I do not accuse the Trump critics of all being Hillary shills (though granted, case by case, a few might be). What I do suggest is that most of them have been divisively self-serving in describing themselves as the exclusive "true libertarians," or in laughably over-selling Trump as having a "radically anti-libertarian record and agenda." It has been pointed out time and again that he has in fact many net anti-statist positions, that his candidacy has strategically benefited the liberty movement, and has many leading libertarians supporting him.
The trouble is not only that the critics have been unreasonable, by not accepting that libertarians do reasonably disagree over Trump, but have also avoided acknowledging the same benefits concerning the anti-establishment trend, even when Trump is excluded from the discussion. This is the clearest sign that the real issue is they do not want to advance the movement by applying the lessons learned across 2007 to present. They don't want to because of 1) their inability or unwillingness to build winning voting coalitions beyond the 5-10% liberty base, and 2) they don't want to effectively confront the institutional barriers set up by the special interest run establishment, who control the major parties and media.
The Paul movement has become divided because, post Paul, there is no agreement over, or ability to acknowledge, how to address the other, above two dynamics. Recognizing that the anti-elite or outsider trends in general, and Trump in particular, have been more successful for liberty on both strategic fronts is not something they want to face, because applying that to running more consistently pro-liberty candidates means we have to admit the approach of the Pauls was UNsuccessful, or insufficient. They just want to evaluate people based on their being near 100% correct on the issues, even if they can't win a primary, into perpetuity.
That approach is inadequate for those of us who want to see policy changes for liberty in our lifetime. We're willing to support somebody imperfect in demeanor who's closer to an alpha "William Wallace" to help get us there. Ultimately, we will have to incorporate more dynamics than merely scoring people on their positions to field successful contenders, and to forego relying on only one model of candidate, in order to further the liberty mission.
