McMullin thinks he's an ultra-libertarian

[Jesse James]

McMullin is hawkish, but "bomb-the-$#@!-out-of-em/60,000-troops-in-Syria" trump with his CFR/Goldman Sachs coterie is not demonstrably less hawkish.

Yet another person comes to RPF after Rand drops out sporting a Stand With Rand banner, concern trolling for trump.

You don't have to support Trump to say he is less hawkish than somebody else.

 

[Jesse James]

I don't agree that Trump is clearly less hawkish. Trump is random and impulsive with no coherent foreign policy ideology. He will go to war over purely personal vendettas.

And you seem confused about what "libertarian" means, if you think it involves ignoring actual liberty.

Like I said, McMullin is horrible. No doubt about it. But there's zero excuse for anybody here supporting Trump.

I don't blame anybody for supporting Trump. Gary Johnson is a pretty questionable choice for the LP nominee.

Trump has said over and over that he gets along with Russia. If you've been paying attention you would know the ONLY people who say that are libertarians, aside from Trump. He is clearly miles ahead of any other Republican on foreign policy. This is indisputable. It's like comparing Mitt Romney to Trump. Only a fool...

 

[Jesse James]

The sad part is, I can't see how anyone on this forum could support any of the current Presidential roster. If I was forced to vote, I'd vote for Gary Johnson just so the Libertarians have a better chance next year, but they aren't exactly doing much to put legit Libertarians in their corner considering Johnson/Weld sucks so bad.

Voting for Johnson ensures the LP keeps putting up quasi-libertarian candidates. Either abstain from voting or write somebody in if you want to be morally correct. If you want to ensure Hillary doesn't win, vote for Trump. I probably would if he needed my help in Texas. A rude Trump or a war against Russia. Which one will I pick? Hmm..

 

[Spikender]

Voting for Johnson ensures the LP keeps putting up quasi-libertarian candidates. Either abstain from voting or write somebody in if you want to be morally correct. If you want to ensure Hillary doesn't win, vote for Trump. I probably would if he needed my help in Texas. A rude Trump or a war against Russia. Which one will I pick? Hmm..

I'm already abstaining. And you imply that Trump or any of the other Republicans that we've been stuck with aren't quasi-conservatives when that's patently false. In reality, I was simply talking about the best option. Trump is not the best option. The way I see it, Hillary is most likely to win with Trump at a small margin chance of victory depending on how the rest of October goes. Nothing will change in either of their Presidencies, things will only get worst. In fact, if Trump wins and the nation worsens, people will blame conservatism and libertarianism and it will be the death knell of the Right in America. If Hillary wins and the nation worsens, we will be vindicated and the left will be holding a massive L. But I don't want Hillary to win. She's disgusting. I won't vote for people I don't agree with, including Johnson/Weld.

So I just sit here waiting to abstain. Or maybe I'll write in Ron Paul. Either way, I'm simply preparing for whatever happens next month.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I don't blame anybody for supporting Trump. Gary Johnson is a pretty questionable choice for the LP nominee.

Trump has said over and over that he gets along with Russia. If you've been paying attention you would know the ONLY people who say that are libertarians, aside from Trump. He is clearly miles ahead of any other Republican on foreign policy. This is indisputable. It's like comparing Mitt Romney to Trump. Only a fool...

I may well be a fool but I'd give up a testicle at this point to have Romney on the ticket instead of Trump.

Voting for Johnson ensures the LP keeps putting up quasi-libertarian candidates. Either abstain from voting or write somebody in if you want to be morally correct. If you want to ensure Hillary doesn't win, vote for Trump. I probably would if he needed my help in Texas. A rude Trump or a war against Russia. Which one will I pick? Hmm..

And Trump's rudeness has nothing to do with that.

 

[Superfluous Man]

He is clearly miles ahead of any other Republican on foreign policy. This is indisputable.

It's very disputable.

And yes, I would rate Trump as worse than Romney overall.

Trump is by far the most extreme left-wing Republican presidential nominee of all time.

 

[AZJoe]

A good little summary of McMullin:
http://www.millennialstar.org/why-i-am-nevermcmullin/

Evan McMullin’s presidential run is the creation of the same people who crafted and supported George W Bush’s failed foreign policy. … The bottom line is that some of the nation’s most ardent neocons, led by William Kristol, were desperate to find somebody to run against Trump. Why? Because Trump said he was against the war in Iraq and talked about peacefully cooperating with Russia. This they could not countenance because in the world of Bill Kristol the United States must constantly look for new enemies abroad. Most Americans think the Iraq invasion was a massive mistake and want the U.S. to keep out of Syria and to be friendly with Russia. But Kristol wants constant war in the Middle East and constant tension with Russia. Who cares that’s Kristol’s foreign policy has been a massive failure: we must continue the same crazy policies until the end, according to the neocons. …

Go to Evan McMullin’s web site. He wants war, war and more war… look at his first priority: “National Security.” And then scroll down. His fourth priority is “America’s Role in the World.” He slams Trump for agreeing with sequestration, which was an extremely moderate attempt to control government spending, including the military. The U.S. spends more on the military than the seven largest militaries in the world, yet McMullin wants to spend more.

