Isn't a Trump victory good for a libertarian takeover of the Republican Party?

[dirtdigger]

I see support for Gary Johnson here but I have another line of thought. If Donald Trump wins, he cannot be controlled and is bound to destroy the careers of many people who belong to the Establishment without even realizing that he is damaging the Establishment. In other words, Trump will spread confusion in the ranks of the Establishment.

With Ted Cruz committing political suicide, the road is clear for Rand Paul to emerge as the leader of the anti-establishment brigade. Remember that he was in the lead before Trump joined the race.

OTOH, a Trump defeat only means that the Establishment gets to say "we told you so" and retakes the party. Rand Paul will have to play second fiddle to them in order to make any headway. A Trump victory will also have the effect of weakening the Establishment in the Democrat Party as the voters there are already furious at the election fraud committed by Hillary Clinton.

Why not let Trump do the job of destroying the Establishment? Of course, this post has nothing to do with policy positions or even voting for the lesser evil based on fears fed to us by the Establishment. Just an opinion based on sensing a cynical opportunity to destroy the Establishment's grip on the two major parties.

What do you folks think?

[CPUd]

Trump stands with Reince Priebus and the party elites. Go look at what they did in the Rules Committee; they took the rules changes from 2012 and made it even harder for grassroots conservatives to run a candidate in 2020. Most of his supporters have done very little to help nominate grassroots candidates in the primaries. They are either voting for the party hack or just going to the polls to vote for POTUS. This all but ensures in 2020, the GOP will run candidates equivalent to Bush and Romney, and will squash any candidate who goes against the grain.

[enhanced_deficit]

The amusing part of this development is that almost all neocons/swcbags/dgpbags etc are shaking in their boots at the prospect of his victory.
If he is just another puppet/political slave/purchased tool like others, why would they be standing against him with such unanimous force but not against Hillary?



Opinion: Khans show no low is too low for Trump: Max Boot
USA TODAY

No Need to Repent for Support of Iraq War
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/....-repent-for-su (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/.../iraq/no-need-to-repent-for-su)...
Commentary
Max Boot / Mar. 18, 2013

Neocon Pundit Max Boot's Post-Election Demand: 'Start a War Now!'
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/.../...emand-start-a- (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/.../neocon-pundit-max-boots-post-election-demand-start-a-)...
Nov 5, 2014 - Neocon Pundit Max Boot's Post-Election Demand: 'Start a War Now!' ...

[robert68]

If Trump wins, the Republican Party is controlled by his appointees and staunchest supporters.

[euphemia]

Party politics is a distraction from the real issues in our nation. Party elites/the donor class/whatever have done their best to install people who will help concentrate wealth and power among themselves, and they will do what's necessary to keep the power and wealth concentrated among themselves. That is why they chose the uberwealty Bushes. They tried to install uberwealthy Mitt Romney, even though nobody really understood what he did for a living.

It doesn't matter what kind of politics a person embraces. If there is wealth and power involved, then the wealthy and powerful will glom on so they can keep what they have and everyone else gets to pay for the transfer of more wealth and power to them.

What needs to happen is for us to educated ourselves and the people around us so we can elect people who are willing to snub the donor class in favor of a constitutional government.

Adding: This is what Gary Johnson is doing. He made money on technology and cannabis. And guess what? He wants to be President so he can make more money off cannabis.

[WTLaw]

Trump being elected would be horrible for libertarians. Trump is the most unliked candidate in history, and I think even his supporters would agree that that will continue even if the is elected. Midterm elections in 2018 would be a GOP bloodbath, with all seats lost going to the democrats.

What we need is a strong showing by the libertarian party so they get matching funds and notoriety, hillary squeeks out a win, but has no mandate, she sees huge democratic losses in the midterms (cause she too would be unpopular)...on judges she replaces ginsburg in her 1st two years, and the senate quickly confirms Garland before he is withdrawn. The last 2 years will be an uneasy gridlock with a deep red congress, awaiting a more libertarianish nominee (because in order to fight the LP, the GOP will have to shade in that direction)


Or we fail to have an electoral majority, in which case the house decides to elect Gary Johnson president. That is best case I think, and not impossible.

[nikcers]

If Trump wins all of the RNC flunks will be selling authoritarianism next election, not libertarianism. This is actually what Bill Kristol said when he was talking about the future of the republican party. He said that Trump was a good thing because they got rid of the libertarian strain, the Ron and Rand Paul's.

[undergroundrr]

Ideally, the race will be exactly split, hanging chads and all between trump and Hillary with no clear mandate for either and a historically high showing for third parties - constitution, LP, green, etc. I would love to see the LP get 5%. Unless you love the establishment elite and want them to preside over a 1000 year reich, you don't want Hillary or trump winning by 5-10 points with a clear majority.

[euphemia]

What we need is a strong showing by the libertarian party so they get matching funds and notoriety,

You are kidding, right?

[Antischism]

If Trump wins, the Republican party will be even worse than it already is.

[undergroundrr]

You are kidding, right?

You should be hoping for Darrell Castle to get the same. Pat Buchanan used matching funds. It's unconstitutional for it to be offered to trumplary but not to alternative parties.

[dirtdigger]

Agree he is with Reince Priebus but that can change any time. Nothing Trump does can be taken seriously. Which is good for us!

[Mordan]

my thoughts OP. But many are afraid. Anyways Trump showed the grassroots the qualities of a leader able to take on the corrupt media and establishment.

Rand seems weak and even a sell out sometimes. I saw how his father was weak and wouldn't fight the GOP establishment corruption. He would always allow the media to corner and own him. To his credits he speaks the language of his father so that's good. I like Trump. He is way better than Hillary. Ah sorry to break it to you but you need a somewhat tall guy.

