of trump supporters is simple - strong executive. They seem to have not learned from Bush and Obama.

The shift in the balance of power to the Executive Branch that happened prior to Obama allowed him to cram Obamacare down our throats. It's somewhat miraculous that Americans can still own guns, because Bush and congress gave Obama just about everything he needed to outlaw anything.

So imagine trump beats Clinton (unlikely) - is he going to grow the executive or shrink it? Answer: He's going to grow it. And the next progressive or neocon president will be equipped to go all the way with gun control, surveillance, war, police militarization, health care, socialization of groceries, you name it.

Who's talking about actually shrinking government and executive branch military action? “The future is small government, the future is no one dying in foreign interventions.” - Gary Johnson

Yeah, Trump has told us as much.

"I won't refuse it. I'm going to do a lot of things," Trump said when asked if he would use executive orders in an interview Sunday on NBC"s "Meet the Press."

“I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you,” he added, referring to Obama.

The Republican primary front-runner said his executive orders, unlike the president’s, will be for the “right things.”

“But I’m going to use them much better and they’re going to serve a much better purpose than he’s done,” he said

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/265371-trump-obama-led-the-way-on-executive-orders

 

[MattRay]

Your mind is made up about Trump, that is clear. So, set him aside, is the larger issue of how our movement needs to advance---namely building the coalitions needed to win elections and defeating establishment obstacles to liberty---something you can support? Can you compose long posts about that, instead of just long posts against Trump?

Coalitions will be dependent on candidates. I was hopeful Rand would have a coalition of libertarians and other, younger Ron Paul supporters who are less ideological in addition to mainstream conservatives and some who lean Democrat, but are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. It just never materialized and while part of it was weak fundraising, which we should all realize can't be overlooked the way Rand's campaign did, but he was also a victim of fear-mongering. People seemed to be hysterical over Paris and San Bernardino, which made libertarianism and a non-interventionist foreign policy a tougher sell with people irrationally demanding safety over liberty. I worry the GOP is still plagued with too many neocons and the base is too poisoned by foolish loyalty to Bush and years of his false patriotism and Cheney's fear-mongering.

Liberty candidates have proven they can win a few senate seats in the GOP like Rand Paul and Mike Lee did as well as some congressional wins, but there's been no real progress since 2010. The Tea Party as a whole turned out to be a disappointment and now the GOP doesn't even seem to be moving in that direction, much less the more liberty-minded direction of Rand, Lee, Amash and Massie. And as far as a presidency, it doesn't look likely for a liberty-minded candidate to win the GOP nomination.

So that brings me to the LP. They obviously can't win the election either, so at the moment I'm hoping for them to make the biggest dent in the election for a 3rd party since Ross Perot in the popular vote with between 5-10% and possibly even win a state like Utah. It's why I'm trying to hold my nose and put up with Weld as VP since I think the LP's only hope to grow and become viable is to present credible, experienced candidates to disgruntled voters who may not be ideologues. But I'm frustrated with that since I think Gary should be reaching out to the right more than the left. Not enough of the left has an anti-government sentiment, and most of the Bernie or bust guys will go to Jill Stein or stay home. And the outreach to Bernie voters is already alienating some libertarians and conservatives. I have to admit that I'm still considering Darrell Castle. The only reasons I'm not there at the moment is because the LP has an actual chance to make a significant dent while the Constitution Party does not, and I'm a little wary of the party since it's a bit ambiguous whether they support theocracy or not, and I'd at least like to be sure Castle doesn't. Then again, isidewith.com did say Castle was most similar to me on social issues and I don't consider myself a social conservative or a social liberal.

Really, I think the LP needs to run more serious campaigns for lower office and some of the candidates elected with the Libertarian Party to state legislatures should make serious bids for congress. I'm hopeful Tom Davis accepts the LP's offer to run for governor in 2018 and I'll look into Larry Sharpe and his potential run for governor here in NY. But the bottom line is I think the LP has to focus on that rather than inexperienced candidates running for president as their first elective office, unless they're well known national figures. I would love to see Judge Napolitano run for office, although he's said he's not interested. He'd be perfect because he's a true libertarian. but could appeal to all constitutional conservatives, he's a very likable person, he'd have some built in support from Fox viewers and like Pat Buchanan, he's an outstanding orator.

But again, coalitions will depend on that candidate. Some will more naturally reach out to conservative Republicans who actually do care about the constitution and limited government, while some will naturally appeal more to the anti-war/civil liberties contingent on the left. Ideally, we'll have someone who can attract both.

