Trump bows out of Aug 3 NH forum

[r3volution 3.0]

I didn't say they collectively owned the country, I said that they were the property owners of this country, it's a de facto statement, not a de jure one, though in a sense their individual property rights do amount to a collective reality given shared culture, activity, and a whole host of other things that certain libertarians tend not to account for out of a dogmatic adherence to radical individualism.

Anyhow, these "undocumented persons" are essentially squatting on somebody's property, so maybe instead of getting hung up on "individual...GOOD! collective...BAD!" we can just call a shovel a shovel and get on with it? Just saying.

Suppose there are 100 property-owners in an area.

Each individual property-owner may expel from his property whoever he likes (that is what ownership is: the right to control access).

But 51 of the property-owners may not force the other 49 to expel people from their property.

To propose otherwise is to propose collective ownership of all this property.

[hells_unicorn]

If you've read my thread on Trump's political donations then you'd see clearly who he's working on behalf of.

I read it, but I don't necessarily buy it. Lots of magnates will pay protection money to both parties in order to hedge their bets, it's essentially how America's Fascistic "mixed economy" works at present, I think the proper term for it is "pay to play", and anybody who goes beyond being a humble small business owner inevitably does this. I'm not saying it's a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, but the old "follow the money" cliche can often be misleading if you are not considering what the money may actually be paying for.

[hells_unicorn]

Suppose there are 100 property-owners in an area.

Each individual property-owner may expel from his property whoever he likes (that is what ownership is: the right to control access).

But 51 of the property-owners may not force the other 49 to expel people from their property.

To propose otherwise is to propose collective ownership of all this property.

But by your analogy, the several million migrants who take note of the prosperity of the 100 are well within their right to move on in, vote all 100 of the property-owners off their land, all because immigration laws are racist/collectivist, right? This is one of the reasons why I've started to move away from a full Libertarian position, since people who think this way are ripe for conquest by people who don't.

[devil21]

I read it, but I don't necessarily buy it. Lots of magnates will pay protection money to both parties in order to hedge their bets, it's essentially how America's Fascistic "mixed economy" works at present, I think the proper term for it is "pay to play", and anybody who goes beyond being a humble small business owner inevitably does this. I'm not saying it's a good thing by any stretch of the imagination, but the old "follow the money" cliche can often be misleading if you are not considering what the money may actually be paying for.

Perhaps, but I must have missed where Jeb and Scott attended Trump's last wedding, unlike Bill and Hillary who had top billing at his wedding.

[r3volution 3.0]

But by your analogy, the several million migrants who take note of the prosperity of the 100 are well within their right to move on in, vote all 100 of the property-owners off their land, all because immigration laws are racist/collectivist, right?

What? No. How did you get that from what I said?

I'm saying exactly the opposite.

[hells_unicorn]

What? No. How did you get that from what I said?

I'm saying exactly the opposite.

Because that's the political reality that you are working in at present, and will most likely be until kingdom come. I didn't just get it from what you said, but also from the implications of applying what you've stated to present day America. Countries exist, whether you like it or not, and they will continue to exist precisely because people are not naturally Libertarians and will never become so outside of a tiny intellectual clique with minimal influence. Being as countries exist, governments will likely exist, as will some degree of threat from invasive ideologies that will turn "the state's" guns toward you.

The abolition of democracy (which I support) will never happen absent either a forceful revolution or an enforceable secession, the groups that push for mass immigration have too much going for them to give it up willingly. And once something like this doesn't happen, participation in such a future system would have to involve exclusion of competing ideologies. End of story.

[r3volution 3.0]

Because that's the political reality that you are working in at present, and will most likely be until kingdom come.

You made an ethical argument, I made an ethical counterargument. I thought we were talking about pure ethics.