[euphemia]

You should be hoping for Darrell Castle to get the same. Pat Buchanan used matching funds. It's unconstitutional for it to be offered to trumplary but not to alternative parties.

You are kidding, right? Aren't we against big government? Matching funds is one of the first things that should stop.

[goldwater's ghost]

The amusing part of this development is that almost all neocons/swcbags/dgpbags etc are shaking in their boots at the prospect of his victory.
If he is just another puppet/political slave/purchased tool like others, why would they be standing against him with such unanimous force but not against Hillary?



Opinion: Khans show no low is too low for Trump: Max Boot
USA TODAY

No Need to Repent for Support of Iraq War
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/....-repent-for-su (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/.../iraq/no-need-to-repent-for-su)...
Commentary
Max Boot / Mar. 18, 2013

Neocon Pundit Max Boot's Post-Election Demand: 'Start a War Now!'
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/.../...emand-start-a- (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/.../neocon-pundit-max-boots-post-election-demand-start-a-)...
Nov 5, 2014 - Neocon Pundit Max Boot's Post-Election Demand: 'Start a War Now!' ...

because he's an imbecile. to quote Tropical Thunder

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SUIHaCHFwoE/VsDUsKocemI/AAAAAAAAbKo/oirSfGy4yhI/s1600/retard.jpe

you guys gave us a choice of syphilis vs gonorrhea so we're voting libertarian for the most part. better to get crabs then VD.

Regarding neocons Only some neocons are standing against trump. Others are with him.. Didnt Sheldon Adelson give him money at one point?

As for swcbags/dgpbags I dont even know what those are.

The reason the entire country is against him is because he's a fool. and though hillary may be evil its much more dangerous having a fool in charge then a tyrant.

and he has no chance of winning. he has zero chance of sweeping florida, ohio and pennsylvania. its much more likely he gets swept in those three

[nikcers]

You are kidding, right? Aren't we against big government? Matching funds is one of the first things that should stop.

So we should support the person who is rebranding "big government' and calling it "great government". Thats somehow going to stop us from an unsustainable debt??

[TheCount]

Trump's victory in the primary has already shown that a sizable percentage of the Republican party is directly opposed to libertarian ideals. If he also wins (or even comes close) in the general, that would indicate that a majority or supermajority of the party is opposed to liberty.

How, exactly, would libertarians succeed in winning over such a party?

[LibertyEagle]

Trump stands with Reince Priebus and the party elites. Go look at what they did in the Rules Committee; they took the rules changes from 2012 and made it even harder for grassroots conservatives to run a candidate in 2020.
:rolleyes:

He ultimately stopped some rogue delegates from disregarding the peoples' votes and voting any damn well they pleased on the first vote.


Most of his supporters have done very little to help nominate grassroots candidates in the primaries. They are either voting for the party hack or just going to the polls to vote for POTUS. This all but ensures in 2020, the GOP will run candidates equivalent to Bush and Romney, and will squash any candidate who goes against the grain.

As opposed to some "libertarians" who are promoting an advocate of the Trans Pacific Partnership? lolol

Where is the "libertarian" support to primary Ryan? I've seen it with Trump supporters, but not "libertarians". What's up with that?

[LibertyEagle]

Trump's victory in the primary has already shown that a sizable percentage of the Republican party is directly opposed to libertarian ideals. If he also wins (or even comes close) in the general, that would indicate that a majority or supermajority of the party is opposed to liberty.

How, exactly, would libertarians succeed in winning over such a party?

WHAT? That is absolutely not true. Unless you are equating being libertarian with supporting the Trans Pacific Partnership, the overrun of our borders by illegal aliens and bringing in more inadequately vetted "refugees" so that our country can have nice little events like happened in Germany and France. Is that what you are saying?

Because last time I knew, sane libertarians were not for ceding America's national sovereignty; nor did they hate their country so much that they wanted to see Americans murdered by people who have no business being here. Sane libertarians also believed in the 10th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment and preferred that constructionists were appointed as Supreme Court Justices. These are all things that Trump supports.

So, as you see, your comment is ignorant as all hell and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are not intentionally attempting to mislead.

[LibertyEagle]

because he's an imbecile. to quote Tropical Thunder

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SUIHaCHFwoE/VsDUsKocemI/AAAAAAAAbKo/oirSfGy4yhI/s1600/retard.jpe

you guys gave us a choice of syphilis vs gonorrhea so we're voting libertarian for the most part. better to get crabs then VD.

Regarding neocons Only some neocons are standing against trump. Others are with him.. Didnt Sheldon Adelson give him money at one point?

As for swcbags/dgpbags I dont even know what those are.

The reason the entire country is against him is because he's a fool. and though hillary may be evil its much more dangerous having a fool in charge then a tyrant.

and he has no chance of winning. he has zero chance of sweeping florida, ohio and pennsylvania. its much more likely he gets swept in those three

So, you're just going full Commie and voting for someone who supports ceding a huge amount of our national sovereignty to yet another international ruling body?

Yeah, that's brilliant. :rolleyes:

[nikcers]

I feel like voting against someone because I hate the other person is sticking my head in the sand. Is it so bad that I think that Trump should at least become libertarian if he wants to inherit the Ron Paul coalition. I think at least some of you would sleep better at night if he pandered to us. You know like he does to AIPAC, and to the establishment. Instead his campaign strategy has been to subvert people by tricking them into thinking that he supports their pet issues. He makes racist people think he supports the wall, he makes people think he supports all types of stuff. Some of you think he was against Libya and Iraq when the MSM even colluded to sell that message on the morning Joe. How is the morning Joe a valid source?? Why can't he at-least give a speech on ending the wars, every time its how he is going to do war better, and make war great again.

