Mark Sanford Loses SC Seat In Primary

[juleswin]

I wasn't necessarily referring to Sanford here. To be honest, I've no idea what Sanford did or Trump did to put the two of them at odds.

I was making reference to the libertarians who recoil in horror at the mention of populism and see it more like a turd to be scraped off the boot than something that could actually propel them into power (or non-power, considering how they'd "rule"). Trump knows how to use populism to his advantage. I'd be taking notes. But, as I said, as soon as something becomes popular, for some people it loses its appeal, and I think that's a major problem which has plagued the libertarian party's attempt to break into the mainstream. ThePaleoLibertarian is absolutely right in his comment above. Either the libertarian party starts using populism to their advantage or they will continue to wallow in obscurity.



Heavens no! Can't let the libertarian party be associated with that.

Paleolibertarian is a Trump worshiping fan boy who disapproves of anyone that doesn't kiss Trump's ass. Just the mere idea that a politician competing with Trump for votes would dare criticize him is anathema for him. He also conflates the libertarian party with libertarian leaning republicans. I am not well read on the libertarian party so I am not going to try and argue with u there but if you are talking about libertarian leaning republicans, then he is wrong. They too support populism, how else can you explain their desire to cut taxes (popular) without cutting spending(another popular policy).

These people have shown than they would compromise their principles for party and populism. From what I have read about Sanford, he never opposed any of Trump's populist policies. He disagreed with him in areas where he was acting like a progressive and a non conservative and that caused a rift with him and Trump.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Who could imagine that a candidate running in a primary would dare attack the front runner. I cannot imagine anything more blasphemous than that. The fact that it did not work for him doesn't mean that it is a bad strategy to criticize Trump. Watch this next coming election how many people who criticize Trump/go against Trump supported candidates kick ass.

You look weak and impotent if you are afraid to attack the front runner. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I will not vote for anyone who is too timid and weak to confront a front runner. Not saying that is all they should be doing but if they shy away from it, I will shy away from voting for said politician(actually, I don't vote anymore). Just saying

It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective and I was one of the first on RPF to bring up the manifest problems when most others were just blindly following something that clearly wasn't working.

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy, but at least try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

 

[EBounding]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy.

It depends. Amash is doing ok--he got more votes than Trump in his district and doesn't really have a serious primary challenge. Rand on the other hand got fewer votes than Trump so he made the right decision to not go the "NeverTrump" route.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Paleolibertarian is a Trump worshiping fan boy who disapproves of anyone that doesn't kiss Trump's ass. Just the mere idea that a politician competing with Trump for votes would dare criticize him is anathema for him.

That is complete and utter garbage. You are either a liar or an idiot. Well, you are an idiot, but this statement either comes from your obvious stupidity or dishonesty. You are incapable of salient commentary of any sort, I just wonder if you're a liar in addition to that fact. I have been exceedingly even-handed with Trump and I've posted about him far less than the vast majority of people who post here. You cannot find a single post from me "kissing his ass" or anything of the kind.

He also conflates the libertarian party with libertarian leaning republicans. I am not well read on the libertarian party so I am not going to try and argue with u there but if you are talking about libertarian leaning republicans, then he is wrong.

What are you babbling about, fool? Who mentioned the Libertarian Part at all? I haven't said word one about them in this thread. The Republicans can't seem to get elected by going anti-Trump or anti-populist, but the LP can't get elected no matter what they do. They have nothing to do with this.

They too support populism, how else can you explain their desire to cut taxes (popular) without cutting spending(another popular policy).

Jeb Bush (supposedly) supported cutting taxes. That is not what this populist movement is about. This is across the Western world. It's about culture, immigration and identity. Going to people who clamor for these issues with tax cuts is doing it wrong, especially the way they sell it.

These people have shown than they would compromise their principles for party and populism. From what I have read about Sanford, he never opposed any of Trump's populist policies. He disagreed with him in areas where he was acting like a progressive and a non conservative and that caused a rift with him and Trump.

Funny thing is, I'm not even a populist. Populism is demotic in nature. I have no value for "the people" and their political will in principle. All I am doing is analyzing strategy and evaluating what works and what doesn't.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It depends. Amash is doing ok--he got more votes than Trump in his district and doesn't really have a serious primary challenge. Rand on the other hand got fewer votes than Trump so he made the right decision to not go the "NeverTrump" route.

If going Amash is going after Trump and that really is working (as opposed to just not hurting him), great he should continue. However, I'd say that looking at the board the way it stands, that is going to be the exception, not the rule.

 

[Krugminator2]

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies?

Trade. Immigration. Spending bill with the wall. Not to hard to find. Google harder.

Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

Ummm... Yeah. So.... I have no idea what prompted that statement but Rand has opposed Trump at more potential political cost than ANY other Republican in Congress. That isn't my opinion. That is fact. A non-debatable statement. He just frames his opposition in way where he is on Trump's side opposing his bad advisors.

Look at where the dot is with Rand. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

 

[juleswin]

It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective and I was one of the first on RPF to bring up the manifest problems when most others were just blindly following something that clearly wasn't working.

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy, but at least try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the Rand campaign. Personally, I think he wasted too much time talking about surveillance and the constitution. I have come to realize that nobody really cares about that document especially the particulars. Voters just want to be safe and prosper in their homeland and if that means govt surveilling their every move? they are just OK with it.

Secondly, his criticism of Trump conservative cred was the best way to attack Trump but something unusual happened, the media with its unfair attack and constant coverage of Trump, made him into a martyr for republicans to rally behind. At that point, it didn't really matter what what said or who said it, you were seen as part of the
republican enemy for criticizing Trump. Rand's strategy at the point was just fine, I can see no better way of playing it.

 

[juleswin]

Trade. Immigration. Spending bill with the wall. Not to hard to find. Google harder.



Ummm... Yeah. So.... I have no idea what prompted that statement but Rand has opposed Trump at more potential political cost than ANY other Republican in Congress. That isn't my opinion. That is fact. A non-debatable statement. He just frames his opposition in way where he is on Trump's side opposing his bad advisors.

Look at where the dot is with Rand. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

On criticized the aluminium and steel tariffs but those weren't the populist policies he ran on trade with. Its one thing if Sanford criticized him not signing the TPP. So I wouldn't really consider this going against his populist trade policies..

Immigration and spending bill on the wall are one issue here and this is what Sanford has said about it.

He also drew a loud rebuttal(from pro immigration group) for saying he would vote for Trump’s planned border wall or fence and that the proposal enjoyed popular support, with the caveat it needs a funding source.

http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article136327343.html

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the Rand campaign. Personally, I think he wasted too much time talking about surveillance and the constitution. I have come to realize that nobody really cares about that document especially the particulars. Voters just want to be safe and prosper in their homeland and if that means govt surveilling their every move? they are just OK with it.

Yes, people want to be safe. It's number two on Maslow's hierarchy. This is a natural and healthy inclination that, sadly, the demotic state uses to spy on people. If you want people to go against such things you must accomplish two goals:

1. A vision of safety that doesn't need such programs
2. An emotional argument in opposition to spying programs

Secondly, his criticism of Trump conservative cred was the best way to attack Trump

Everyone was attacking Trump for his "conservative cred", you idiot! Jeb Bush was trying to woo voters by talking about how Trump would raise taxes. It was a losing strategy because Trump tapped into something visceral, on the gut level of voters, something a libertarian candidate could do, but won't because they're incapable of internalizing effective strategy.

but something unusual happened, the media with its unfair attack and constant coverage of Trump, made him into a martyr for republicans to rally behind. At that point, it didn't really matter what what said or who said it, you were seen as part of the
republican enemy for criticizing Trump. Rand's strategy at the point was just fine, I can see no better way of playing it.

This is just incoherent nonsense. "The strategy was great! Trump was martyred by the people attacking him because of the media!" It's stupid and so are you. A strategy that loses is bad strategy and no one voted for Trump because other candidates were attacking him and he was thus a "martyr".

 

[euphemia]

I say he who is without sin cast the first stone, someone made a one time boo boo in life and we want to condemn them.

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Maybe Sanford's hipster son, Lamont, will run. I love them classic shows!

 

[juleswin]

That is complete and utter garbage. You are either a liar or an idiot. Well, you are an idiot, but this statement either comes from your obvious stupidity or dishonesty. You are incapable of salient commentary of any sort, I just wonder if you're a liar in addition to that fact. I have been exceedingly even-handed with Trump and I've posted about him far less than the vast majority of people who post here. You cannot find a single post from me "kissing his ass" or anything of the kind.

Sorry to break your heart but this is my honest to God perception of you. The reverence you have for Trump and the movement that has arisen to follow him gives me that impression that you are a Trump ass kisser. So, I am being completely honest with myself here cos this is how I see you, it is the implicit vibe you exude that bring me to this conclusion. Also, your original post on this thread also didn't help with the matter. Correct me if I am wrong but I have yet to see any post of yours that is any thing but extremely favorable to Trump. Putting all of that together, it is how I came to my conclusion about u as a Trump asskisser.