I could go along with something like the Rothbard/Buchanan coalition, but sadly, that didn't last long either. Just like the LP wasn't able to grow from 1987-1991 even with a leader as strong as Ron Paul. Although I'd definitely avoid ill-advised strategies like Rothbard's "outreach to rednecks."

 

[phill4paul]

Coalitions will be dependent on candidates. I was hopeful Rand would have a coalition of libertarians and other, younger Ron Paul supporters who are less ideological in addition to mainstream conservatives and some who lean Democrat, but are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. It just never materialized and while part of it was weak fundraising, which we should all realize can't be overlooked the way Rand's campaign did, but he was also a victim of fear-mongering. People seemed to be hysterical over Paris and San Bernardino, which made libertarianism and a non-interventionist foreign policy a tougher sell with people irrationally demanding safety over liberty. I worry the GOP is still plagued with too many neocons and the base is too poisoned by foolish loyalty to Bush and years of his false patriotism and Cheney's fear-mongering.

Liberty candidates have proven they can win a few senate seats in the GOP like Rand Paul and Mike Lee did as well as some congressional wins, but there's been no real progress since 2010. The Tea Party as a whole turned out to be a disappointment and now the GOP doesn't even seem to be moving in that direction, much less the more liberty-minded direction of Rand, Lee, Amash and Massie. And as far as a presidency, it doesn't look likely for a liberty-minded candidate to win the GOP nomination.

So that brings me to the LP. They obviously can't win the election either, so at the moment I'm hoping for them to make the biggest dent in the election for a 3rd party since Ross Perot in the popular vote with between 5-10% and possibly even win a state like Utah. It's why I'm trying to hold my nose and put up with Weld as VP since I think the LP's only hope to grow and become viable is to present credible, experienced candidates to disgruntled voters who may not be ideologues. But I'm frustrated with that since I think Gary should be reaching out to the right more than the left. Not enough of the left has an anti-government sentiment, and most of the Bernie or bust guys will go to Jill Stein or stay home. And the outreach to Bernie voters is already alienating some libertarians and conservatives. I have to admit that I'm still considering Darrell Castle. The only reasons I'm not there at the moment is because the LP has an actual chance to make a significant dent while the Constitution Party does not, and I'm a little wary of the party since it's a bit ambiguous whether they support theocracy or not, and I'd at least like to be sure Castle doesn't. Then again, isidewith.com did say Castle was most similar to me on social issues and I don't consider myself a social conservative or a social liberal.

Really, I think the LP needs to run more serious campaigns for lower office and some of the candidates elected with the Libertarian Party to state legislatures should make serious bids for congress. I'm hopeful Tom Davis accepts the LP's offer to run for governor in 2018 and I'll look into Larry Sharpe and his potential run for governor here in NY. But the bottom line is I think the LP has to focus on that rather than inexperienced candidates running for president as their first elective office, unless they're well known national figures. I would love to see Judge Napolitano run for office, although he's said he's not interested. He'd be perfect because he's a true libertarian. but could appeal to all constitutional conservatives, he's a very likable person, he'd have some built in support from Fox viewers and like Pat Buchanan, he's an outstanding orator.

But again, coalitions will depend on that candidate. Some will more naturally reach out to conservative Republicans who actually do care about the constitution and limited government, while some will naturally appeal more to the anti-war/civil liberties contingent on the left. Ideally, we'll have someone who can attract both.

I could go along with something like the Rothbard/Buchanan coalition, but sadly, that didn't last long either. Just like the LP wasn't able to grow from 1987-1991 even with a leader as strong as Ron Paul. Although I'd definitely avoid ill-advised strategies like Rothbard's "outreach to rednecks."

You stated your position very well, +rep.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Strategic candidacies who are not in our camp ideologically, but did reach out to voting blocs as we should have done, indirectly help the movement by showing us how to do likewise.

That's ridiculous.

You could say that about any campaign, no matter how horrible the candidate; they all teach us something about politics and the electorate.

Hell, I guess Lindsey Graham was advancing liberty by showing us how to reach out to hardcore neocons...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Coalitions will be dependent on candidates. I was hopeful Rand would have a coalition of libertarians and other, younger Ron Paul supporters who are less ideological in addition to mainstream conservatives and some who lean Democrat, but are anti-war and pro-civil liberties. It just never materialized and while part of it was weak fundraising, which we should all realize can't be overlooked the way Rand's campaign did, but he was also a victim of fear-mongering. People seemed to be hysterical over Paris and San Bernardino, which made libertarianism and a non-interventionist foreign policy a tougher sell with people irrationally demanding safety over liberty. I worry the GOP is still plagued with too many neocons and the base is too poisoned by foolish loyalty to Bush and years of his false patriotism and Cheney's fear-mongering.