[LibertyEagle]

I feel like voting against someone because I hate the other person is sticking my head in the sand. Is it so bad that I think that Trump should at least become libertarian if he wants to inherit the Ron Paul coalition. I think at least some of you would sleep better at night if he pandered to us. You know like he does to AIPAC, and to the establishment. Instead his campaign strategy has been to subvert people by tricking them into thinking that he supports their pet issues. He makes racist people think he supports the wall, he makes people think he supports all types of stuff. Some of you think he was against Libya and Iraq when the MSM even colluded to sell that message on the morning Joe. How is the morning Joe a valid source?? Why can't he at-least give a speech on ending the wars, every time its how he is going to do war better, and make war great again.

He's not trying to inherit anyone.

I swear, you guys seem to expect candidates to come up and suck your *****. The same type of requirements were posted here about Rand when he was still in the race.

Did you even listen to his foreign policy speech? Thomas Massie liked it.

[TheCount]

WHAT? That is absolutely not true.


Electing a populist dictator who promises to expand the power of the executive branch and personally "fix" all of the country's problems from on high at the Federal level is just pure liberty amirite?


You've chosen a single tree on which to hang the star of liberty while completely ignoring the rest of the fascist forest surrounding it.

[nikcers]

Did you even listen to his foreign policy speech? Thomas Massie liked it.

Did you even listen to his foreign policy speech? Where did he say end all foreign nation building and entanglements. Why isn't Ron Paul supporting him?? Is it all spite? Do you think he hates the country that much that he would help Hillary in your perspective with the election??

[CPUd]

:rolleyes:

He ultimately stopped some rogue delegates from disregarding the peoples' votes and voting any damn well they pleased on the first vote.



He sold out the party because he was afraid of being embarrassed. Again, one of the few actions he has taken, besides bringing a "free trade" globalist onto the ticket. If by some freak of nature he gets elected, he will do the same to the country. Otherwise, he leaves a top-down party with no one to fill it but more of the same folks who have been running it all along.

[euphemia]

So we should support the person who is rebranding "big government' and calling it "great government". Thats somehow going to stop us from an unsustainable debt??

So, you don't think libertarians should support their own values? You don't want people who paid in to Social Security to take their money back, but it's okay for a politician to match what other people pay to them? Where's the consistency?

[nikcers]

So, you don't think libertarians should support their own values? You don't want people who paid in to Social Security to take their money back, but it's okay for a politician to match what other people pay to them? Where's the consistency?

No I don't want people to get social security because its gone, its fucking gone. They shouldn't of spent it by voting the way they did.

[euphemia]

Then we should not borrow from China to give Gary Johnson one single dime.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

I see support for Gary Johnson here but I have another line of thought. If Donald Trump wins, he cannot be controlled and is bound to destroy the careers of many people who belong to the Establishment without even realizing that he is damaging the Establishment. In other words, Trump will spread confusion in the ranks of the Establishment.

With Ted Cruz committing political suicide, the road is clear for Rand Paul to emerge as the leader of the anti-establishment brigade. Remember that he was in the lead before Trump joined the race.

OTOH, a Trump defeat only means that the Establishment gets to say "we told you so" and retakes the party. Rand Paul will have to play second fiddle to them in order to make any headway. A Trump victory will also have the effect of weakening the Establishment in the Democrat Party as the voters there are already furious at the election fraud committed by Hillary Clinton.

Why not let Trump do the job of destroying the Establishment? Of course, this post has nothing to do with policy positions or even voting for the lesser evil based on fears fed to us by the Establishment. Just an opinion based on sensing a cynical opportunity to destroy the Establishment's grip on the two major parties.

What do you folks think?

Ding ding ding! This is exactly what I have thought. This is why I wish Rand would ingratiate himself with Trump just to have more influence. It sickens me that the likes of Pence are by Trump's side. Pence is the kind of true believer neocon who really believes the garbage spewed about Russia and Iran and Israel.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

The amusing part of this development is that almost all neocons/swcbags/dgpbags etc are shaking in their boots at the prospect of his victory.
If he is just another puppet/political slave/purchased tool like others, why would they be standing against him with such unanimous force but not against Hillary?



Opinion: Khans show no low is too low for Trump: Max Boot
USA TODAY

No Need to Repent for Support of Iraq War
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/....-repent-for-su (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/.../iraq/no-need-to-repent-for-su)...
Commentary
Max Boot / Mar. 18, 2013

Neocon Pundit Max Boot's Post-Election Demand: 'Start a War Now!'
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/.../...emand-start-a- (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/.../neocon-pundit-max-boots-post-election-demand-start-a-)...
Nov 5, 2014 - Neocon Pundit Max Boot's Post-Election Demand: 'Start a War Now!' ...


Max Boot is a deranged Jewish supremacist warmonger.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

Did you even listen to his foreign policy speech? Where did he say end all foreign nation building and entanglements. Why isn't Ron Paul supporting him?? Is it all spite? Do you think he hates the country that much that he would help Hillary in your perspective with the election??
he specifically said "no more nation building, no more regime change."

[nikcers]

he specifically said "no more nation building, no more regime change."

Hell no he didn't he might of parroted a talking point, but the dude wants to bomb ISIS when we are the ones who created ISIS. He fundamentally doesn't understand that to stop ISIS you have to stop creating ISIS. I was talking more about Trumps RNC and his speeches henceforth, the guy is selling Islamic fear. He isn't selling any real change to foreign policy on the Republican ticket.

[TheCount]

he specifically said "no more nation building, no more regime change."

For a change of pace now we're going to entangle ourselves supporting dictators rather than toppling them. For the American people that means no change.

[goldwater's ghost]

So, you're just going full Commie and voting for someone who supports ceding a huge amount of our national sovereignty to yet another international ruling body?