What are you babbling about, fool? Who mentioned the Libertarian Part at all? I haven't said word one about them in this thread. The Republicans can't seem to get elected by going anti-Trump or anti-populist, but the LP can't get elected no matter what they do. They have nothing to do with this.

The post was a reply to No_body's replying to your post where I mistakenly conflated the posts from you two. He mentioned libertarian party and you were talking about libertarian leaning republicans those are 2 different animals. My apologies for doing that, I should have reread your post before making that post.

Jeb Bush (supposedly) supported cutting taxes. That is not what this populist movement is about. This is across the Western world. It's about culture, immigration and identity. Going to people who clamor for these issues with tax cuts is doing it wrong, especially the way they sell it.

Yes, tax cuts and spending increases are also populist policies. Yes its not a populist policy with an ethnic leaning but regardless, it is populist. Well, i should have known that your particular form of populism(anything for that matter) would be related to culture, identity etc. You might not think I know you, but I know quite a bit about you.

Funny thing is, I'm not even a populist. Populism is demotic in nature. I have no value for "the people" and their political will in principle. All I am doing is analyzing strategy and evaluating what works and what doesn't.

Why are you telling me this? how does it relate to what I posted in that last paragraph?

 

[timosman]

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

+rep

 

[juleswin]

Everyone was attacking Trump for his "conservative cred", you idiot! Jeb Bush was trying to woo voters by talking about how Trump would raise taxes. It was a losing strategy because Trump tapped into something visceral, on the gut level of voters, something a libertarian candidate could do, but won't because they're incapable of internalizing effective strategy.

Gonna say this, just because a strategy did not work doesn't mean the strategy is wrong. Maybe given the time, his personal, his personal experience, the mood of the country, the help from the media, he was the unbeatable candidate in the race? still doesn't dismiss the idea that attacking his credibility was a good strategy. I think Trump tapped in something emotional in people to the point they were more invested in him as a person than any thing he said about his policies. This is one place where I think libertarians can learn a thing or two from Trump. They need to stop being policy wonks and realize that the masses need more than anything a father figure, a leader, someone to inspire and give them hope. Trump did this better than anyone in the race and he was rewarded with the victory.

This is just incoherent nonsense. "The strategy was great! Trump was martyred by the people attacking him because of the media!" It's stupid and so are you. A strategy that loses is bad strategy and no one voted for Trump because other candidates were attacking him and he was thus a "martyr".

It is not nonsense, wikileak showed the strategy of the elite was to push and promote Trump over all the other republican candidates and they did this via a non conventional, reverse psychology sort of way. Think, addition by subtraction and it worked. The people in large masses fell for him. Wrong again, a strategy that loses is not automatically a bad strategy, strategies are relative and the best strategy is the one that gives you the best chance to win regardless of whether it nets you the win.

I think your problem is that you underestimate your enemy, you see them as one dimensional idiots like the people who vote. They are not, they are experienced world conquerors who have different methods to trick the average voter into voting for one of their own whilst they believed they are voting against the establishment.

 

[timosman]

Why are you telling me this? how does it relate to what I posted in that last paragraph?

How does your psychoanalysis relate to anything?

 

[pcosmar]

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy,

You mean dishonesty..
You are right.. most libertarians tend to be too Honest. Truth is rarely politically correct.

 

[juleswin]

You mean dishonesty..
You are right.. most libertarians tend to be too Honest. Truth is rarely politically correct.

The thng is this republicans lie in campaign all the time to win election, they pledge support for very populist policies only to renege on them once they get into office, why can't the libertarians do something similar?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Sorry to break your heart but this is my honest to God perception of you. The reverence you have for Trump and the movement that has arisen to follow him gives me that impression that you are a Trump ass kisser. So, I am being completely honest with myself here cos this is how I see you, it is the implicit vibe you exude that bring me to this conclusion. Also, your original post on this thread also didn't help with the matter. Correct me if I am wrong but I have yet to see any post of yours that is any thing but extremely favorable to Trump. Putting all of that together, it is how I came to my conclusion about u as a Trump asskisser.

Ah, so you're just a moron. Understood. I won't accuse an honest idiot like you of being a liar again! You sure set me to rights. By the way, you barely seem to be able to type in English. Just thought I'd make you aware.

Ah, it's an "implicit vibe". Gotcha. Such incredible deduction. Do you read tea leaves or do a voodoo dance? Again, name one post I have made that is overly laudatory or unrealistically pro-Trump. You won't. You can't. The truth is I've posted about the man far less than most, both on RPF and all other social media. After Rand dropped out, the banalities of the political system didn't interest me enough to comment. I'm interested in the metapolitical and statecraft, not gutter politics.