Liberty candidates have proven they can win a few senate seats in the GOP like Rand Paul and Mike Lee did as well as some congressional wins, but there's been no real progress since 2010. The Tea Party as a whole turned out to be a disappointment and now the GOP doesn't even seem to be moving in that direction, much less the more liberty-minded direction of Rand, Lee, Amash and Massie. And as far as a presidency, it doesn't look likely for a liberty-minded candidate to win the GOP nomination.

So that brings me to the LP. They obviously can't win the election either, so at the moment I'm hoping for them to make the biggest dent in the election for a 3rd party since Ross Perot in the popular vote with between 5-10% and possibly even win a state like Utah. It's why I'm trying to hold my nose and put up with Weld as VP since I think the LP's only hope to grow and become viable is to present credible, experienced candidates to disgruntled voters who may not be ideologues. But I'm frustrated with that since I think Gary should be reaching out to the right more than the left. Not enough of the left has an anti-government sentiment, and most of the Bernie or bust guys will go to Jill Stein or stay home. And the outreach to Bernie voters is already alienating some libertarians and conservatives. I have to admit that I'm still considering Darrell Castle. The only reasons I'm not there at the moment is because the LP has an actual chance to make a significant dent while the Constitution Party does not, and I'm a little wary of the party since it's a bit ambiguous whether they support theocracy or not, and I'd at least like to be sure Castle doesn't. Then again, isidewith.com did say Castle was most similar to me on social issues and I don't consider myself a social conservative or a social liberal.

Really, I think the LP needs to run more serious campaigns for lower office and some of the candidates elected with the Libertarian Party to state legislatures should make serious bids for congress. I'm hopeful Tom Davis accepts the LP's offer to run for governor in 2018 and I'll look into Larry Sharpe and his potential run for governor here in NY. But the bottom line is I think the LP has to focus on that rather than inexperienced candidates running for president as their first elective office, unless they're well known national figures. I would love to see Judge Napolitano run for office, although he's said he's not interested. He'd be perfect because he's a true libertarian. but could appeal to all constitutional conservatives, he's a very likable person, he'd have some built in support from Fox viewers and like Pat Buchanan, he's an outstanding orator.

But again, coalitions will depend on that candidate. Some will more naturally reach out to conservative Republicans who actually do care about the constitution and limited government, while some will naturally appeal more to the anti-war/civil liberties contingent on the left. Ideally, we'll have someone who can attract both.

I could go along with something like the Rothbard/Buchanan coalition, but sadly, that didn't last long either. Just like the LP wasn't able to grow from 1987-1991 even with a leader as strong as Ron Paul. Although I'd definitely avoid ill-advised strategies like Rothbard's "outreach to rednecks."

I'll +rep for a positive post as well. The response does reflect what I have been saying about how the movement has plateaued from just focusing on positions. The universe of consistent liberty people and constitutionalists does not get us to 51%, so limiting the vote gaining talk to getting more fellow travelers to join us is not the path making the quantum jump we need to make. Building a voting majority involves reaching people who are NOT consistently with us ideologically, meaning not being only issue-oriented.

And the failure of the LP to make electoral gains has 95% to do with the establishment barriers, not internal problems. Why is it that every OTHER third party has had exactly the same problems getting anywhere, no matter who they run, at any level, in any part of the country, for decade after decade? Are they all equally incompetent across all the states, or have they been equally subject to the same suppression, marginalization and blackout routine?

My bet is on the latter, which is why the MSM so wanted Ron Paul to just run as a third party candidate---that way they could have efficiently blacked him out in a low profile way, like all the others. To win more elections, liberty candidates have to deal with winning the war against the elite's suppression scam, and stop blaming ourselves for the marginalization.

That's ridiculous.

You could say that about any campaign, no matter how horrible the candidate; they all teach us something about politics and the electorate.

Hell, I guess Lindsey Graham was advancing liberty by showing us how to reach out to hardcore neocons...

Rolling your eyes? You must be passing out again. The point is to be reaching out to get the majority voting blocs we SHOULD have engaged, but did not. The key ones to have reached in this cycle within the GOP were the socons, the Tea Party wing and disaffected anti-establishment voters. Trump SPECIFICALLY reached those voters, while it is questionable whether either Paul even tried. He even found a way to attract the rank and file to a defacto less-interventionist approach to foreign policy, in a manner that Rand's finesse approach did not. The point is the liberty movement NEEDS to try to do the same on these fronts, and needs to specifically learn the lessons of the candidate who succeeded in doing so.