Lew Rockwell: The Truth About Trump [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Rad

02-07-2016, 01:02 PM

Why is it when I read the above comment, I instantly thought of grade school kid whining?Because the man is just a huckster who puts out newsletters that were written like they came from a Middle School troll. He avoided talking about them when they came out during voting time in an attempt to destroy Ron by the Neocons. How much support did he lose? He repeatedly put down his meal ticket's son. Rand is a liar but he is better than Trump. A lack of judgement, character, and loyalty define Lew. All Lew cares about is being allowed to discriminate against others. He repeatedly brings it up along with sticking it to the man. Austrian economics supposed to work but he begs for money. For a guy who is obsessed with mammon he can't even generate revenue for a website. When libertarians stop looking towards these gurus and start thinking for themselves then the movement will go somewhere. Intellectual dependency on hucksters is not the way to go.

These guys aren't some saints to follow around and worship. Leave that to religion.

Suzanimal

02-07-2016, 01:11 PM

He's had seven years to start it. What is he waiting for?

He wasn't just talking about Obama.

Danke

02-07-2016, 01:21 PM

Because the man is just a huckster who puts out newsletters that were written like they came from a Middle School troll. He avoided talking about them when they came out during voting time in an attempt to destroy Ron by the Neocons. How much support did he lose? He repeatedly put down his meal ticket's son. Rand is a liar but he is better than Trump. A lack of judgement, character, and loyalty define Lew. All Lew cares about is being allowed to discriminate against others. He repeatedly brings it up along with sticking it to the man. Austrian economics supposed to work but he begs for money. For a guy who is obsessed with mammon he can't even generate revenue for a website. When libertarians stop looking towards these gurus and start thinking for themselves then the movement will go somewhere. Intellectual dependency on hucksters is not the way to go.

These guys aren't some saints to follow around and worship. Leave that to religion.

Rand is a liar?

Suzanimal

02-07-2016, 01:26 PM

Austrian economics supposed to work but he begs for money.

Rand is a liar?

I'm trying to figure out that ^^ line.:confused:

Rad

02-07-2016, 01:27 PM

Rand is a liar?He was on Iran. When he campaigned for his dad he told the truth but when it came to his own presidential run he started lying. http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-the-press-24-7/rand-paul-has-his-own-history-flip-flops-n337326

He also found it uncomfortable when he wanted to end welfare to Israel and his Lew moment concerning the civil rights act.

I don't know why an economist can't run a profitable website either. It doesn't make sense that he has to ask for handouts.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 01:28 PM

Warlord

02-07-2016, 01:28 PM

Thanks for posting. Lew is always a good listen and lewrockwell.com one of the best websites around

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 01:29 PM

A Major False Flag.

Sandy Hook? San Bernidino? Boston bombing? The thing about false flags is you don't have to wait for them. You create them yourself. So...what's he waiting on?

Warlord

02-07-2016, 01:30 PM

"Why authoritarians hate Trump" ...really?

Lew's a hypocrite, a huckster, and a traitor to the libertarian cause.

He promotes a man who embraces corporate bailouts, socialized medicine, Keynesian stimulus, and protectionism, all the while claiming to be a purist anarcho-capitalist.

Fuck Lew.

I refuse to finance him by giving his youtube videos more clicks.

He doesn't support Trump

Suzanimal

02-07-2016, 01:31 PM

Thanks for posting. Lew is always a good listen and lewrockwell.com one of the best websites around

I think so, too.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 01:31 PM

He doesn't support Trump

Yes he does.

He talks up Trump all the time, as one can glean from the title of this very video, without even having to watch it.

"Why authoritarians hate Trump."

If I made a post called "Why authoritarians hate Jeb Bush," for an audience which I know hates authoritarians, I would be making a pro-Bush post.

Theocrat

02-07-2016, 01:36 PM

"Why authoritarians hate Trump" ...really?

Lew's a hypocrite, a huckster, and a traitor to the libertarian cause.

He promotes a man who embraces corporate bailouts, socialized medicine, Keynesian stimulus, protectionism, and the police-state, all while claiming to be a purist.

Fuck Lew.

I refuse to finance him by giving his youtube videos more clicks.

In the video, Lew tried to justify his support for Trump by saying that Rothbard believed in populism. That's how warped Lew's thinking has become in his support for Trump.

Rad

02-07-2016, 01:37 PM

Warlord

02-07-2016, 01:39 PM

In the video, Lew tried to justify his support for Trump by saying that Rothbard believed in populism. That's how warped Lew's thinking has become in his support for Trump.

Again he does;t support Trump. He makes observations on political events for his blog.

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 01:59 PM

"Why authoritarians hate Trump" ...really?

Ummmm...Lew never actually said that. Here's what was said:

Infowars guy: "I hear a lot of libertarians having issues with Trump. I don't disagree with them. But I guess how I feel is that Trump is pushing the overton window up towards liberty. Even if that's not his intention. Whether it might be. But it seems he's inching that overton window, along with Ted Cruz and even Rand Paul, towards liberty. What do you think?

Lew: Yeah. I um...have my doubts about Trump. But I read where Justin Rainmondo said he was anti-anti-Trump. In otherwords he despised the people who were anti-Trump as they were the bad guys. So that has to count for something. Maybe Trump...who knows maybe there's a chance Trump will do something good. We know the others will only do evil. Maybe Trump will only do evil too. No human being should ever have the power that American president has. (Talks about nuclear codes).

@ 6:30 Lew and Infowars talk about how the left antiwar movement disappeared when Obama became president. The actual antiwar movement is small. But it has a lot of support among the people. Lew thinks that's a reason for a lot of the support behind Trump. People think he's an America first guy and is less likely to start a war because of that and Lew hopes they are right because he thinks Trump will be the next president.

The infowars guy asked Mitch McConnell wanting to sneak a bill through a war powers bill through that was not limited by geography or time or budget. So if Obama wanted to he could deploy U.S. troops on U.S. soil, martial law.

So this wasn't about "Obama pushing for martial law." It was about both sides greasing the skids for martial law using the legislative process. And what are they waiting for? It sounds like the bill didn't pass.

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 02:00 PM

In the video, Lew tried to justify his support for Trump by saying that Rothbard believed in populism. That's how warped Lew's thinking has become in his support for Trump.

Are we watching the same video? Lew never said he supported Trump in this video.

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 02:08 PM

Yes he does.

He talks up Trump all the time, as one can glean from the title of this very video, without even having to watch it.

"Why authoritarians hate Trump."

If I made a post called "Why authoritarians hate Jeb Bush," for an audience which I know hates authoritarians, I would be making a pro-Bush post.

Ummm....no. [b]That's not the title of the video. The title of the video is "The Truth about Trump." Donnay just typed that in as a video book mark but I think she did the conversation a disservice because Lew neither asks nor attempts to answer the question "Why authoritarians hate Trump." He quoted Justin Rainmondo saying that he (Justin) was "anti-anti Trump" because he can't stand the people who are attacking Trump. That's an overbroad statement by Justin but there is a ring of truth to it. I can't stand John McCain and he can't stand Trump. Same with Lindsey Graham. Same with the entire Bush family.

I haven't followed enough of what Lew says about Trump outside of this video to know if he does in fact support Trump. I do know that you have a knack of falsely accusing people of being Trump supporters. You falsely accused me simply because I pointed out once that Trump was parroting Ron and Rand's non-interventionist talking points even though that is so obviously true that Rand called Trump out on it once during one of the debates. Dennis Kucinich is really non-interventionist. That doesn't mean I think he would make a good president.

donnay

02-07-2016, 02:13 PM

Sandy Hook? San Bernidino? Boston bombing? The thing about false flags is you don't have to wait for them. You create them yourself. So...what's he waiting on?