Yeah, that's brilliant. :rolleyes: I'm voting libertarian and voting to get the libertarians past the 5% threshold. How that became full commie on this site is beyond me. If the libertarian party gets over 5% I feel like my vote will have mattered. There is no way in hell I am voting for liberal tyrant like Hillary or an emotionally unstable, meglomaniac who can't even string together a coherent thought past two sentences

[Ender]

I'm voting libertarian and voting to get the libertarians past the 5% threshold. How that became full commie on this site is beyond me. If th I will feel le libertarian party gets over 5% I feel like my vote will have mattered. There is no way in hell I am voting for liberal tyrant like Hillary or an emotionally unstable, meglomaniac who can't even string together a coherent thought past two sentences

Agree.

[Ender]

Hell no he didn't he might of parroted a talking point, but the dude wants to bomb ISIS when we are the ones who created ISIS. He fundamentally doesn't understand that to stop ISIS you have to stop creating ISIS. I was talking more about Trumps RNC and his speeches henceforth, the guy is selling Islamic fear. He isn't selling any real change to foreign policy on the Republican ticket.

Yep.

He wants to increase the military and make it stronger, bomb ISIS, and get rid of the "terrible Iran deal".

Sounds like war will be going where no man has gone before.

[dirtdigger]

Trump's victory in the primary has already shown that a sizable percentage of the Republican party is directly opposed to libertarian ideals. If he also wins (or even comes close) in the general, that would indicate that a majority or supermajority of the party is opposed to liberty.

How, exactly, would libertarians succeed in winning over such a party?

This is not the correct reading of the situation and is also a very one dimensional way of thinking. A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment.

It does not mean that they support Trump's positions. Not everything is about supporting a position. When you know that there is going to be no change with the other candidates, why not encourage the candidate who will create confusion in the ranks of your enemies? Support for Trump is merely a FUD strategy.

Once the Establishment's grip on the party is destroyed, you can think over libertarians winning over the party. Otherwise, you have already let the Establishment define the process for you and convince you that the method of taking over the party is by voting in a democratic setup because such votes are along ideological lines. I for one do not buy that nonsense.

The only way you can claim that everyone who votes Trump is opposed to liberty is by accepting that the framework in which your thought process functions is the one constructed by the Establishment and you have accepted their framework.

[cindy25]

Trump will leave 2020 open, he won't run again. but the 2020 winner must be against trade deals and open borders. could be Rand but could also be Dave Brat

[LibertyEagle]

I'm voting libertarian and voting to get the libertarians past the 5% threshold. How that became full commie on this site is beyond me. If the libertarian party gets over 5% I feel like my vote will have mattered. There is no way in hell I am voting for liberal tyrant like Hillary or an emotionally unstable, meglomaniac who can't even string together a coherent thought past two sentences

No, you are voting Libertarian; most certainly NOT libertarian.

[LibertyEagle]

Yep.

He wants to increase the military and make it stronger, bomb ISIS, and get rid of the "terrible Iran deal".

Sounds like war will be going where no man has gone before.

Nope. If you want war, it's Hillary that will bring it to you. She is dying to start a war with Russia and to get Assad overthrown in Syria.

[juleswin]

Electing a populist dictator who promises to expand the power of the executive branch and personally "fix" all of the country's problems from on high at the Federal level is just pure liberty amirite?


You've chosen a single tree on which to hang the star of liberty while completely ignoring the rest of the fascist forest surrounding it.

An older version of Stephan would have agreed with you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WA-kfz15ZU

[SilentBull]

This is not the correct reading of the situation and is also a very one dimensional way of thinking. A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment.

It does not mean that they support Trump's positions. Not everything is about supporting a position. When you know that there is going to be no change with the other candidates, why not encourage the candidate who will create confusion in the ranks of your enemies? Support for Trump is merely a FUD strategy.

Once the Establishment's grip on the party is destroyed, you can think over libertarians winning over the party. Otherwise, you have already let the Establishment define the process for you and convince you that the method of taking over the party is by voting in a democratic setup because such votes are along ideological lines. I for one do not buy that nonsense.

The only way you can claim that everyone who votes Trump is opposed to liberty is by accepting that the framework in which your thought process functions is the one constructed by the Establishment and you have accepted their framework.

The concern is that if Trump actually does win, republicans will fall in line. They'll have no reason to support small government because they'll be in power, and their new leader isn't a small government guy.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

Hell no he didn't he might of parroted a talking point, but the dude wants to bomb ISIS when we are the ones who created ISIS. He fundamentally doesn't understand that to stop ISIS you have to stop creating ISIS. I was talking more about Trumps RNC and his speeches henceforth, the guy is selling Islamic fear. He isn't selling any real change to foreign policy on the Republican ticket.


Bombing the hell out of ISIS, without Syrian permission may not be wise, but it is not regime change. He did say those things, and given that they aren't so popular with the GOP establishment, I believe him.

[AtlantaIconoclast]

For a change of pace now we're going to entangle ourselves supporting dictators rather than toppling them. For the American people that means no change.


Which dictators are you talking about?

[LibertyEagle]

Did you even listen to his foreign policy speech? Where did he say end all foreign nation building and entanglements.
Yeah, I listened to it a couple of times and if you actually did yourself, you would know that at least his words are that he is not for empire-building.


Why isn't Ron Paul supporting him?? Is it all spite? Do you think he hates the country that much that he would help Hillary in your perspective with the election??
Ron Paul is a purist. He apparently wants someone to state what they would like in never never land, even though, as he admitted himself while running, he would never be able to actually DO.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm voting libertarian and voting to get the libertarians past the 5% threshold. How that became full commie on this site is beyond me. If the libertarian party gets over 5% I feel like my vote will have mattered. There is no way in hell I am voting for liberal tyrant like Hillary or an emotionally unstable, meglomaniac who can't even string together a coherent thought past two sentences

So much for issues, right, Ghost? :rolleyes:

[ronpaulhawaii]

...A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment...

I wonder that paleo-libertarians are jealous seeing Trump employ their "David Duke" strategy. I still can't understand how they can justify supporting a paleo-authoritarian, but they certainly use a lot of logical fallacies to excuse it...

[LibertyEagle]

I wonder that paleo-libertarians are jealous seeing Trump employ their "David Duke" strategy. I still can't understand how they can justify supporting a paleo-authoritarian, but they certainly use a lot of logical fallacies to excuse it...

Huh? Is that akin to saying Ron Paul employed a "Don Black" strategy, or why else would you attribute an entire candidacy to one supporter?

[ronpaulhawaii]

Huh? Is that akin to saying Ron Paul employed a "Don Black" strategy, or why else would you attribute an entire candidacy to one supporter?

You should know as well as any that the "David Duke" strategy is what attracted people like Don Black. This was not a RP strategy, but was of his associates...

[dirtdigger]

I wonder that paleo-libertarians are jealous seeing Trump employ their "David Duke" strategy. I still can't understand how they can justify supporting a paleo-authoritarian, but they certainly use a lot of logical fallacies to excuse it...

It is just smart to set your enemies against one another and allow them to weaken/destroy each other. This does not mean you support the positions of the one you use to serve your purpose of weakening the enemy standing in your way.

[LibertyEagle]

You should know as well as any that the "David Duke" strategy is what attracted people like Don Black. This was not a RP strategy, but was of his associates...

Honestly, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Instead of beating around the bushes, why not just say whatever it is you are trying to say.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Honestly, I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. Instead of beating around the bushes, why not just say whatever it is you are trying to say.

Who wrote the newsletters? Aren't most of that wing now supporting Trump?

[Ender]

So much for issues, right, Ghost? :rolleyes:

How about REAL issues?


Trump Speech
We’ve had a president who dislikes our friends and bows to our enemies.
He negotiated a disastrous deal with Iran, and then we watched them ignore its terms, even before the ink was dry.
Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and, under a Trump Administration, will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

All of this without even mentioning the humiliation of the United States with Iran’s treatment of our ten captured sailors. (BS)
In negotiation, you must be willing to walk. The Iran deal, like so many of our worst agreements, is the result of not being willing to leave the table. When the other side knows you’re not going to walk, it becomes absolutely impossible to win.

At the same time, your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them.

Containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.

Events may require the use of military force. But it’s also a philosophical struggle, like our long struggle in the Cold War.
We will spend what we need to rebuild our military. It is the cheapest investment we can make. We will develop, build and purchase the best equipment known to mankind. Our military dominance must be unquestioned.

A great country also takes care of its warriors. Our commitment to them is absolute. A Trump Administration will give our service men and women the best equipment and support in the world when they serve, and the best care in the world when they return as veterans to civilian life.

In the Middle East, our goals must be to defeat terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change. We need to be clear-sighted about the groups that will never be anything other than enemies.

After I am elected President, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies, and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges.

For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure – grown out of the Cold War – to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism.

I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must fight to win. I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary – and will only do so if we have a plan for victory.

I will also be prepared to deploy America’s economic resources. Financial leverage and sanctions can be very persuasive – but we need to use them selectively and with determination. Our power will be used if others do not play by the rules.

Our friends and enemies must know that if I draw a line in the sand, I will enforce it.

Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries. (Unless, of course, they are Muslim.)



Looks like a War-Monger to me- but hey, let's just look at the "issues".

[ronpaulhawaii]

It is just smart to set your enemies against one another and allow them to weaken/destroy each other. This does not mean you support the positions of the one you use to serve your purpose of weakening the enemy standing in your way.

While some may consider it smart, I think it is one the stupidest ideas anyone who claims to support liberty (and justice for all) has ever come up with. Not only do these fools get in bed with people who salivate at the idea of ethnic cleansing, but they also taint ethical libertarians with guilt by association.

BTW - Machiavelli failed and was lucky to keep his head

[Peace&Freedom]

Who wrote the newsletters? Aren't most of that wing now supporting Trump?

When it comes to a certain wing at RPF, when all else fails, act like liberals and accuse paleos of racism.


Bombing the hell out of ISIS, without Syrian permission may not be wise, but it is not regime change. He did say those things, and given that they aren't so popular with the GOP establishment, I believe him.

Also keep in mind that Trump knows from advisors like General Lynch, or from the email leaks, or from admissions by Putin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww), that ISIS are mostly mercaneries supported by funding from oil sales from Turkey and other nations and covertly by US intelligence. This support is provided as a means of maintaining a pretext for the US intervention in Syria, the goal of which remains regime change by ousting Assad.

The real way to stop ISIS, he thus also knows, is to cut off the funding of ISIS and seal off the Turkish border, which would starve them out and make them easy to finish off within a few weeks of a military mop-up operation. Quick and temporary, done and done. But all of this too complicated to say in a sound bite or at a rally, so Trump has just collapses it into a "I'll bomb" or quickly take out ISIS. When Hillary talks about fighting ISIS, by contrast, she means the full neo-con regime change program of endless bombing, long war engagement and no-exit nation building.

[ronpaulhawaii]

When it comes to a certain wing at RPF, when all else fails, act like liberals and accuse paleos of racism.

That is a strawman. I haven't accused paleos of being racist. (see my comment above about persistent use of logical fallacies) To suggest they didn't have a "David Duke" strategy is ignoring historical fact though.

[Peace&Freedom]

That is a strawman. I haven't accused paleos of being racist. (see my comment above about persistent use of logical fallacies) To suggest they didn't have a "David Duke" strategy is ignoring historical fact though.