If you want to talk practicalities - what to do given that we live under a democratic state - that's another thing, about which I'll say this:

I don't believe that immigrants are likely to vote worse (or better) than the native population: certainly not after they've adopted the native culture. So the solution is very simple: don't grant citizenship to immigrants fresh off the boat. Have it so that they only get the vote after a period of time sufficient to ensure that they've integrated.

To the other big concern, welfare, again the solution is simple: no welfare for immigrants fresh off the boat. It doesn't matter if they become eligible for welfare decades after they arrive. There would only be a "welfare magnet" if they could get welfare soon after arriving (no one's immigrating to the US in the hopes of getting welfare 20 years later).

Finally, the economic argument against immigration (summarized as "muh jerbs") is just false. It's beneficial to the native population as a whole for the supply of labor to increase; it will yield higher output per capita (higher living standards). Yes, individual natives may lose their jobs to cheaper workers, but so what? People lose their jobs (or business firms lose their customers) all the time for the same reason: they're outcompeted. This is how a market economy works, and to our great benefit.

[hells_unicorn]

You made an ethical argument, I made an ethical counterargument. I thought we were talking about pure ethics.

If you want to talk practicalities - what to do given that we live under a democratic state - that's another thing, about which I'll say this:

I don't believe that immigrants are likely to vote worse (or better) than the native population: certainly not after they've adopted the native culture. So the solution is very simple: don't grant citizenship to immigrants fresh off the boat. Have it so that they only get the vote after a period of time sufficient to ensure that they've integrated.

To the other big concern, welfare, again the solution is simple: no welfare for immigrants fresh off the boat. It doesn't matter if they become eligible for welfare decades after they arrive. There would only be a "welfare magnet" if they could get welfare soon enough after arriving that getting welfare could plausible be their motive for immigrating in the first place (no one's immigrating to the US in the hopes of getting welfare 20 years later).

Finally, the economic argument against immigration (summarized as "muh jerbs") is just false. It's beneficial to the native population as a whole for the supply of labor ti increase. Yes, individual natives may lose their jobs to cheaper workers, but so what? People lose their jobs (or business firms lose their customers) all the time for the same reason: they're outcompeted. This is how a market economy works.

I wasn't making a purely ethical argument, I was simply answering an analogy with another analogy. Nevertheless, your practical solutions are a non-starter since the present government and a sizable minority of the "native" population will grant them their citizenship irregardless of your concerns, and they will further prevent any needed take over of the system in order to implement these practical measures.

Breaking down the demographic tendencies of voting blocks cuts against the notion that integration is really possible, even over a longer period of time. When you take into account the continual and stubborn existence of things like Chinatown, Spanish Harlem, and even the various subdivisions of various European groups, this sad little fairy tale that some strands of American Libertarianism imported from the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory begins to vaporize. Cultural assimilation generally only works at the individual or nuclear family level, and in larger groups, tends to be counteracted by miniature conclave economies forming.

My principle criticism of Libertarianism, and particularly Anarcho-Capitalism, is not rooted in consequential ethical assertions, but in causal misunderstandings of human epistemology. People, by nature, have both individual and corporate behavior tendencies, and simply treating familial and other group relations as some abstract social construct rather than a genealogical reality is fallacious, and I'd argue that the Ancap view of radical individualism falls into a similar trap.

[r3volution 3.0]

I wasn't making a purely ethical argument, I was simply answering an analogy with another analogy. Nevertheless, your practical solutions are a non-starter since the present government and a sizable minority of the "native" population will grant them their citizenship irregardless of your concerns, and they will further prevent any needed take over of the system in order to implement these practical measures.

Would this not also apply to your own proposed solution? That is, if the govenrment/voters won't allow us to deny recent immigrants citizenship/welfare, why would they allow us to deny immigrants entry (let alone deport those already here)?

Breaking down the demographic tendencies of voting blocks cuts against the notion that integration is really possible, even over a longer period of time.

The ideology of the public in general has undergone monumental changes in very short periods of time, which cannot be explained by ethnic changes.

For instance, the change in views on gay marriage in just the last few years: is that a result of ethnic changes?