Those were false flags, but they were not a major false flag. A currency melt down? A nuke? --something that will involve lots of casualties.

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 02:26 PM

Those were false flags, but they were not a major false flag. A currency melt down? A nuke? --something that will involve lots of casualties.

Again. A false flag is not something you "wait" on. If you have to "wait" on it then it is a naturally occurring event. What's being "waited" is the legislative underpinnings for martial law. That's what was being discussed in the video. "Obama pushing for martial law" was not at all discussed. It was Mitch McConnell proposing the bill that the infowars commentator and Lew were concerned about.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 02:35 PM

Ummm....no. [b]That's not the title of the video. The title of the video is "The Truth about Trump." Donnay just typed that in as a video book mark

I was under the impression that those sub-titles were from the video itself, but alright, it doesn't really matter.

There are many examples of Lew speaking well of Trump, such as in his post-debate talks with Tom Woods, along with numerous pro-Trump articles at LRC.

I haven't followed enough of what Lew says about Trump outside of this video to know if he does in fact support Trump.

When I get a chance, I'll post the evidence. It's been posted before here at RPF, there are several threads about it.

I do know that you have a knack of falsely accusing people of being Trump supporters

I'm in the habit of accusing Trump supporters of being Trump supporters; there are lots of them around here.

You falsely accused me simply because I pointed out once that Trump was parroting Ron and Rand's non-interventionist talking points

Link

Occam's Banana

02-07-2016, 02:37 PM

I don't know why an economist can't run a profitable website either. It doesn't make sense that he has to ask for handouts.

:rolleyes: Regardless of what you think of Rockwell, that is just ridiculous. Rockwell is not, strictly speaking, an economist - and even if he was, being a good economist is not the same thing as being a successful businessman. They are two entirely different and unrelated things.

Ludwig von Mises certainly was an economist - and a truly great one. Before he married his wife Margit, he told her, "If you want a rich man, don't marry me. I write about money, but I will never have much of my own." And what you sneeringly call 'handouts" had to be resorted to in order to keep Mises in his (otherwise unpaid) visiting professorship at NYU. So by your "economist = profitable = no handouts" statement, I guess that means Mises must have been a crappy economist ...

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 03:01 PM

I was under the impression that those sub-titles were from the video itself, but alright, it doesn't really matter.

I know. Donnay trying to be helpful instead injected confusion into the discussion with the bookmarks.

I'm in the habit of accusing Trump supporters of being Trump supporters; there are lots of them around here.
.
.
.
Link

Sure:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?485984-It-s-time-for-Rand-Paul-to-unleash-Ron-Paul&p=6059532&viewfull=1#post6059532

I said:

Trump's "wackiness" including saying:

1) We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.
2) We shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
3) Bush was ultimately responsible for 9/11.

And you said:

I'm sure Trump appreciates your support.

So I made three provably true statements about Trump an in response you falsely accused me of being a Trump supporter.

Krugminator2

02-07-2016, 03:11 PM

"The people who despise Trump are all the bad guys."

Just to reiterate, Lew is an imbecile and no one should take anything he says about politics or economics seriously. If people want to learn how to market a blog or newsletter to the bowels of society, then Lew is the person to go to.

Krugminator2

02-07-2016, 03:15 PM

Again he does;t support Trump. He makes observations on political events for his blog.

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHH

He qualifies it after ebulliently praising Trump. Even in this video, he said he had his doubts about Trump after speaking positively of him. He says it as if there is anything positive about Trump and just a few lingering doubts. If you have anything positive to say about Trump's politics, you are by definition not a libertarian. Saying there are just doubts about Trump is the understatement of the world. That's like saying, "I have my doubts about Hitler but you know the neocons hate him so what you going to do."

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 03:25 PM

I said:

Trump's "wackiness" including saying:

1) We shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.
2) We shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
3) Bush was ultimately responsible for 9/11.

And you said:

I'm sure Trump appreciates your support.

So I made three provably true statements about Trump an in response you falsely accused me of being a Trump supporter.

Fair enough, I may have been a tad overzealous on that one.

:cool:

But you can't deny that there are genuine Trump supporters around here, or - if you review Lew's comments over the course of this cycle - that he's one of them.

A moment's googling yielded this (relatively mild but still instructive) example:

Next, Dana Milbank–CIA pal and Skull ‘n Boneser–will reveal that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t like Donald, either. But what do R&B, two of the left’s favorite swear words, actually mean these days? We know they are attempts to silence, and that they are having less success at that, except on left-wing campuses. To a power-elite spokesman, it means a man who has opened up discussion on the centrally planned cultural and demographic revolution now taking place. How dare he? As with the whole panoply of leftist impositions, dissent must be crushed. Surely another attack from WaPo will accomplish that.

Lew's enamored with Trump's "un-PC" speech; i.e. Lew is a bigot and nationalist and is willing to praise another prominent bigot and nationalist, even though the latter stands for just about the exact opposite of libertarianism on virtually every substantive issue. I could say exactly the same thing about most every ********** on this forum. Now, it would be one thing if Lew was appraising all candidates pragmatically: noting their (alleged) strengths as well as weaknesses. But it's clear that's he's a pragmatist only for Trump. When Rand's under discussion, he mysteriously becomes a purist. Trump gets praised for every little, trivial, largely imaginary overlap with libertarianism, while Rand gets hammered for the slightest deviation. This is why I call him a hypocrite and a traitor to the cause.

...I can go on and on with examples, if you like.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 03:29 PM

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 03:37 PM

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHH

He qualifies it after ebulliently praising Trump. Even in this video, he said he had his doubts about Trump after speaking positively of him. He says it as if there is anything positive about Trump and just a few lingering doubts. If you have anything positive to say about Trump's politics, you are by definition not a libertarian. Saying there are just doubts about Trump is the understatement of the world. That's like saying, "I have my doubts about Hitler but you know the neocons hate him so what you going to do."

Oh good grief! Not debating your position about Lew. But this is ridiculous. "If you have anything positive to say about Trump's politics, you are by definition not a libertarian." Trump saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that we shouldn't intervene in Syria and just let "Russia fight ISIS in Syria" is positive. I cannot think of any real libertarian who would disagree with those position. We are letting the neocon hawks claim a false victory for driving Rand out of the race because we can't as a movement bring ourselves to admit that Trump (stole?) the very positions they are hating on Rand/Ron Paul for, namely being against the Iraq war (past interventionism) and being against the Syrian war (present interventionism). Trump is still a horrible candidate. He's a gun grabber and a land grabber. He would increase taxes if elected. His "bar all Muslims" position is stupid and unworkable. How are you going to know who is or is not Muslim? By their names? By how they look? Tariq Aziz, a member of Saddam Hussein's cabinet, was Christian. But to pretend trump never said anything good is to pretend that things are worse on the "promoting liberty front" than they actually are.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 03:42 PM

Oh good grief! Not debating your position about Lew. But this is ridiculous. "If you have anything positive to say about Trump's politics, you are by definition not a libertarian." Trump saying that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and that we shouldn't intervene in Syria and just let "Russia fight ISIS in Syria" is positive. I cannot think of any real libertarian who would disagree with those position.

If Hitler said that pot should be decriminalized, would you say something nice about Hitler?

Yea, from a detached academic POV, one can say that Trump has taken the right stance on a handful of issues.

But to praise him, a mortal enemy where it counts, representing the opposite of libertarianism on almost everything, in the midst of a campaign, is moronic.

...or treacherous.

...or whorish (jumping on the bandwagon for clicks/attention/money).

Ponder this: EVERY candidate, on both sides, has the right stance on some issue.

...broken clock situation.