McMullin wants the U.S. to be the world’s policeman. The Founding Fathers repeatedly warned against involvement in foreign wars. Yet every year we find new enemies abroad. And meanwhile we have a large and ever out of control national debt, fueled in part by our excessive military spending.

Here is what McMullin wants to do (from his web site): “Evan will impose tougher sanctions on Russia and increase America’s military presence in the Baltics in order to deter and reverse Putin’s aggression, rather than pretending that he is a partner for peace in Syria. Evan will stand up for the rights of American and allied ships to sail freely in international waters, rather than letting China dominate the Western Pacific.”

Yes, you read that correctly: McMullin wants to put troops on Russia’s borders and pick a fight with China. How would we respond if Russia or China put troops in Mexico or Canada? We know the answer to that because Soviet missiles in Cuba almost led to nuclear war in 1962. It seems to me that McMullin is the aggressive one here, not the Russians or the Chinese. …

McMullin’s support of Syrian rebels is a massive failure. McMullin’s primary cause in the last few years has been arming Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad. … So, to sum up: McMullin wants more weapons for ISIS. Great.

McMullin’s foreign policy is immoral and will result in more war. …​

http://www.millennialstar.org/why-i-am-nevermcmullin/

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

McMullin is an establishment stooge, if there ever was one. He's running purely to deny Trump Utah, and also screw over legit third party candidates who might otherwise pick up support. Notice how his media spotlight is suddenly far bigger than Johnson or Stein's. Disgusting how the shill media makes "impossible" things like third parties winning states viable at the flick of the switch.

 

[Jesse James]

how did I do that?

you need to accept the fact that conservative doesn't mean the same thing it did in the 20s. conservatives want big government too.

 

[Jesse James]

It's very disputable.

And yes, I would rate Trump as worse than Romney overall.

Trump is by far the most extreme left-wing Republican presidential nominee of all time.

so, let's hear the republicans are better on foreign policy, besides the libertarians. please go on.

 

[Jesse James]

A good little summary of McMullin:
http://www.millennialstar.org/why-i-am-nevermcmullin/

Evan McMullin’s presidential run is the creation of the same people who crafted and supported George W Bush’s failed foreign policy. … The bottom line is that some of the nation’s most ardent neocons, led by William Kristol, were desperate to find somebody to run against Trump. Why? Because Trump said he was against the war in Iraq and talked about peacefully cooperating with Russia. This they could not countenance because in the world of Bill Kristol the United States must constantly look for new enemies abroad. Most Americans think the Iraq invasion was a massive mistake and want the U.S. to keep out of Syria and to be friendly with Russia. But Kristol wants constant war in the Middle East and constant tension with Russia. Who cares that’s Kristol’s foreign policy has been a massive failure: we must continue the same crazy policies until the end, according to the neocons. …

Go to Evan McMullin’s web site. He wants war, war and more war… look at his first priority: “National Security.” And then scroll down. His fourth priority is “America’s Role in the World.” He slams Trump for agreeing with sequestration, which was an extremely moderate attempt to control government spending, including the military. The U.S. spends more on the military than the seven largest militaries in the world, yet McMullin wants to spend more.

McMullin wants the U.S. to be the world’s policeman. The Founding Fathers repeatedly warned against involvement in foreign wars. Yet every year we find new enemies abroad. And meanwhile we have a large and ever out of control national debt, fueled in part by our excessive military spending.

Here is what McMullin wants to do (from his web site): “Evan will impose tougher sanctions on Russia and increase America’s military presence in the Baltics in order to deter and reverse Putin’s aggression, rather than pretending that he is a partner for peace in Syria. Evan will stand up for the rights of American and allied ships to sail freely in international waters, rather than letting China dominate the Western Pacific.”

Yes, you read that correctly: McMullin wants to put troops on Russia’s borders and pick a fight with China. How would we respond if Russia or China put troops in Mexico or Canada? We know the answer to that because Soviet missiles in Cuba almost led to nuclear war in 1962. It seems to me that McMullin is the aggressive one here, not the Russians or the Chinese. …

McMullin’s support of Syrian rebels is a massive failure. McMullin’s primary cause in the last few years has been arming Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad. … So, to sum up: McMullin wants more weapons for ISIS. Great.

McMullin’s foreign policy is immoral and will result in more war. …​

http://www.millennialstar.org/why-i-am-nevermcmullin/

no way dude he's a libertarian on foreign policy!!! way better than Trump on foreign policy dude!

 

[Superfluous Man]

so, let's hear the republicans are better on foreign policy, besides the libertarians. please go on.

It's impossible to say. Trump doesn't have a consistent coherent foreign policy, other than that he has no qualms about using America's might to bully other countries around to get his way. He's unpredictable. It may very well be the case that out of the entire field of Republicans who ran for president this year, he would turn out to be the very worst, just on foreign policy. And we already know he's the very worst in every other way.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Glenn Beck and his neocon sidekicks (handlers) made it clear today that they support McMuffin over all other breakfast foods. They were particularly harsh on the Libertarian Party candidates.

He's coming around...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Fox pushing McMuffin today.

Maybe the media favors him because he knows where Aleppo is?