The post was a reply to No_body's replying to your post where I mistakenly conflated the posts from you two. He mentioned libertarian party and you were talking about libertarian leaning republicans those are 2 different animals. My apologies for doing that, I should have reread your post before making that post.

Unsurprising.

Yes, tax cuts and spending increases are also populist policies.

They can be, yes, but they are not necessarily. Populism isn't just something that is popular, it's a particular way of appealing to the "common man". The way tax cuts are sold to the public is usually decidedly non-populist, including Rand.

Yes its not a populist policy with an ethnic leaning but regardless, it is populist.

No one is talking about ethnic cleansing, you buffoon.

Well, i should have known that your particular form of populism(anything for that matter) would be related to culture, identity etc.

It's not my form of populism. It's a manifest populist movement sweeping the Western world. The meta-movement that elected Trump, voted for Brexit, made Marine le Pen come in second, made right-wing parties in Germany and Sweden among their most popular and is currently revolutionizing modern Italy. It has nothing to do with me. It's a huge wave that libertarians will either learn to ride or be swept aside. I know which one it looks like so far.

You might not think I know you, but I know quite a bit about you.

No you don't. I doubt you could articulate anything I believe about statecraft with any cogency.

Why are you telling me this? how does it relate to what I posted in that last paragraph?

You were talking about people who compromise their principles for populism. I was stating that I am not even a populist.

 

[Krugminator2]

http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article136327343.html[/URL]

1. Here you go. Here he is criticizing withdrawal from TPP. First answer. Second paragraph https://www.weeklystandard.com/haley-byrd/sanford-tariffs-are-an-experiment-with-stupidity

2. He was one of five Republicans to vote against funding for the wall regardless of what he said. Sanford has sensible immigration views similar to Ron Paul's. There is nothing that will please left wing immigration groups. They only want Democratic voters.

 

[juleswin]

Ah, so you're just a moron. Understood. I won't accuse an honest idiot like you of being a liar again! You sure set me to rights. By the way, you barely seem to be able to type in English. Just thought I'd make you aware.

Moron? I understand how what I said hurts your feelings but if it makes you feel any better, my criticism came from the heart. Also, I don't hold it against you that you support Trump. Loads of good, intelligent people fell for his con. And yes, I know my writing skills aren't the best, my sentence structure/syntax, grammar, spelling could all use some improvement and it is something I have always struggled with. Also, I can't proofread to save my life. You really don't have to tell me about it, I am well aware of it and I work on it every single day of my life. And no, I won't make the excuse that it's because English is my second language, I know loads of people who did not speak English at all before they arriving to the states who have better command of the English language than me.

Ah, it's an "implicit vibe". Gotcha. Such incredible deduction. Do you read tea leaves or do a voodoo dance? Again, name one post I have made that is overly laudatory or unrealistically pro-Trump. You won't. You can't. The truth is I've posted about the man far less than most, both on RPF and all other social media. After Rand dropped out, the banalities of the political system didn't interest me enough to comment. I'm interested in the metapolitical and statecraft, not gutter politics.

Its the vibe I get from reading your many posts of RPF, deal with it.

They can be, yes, but they are not necessarily. Populism isn't just something that is popular, it's a particular way of appealing to the "common man". The way tax cuts are sold to the public is usually decidedly non-populist, including Rand.

Lets just agree to disagree here cos I think tax cuts, spending increase etc appeal to the common man too. I think what you are trying to say here is that Trump introduced new populist policies to the campaign like immigration and border wall security. That I can agree with you on.

No one is talking about ethnic cleansing, you buffoon.

Calm down man, I wasn't talking about ethnic cleansing either. Why would you think that is what I was thinking in my post? That wasn't a typo, I actually meant to say ethnic leaning not ethnic cleansing.

It's not my form of populism. It's a manifest populist movement sweeping the Western world. The meta-movement that elected Trump, voted for Brexit, made Marine le Pen come in second, made right-wing parties in Germany and Sweden among their most popular and is currently revolutionizing modern Italy. It has nothing to do with me. It's a huge wave that libertarians will either learn to ride or be swept aside. I know which one it looks like so far.

I don't disagree with u here, my point is that those aren't the only form of populism in our politics.

No you don't. I doubt you could articulate anything I believe about statecraft with any cogency.

I know enough about you in the area that matter to me. Your opinion on statecraft is one area I don't particularly care about. Also, I qualified my statement with the word "quite" which must mean something different to me than it means to you

You were talking about people who compromise their principles for populism. I was stating that I am not even a populist.

I was talking about libertarian leaning republicans and you are a paleo libertarian, so at least even you can understand why I was perplexed by your reply to that paragraph. I don't care if you as a person is populist or not, you are not a politician.