Nice evasion. If they had a certain strategy that you are describing using a term that is short hand for racism, that is a distinction without a difference.

[adissa]

This is not the correct reading of the situation and is also a very one dimensional way of thinking. A number of libertarians I know were mad at the status quo and saw an opening to teach the Establishment politicians a lesson. In their minds, Trump is the weapon with which they inflict damage on the Establishment.

It does not mean that they support Trump's positions. Not everything is about supporting a position. When you know that there is going to be no change with the other candidates, why not encourage the candidate who will create confusion in the ranks of your enemies? Support for Trump is merely a FUD strategy.

Once the Establishment's grip on the party is destroyed, you can think over libertarians winning over the party. Otherwise, you have already let the Establishment define the process for you and convince you that the method of taking over the party is by voting in a democratic setup because such votes are along ideological lines. I for one do not buy that nonsense.

The only way you can claim that everyone who votes Trump is opposed to liberty is by accepting that the framework in which your thought process functions is the one constructed by the Establishment and you have accepted their framework.Why is it that so many can say they're voting for Gary Johnson even though they don't support most of his stances on positions, yet at the same time not understand that this can also be true of those who are voting for Donald Trump? In many cases, both are making a statement.

[nikcers]

Why is it so many people can say they're voting for Gary Johnson even though they don't support most of his stances on positions, yet at the same time not understand that this can also be true of those who are voting for Mitt Romney? In many cases, both are making a statement.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Nice evasion. If they had a certain strategy that you are describing using a term that is short hand for racism, that is a distinction without a difference.

You seem to be suggesting, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement" was never written...

[TheCount]

Which dictators are you talking about?

At the very least Assad after we put boots on the ground there in partnership with Putin.

Several more countries to follow I'm sure. Because freedoms.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

the road is clear for Rand Paul to emerge as the leader of the anti-establishment brigade. Remember that he was in the lead before Trump joined the race.

I think you're being naïve. The republican party trump supporters are NEVER going to get behind a (mod edit) like Rand Paul. Only if he changes his message to start appealing to white voters like Trump did. Remember, Rand like only had 2 percent of the vote and was forced to drop out.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I think it would be easy for libertarians to take up a "get us out of the UN" type cause within the GOP if Trump wins. There will be openings, for sure. But sadly, most libertarians would rather take their ball and go home rather than hunker down when times get tough.

[TheCount]

I think it would be easy for libertarians to take up a "get us out of the UN" type cause within the GOP if Trump wins.

Trump has never said that he wants out of international organizations. He wants a more advantageous position within those organizations "or else" but then makes absolutely clear that the "or else" is a negotiation tactic.

[Peace&Freedom]

You seem to be suggesting, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement" was never written...

I am suggesting the strategy of that article was never racist, and was not a "David Duke strategy," or any other dismissive pejorative. Nor would the suggestion Rothbard made at another point that libertarians should forge alliances with the left, mean it was a "Karl Marx strategy."

[ronpaulhawaii]

I am suggesting the strategy of that article was never racist, and was not a "David Duke strategy," or any other dismissive pejorative. Nor would the suggestion Rothbard made at another point that libertarians should forge alliances with the left, mean it was a "Karl Marx strategy."

I didn't say it was racist, (but the strategy certainly attracted lots of them.) The entire first section of the essay is about David Duke, so it is no wonder that people describe it as the David Duke Strategy. You know, parts like this,


"David Duke picked up 55 percent of the white vote; he lost in the runoff because the fear campaign brought out a massive out-pouring of black voters. But note the excitement; politics in Louisiana rose from the usual torpor that we have been used to for decades and brought out a turnout rate- 80 percent -that hasn't been seen since the nineteenth century, when party politics was fiercely partisan and ideological. One point that has nowhere been noted: populism won in Louisiana, because in the first primary the two winners were Duke, a right-wing populist, and Edwin Edwards, a left-wing populist"


You may not like me using that term, but it is accurate.

[Peace&Freedom]

I didn't say it was racist, (but the strategy certainly attracted lots of them.) The entire first section of the essay is about David Duke, so it is no wonder that people describe it as the David Duke Strategy. You know, parts like this,


You may not like me using that term, but it is accurate.

He referenced a recent example election in the article, which happened to be the Duke/Edwards one. That dies not make it accurate to describe the plan in terms of the example. The appearance given by your associating it with Duke is to disparage the strategy, by connoting it with racism, even if you don't say it. You may not like my pointing out that impression, but it is accurate.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Trump has never said that he wants out of international organizations. He wants a more advantageous position within those organizations "or else" but then makes absolutely clear that the "or else" is a negotiation tactic.

I'm talking about capitalizing on Trump's positions and trying to take a pro-liberty angle on them. Starting a movement to get us out of the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. would be a way to do that. Trump can be moved if he's pressured enough, and that's our best bet if he can actually pull this off.

[CPUd]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Png0Zwu_JA

[brandon]

95% of people in the GOP don't give a shit about libertarianism regardless of if Trump wins or loses. I'm convinced all they want is a smooth talking alpha-male to make them feel validated and safe.

[ronpaulhawaii]

He referenced a recent example election in the article, which happened to be the Duke/Edwards one. That dies not make it accurate to describe the plan in terms of the example. The appearance given by your associating it with Duke is to disparage the strategy, by connoting it with racism, even if you don't say it. You may not like my pointing out that impression, but it is accurate.

I'm not sure how far down this rabbit hole you want to go, but you are trying to spin the fact that the essay praised Duke's strategy, and not much later a similar strategy appeared in the newsletters... If the paleos didn't want to be associated with Duke, they should have nipped it in the bud, instead they appear to have embraced it.