Look at the ideological differences (in general, on any issue) between younger and older people of the same ethnicity. How can that be explained?

My principle criticism of Libertarianism, and particularly Anarcho-Capitalism, is not rooted in consequential ethical assertions, but in causal misunderstandings of human epistemology. People, by nature, have both individual and corporate behavior tendencies, and simply treating familial and other group relations as some abstract social construct rather than a genealogical reality is fallacious, and I'd argue that the Ancap view of radical individualism falls into a similar trap.

You'd have to elaborate before I could respond, as I don't know quite what you mean.

Incidentally, I'm not an ancap.

[Jan2017]

There really is alot of great discussion here from guys that are going at odds -
good reading but I'm gonna need some coffee first.

In general, I don't take the view that talking about Trump necessarily equates with worshipping him or something.

Take Fox with Murdoch and Fox News CEO Ailes at odds -
you can't NOT cover him, but then when you do it's the free advertising problem.

Trump phenomena or whatever you could call it is drawing crowds,
we all have to study it or at least wonder about it.

Rand does have to get off the billion dollar advertising line I think now . . .
I'd rather he just give that inevitable question a little bit of an
I haven't been able to pay attention/keep up yadayadayada -or-
too busy in the United States Senate business etc.

There have been important votes - the rewrite of No Child Left Behind etc.
he would rather talk about than Trump games/tricks/polling/whatever.
The candidates without a job to do for constituents got nothing else.

I need some coffee bad now . . . keep up the interesting reading material in this thread . . .

[kahless]

Considering where he is in the polls it was a smart move. No one is going to watch the NH debate. If he went whatever he says would be manipulated by the media up until the FNC debate and he would lose viewers. The national FNC debate is what you want people to see.

[Jan2017]

Considering where he is in the polls it was a smart move. No one is going to watch the NH debate. If he went whatever he says would be manipulated by the media up until the FNC debate and he would lose viewers. The national FNC debate is what you want people to see.

Yeah, except Faux News does five polls between August 3 and August 5 . . .
and with the memory span of the American electorate they get a . . . who's Trump ? lol

Seriously, though - Trump WILL take a hit in any poll done after the debate in which he's just not there.

[acptulsa]

It's interesting that Rand spends a lot of time doing things that don't appeal to the GOP base, but to getting new votes in the General Election, and then devil blames Trump for the loss of support from the base. Was he sleeping the last year or so?

Rand's strategy might pay off if he makes it to the general, but ignoring the tactic and blaming Trump is just ridiculous.

If you want more evidence, notice that Rand wasn't as high in the polls as he used to be even before Trump got in.

The fact that Republicans are abandoning a candidate who is busy positioning himself to win the general election in favor of a candidate who is busy making a mockery of himself and the entire Republican Party is not a sign that Rand Paul is doing something wrong. It is a sign that there are a number of Republicans stupid enough to shoot themselves in the foot, then follow Fox like lemmings off the highest cliff and into the sea. And, like lemmings, they've made the trip before. Obviously, Republicans don't want to win the White House--or, at the very least, it isn't even close to being their highest priority.

And here you are, night and day for years, doing everything you can to help. There's no doubt in any intelligent person's mind which side you're on, Doyle. And what will Clinton give you for giving her an elephant head on a silver platter?

[kahless]

Yeah, except Faux News does five polls between August 3 and August 5 . . .
and with the memory span of the American electorate they get a . . . who's Trump ? lol

Seriously, though - Trump WILL take a hit in any poll done after the debate in which he's just not there.

He may but he is so far ahead in the polls there is virtually no chance of him not being in the Foxnews debate even with a drop.

[jbauer]

Is it possible that the Donald has to actually work...unlike all the rest he's got businesses to run.

The fox debate is the only one that matters now and afterwords for quite awhile.