Jeb talks about returning various functions of government to the states, for instance - find me the pro-Jeb articles on LRC.

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 03:47 PM

Fair enough, I may have been a tad overzealous on that one.

:cool:

:cool:

But you can't deny that there are genuine Trump supporters around here, or - if you review Lew's comments over the course of this cycle - that he's one of them.

Oh sure there are Trumpalumpas here. I've argued with some of them. People who glom onto the worst of the worst of the crap Trump says as if it was "the way to save America." Folks who think Ron Paul is wrong for taking the "Let's reduce the incentives for immigration" approach to the immigration issue. You'll get no argument from me on that.

A moment's googling yielded this (relatively mild but still instructive) example:

Next, Dana Milbank–CIA pal and Skull ‘n Boneser–will reveal that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t like Donald, either. But what do R&B, two of the left’s favorite swear words, actually mean these days? We know they are attempts to silence, and that they are having less success at that, except on left-wing campuses. To a power-elite spokesman, it means a man who has opened up discussion on the centrally planned cultural and demographic revolution now taking place. How dare he? As with the whole panoply of leftist impositions, dissent must be crushed. Surely another attack from WaPo will accomplish that.

Lew's enamored with Trump's "un-PC" speech; i.e. Lew is a bigot and nationalist and is willing to praise another prominent bigot and nationalist, even though the latter stands for just about the exact opposite of libertarianism on virtually every substantive issue. I could say exactly the same thing about most every ********** on this forum. Now, it would be one thing if Lew was appraising all candidates pragmatically: noting their (alleged) strengths as well as weaknesses. But it's clear that's he's a pragmatist only for Trump. When Rand's under discussion, he mysteriously becomes a purist. Trump gets praised for every little, trivial, largely imaginary overlap with libertarianism, while Rand gets hammered for the slightest deviation. This is why I call him a hypocrite and a traitor to the cause.

...I can go on and on with examples, if you like.

Yeah. Lew's white nationalism fits right in with his inartful editing of the Ron Paul newsletters. That said, there is a grain of truth to the claim that the globalists seem intent on turning North America into one big (un)happy country and open immigration fits that narrative. The issue is what do you do? Do you increase the power of the state to "fight" immigration as Trump and the **********s propose? Or do you seek to take away the incentives as Ron Paul proposes? I'm with Ron on this one.

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 03:53 PM

If Hitler said that pot should be decriminalized, would you say something nice about Hitler?

Yea, from a detached academic POV, one can say that Trump has taken the right stance on a handful of issues.

But to praise him, a mortal enemy where it counts, representing the opposite of libertarianism on almost everything, in the midst of a campaign, is moronic.

...or treacherous.

...or whorish (jumping on the bandwagon for clicks/attention/money).

Ponder this: EVERY candidate, on both sides, has the right stance on some issue.

...broken clock situation.

Jeb talks about returning various functions of government to the states, for instance - find me the pro-Jeb articles on LRC.

I could invoke Godwin's law at this point but I won't. :cool:

Let's go with the Hitler example. Are you familiar with the winter war? That's when Stalin invaded the Netherlands in an unprovoked attack. The west didn't come to the aid of the Netherlands because they didn't want Stalin entering into World War II on the side of Hitler. So who came to the aid of the Netherlands? Why it was Hitler. During the Winter War the Netherland soldiers used Nazi uniforms, weapons and equipment. That said, the Netherlands totally resisted Hilter's efforts to kill its countries Jews. So should the Netherlands pretend the winter war didn't happen simply because Hitler is seen, for justifiable reasons, as a "really really bad guy?"

By trying to pretend that Trump and Cruz have not taken non-interventionist positions on foreign policy, we are handing our real mortal enemies, the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world, a great victory when they really were defeated. The true warhawk candidate, Marco Rubio, came in third in Iowa. That's my point.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 04:32 PM

Let's go with the Hitler example. Are you familiar with the winter war? That's when Stalin invaded the Netherlands in an unprovoked attack. The west didn't come to the aid of the Netherlands because they didn't want Stalin entering into World War II on the side of Hitler. So who came to the aid of the Netherlands? Why it was Hitler. During the Winter War the Netherland soldiers used Nazi uniforms, weapons and equipment. That said, the Netherlands totally resisted Hilter's efforts to kill its countries Jews. So should the Netherlands pretend the winter war didn't happen simply because Hitler is seen, for justifiable reasons, as a "really really bad guy?"

I think you mean Finland, though I appreciate your point.

...but there's a difference between denying that Hitler/Trump did something good, and going out of your way to praise Hitler/Trump.

By trying to pretend that Trump and Cruz have not taken non-interventionist positions on foreign policy, we are handing our real mortal enemies, the John McCains and Lindsey Grahams of the world, a great victory when they really were defeated. The true warhawk candidate, Marco Rubio, came in third in Iowa. That's my point.

I don't think that Trump's (or Cruz's) vague, on-again-off-again flirtation with non-interventionism has much of anything to do with his success.

Krugminator2

02-07-2016, 04:40 PM

I

I don't think that Trump's (or Cruz's) vague, on-again-off-again flirtation with non-interventionism has much of anything to do with his success.

It is actually the opposite. Boobus thinks Trump and Cruz are the most hawkish candidates. That is a reason they like them. The top 3 most perceived hawkish candidates also happen to be the only three with a chance to win.

YouGov recently released the findings of a survey (https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/23/rand-pauls-foreign-policy-woes/) on the public’s foreign policy views. One question they asked was whether Republican voters perceived their candidates as hawks or doves, and this is what they found:
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/inlineimage/2015-10-24/hawkdove1-2.png

Theocrat

02-07-2016, 05:26 PM

Are we watching the same video? Lew never said he supported Trump in this video.

That's because you're not reading between the lines.

Spikender

02-07-2016, 05:28 PM

heavenlyboy34

02-07-2016, 05:31 PM

I feel like I read almost every article that is put out on lewrockwell.com every day, and I have barely read anything critical of Trump.

So there is definitely something going on when it comes to Trump on that website. They refuse to talk bad about him, and I'm not just talking about Rockwell. I think Ron may have written something about Trump that was featured on there, but I swear I can remember everyone but Trump and Rand getting badmouthed on lewrockwell.com by an author at one point or another.

Just sayin'.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-campaign-got-20-debate-tickets/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/paul-craig-roberts/trump-for-president/

You aren't reading what the LRC crew is actually saying. Typical of Lew-haters, and very reminiscent of the RP-haters.

Krugminator2

02-07-2016, 05:44 PM

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-campaign-got-20-debate-tickets/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/paul-craig-roberts/trump-for-president/

You aren't reading what the LRC crew is actually saying. Typical of Lew-haters, and very reminiscent of the RP-haters.

I am a Lew hater. What are you getting at with those links? You have a sympathetic article toward Trump and a link to something a Trump endorser said.

Here is how an actual libertarian writes about Trump. I highly doubt that Lew publishes fact based articles like this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420084/art-con-donald-trump-kevin-d-williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421676/trump-clown-candidate
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429510/trade-deficit-united-states-china-donald-trump

jmdrake

02-07-2016, 06:15 PM

I think you mean Finland, though I appreciate your point.

...but there's a difference between denying that Hitler/Trump did something good, and going out of your way to praise Hitler/Trump.

Being honest is being honest. And the honest thing is that Trump has taken anti-interventionist positions. Denying this fact is hurting the liberty movement. In thread after thread despondent posters drone on and on about how "America must just hate liberty" because Rand didn't win despite the fact that he made numerous obvious mistakes and despite the fact that he got triangulated. Really. It would be like Hillary losing the nomination to Bernie Sanders and all of her supporters saying "Well I guess we should give up on politics because clearly the democratic party doesn't care about women's issues."

