The Reluctant Case for Trump

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

Trump is like holding a fire cracker in your hand......when it blows, does blow off a finger or just sting a while......definitely the biggest wild card in this race. I will have a better shot at amusement over the other traditionally corrupt politicians. Damn no matter which one gets in its going to be a scary next few years.

He is absolutely a firecracker...and when you play with fire, sometimes you do get burnt, we have to avoid that by not attaching ourselves to Trump. But, I'm very excited to see the GOP close its hand around Trump and get their fingers blown off....I may know of a certain Doctor who will be able to step in in 2020 to pick up the pieces.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

You're advocating "playing the system" for a candidate who has no allegiance to the Constitution (which means that he will not uphold his oath of office if sworn in as President). I mean, can you show me three official positions of Trump's which are in accordance with any part of the Constitution?

Not only that, you are "making a reluctant case" for a guy who, himself, has always been about "playing the system" when it comes to the issue of eminent domain. He will do anything to take private property from others if it means gaining more money for himself (even on foreign policy issues like "taking Iraq's oil").

In your pragmatism, you have blinded yourself to some serious ethical problems of Donald Trump; otherwise, you would not even make a "reluctant" case for such an immoral person. And what's worse is that you actually believe that somehow a Trump victory will advance the cause of liberty for future elections. You couldn't be more deceived.

You misunderstand. I do not think for a moment he will be a great president if elected. I actually hope that he makes significant missteps....it is these missteps that may open the eyes of the people to the dangers of statism on both sides of the eisle.

The serious ethical problems of donald trump is what opens up the election in 2020 to the Liberty Vote. His crash as president ensures that someone like him is never elected again....but some of his ideas that we get slammed for (such as non-interventionism), can now be defended much more easily in the public and media.

 

[Theocrat]

Trump Likes to Trump Property

You misunderstand. I do not think for a moment he will be a great president if elected. I actually hope that he makes significant missteps....it is these missteps that may open the eyes of the people to the dangers of statism on both sides of the eisle.

The serious ethical problems of donald trump is what opens up the election in 2020 to the Liberty Vote. His crash as president ensures that someone like him is never elected again....but some of his ideas that we get slammed for (such as non-interventionism), can now be defended much more easily in the public and media.

What makes you think that Trump is truly a non-interventionist, given his views on eminent domain? As President, what's to stop him from invading another nation if that nation has resources that he deems necessary for the survival of America (such as oil)?

 

[Indy Vidual]

There was also a Reluctant Case for Hitler.
Humans need to learn from history.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

What makes you think that Trump is truly a non-interventionist, given his views on eminent domain? As President, what's to stop him from invading another nation if that nation has resources that he deems necessary for the survival of America (such as oil)?

As I said, he is classic Paleo-Conservative, Pat Buchanan/Andrew Bacevich non-interventionist. His Foreign Policy is just about the only thing that has been consistent throughout his political life...and last night you really saw him passionate about it.

He has never hinted that he would use eminent domain to justify waging a war...but rather, to plunder the resources of countries, in exchange for wars that we are drug into. Why should others get our help for free?

But to answer your hypothetical...that is such a flimsey justification for war, Congress would never pass it. And if he took unilateral action, I'm not sure...except that the people would be at the gates, people like Paul would be raising hell, and he wouldn't be elected again....leading to true non-interventionism to take charge in 2020.

What makes you think that any of the other candidates, with exception to Bernie Sanders (who is just a Jimmy Carterish pussy, not a non-interventionist), would not charge us into war, just as they say they will?

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

There was also a Reluctant Case for Hitler.
Humans need to learn from history.

Not really. The Case for Hitler, from the Germans was by no means reluctant. They allowed their system to become so toxic that a Hitler was seen as favorable to continuing on the current path....and until WW2 started, they were seemingly proven correct.

There was also a Reluctant Case for Independence from Britain, and a Reluctant Case for the Magna Carta, and a Reluctant Case for a plevy of other really controversial things, they could of ended terribly, but ended up going very well.

To be clear, Trump isn't the goal. The goal is winning in 2020. Trump is the way to get there.

"Should we create a terrorist organization called the Sons of Liberty to terrorize local loyalists and small businesses into complying to our political objectives, the while committing treason against the most free and liberal empire in the world....all in the name of freedom?"

Oppressing the loyalist colonials wasn't the goal...independence was the goal. Look at the bigger picture.

 

[jkob]

I'd really like a candidate who doesn't literally want to start WWIII or to start new Cold War with the Russians. I don't want a candidate that thinks arming terrorists to fight dictators is somehow a good idea, I don't want a candidate who believes it is our responsibly to police the rest of the world, I don't want a candidate that thinks our foreign policy is some grand chess game. One of these people will be our next president like it or not, it is natural that people have varying priorities so vote for whoever best speaks to them. I'm not going to let myself get spooked by the incumbent fascist establishment, if I did I would of never supported Ron to begin with so their opinion doesn't mean much to me.

 

[misterx]

I'd really like a candidate who doesn't literally want to start WWIII or to start new Cold War with the Russians. I don't want a candidate that thinks arming terrorists to fight dictators is somehow a good idea, I don't want a candidate who believes it is our responsibly to police the rest of the world, I don't want a candidate that thinks our foreign policy is some grand chess game. One of these people will be our next president like it or not, it is natural that people have varying priorities so vote for whoever best speaks to them. I'm not going to let myself get spooked by the incumbent fascist establishment, if I did I would of never supported Ron to begin with so their opinion doesn't mean much to me.