[Peace&Freedom]

My money reflects who I support. I've donated to Rand very generously. I'm loaded to the gills with Rand paraphernalia. But if Rand isn't in contention, I will vote for Trump if he's still a force. Beyond that, I'm not overly enamored with the field. I'm looking for someone to really blow up the political process in this country. I think Trump could do it under the right conditions. People need to stop playing the game. It's rigged. If Trumps' ascendancy can spread this notion, then he's a fantastic candidate, even if he doesn't know it.

If Rand can't win (and neither of the Pauls run third party), this can be our major party plan B for 2016. Neither Hillary, or any of the other Republican alternatives are good as far as liberty goes, but, if we can't prevail on positions this time, getting a win based on breaking the establishment's stranglehold on the nomination racket would be progress. A Trump victory can be the vehicle for that, if not useful for anything else.

[Jan2017]

He may but he is so far ahead in the polls there is virtually no chance of him not being in the Foxnews debate even with a drop.

Yup, agreed - Trump of course is in and he doesn't need St. Anslem debate.
I figure the first - or at least one of the first polls Fox would use, is the one shown on Saturday that has Trump at 18% and Rand at 8%.
The very last of the five will all depend on any last-ditch poll Fox could use, with some polling between Aug. 3-5.
Rand will be IN certainly on August 6, but Fox can use any last polling for leverage to get in someone from the bottom tier, or not.

It all depends on who Murdoch wants in - they wouldn't need those numbers if any Aug 3-5 polling goes wrong for Fox plans - spelled H-U-C-K . . .
and Ex-Gov of Arkansas has been getting bad press and fallout from his comments of course.

St. Anslem College debate on Monday - which Trump opted out of - is gonna be vital for someone on the bubble. Stay tuned.

[AuH20]

This is the sort of thing Trump will bring to the debates.

[AuH20]

They sound petrified of Trump. A Kasich adviser.

https://twitter.com/JWGOP/status/625810551243825152

[Jan2017]

This is the sort of thing Trump will bring to the debates.

lol

Well, the students at St. Anslem College , a Catholic (Benedictine) school in Manchester, NH do have some questions
already lined up for Mr. Trump, but his podium is regrettably silent . . .




I guess they can just use Trump's response to Moderator Tim Russert . . .
ya' know just to get his position on the record -



.

[juleswin]

lol

Well, the students at St. Anslem College , a Catholic (Benedictine) school in Manchester, NH do have some questions
already lined up for Mr. Trump, but his podium is regrettably silent . . .




I guess they can just use Trump's response to Moderator Tim Russert . . .
ya' know just to get his position on the record -



.

WHOA, that is my stance on abortion to a T. I couldn't agree more with what he said in that segment. I could see myself supporting Trump now if I was a one issue voter and that issue is abortion. I should grab the quote and post it every time someone asks me about my stance on abortion. Well articulate, very fair and very most moral stance I have heard from any politician running for POTUS.

[RonPaulMall]

He'll change his mind or he'll take big hit. It's one thing to ban a paper from your press conference, but he just looks childish by skipping a debate.

He won't change his mind because what he's doing is the smart thing to do. The Aug 6th debate is setting up to be one of the most talked about political events in recent memory. It is like a huge title fight and Trump will be looking to deliver a knockout blow to Jeb Bush. Why would he prematurely blow his load on some small time forum three days before the big event? That would be like Mayweather and Pacquiao holding an exhibition fight in Clark Fork, Idaho 3 days before their big Pay Per View. Trump is keeping his powder dry for the main event. There will be dozens small time forums he can attend in New Hampshire between Aug 6th and the Primary, but there is only going to be one First Nationally Televised Debate.

[Jan2017]

WHOA, that is my stance on abortion to a T. I couldn't agree more with what he said in that segment. I could see myself supporting Trump now if I was a one issue voter and that issue is abortion. I should grab the quote and post it every time someone asks me about my stance on abortion. Well articulate, very fair and very most moral stance I have heard from any politician running for POTUS.

Congratulations on finding your candidate!