I don't think that Trump's (or Cruz's) vague, on-again-off-again flirtation with non-interventionism has much of anything to do with his success.

Let's assume you're right for the sake of argument. Non-interventionism clearly didn't hurt them! As for "On again off again flirtations"...I have not seen any statement from Trump or Cruz walking back their opposition to the interventions in Libya or Syria. If you have one, please post it. And please something better than Ted Cruz "Let see if sand can glow" comment. That was about ISIS. And bombing the hell out of ISIS is not interventionism. ISIS is not a legitimate state and ISIS has already killed Americans so attacking them is justified even if they are a legitimate state.

John McCain wants to claim victory over non-interventionism because the first one out of the gate to call his plan to arm Syrian rebels is now out of the race. Got a quote from Ted Cruz and/or Donald Trump saying they are now ready to arm the Free Syrian Army and push for the ouster of Assad?

And for the record, the real "Hitler/Stalin" in this morality play is John McCain/Lindsey Graham. They are the real mortal enemy.

heavenlyboy34

02-07-2016, 06:34 PM

I am a Lew hater.

And an irrational one at that.

What are you getting at with those links? You have a sympathetic article toward Trump and a link to something a Trump endorser said.
It demonstrates your claim false.

Here is how an actual libertarian writes about Trump. I highly doubt that Lew publishes fact based articles like this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420084/art-con-donald-trump-kevin-d-williamson
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421676/trump-clown-candidate
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429510/trade-deficit-united-states-china-donald-trump

National Review is a well-known neocon propaganda outlet founded by one of the most famous and popular neocons, William F Buckley. Give yourself 3 hard and solid slaps across the face for even thinking that is a libertarian source.

Peace Piper

02-07-2016, 06:55 PM

He was on Iran. When he campaigned for his dad he told the truth but when it came to his own presidential run he started lying. http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-the-press-24-7/rand-paul-has-his-own-history-flip-flops-n337326

The arrogant little twit also lied about Russia and Crimea.

Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression
A TIME Op Ed By Sen. Rand Paul

March 9, 2014

In an op-ed for TIME, Senator Rand Paul argues that if he were President, he would take a harder stance against the Russian President for his actions: "Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community"

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.
http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/

These are lies. Russia did NOT "invade Ukraine". If anyone can prove otherwise, please do so.

It was incredibly sad that members of THIS VERY FORUM then decided to repeat Rand's lies - like parrots. Despicable. If one dared to question this outrageous behavior one was then subject to bashing from the deluded sycophants.

These 2 lies about foreign policy - Iran and Crimea- are unforgettable and unforgivable. The ONE BEST THING about his father is that he always told the truth about foreign policy. Unfortunately around 2011/2012 Ron somehow decided lying was preferable to telling the truth- specifically his lying about making a deal with Romney and then telling his supporters that he did not, allowing him to milk another few months of contributions (Jesse Benton needed to buy a house, a new Audi and gold watch for Ron's granddaughter after all (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-fast-rise-and-fall-of-jesse-benton-rand-pauls-most-loyal))

Time for Liberty minded truth seekers to find another name to run. I'll never ever EVER support another Paul again. The WORST THING that ever happened to Ron's message was Rand. Sad to say but the truth is the truth. Ron apparently thinks or thought letting Rand's lies stand was more important than telling the truth. He disgraced himself, his family name and everyone that thought he was a man of principle. But he made a lot of money- while his kid drove the Liberty train onto a dirt road- like some kind of reverse Magic- taking 20+% support to 4%.

"You can fool some people some times, but you can't fool all the people all the time"

And for the history impaired- one last posting of a warning from someone that sensed it was all going wrong- Penny Freeman, a former staffer. The signs were there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uB0xa3U7ho

NO MORE PAULS

Krugminator2

02-07-2016, 06:56 PM

It demonstrates your claim false.

National Review is a well-known neocon propaganda outlet founded by one of the most famous and popular neocons, William F Buckley. Give yourself 3 hard and solid slaps across the face for even thinking that is a libertarian source.

My contention is that Rockwell is sympathetic to Trump and you post two links from his site that are sympathetic to Trump. I honestly don't get what you are saying. How is posting something from Roger Stone... I mean. What? Roger Stone is a Trump sycophant. He is a Trump surrogate on TV. He worked for Trump. Lew apparently links to Stone. Don't you see that alone proves my point. On the lower right hand side the first podcast linked, it is Stone being interviewed by Lew endorsing Trump. There is a blog post titled Funny Roger Stone on the first page when I look now.

Kevin Williamson is a libertarian. A libertarian can write for National Review just like it is possible for a libertarian to be published on LewRockwell.com.

heavenlyboy34

02-07-2016, 07:03 PM

My contention is that Rockwell is sympathetic to Trump and you post two links from his site that are sympathetic to Trump. I honestly don't get what you are saying. How is posting something from Roger Stone... I mean. What?

Kevin Williamson is a libertarian. A libertarian can write for National Review just like it is possible for a libertarian to be published on LewRockwell.com.
Lost cause is lost. I'm moving on. ttyl.

Occam's Banana

02-07-2016, 09:54 PM

My contention is that Rockwell is sympathetic to Trump [...]
Lost cause is lost. I'm moving on. ttyl.

Rockwell is sympathetic to Trump. I don't like it, but it is what it is.

When it comes to Trump, Lew unfortunately (http://fee.org/articles/hating-the-establishment-is-not-the-same-as-supporting-liberty/) allows his otherwise admirable anti-establishmentarianism to get the better of his libertarianism.

But to suggest that he is therefore not libertarian is simply absurd - not to mention ironic and even hypocritical, given that many of his detractors who make that claim are among those who complain the loudest about what an exclusivist "purist" he supposedly is. Of course, the charge of irony and hypocrisy cuts both ways, what with Lew stroking Trump but turning his nose up at Rand. I understand why he does it. His arch-disestablishmentarianism leads him to overlook or play down Trump's manifold defects, while his arch-libertarianism leads him to stress Rand's inadequacies (if only by omission of reference to Rand's virtues). I don't really have a problem with the latter, but the former is irksome and unbecomingly smacks of special pleading. I have no doubt that were it not for this infelicitous "blind spot," Rockwell would pillory Trump without mercy.

As an aside, the same would almost certainly be true of of Murray Rothbard, too. Were he alive today, I am sure that Rothbard, being a man of deep enthusiasm in his antipathy towards the establishment, would be deriving great glee and satisfaction from Trump's candidacy - even more so than Rockwell, I suspect (though I think Murray would also be freer and harsher with his criticisms of Trump than Lew has been). Yet as misguided as that might be, "Mr. Libertarian" qua libertarian would be no less bona fide ...

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 10:23 PM

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 10:27 PM

I feel like I read almost every article that is put out on lewrockwell.com every day, and I have barely read anything critical of Trump.

So there is definitely something going on when it comes to Trump on that website. They refuse to talk bad about him, and I'm not just talking about Rockwell. I think Ron may have written something about Trump that was featured on there, but I swear I can remember everyone but Trump and Rand getting badmouthed on lewrockwell.com by an author at one point or another.

Just sayin'.

Yes re Trump, but Rand has been badmouthed by this crowd, a lot.

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 10:30 PM

National Review is a well-known neocon propaganda outlet founded by one of the most famous and popular neocons, William F Buckley. Give yourself 3 hard and solid slaps across the face for even thinking that is a libertarian source.

Yes, so even the reprehensible neocons at National Review are more critical of Trump's heinous policy positions than alleged libertarian Lew Rockwell.

ChristianAnarchist

02-07-2016, 11:13 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uB0xa3U7ho

NO MORE PAULS

I like Kokesh. I've met him a couple of times and he even did a video in my Ron Paul Corvette. I have to say I'm suspicious of this lady and her claims. Sounds like bad blood to me. Maybe she's angry for something that happened between her and the Pauls, I can't say since I have absolutely NO information. The one thing I do know is that the Pauls are consistently for LIBERTY and for that I thank them. They also seem to be as strait as arrows as far as being uncorrupted (at least no dirt has been published so far). In light of what I know about the Pauls I simply cannot take this woman at her word and I think everyone should take what she says with a grain of salt...

heavenlyboy34

02-07-2016, 11:19 PM

Yes, so even the reprehensible neocons at National Review are more critical of Trump's heinous policy positions than alleged libertarian Lew Rockwell.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/97/5c/59/975c59692943cb30e51f293bf087a528.jpg

r3volution 3.0

02-07-2016, 11:26 PM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/97/5c/59/975c59692943cb30e51f293bf087a528.jpg

National Review articles extremely critical of Trump's unlibertarian domestic policies have been linked.

Show me the comparable criticisms from LRC.

Rad

02-08-2016, 05:06 AM

National Review articles extremely critical of Trump's unlibertarian domestic policies have been linked.

Show me the comparable criticisms from LRC.Now that is one helluva task to undertake.

Peace Piper you are right. Rand was wrong on Russia too. I wonder if Ron approached Rand at all for his apostasy concerning his message. I'd be mad if I were Ron. Ron came out for Rand in order to get money out of people without anything to show for it. Campaign for Liberty became a joke.
Philip Giraldi (Ron's former foreign policy adviser):
I keep getting emails from the Campaign for Liberty (C4L), which represents itself as an heir to the Paul legacy, even though it is nothing of the sort. It is a money generating machine preying on the millions of Americans who have fond memories of Dr. Paul, constantly promising to do something important tomorrow but never quite delivering. It ultimately benefits no one outside the small group of scalawags that did so little so poorly in the 2012 election campaign, failing disastrously to get Ron Paul either nominated or at least having a seat at the GOP table to advance his views. They cut deals with the Romney campaign and even kept Paul’s unhappy supporters from disrupting the convention’s proceedings. In return Dr. Paul got nothing.
http://www.unz.com/article/ron-paul-vs-the-campaign-for-liberty/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ron-paul-vs-the-campaign-for-liberty

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 07:54 AM

It is actually the opposite. Boobus thinks Trump and Cruz are the most hawkish candidates. That is a reason they like them. The top 3 most perceived hawkish candidates also happen to be the only three with a chance to win.

And who's fault is that? The peacenik idiots in this movement! Rand SHOULD have come out hawkish against ISIS! ISIS is not a legitimate government. Carpet bombing ISIS strongholds "until the sand glows" is not interventionism. When I suggested Rand call for the bombing of ISIS oil fields to cut of their money supply I was viciously attack. Why? What is with people in this movement that never want to ever attack the enemies of the U.S. under any circumstances? Ron Paul voted for war against Afghanistan. And yes. I know ISIS is controlled opposition. So freaking what? Take the bastards out. The fact that Obama never really went hard against ISIS is imply proof that they are controlled opposition and the best thing to do is to take the bastards out. And for all of the hand wringing over killing civilians? Well civilians got killed when we bombed Afghanistan after Ron Paul voted for authorization to do that. Bombing oil fields (which Obama finally did....only he went after the ones in Syria), would have put civilians at minimal risk. And ISIS has a habit of ethnically cleansing out the civilians anyway.

When Rand finally started talking about taking the war to ISIS, jackass peaceniks like the morons at Reason.com were all "OMFG! Rand sounds like he wants war with ISIS! And he wants war because ISIS brutally killed a few Americans and broadcast the murders around the world. Seems like a shallow reason to go to war because....well there are Americans all over the world that could be killed."

Seriously. That's the stupid feces that was being pushed as "libertarian ideals" by the totally brain dead morons at Reason.com. Hamstrung with "allies" like this, no wonder Rand didn't put out any solid proposal for dealing with ISIS. BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE A PEACENIK PACIFIST TO BE A NON-INTERVENTIONIST!

I get it now. I finally it now. The Ron/Rand Paul movement has NOT been hobbled by the 9/11 truthers. It's been hobbled by the peaceniks! Donald Trump got away with attacking the 9/11 orthodoxy that Bush had no actionable intelligence prior to 9/11 and did everything he could to "protect us." Guess what? Trump rose in the polls! Americans don't mind hearing about how incompetent and/or corrupt their government is! Most Americans in their hearts believe and least some of their leaders are the spawn of Satan anyway. But when faced with an enemy ready to come in and cut their heads off, Americans want politicians to put forward a kick butt plan about what they are actually going to do about it. Okay. We've got the mad rhino blindly charging us. Take it out, then we can discuss the fact that it probably didn't like our flash photography. If you want to tell us to stop with our flash photography while you're killing the rhino, or at least pointing your high powered rifle at its head, that's cool too.

Really. Even though Ron voted for war in Afghanistan, he's gone too "peacenik" himself. In the wake of the Rand withdrawal from the race he released a rambling video about how "Sure the attacks in San Bernadino were bad....but we have violence in the inner city too." Who gives a crap? You can avoid violence in the inner city by avoiding the inner city. How exactly do you avoid random terrorism? That's what makes terrorism so scary. It's not the frequency of it. It's the nature of it. People are more afraid of plane crashes than car crashes because in the car you feel like you some control over the danger whereas in the air you are totally at the mercy of elements you have no control over. And yes, taking out ISIS will not end terrorism. But it will take away a home base and an inspirational symbol.

And taking out ISIS should be, and can be, done in a non-interventionist way. Sadly, it's taking Vladimir Putin to lead the way on this. He's working with the government in Syria instead of trying to "regime change" it. He's put together a coalition that includes France, Britain, Egypt and Iran. And while he's only operating in Syria, his Iranian allies have been working with the Shiite Islamic republic of Iraq. His method (in this case) is non-interventionist because he is taking out a clear threat to Russia by working with the national governments where the threat resides instead of trying to destabilize those government.

Rand was out in front on the importance of not destabilizing Syria. He was slow to the game on any proposed action to slow down ISIS. And when he proposed action he was sabotaged by peaceniks in his own movement. No wonder he lost a primary that he should have won.

H. E. Panqui

02-08-2016, 10:01 AM

spikender: "I feel like I read almost every article that is put out on lewrockwell.com every day, and I have barely read anything critical of Trump. So there is definitely something going on when it comes to Trump on that website. They refuse to talk bad about him, and I'm not just talking about Rockwell..."

:)

...i think the smartest people are looking to throw as big a monkey wrench as they can into the gears of the stinking, rotten, piece of sh!t republican party inc...

...people sense trump will say anything to win and in the process thoroughly embarrass and heap scorn upon the democrats, the republicans and himself!...great entertainment!!

...hopefully, this stinking spectacle (trump v. hillary...boycott both of them in the general) will exacerbate the hatred and scorn directed at the stinking republicrats and will convince even more people TO STOP SUPPORTING ANY OF THESE REPUBLICRAT PUPPET$!!! ...IN ANY WAY!!...ELECTORAL DEATH TO THESE GODDAMNED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS!!

..ah...that felt good!...

donnay

02-08-2016, 10:23 AM

All the hate in the thread is one of the reasons Liberty is going down in a blaze.

Sad really--I expected more from people on the Liberty forum.

LibertyEagle

02-08-2016, 10:34 AM

I feel like I read almost every article that is put out on lewrockwell.com every day, and I have barely read anything critical of Trump.

So there is definitely something going on when it comes to Trump on that website. They refuse to talk bad about him, and I'm not just talking about Rockwell. I think Ron may have written something about Trump that was featured on there, but I swear I can remember everyone but Trump and Rand getting badmouthed on lewrockwell.com by an author at one point or another.

Just sayin'.

You haven't been reading very closely then, because Lew and co. bashed the hell out of Rand. Lew personally on his Facebook account, ad nauseum.

That said, I listened to what the OP posted and it is well worth listening.

Umad

02-08-2016, 11:03 AM

Trump has my vote

Peace&Freedom

02-08-2016, 11:05 AM

And who's fault is that? The peacenik idiots in this movement! Rand SHOULD have come out hawkish against ISIS! ISIS is not a legitimate government. Carpet bombing ISIS strongholds "until the sand glows" is not interventionism. When I suggested Rand call for the bombing of ISIS oil fields to cut of their money supply I was viciously attack. Why? What is with people in this movement that never want to ever attack the enemies of the U.S. under any circumstances? Ron Paul voted for war against Afghanistan. And yes. I know ISIS is controlled opposition. So freaking what? Take the bastards out. The fact that Obama never really went hard against ISIS is imply proof that they are controlled opposition and the best thing to do is to take the bastards out. And for all of the hand wringing over killing civilians? Well civilians got killed when we bombed Afghanistan after Ron Paul voted for authorization to do that.

ISIS, like Al Qaeda before it, is a stalking horse for intervening in a country (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) and mousetrapping everybody into the whole program through the "we're just taking out the warlords/strongholds" caveat. What attacking ISIS has done is legitimize the mission creep that follows (no-fly zones, take out Assad, establish full-fledged control of the region for US purposes, etc). Whereas the best response is to 1) question whether there is a threat at all, or 2) eliminate our unnecessary presence or involvement in the region, which is usually creating the conflict, in order to defuse or de-escalate the situation short of more violence.

That is what motivates non-interventionists to avoid the "take out the bad guy cell" bait, not 'peacenik' pacifism. Exactly when has the 'limited' mission ever been contained to the original military objective? I can think of only two cases---a) the Bay of Pigs, when Kennedy refused to expand the "assist the rebel fighters" operation into a full war against Cuba, when the military tried to mousetrap him into it, and b) the Marine camp disaster in Lebanon, where Reagan withdrew troops following the bombing, instead of expanding the conflict, as the neocon advisors were screaming for him to do.

When we give the hawks any 'limited' military authorization, it gets used as a blank check for unlimited militarism. So while it was reasonable for Ron to have supported a limited police action against Al Qaeda, based on what was known initially, in hindsight it was an unwise action that gave the war party what it needed to escalate in every way that followed. For example, Afghanistan confirmed it was willing to capture Bin Laden, so long as he faced Muslim justice for his part in 9-11 and other crimes. The US ignored the proposal and immediately expanded the conflict to "taking out the Taliban," then expanded the mission to Iraq.

This is how it works in modern US foreign policy, unless we get back to limiting ourselves to supporting war only with a formal declaration of war as per the Constitution.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 11:07 AM

National Review articles extremely critical of Trump's unlibertarian domestic policies have been linked.

Show me the comparable criticisms from LRC.

:rolleyes: National Review doesn't give a flip as to whether policies are "unlibertarian" or not.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 11:13 AM

ISIS, like Al Qaeda before it, is a stalking horse for intervening in a country (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc) and mousetrapping everybody into the whole program through the "we're just taking out the warlords/strongholds" caveat. What attacking ISIS has done is legitimize the mission creep that follows (no-fly zones, take out Assad, establish full-fledged control of the region for US purposes, etc). Whereas the best response is to 1) question whether there is a threat at all, or 2) eliminate our unnecessary presence or involvement in the region, which is usually creating the conflict, in order to defuse or de-escalate the situation short of more violence.

Right. So the way to defeat the gambit is to take the bull by the horns and deal with ISIS is a non interventionist way! That is what Vladimir Putin did! He has completely outflanked the hawks who wanted to use ISIS as an excuse to take out Assad and instead used the conflict as a way to shore up Assad!

The liberty movement will die a well deserved death if people don't learn to get beyond such one dimensional thinking as what I'm hearing now.

This is what Rand should have said early on with regards to ISIS.

Identify the thread. It's not Assad. It's the militant groups trying to take out Assad.
Stop the funding mechanisms for ISIS. That means going after their oil trade and "charity" funding.
Isolate ISIS. Cut them off from any potential allies. Demand rebels stop fighting until ISIS dealt with.
Strike. In coordination with the Iraqi and Syrian governments step up the attacks against ISIS.

Taking a "We should do nothing because it's all a ploy" actually played into the hands of the globalists! They don't want ISIS destroyed. Putin is pissing them off right now. Before this election is over, there might not be much of ISIS left to scare the American people with.

This is how it works in modern US foreign policy, unless we get back to limiting ourselves to supporting war only with a formal declaration of war as per the Constitution.

And what formal declaration of war did constitution author Thomas Jefferson get before sending the marines into Tripoli? Oh that's right. None. Interventionist wars (wars against countries that did not attack us) have been done with declarations of war. (The Spanish American War immediately comes to mind.)

Non-interventionist wars, wars against non state actors and/or state actors that have attacked us, have been done without a formal declaration of war. A declaration of war is not what makes something interventionist or non-interventionist. When Navy SEALS took out Somali pirates that had taken an American merchant ship hostage that was not interventionism even though it was done without a declaration of war.

Edit: And your statement "ISIS and Al Qaeda before it" is itself part of the misunderstanding of ISIS. ISIS is Al Qaeda. It all goes back to "the base" or the CIA database of militants used to destabilize countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRUeJYFZ94

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 11:16 AM

All the hate in the thread is one of the reasons Liberty is going down in a blaze.

Sad really--I expected more from people on the Liberty forum.

The phoenix rises from the ashes. And if you weren't expecting factions in this movement to have at each other in the wake of Rand's collapse in Iowa than have you really been reading the forum all these years? There's been internal clashes since the early days when we first started running into each other online. Truthers vs anti-Truthers. Open-borders vs anti-immigration. Stormfronters vs everybody else. It's just the nature of the beast.

donnay

02-08-2016, 11:35 AM

The phoenix rises from the ashes. And if you weren't expecting factions in this movement to have at each other in the wake of Rand's collapse in Iowa than have you really been reading the forum all these years? There's been internal clashes since the early days when we first started running into each other online. Truthers vs anti-Truthers. Open-borders vs anti-immigration. Stormfronters vs everybody else. It's just the nature of the beast.

Of course much to the delight of the PTB. Makes their jobs that much easier to control us.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 11:40 AM

Of course much to the delight of the PTB. Makes their jobs that much easier to control us.

Naw. Uniformity is easy to control. It's easy to herd sheep. Ever tried herding cats?

69360

02-08-2016, 11:42 AM

Who Lew?

No, Trump.

I don't really have a harsh opinion of Lew like that. I see some good and some bad.

r3volution 3.0

02-08-2016, 11:57 AM

:rolleyes: National Review doesn't give a flip as to whether policies are "unlibertarian" or not.

You're missing the point.

Ostensibly, Trump is closer on the ideological spectrum to NR than to LRC.

...and yet NR has been more critical of Trump than has LRC - you don't find that odd?

Doesn't that call into question the libertarian bona fides of LRC?

Chieppa1

02-08-2016, 12:19 PM

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 12:24 PM

You're missing the point.

Ostensibly, Trump is closer on the ideological spectrum to NR than to LRC.

...and yet NR has been more critical of Trump than has LRC - you don't find that odd?

Doesn't that call into question the libertarian bona fides of LRC?

How is Donald Trump close to NR? Are they antigun and pro amnesty? (Trump actually is pro amnesty). Does the NR believe in eminent domain for private business? Is NR against the U.S. interventions in Syria and Libya? I'm asking because I don't spend all that time reading NR. But let's suppose everything you say is true and Trump is "close" to them ideologically. That doesn't mean NR wouldn't attack Trump out of jealousy. There have been more attacks here at RPF in the past 6 months directed Trump, Cruz and Carson than at Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee or even Hillary Clinton. I see a lot of threats directed at Bernie Sanders, but that's most likely because Sanders, like Trump, Cruz and Carson, pulls from the same voter pool (young independents) that we were hoping would vote for Rand Paul. (Trump, Cruz and Carson pulled from a different potential Paul voter pool, namely teocons.) So...yeah I'm missing your point but that's in part because you still haven't articulated it.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 12:32 PM

He doesn't support Trump, but he is really annoying when he talks about Trump. We get it Lew, Trump "mixes things up" and it makes you happy. You think you are some anarchist hero like Lysander Spooner.

Murray Rothbard once praised Che Guervera for "mixing it up."

https://mises.org/library/ernesto-che-guevara-rip

Like mentor like mentee?

Peace&Freedom

02-08-2016, 12:33 PM

The liberty movement will die a well deserved death if people don't learn to get beyond such one dimensional thinking as what I'm hearing now.

This is what Rand should have said early on with regards to ISIS.

Identify the thread. It's not Assad. It's the militant groups trying to take out Assad.
Stop the funding mechanisms for ISIS. That means going after their oil trade and "charity" funding.
Isolate ISIS. Cut them off from any potential allies. Demand rebels stop fighting until ISIS dealt with.
Strike. In coordination with the Iraqi and Syrian governments step up the attacks against ISIS.

Taking a "We should do nothing because it's all a ploy" actually played into the hands of the globalists! They don't want ISIS destroyed. Putin is pissing them off right now. Before this election is over, there might not be much of ISIS left to scare the American people with.

I know of no major candidate or office holder who has stated that there is no threat, or raises the point about the role of covert ops. There has been no such statesman calling the war par party on their constant "here a threat, there a threat, everywhere a threat threat" drumbeat---thus no one is playing into the globalists' hands. Russia's shut down of ISIS/Al Qaeda has been effective, but note Putin has bluntly called out ISIS as being merely mercenaries, not "threats" or "radicals who are out to kill us" as per US propaganda.

The point behind demanding a declaration of war is to fundamentally and structurally limit the war escapades, I didn't claim it would defeat the war demagogues altogether, or made the Founders consistent non-interventionists. My suggestion is only that I think that would be more effective harm reduction or containment of the war party, than giving credence to conducting 'limited' war actions whose track record turns out to be unlimited once started.

r3volution 3.0

02-08-2016, 12:51 PM

How is Donald Trump close to NR?

Closer than LRC, was the claim.

And does this really require explanation?

LRC is ostensibly an anarcho-capitalist, or at least radical minarchist, outfit; NR is a mainstream 'conservative' outlet.

LRC rejects (virtually) all existing government programs; it thinks government was already too large when the Constitution was ratified.

NR basically accepts the post Great Society status quo, the modern welfare-regulatory-state, just wanting some tweaks here and there - the same applies to Trump.

Trump's not calling for any reduction in the size and scope of government; he's not talking about eliminating any functions of government.

He's basically running as a technocrat - he won't change the machine in any meaningful way, he just claims he'll run it better.

So...yeah I'm missing your point but that's in part because you still haven't articulated it.

I don't know how I can make it any more explicit...

Trump believes in A through Z.

LRC believes in A, maybe, and rejects B through Z.

NR believes in A through W, and rejects X,Y, and Z.

One would expect LRC to have a more critical view of Trump than NR, because they have much much less in common.

Yet, since this is not the case, it makes one wonder if LRC really is the radical libertarian outlet it appears to be.

heavenlyboy34

02-08-2016, 12:57 PM

Murray Rothbard once praised Che Guervera for "mixing it up."

https://mises.org/library/ernesto-che-guevara-rip

Like mentor like mentee?

I am sure that his memory will live to haunt both Latin America and the U.S. for decades to come. Long live Che!" How come? Surely not because Che was a Communist. Precious few people in this country or anywhere else will mourn the passing, for example, of Brezhnev, Kosygin, or Ulbricht, Communist leaders all. No, it is certainly not Che's Communist goals which made his name a byword and a legend throughout the world, and throughout the New Left in this country.
Depends on perspective, I guess. Murray sought to make alliances with the Old Right and some of the "Left", as does Lew.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 01:01 PM

I know of no major candidate or office holder who has stated that there is no threat, or raises the point about the role of covert ops. There has been no such statesman calling the war par party on their constant "here a threat, there a threat, everywhere a threat threat" drumbeat---thus no one is playing into the globalists' hands. Russia's shut down of ISIS/Al Qaeda has been effective, but note Putin has bluntly called out ISIS as being merely mercenaries, not "threats" or "radicals who are out to kill us" as per US propaganda.

Okay. You have totally missed my point. I didn't say anything about office holders claiming that ISIS was not a threat. I'm saying the peacenik idiots at Reason attacked Rand for merely stating that would SHOULD fight ISIS! So...why are you trying to make this some other discussion than what I'm actually talking about?

Further, the issue isn't whether or not Rand should have called ISIS a threat. They are a threat. Not an existential threat but a disruptive threat. That said, Putin laid out, and then carried out, a clear plan to defeat ISIS. A candidate Rand couldn't carry out a plan, but he could have, and should have, more clearly laid it out. When he tried to he was attacked by stupid peaceniks who do not understand what non-interventionism means.

The point behind demanding a declaration of war is to fundamentally and structurally limit the war escapades, I didn't claim it would defeat the war demagogues altogether, or made the Founders consistent non-interventionists. My suggestion is only that I think that would be more effective harm reduction or containment of the war party, than giving credence to conducting 'limited' war actions whose track record turns out to be unlimited once started.

And how exactly did the AUMF that Ron Paul voted for limit anything? :rolleyes: The problem with a "declaration of war" against a non-state actor is that there's really nobody to sue for peace once they have been "beaten." And again, you are showing a lack of understanding of interventionist versus non-inteventionist. Thomas Jefferson didn't become an interventionist by fighting the Barbary pirates without a declaration of war. He fought a limited conflict against non-state actors who had already attacked us. And again I bring you to the example of the recent Navy SEAL raid against Somali pirates. Really should the action have been delayed to make sure we had a debate and a proper declaration of war? A declaration of war against a gang of thugs in speedboats? :rolleyes:

And lastly, your entire "declaration of war" argument has nothing to do with the presidential campaign. Someone on the campaign trail laying out a plan on dealing with an issue does not have to lay out every single step he would take to deal with that issue in order to effectively to communicate to the voters "I got this!" And the idiot peaceniks at Reason wouldn't have been satisfied anyway if Rand said "I will first go to congress for a delcaration of war against ISIS and then do X, Y and Z." They were upset with Rand for considering military action against ISIS period, because in their minds the highly publicized gruesome deaths of a couple of Americans were just acceptable loses.

r3volution 3.0

02-08-2016, 01:03 PM

Depends on perspective, I guess. Murray sought to make alliances with the Old Right and some of the "Left", as does Lew.

Somehow I don't think Murray would have voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 if Rand Paul had been running...

That's the thing.

If the only choices were Trump or, say, Hillary, well okay there are plausible argument on both sides for which a pragmatic libertarian should support.

But with a Rand Paul in the race, the idea that supporting Trump is some kind of pragmatic move is crazy.