Winner.

 

[Theocrat]

Trump's Volatility is Dangerous

As I said, he is classic Paleo-Conservative, Pat Buchanan/Andrew Bacevich non-interventionist. His Foreign Policy is just about the only thing that has been consistent throughout his political life...and last night you really saw him passionate about it.

He has never hinted that he would use eminent domain to justify waging a war...but rather, to plunder the resources of countries, in exchange for wars that we are drug into. Why should others get our help for free?

But to answer your hypothetical...that is such a flimsey justification for war, Congress would never pass it. And if he took unilateral action, I'm not sure...except that the people would be at the gates, people like Paul would be raising hell, and he wouldn't be elected again....leading to true non-interventionism to take charge in 2020.

What makes you think that any of the other candidates, with exception to Bernie Sanders (who is just a Jimmy Carterish pussy, not a non-interventionist), would not charge us into war, just as they say they will?

I know that the other candidates are warmongers, but my point was to suggest that Trump may not be as non-interventionist as he projects (especially in wanting to do things like "using our nuclear triad more"). But, once again, I do not see Trump as the type of President who would defer to Congress on official declarations of war because Trump is not a constitutionalist. His populism makes him unstable on any action that could either lead to diplomacy or war.

 

[MelissaWV]

This shit sandwich doesn't taste so bad with ketchup, right?

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I know that the other candidates are warmongers, but my point was to suggest that Trump may not be as non-interventionist as he projects (especially in wanting to do things like "using our nuclear triad more"). But, once again, I do not see Trump as the type of President who would defer to Congress on official declarations of war because Trump is not a constitutionalist. His populism makes him unstable on any action that could either lead to diplomacy or war.

I agree with you on that...I was just showing the opposite side of it. That he is more non interventionist than the others, meaning in 2020 we might be able to finally have a conversation on the debate stage without the American people being totally recoiled to it.

I agree, he is not a Constitutionalist..but as much as I don't trust him, I can't see us going to war, even with him at the helm, blatantly over resources. I just don't see it happening. But if it did, as I said, more wind to our sails.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

This shit sandwich doesn't taste so bad with ketchup, right?

No...but the ketchup tastes a little worse

 

[TheTexan]

I'm just glad we're finally going to have a President that wants to make America great again.

 

[Theocrat]

You'll See!

I'm just glad we're finally going to have a President that wants to make America great again.

We're going to start winning again! It's going to be so fantastic because we're going to win so much winning that we will win everything so we never lose ever again, due to all of the wins that we win!

 

[ProBlue33]

This forum is going to be a ton of fun if it's Trump Vs Sanders.

I want a Trump verses Sanders because it is so polarizing it will force people to pick a side.
And Trump has already tipped his hand on Judges he would put up for the supreme court.
Now if the GOP senate can stop a liberal Obama pick, it's going to force conservatives and yes even libertarians, to hold their noses this election cycle, because 2 or 3 more liberal judges on the bench will change America forever.
When that epiphany hits home, they will rally around the one person that can stop it.

Understand this, whoever the GOP puts up they will absolutely need the Blue Dog Democrats to win. In a Sanders verses Trump some will be moving to Trump, as Sanders is a too far left socialist for them. But they would vote for Hilary.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

I'm just glad we're finally going to have a President that wants to make America great again.

Oh Gosh dammit *facepalm*

This. This is the type of voter who will save the Liberty movement. They don't know it yet. But they are the sheep we need to herd to a Constitutionalist Shepard.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

We're going to start winning again! It's going to be so fantastic because we're going to win so much winning that we will win everything so we never lose ever again, due to all of the wins that we win!

Much winning. Such Ignorance.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

This forum is going to be a ton of fun if it's Trump Vs Sanders.
I want a Trump verses Sanders because it is so polarizing it will force people to pick a side.
And Trump has already tipped his hand on Judges he would put up for the supreme court.
Now if the GOP senate can stop a liberal Obama pick, it's going to force conservatives and yes even libertarians, to hold their noses this election cycle, because 2 or 3 more liberal judges on the bench will change America forever.
When that epiphany hits home, they will rally around the one person that can stop it.

You are so correct. The court issue is the biggest issue out there. Even before Scalia....the next president will have a handful of slots to fill. Sanders and Clinton cannot win...or it doesn't matter what we do in 2020...it'll be over.

 

[ProBlue33]

This

Sanders and Clinton cannot win...or it doesn't matter what we do in 2020...it'll be over.

Ron & Rand Paul supporters from 08,12,16 here on RPF need to get their heads around this pretty quick, this isn't fear, it is realistic pragmatism.

And you know when Kristol is pulling for Hillary, and you have a cannibalized GOP debate that has the most boo's ever in history for the front runner, just how bad it is, and the political behemoth of a nightmare facing America right now.

I am glad Rand Paul is in the Senate they are going to need him really bad at this juncture.

 

[Brett85]

Supreme Court. He offered two great Constitutionalists to replace Scalia. The only other person I trust with the Court appointment would be Ted Cruz.

Source? The only person I've heard Trump mention as someone he wants to nominate to the Supreme Court is his sister, a very liberal circuit court judge. It's almost a certainty that Trump will nominate Supreme Court justices in the mold of Kagan and Ginsburg if he gets elected President.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...r-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru