Who’s the Libertarian Now?

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[acptulsa]

Absolutely! Look how many libertarians he won over even without the LP banner.

That number would be exactly zero.

But he's sure doing a fine job of filling libertarian venues with spammers, so as to give that impression. And in securing the services of guns-for-hire like Raimondo.

 

[phill4paul]

Q: Who's the Libertarian now?
A: Nobody running for POTUS.

 

[Krugminator2]

Rothbard gave full vent to his view that a “right-wing populist” upsurge would be the vessel of a libertarian victory:

The proper strategy for the right wing must be what we can call ‘right-wing populism’: exciting, dynamic, tough, and confrontational, rousing and inspiring not only the exploited masses, but the often-shell-shocked right-wing intellectual cadre as well. And in this era where the intellectual and media elites are all establishment liberal-conservatives, all in a deep sense one variety or another of social democrat, all bitterly hostile to a genuine Right, we need a dynamic, charismatic leader who has the ability to short-circuit the media elites, and to reach and rouse the masses directly. We need a leadership that can reach the masses and cut through the crippling and distorting hermeneutical fog spread by the media elites.

Pretty funny Raimondo and Rothbard want full-throated, in-your-face, none of that sissy stuff libertarianism yet advocate a form of populism which is totally antithetical to libertarianism. They are the two most comfortable people I have ever seen in doing the total opposite of what they preach.

Q. Who's the Libertarian Now?

A. Not Justin Raimondo (if he ever was one)

 

[Antischism]

Not Raimondo. This election cycle has shown us exactly who's willing to sell out libertarianism and who was using it as mere ideological cover.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Not Raimondo. This election cycle has shown us exactly who's willing to sell out libertarianism and who was using it as mere ideological cover.

Sadly, the anti-Raimondo bile on this thread shows that for many on this forum, libertarianism simply means hating Trump, and anybody who doesn't, no matter who they are, is "selling out."

 

[Origanalist]

Sadly, the anti-Raimondo bile on this thread shows that for many on this forum, libertarianism simply means hating Trump, and anybody who doesn't, no matter who they are, is "selling out."

Sadly, many are. I guess Trump is doing some good after all. He's separating the wheat from the chaff.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What is libertarian about supporting Trump?

What is libertarian about hating Trump?

 

[Origanalist]

What is libertarian about hating Trump?

I never hated Trump until so many supporters came around insisting he was worthy of support. In fact I never gave a shit about him. But there is nothing about him that ties with liberty. He is a authoritarian.

 

[undergroundrr]

Paul reiterated his opposition to the Iraq War, but Trump went several steps beyond that, accusing the neoconservatives who surrounded George W. Bush of lying us into war: “They said there were weapons of mass destruction and they knew there were none,” he said at the South Carolina GOP presidential debate. “They lied.”

Raimondo has a very selective memory. trump took this @!#@#% line from Rand Paul.

From June 2014:

Paul said the same questions raised by Cheney in his op-ed could be asked of those who supported the original decision to invade Iraq. He also said he didn't blame Obama for the current crisis, pointing the finger at Cheney and other supporters of the Iraq War for the current Middle East chaos — and for "emboldening Iran."

"I think the same questions could be asked of those who supported the Iraq War," Paul said of Cheney's op-ed. "You know, were they right in their predictions? Were there weapons of mass destruction there? That’s what the war was sold on. Was democracy easily achievable? Was the war won in 2005, when many of these people said it was won?

http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-iraq-obama-cheney-bush-iran-2014-6

Jack Hunter, considerably more lucid than the clueless Raimondo, addresses the true line of influence here:

http://rare.us/story/ron-and-rand-paul-are-still-reshaping-the-republican-foreign-policy-debate/

Another stupid pro-trump thread by an RPF mod. This place smells funny.

 

[cajuncocoa]

//

 

[AuH20]

I never hated Trump until so many supporters came around insisting he was worthy of support. In fact I never gave a $#@! about him. But there is nothing about him that ties with liberty. He is a authoritarian.

If that is your guiding principle in selecting candidates, then you will sorely disappointed on this planet. Even Gary Johnson is an authoritarian of sorts.

 

[William Tell]

What is libertarian about hating Trump?

Because he is almost the opposite of a Libertarian -Ron Paul

That

 

[FindLiberty]

But if Bob Barr was a billionaire while running as the LP's candidate then...

lol

 

[Origanalist]

If that is your guiding principle in selecting candidates, then you will sorely disappointed on this planet. Even Gary Johnson is an authoritarian of sorts.

I wont vote for or support him either. Seriously, is not supporting a authoritarian now considered strange here?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I wont vote for or support him either. Seriously, is not supporting a authoritarian now considered strange here?

No, but it is strange to see the insane and relentless levels of vitriol directed against authoritarian aspects of Trump's personality, versus no similar contempt leveled at Johnson, who on many actual positions is far more authoritarian.

Why do you answer a question with a question?

I'm not sure how to answer your question because, first of all, I don't hate Trump. I don't like what he stands for, however. I agree with Ron Paul that Donald Trump is an authoritarian; therefore, I don't think there's anything "libertarian" about him.

Because your question has been answered several dozen times over the months on this forum, so I took it to be a rhetorical question. I focus again on the fevered nature of opposition to Trump, the converting of so many threads (whether the topic is the campaign or not) into anti-Trump screeds, and so on. What is libertarian about exclusively expressing so much vitriol, so often, against Trump?

Trump's campaign and outsider trend has been thematically and strategically beneficial to liberty on a number of fronts, and its key aspects (prioritizing America first and cultural issues over internationalism and foreign intervention, opposition to globalist trade deals, aggressively confronting establishment obstacles to liberty, etc) are far more consequential to reducing authoritarianism and statism.

When Paul declares Trump is authoritarian, he is addressing his positions, without reference to the themes or strategic progress the outsider trend represents. Indeed, when I have asked people to set Trump aside, and at least address the benefits of that trend, all I got was the sound of crickets. So I can only conclude that the opposition to Trump is mainly personality driven, and personality fixated.

 

[Origanalist]

No, but it is strange to see the insane and relentless levels of vitriol directed against authoritarian aspects of Trump's personality, versus no similar contempt leveled at Johnson, who on many actual positions is far more authoritarian.



Because your question has been answered several dozen times over the months on this forum, so I took it to be a rhetorical question. I focus again on the fevered nature of opposition to Trump, the converting of so many threads (whether the topic is the campaign or not) into anti-Trump screeds, and so on. What is libertarian about exclusively expressing so much vitriol, so often, against Trump?

Trump's campaign and outsider trend has been thematically and strategically beneficial to liberty on a number of fronts, and its key aspects (prioritizing America first and cultural issues over internationalism and foreign intervention, opposition to globalist trade deals, aggressively confronting establishment obstacles to liberty, etc) are far more consequential to reducing authoritarianism and statism.

When Paul declares Trump is authoritarian, he is addressing his positions, without reference to the themes or strategic progress the outsider trend represents. Indeed, when I have asked people to set Trump aside, and at least address the benefits of that trend, all I got was the sound of crickets. So I can only conclude that the opposition to Trump is mainly personality driven, and personality fixated.

There are plenty of posts denouncing Johnson, I would submit that only the ones denouncing Trump get your attention because of your strange desire to defend him.

That plus the fact that this site is over run by threads that attemt to spin the Donald in a good light so of course there will be more anti Trump posts in rebuttal.

 

[kahless]

People can blame it on Trump entering the race last year but if Rand had the fire in his belly and did not come off as Mr. Establishment he may have matched or even beat Trump. Trump was blowing it and people were looking for a polished anti-establishment candidate which would have naturally been Rand but there wasn't one. Rand rather became the defender of the RINO establishment. The wing of the party the voters despise.

If you watched any of Rand's events online last year it seemed pretty clear he had no intention of winning and was just running an educational campaign. People were worried about the economy, jobs, trade, immigration and yet Rand was going around making speeches focusing solely on police abuse issues. A subject that only a small minority concerned themselves with or limited to Progressive left that would never vote for him in the first place.

Rand seemed like he was running solely to capture the Colbert viewers which defies logic considering you cannot just with a small fraction of young voters on the left.

 

[JK/SEA]

i predict hillary will win by 50 votes....