Mind you, Lew and Company started Rand-bashing and Trump-humping many months ago, when Rand was still a very viable candidate.

It's not like this started only after it became clear that Rand wasn't going to win.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 01:11 PM

Read this https://mises.org/library/ernesto-che-guevara-rip and you'll see why you haven't actually made ore event articulated a point, unless you believe Murray Rothbard wasn't really a libertarian either.

Also you've missed my counterpoint, as in totally, that if I accept your claim of the ideological alignment of NR vs LRC that doesn't mean that one should expect LRC to attack Trump more than NR does. Again, RPF is more closely aligned to Cruz, Trump and Carson than Hillary Clinton, yet you see more attacks on Cruz, Trump and Carson than on Clinton during the past six months.

Closer than LRC, was the claim.

And does this really require explanation?

LRC is ostensibly an anarcho-capitalist, or at least radical minarchist, outfit; NR is a mainstream 'conservative' outlet.

LRC rejects (virtually) all existing government programs; it thinks government was already too large when the Constitution was ratified.

NR basically accepts the post Great Society status quo, the modern welfare-regulatory-state, just wanting some tweaks here and there - the same applies to Trump.

Trump's not calling for any reduction in the size and scope of government; he's not talking about eliminating any functions of government.

He's basically running as a technocrat - he won't change the machine in any meaningful way, he just claims he'll run it better.

I don't know how I can make it any more explicit...

Trump believes in A through Z.

LRC believes in A, maybe, and rejects B through Z.

NR believes in A through W, and rejects X,Y, and Z.

One would expect LRC to have a more critical view of Trump than NR, because they have much much less in common.

Yet, since this is not the case, it makes one wonder if LRC really is the radical libertarian outlet it appears to be.

jmdrake

02-08-2016, 01:13 PM

Somehow I don't think Murray would have voted for Lyndon Johnson in 1964 if Rand Paul had been running...

That's the thing.

If the only choices were Trump or, say, Hillary, well okay there are plausible argument on both sides for which a pragmatic libertarian should support.

But with a Rand Paul in the race, the idea that supporting Trump is some kind of pragmatic move is crazy.

Mind you, Lew and Company started Rand-bashing and Trump-humping many months ago, when Rand was still a very viable candidate.

It's not like this started only after it became clear that Rand wasn't going to win.

LOL @ Trump-humping. Sounds like a song.

Peace&Freedom

02-08-2016, 11:32 PM

Okay. You have totally missed my point. I didn't say anything about office holders claiming that ISIS was not a threat. I'm saying the peacenik idiots at Reason attacked Rand for merely stating that would SHOULD fight ISIS! So...why are you trying to make this some other discussion than what I'm actually talking about?

Because you are talking about distinctions between intervention against nations, versus interventionist police actions against non-state actors, that are irrelevant to the war hawks' use of both circumstances to justify and escalate the militarism rolling into full and nation-centered war regardless. In theory, the police action type of intervention is 'okay' in that it does not by itself commit one to pro-war intervention. In recent practice, it makes no difference---momentum is fostered to expand the situation into full war against countries.

THAT'S why it is reasonable to object to a so-called non-interventionist candidate calling for fighting ISIS. The objection is not trying to be pacifist, it's being realistic about how nearly every current 'limited action' against non-state actors, like night follows day, gets converted in to open-ended war and occupation against nations. That realism is not being 'peacenik,' it's being resistant to this camel's nose process being in any way encouraged by our side.

K466

02-09-2016, 07:31 AM

I would like to add one more thing about Lew. Ron Paul is supposed to be his friend and Rand was the best candidate running. A man who took the blame for Lew's screw up as editor. Rand was disappointing in some of his positions but he was still the best man running. If Rand was your friend's son who you agreed with on many things would you choose a guy who seems to be more personality than policy for President? Neither was going to end the Empire. Does loyalty mean anything to Lew? I don't see how Lew's actions towards Rand are defensible.

Clearly you did not pay attention to his blogs over the past year. Lew said many things in favor of Rand and remained very quiet when Rand did things that called for criticism. I was disappointed by it, but understand he felt that was necessary due to his friendship and loyalty to the Paul family. Having some positive things to say about Trump wrecking the GOP's plans is not taking anything away from Rand.

You want to see some real libertarian criticism of Rand Paul, go read the great Robert Wenzel's blogs and get back to me.

Krugminator2

02-09-2016, 08:06 AM

Clearly you did not pay attention to his blogs over the past year. Lew said many things in favor of Rand and remained very quiet when Rand did things that called for criticism. I was disappointed by it, but understand he felt that was necessary due to his friendship and loyalty to the Paul family. Having some positive things to say about Trump wrecking the GOP's plans is not taking anything away from Rand.

You want to see some real libertarian criticism of Rand Paul, go read the great Robert Wenzel's blogs and get back to me.

Robert Wenzel, or whatever the W̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶S̶t̶r̶e̶e̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶t̶ penny stock pumper's real name is, does not offer real libertarian criticism. He is a liar and a bad person. Every time I have visited his site it has been him either distorting a Rand position or making up a position.

For example this one stuck out. http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/06/rand-paul-appears-to-want-gop-to-play.html

Does that seem like real libertarian criticism to you? Rand was clearly saying that Republicans should focus on more on all of the Bill of Rights like the 4th Amendment. That is something a libertarian should support. Robert Wenzel knows this because he follows Rand closely. But since he is a liar, and that is what he is, he writes that Rand wants to deemphasize the Second Amendment

H. E. Panqui

02-09-2016, 08:19 AM

All the hate in the thread is one of the reasons Liberty is going down in a blaze.

Sad really--I expected more from people on the Liberty forum.

:confused:

....liberty??!!!...wtf???!!!

....stinking conservative republican hero ronald reagan voted for virtually every spending bill on the way to a federal government that consumed around 22% of GDP....and many goddamned republican/phony libertarian fools hail him as some 'free market' fiscal :rolleyes: hero....

...obomba's federal government spends just about same percentage and he is derided by said conservatives/phony libertarians as a big government socialist... :rolleyes:

....even the local hero rand with a dream team of stinking conservative republicans in congress would consume around 19% of GDP...

...hopefully someday the blithering republican zipperheads get some math...:mad:

K466

02-09-2016, 11:09 AM

Robert Wenzel, or whatever the W̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶S̶t̶r̶e̶e̶t̶ ̶e̶x̶p̶e̶r̶t̶ penny stock pumper's real name is, does not offer real libertarian criticism. He is a liar and a bad person. Every time I have visited his site it has been him either distorting a Rand position or making up a position.

For example this one stuck out. http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/06/rand-paul-appears-to-want-gop-to-play.html

Does that seem like real libertarian criticism to you? Rand was clearly saying that Republicans should focus on more on all of the Bill of Rights like the 4th Amendment. That is something a libertarian should support. Robert Wenzel knows this because he follows Rand closely. But since he is a liar, and that is what he is, he writes that Rand wants to deemphasize the Second Amendment

I'm realistic. Out of 100 posts (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/epjs-rand-paul-resource-page.html) he does on Rand, about 5 of them are not good. That is one of them. I even convinced him to take one down a couple of years ago. But to ignore the (http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/06/outrageous-rand-paul-calls-for-value.html) vast (http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/10/omg-rand-is-being-prepped-by.html) majority (http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/10/why-didnt-rand-paul-cause-this-to.html) of (http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/11/rand-paul-proud-to-be-member-of-team.html) very (http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/10/rand-paul-realism-and-his-foreign.html) real (http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/10/is-chris-christie-better-on-minimum.html) libertarian (http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/05/oh-great.html) criticisms (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/09/the-problem-with-rand-paul.html) he does make is silly.