[Peace&Freedom]

The paleos are not spinning anything. The strategy is known as Right-Wing Populism, not "the David Duke strategy." It is simply the flip of the left coalition-building plan Rothbard had articulated BEFORE the time of Duke. The revisionism is being done by the anti-paleos, they are the ones doing the spinning.

[ronpaulhawaii]

The paleos are not spinning anything. The strategy is known as Right-Wing Populism, not "the David Duke strategy." It is simply the flip of the left coalition-building plan Rothbard had articulated BEFORE the time of Duke. The revisionism is being done by the anti-paleos, they are the ones doing the spinning.

I didn't say the paleos were spinning anything, I said you are. I don't know how you can deny that the essay highlighted Duke as a role model. Or that the newsletters sounded very "Dukeish" afterwards...

[Peace&Freedom]

I didn't say the paleos were spinning anything, I said you are. I don't know how you can deny that the essay highlighted Duke as a role model. Or that the newsletters sounded very "Dukeish" afterwards...

Neither I or the paleos were spinning, I suggested you are. I can deny the Duke smearing of the newsletters because I was one of the subscribers, and did not find them to be either racist or Dukish. Your view to the contrary is strictly your opinion, please stop insinuating that such an association is self evident, because it simply is not.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Neither I or the paleos were spinning, I suggested you are. I can deny the Duke smearing of the newsletters because I was one of the subscribers, and did not find them to be either racist or Dukish. Your view to the contrary is strictly your opinion, please stop insinuating that such an association is self evident, because it simply is not.

First, IMO, it is self evident that the essay used Duke as a role model and went on to dub the new strategy "Outreach to the Rednecks". So are you saying that if I had used the term "Redneck Outreach" (and then mentioned that though the essay suggested Duke had abandoned racist beliefs, he was still posting on Stormfront years later), you would have no objection?

And if you didn't see any racism in the newsletters, I hardly know what to say...

At best I find the new "Libertarians for an Authoritarian" confused machiavellian consequentialists, who are still enamored with this old, and IMO, dangerous strategy

[EBounding]

"Isn't a Trump victory good for a libertarian takeover of the Republican Party?"

This can be answered by answering these questions:
What does Trump think about libertarians? What does he think about constitutional conservatives?

The answer isn't very good.

President Trump will not tolerate people who demand that he adhere to the constitution.

Trump is causing problems for the establishment; that can't be denied. But I see Trump as "cutting his way in line" to the presidency and the establishment really resents that. But they're not going to be destroyed. Trump isn't inspiring a movement of "Trumplicans" to run for office. The "movement" is all about Trump not a specific ideology or principles.

[Spikender]

The only way the Trump candidacy/presidency could be good for libertarians is if it led to the dissolution of the Republican Party and the rise of the Libertarian Party in its place. And that might only be good for big Ls at that.

[Smitty]

Don't be the last libertarian to convert to the alt-right.

[Brian4Liberty]

You seem to be suggesting, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement" was never written...

Interesting article. Not a Rothbard disciple myself, and never read that article. Can't say I agree with with everything Rothbard suggested in that article. And it makes me wonder if Rand himself was not attempting to right the "wrongs" in Rothbard's proposals, specifically with regards to policing and civil rights.


The paleos are not spinning anything. The strategy is known as Right-Wing Populism, not "the David Duke strategy." It is simply the flip of the left coalition-building plan Rothbard had articulated BEFORE the time of Duke. The revisionism is being done by the anti-paleos, they are the ones doing the spinning.

The Rothbard article seems to simply use Duke's non-racist positions as an example of right-wing populism, as opposed to left-wing populism. Those positions were anti-establishment, anti-crony-corporatism, anti-oligarchy in nature. It was also compared to McCarthy. Can't say that the article was proposing something that would be called a "David Duke" strategy as much as it should be called "right-wing, anti-establishment" strategy, with Duke being an example of some success with that strategy, despite being a flawed candidate with a shady past. And it seems like Rothbard used that example to also point out the level of "forgiveness" that is granted on the left for "reformed" persons, as opposed to "once wrong, always evil" applied to the anti-establishment right.

Anyway, sounds like this is a long simmering historical battle, albeit one that many "newer" liberty movement people are unaware.

[LibertyEagle]

Anyway, sounds like this is a long simmering historical battle, albeit one that many "newer" liberty movement people are unaware.

BINGO

[JK/SEA]

does Hilliary want to audit the FED?

does Trump want to audit the FED?

anyone?

[Spikender]

does Hilliary want to audit the FED?

does Trump want to audit the FED?

anyone?

Pawns don't audit their masters, let alone question them.

[JK/SEA]

Pawns don't audit their masters, let alone question them.

Trump has come out and said he supports an audit.

just 'words' i know, but at least he said them.

[Origanalist]

Interesting article. Not a Rothbard disciple myself, and never read that article. Can't say I agree with with everything Rothbard suggested in that article. And it makes me wonder if Rand himself was not attempting to right the "wrongs" in Rothbard's proposals, specifically with regards to policing and civil rights.



The Rothbard article seems to simply use Duke's non-racist positions as an example of right-wing populism, as opposed to left-wing populism. Those positions were anti-establishment, anti-crony-corporatism, anti-oligarchy in nature. It was also compared to McCarthy. Can't say that the article was proposing something that would be called a "David Duke" strategy as much as it should be called "right-wing, anti-establishment" strategy, with Duke being an example of some success with that strategy, despite being a flawed candidate with a shady past. And it seems like Rothbard used that example to also point out the level of "forgiveness" that is granted on the left for "reformed" persons, as opposed to "once wrong, always evil" applied to the anti-establishment right.

Anyway, sounds like this is a long simmering historical battle, albeit one that many "newer" liberty movement people are unaware.

I don't think it's simmering anymore.

[Spikender]

Trump has come out and said he supports an audit.

just 'words' i know, but at least he said them.

That must have slipped my mind, but you're right, he did say that:

http://theweek.com/articles/620637/donald-trump-shockingly-sane-federal-reserve

I have admitted in the past that I haven't been paying as much attention in the past few months to politics but I'm trying to hop back on and catch up. Guess I gotta start keeping notes again.

[JK/SEA]

That must have slipped my mind, but you're right, he did say that:

http://theweek.com/articles/620637/donald-trump-shockingly-sane-federal-reserve

I have admitted in the past that I haven't been paying as much attention in the past few months to politics but I'm trying to hop back on and catch up. Guess I gotta start keeping notes again.


no problem. I posted a trick question for everybody...;)

[nikcers]

That must have slipped my mind, but you're right, he did say that:

http://theweek.com/articles/620637/donald-trump-shockingly-sane-federal-reserve

I have admitted in the past that I haven't been paying as much attention in the past few months to politics but I'm trying to hop back on and catch up. Guess I gotta start keeping notes again.

Do you think Janet Yellen is doing a good job?
I think she’s doing a serviceable job. But you never know if they’re doing a good job until about five years after they leave office.

[JK/SEA]

Do you think Janet Yellen is doing a good job?
I think she’s doing a serviceable job. But you never know if they’re doing a good job until about five years after they leave office.

my one year old grand-daughter could do her job....

END THE FED.....NOW.

[nikcers]

my one year old grand-daughter could do her job....

END THE FED.....NOW.

It's in the same interview, I didn't vote for Mitt Romney even though they added audit the fed to the Republican platform. That's when I decided that the platform was designed by the establishment to fail.

[ArrestPoliticians]

too hard to tell. My inclination is that it will displace both libertarianism and neoconservatism.

[WTLaw]

too hard to tell. My inclination is that it will displace both libertarianism and neoconservatism.

...until he loses in november.....

[fr33]

There are too many factors to say that a President Trump will be good for libertarians. We have no idea what he will do and how the public will react to it.

The Nominee Trump though has been a good thing to libertarians already because of this: So many of the now #NeverTrump republican pundits/bloggers/assholes who have told us in past elections that we were voting for the democrat by not voting or by voting third party, are eating their words by doing the same thing. Them and the people who follow them are being taught a lesson that a party does not own their vote, when in the past they promoted that very thing.

[RonPaulMall]

Trump is fantastic for Libertarianism whether he wins or loses in November. He's provided us the blueprint for success for taking on the establishment and the MSM. And think about the dynamics of the campaign he's running. The toxicity that he's promoting is amazing. For the first time ever, normal, everyday people are getting angry. The people who vote against Hillary just don't prefer another candidate to her. They despise her. They hate her. Even if she wins, do you realize how powerful it is for our movement if half the American electorate (and the vast majority of the productive half) views the President of the United States as nothing more than an evil, corrupt criminal?

https://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state

[CPUd]

Trump is fantastic for Libertarianism whether he wins or loses in November. He's provided us the blueprint for success for taking on the establishment and the MSM. And think about the dynamics of the campaign he's running. The toxicity that he's promoting is amazing. For the first time ever, normal, everyday people are getting angry. The people who vote against Hillary just don't prefer another candidate to her. They despise her. They hate her. Even if she wins, do you realize how powerful it is for our movement if half the American electorate (and the vast majority of the productive half) views the President of the United States as nothing more than an evil, corrupt criminal?

https://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state

There is nothing good about promoting/encouraging hate.

[RonPaulMall]

There is nothing good about promoting/encouraging hate.

Nothing good about it if you are Goldman Sachs. Or the Fed. Or the corporate elites that feed off the blood of the American people and require a docile and submissive public. But for the rest of us? Hatred is essential.

[fr33]

There is nothing good about promoting/encouraging hate.

Bullshit. Hating coercive government is the best thing modern man can do.

[fr33]

There are too many factors to say that a President Trump will be good for libertarians. We have no idea what he will do and how the public will react to it.

The Nominee Trump though has been a good thing to libertarians already because of this: So many of the now #NeverTrump republican pundits/bloggers/assholes who have told us in past elections that we were voting for the democrat by not voting or by voting third party, are eating their words by doing the same thing. Them and the people who follow them are being taught a lesson that a party does not own their vote, when in the past they promoted that very thing.
But seriously those of you who have twitter, please point out to them that #NeverRomney was the same thing as #NeverTrump.

[CPUd]

Bullshit. Hating coercive government is the best thing modern man can do.

Hate is a weakness, government has a way of exploiting it to maintain its structure.

[Occam's Banana]

The Nominee Trump though has been a good thing to libertarians already because of this: So many of the now #NeverTrump republican pundits/bloggers/assholes who have told us in past elections that we were voting for the democrat by not voting or by voting third party, are eating their words by doing the same thing. Them and the people who follow them are being taught a lesson that a party does not own their vote, when in the past they promoted that very thing.

I don't think they're learning anything. They'll just revert to form when next it suits them.

(What else are you going to do when you have no discernible principles of any kind?)

[cindy25]

Trump could end up destroying Ryan, maybe Ayotte and McCain. He ended the Bush dynasty. if he wins and detroys NAFTA, maybe NATO, that clears things for Rand

[Spikender]

Trump won't be able to get rid of NAFTA or gimp NATO. I just don't see it happening, even if he wins and has a good chunk of support still behind him.

[CPUd]

He'll stop talking about NAFTA when he realizes it costs him votes and donor money in TX.

Related:
Major NAFTA Proponent Among Trump's Texas Fundraisers (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496833-Major-NAFTA-Proponent-Among-Trump-s-Texas-Fundraisers)