As a libertarian constitutionalist you can support that position and advocate
for whatever candidate describes that - and your - position on the sanctity of life.

The interview is done by one of the finest moderators, imho, Tim Russert -
presumably before Iowa, and when Johnny McCain went against George W. Bush for the 2000 GOP nomination.
Bill Clinton had gotten impeached by the Congress earlier that year, as you recall.

Please spread the video clip and go viral with it, play it out loud in every university student union that you can -
and over wifi sitting in your Starbuck's or Airliner Diner in Iowa City as well.
Maybe you can get enough college freshman to go ahead and register as a Republican to vote for Mr. Trump in the GOP primaries and caucuses.

Good luck with that endeavor, and be sure to quash any mention of any questions for Mr. Trump by the students at St. Anslem.




Rand: "I have a question . . ."



.

[juleswin]

Congratulations on finding your candidate!

As a libertarian constitutionalist you can support that position and advocate
for whatever candidate describes that - and your - position on the sanctity of life.

The interview is done by one of the finest moderators, imho, Tim Russert -
presumably before Iowa, and when Johnny McCain went against George W. Bush for the 2000 GOP nomination.
Bill Clinton had gotten impeached by the Congress earlier that year, as you recall.

Please spread the video clip and go viral with it, play it out loud in every university student union that you can -
and over wifi sitting in your Starbuck's or Airliner Diner in Iowa City as well.
Maybe you can get enough college freshman to go ahead and register as a Republican to vote for Mr. Trump in the GOP primaries and caucuses.

Good luck with that endeavor, and be sure to quash any mention of any questions for Mr. Trump by the students at St. Anslem.

Hold your horses m8, the only way I vote for Trump is if he gave me $1 m and brought me breakfast in bed. Seeing as that will never happen, I won't be voting for him anytime soon. But yea, I agree with him on this one issue out of dozens of issues I care about.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

He won't change his mind because what he's doing is the smart thing to do. The Aug 6th debate is setting up to be one of the most talked about political events in recent memory. It is like a huge title fight and Trump will be looking to deliver a knockout blow to Jeb Bush. Why would he prematurely blow his load on some small time forum three days before the big event? That would be like Mayweather and Pacquiao holding an exhibition fight in Clark Fork, Idaho 3 days before their big Pay Per View. Trump is keeping his powder dry for the main event. There will be dozens small time forums he can attend in New Hampshire between Aug 6th and the Primary, but there is only going to be one First Nationally Televised Debate.

If it's so small-time, then why are all the other candidates attending?

[devil21]

He won't change his mind because what he's doing is the smart thing to do. The Aug 6th debate is setting up to be one of the most talked about political events in recent memory. It is like a huge title fight and Trump will be looking to deliver a knockout blow to Jeb Bush. Why would he prematurely blow his load on some small time forum three days before the big event? That would be like Mayweather and Pacquiao holding an exhibition fight in Clark Fork, Idaho 3 days before their big Pay Per View. Trump is keeping his powder dry for the main event. There will be dozens small time forums he can attend in New Hampshire between Aug 6th and the Primary, but there is only going to be one First Nationally Televised Debate.

It's amazing that people are talking about 'knock-out blows', yet the first caucus isn't for 6 months.

[Jan2017]

It's amazing that people are talking about 'knock-out blows', yet the first caucus isn't for 6 months.

And that Iowa caucus doesn't pick one single delegate (OK the Governor is automatic - 1 (went to Romney) ) for 11 months . . .

[Peace&Freedom]

If it's so small-time, then why are all the other candidates attending?

The other candidates need to attend to finally get some media exposure. Trump already gets all the air time, so he has walking power to skip it. His success is transcending the need to attend debates.

[FreedomProsperityPeace]

^ I hope that's his attitude.

[jj-]

Trump's absence in the NH forum will build anticipation for his presence in the Aug 6 debate. At the same time, it punishes the NH newspaper that attacked him.