Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 271 to 298 of 298

Thread: "Libertarians for Trump"

  1. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by ProBlue33 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    ...and if the liberty movement dies, I would rather it not be
    with someone who wants to force people to bake politically correct cakes.
    Yup strategic thinking about the future, not just responding with unrealistic emotional fantasy.
    Strategic thinking about the future does not involve refusing to build the LP's momentum and refusing to secure them ballot access and matching funds because the best candidate they can come up with advocates one or two things you hate. Especially if that candidate is unlikely to win anyway.

    The liberty movement is not in any imminent danger of dying. And if it does, no one is going to carve Johnson's picture on its tombstone. That's what would fall under the heading of 'unrealistic emotional fantasy', and it's not going to stop any serious liberty advocate from doing his or her damnedest to help the LP break new ground.

    Strategic thinking about the future is something other than daydreaming about the death of the liberty movement and working toward an honorable end to it. Unless you're a neocon. For those who actually care about liberty, strategic thinking about the future involves finding ways around the silly-assed wedges that the powers that be use to divide us one against another, and concentrating on building coalitions which can concentrate on things that are actually important to more than three dozen evangelist bakers.

    I have no doubt that the Establishment infiltrators will double down on their campaign to encourage us to apply our purity tests to everyone in the country, and chase everyone out of our big tent until there are only three people left in it. But it won't work.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-04-2016 at 09:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    LOL- she usually mugs me first.
    Same here.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritOf1776_J4 View Post
    Personally, I'm getting to dislike Paul a little with the nods to an outright - actual member of organizations of, communist. .
    What are you talking about?

  6. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    What are you talking about?
    Yeah, spirit thinks trump is Hank Rearden and Ron Paul is a communist. That's been the underlying theme of his postings here for some time.

  7. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    What are you talking about?
    That is a mystery, isn't it? Near as I can tell, that reference is to Ron Paul saying nice things about Martin Luther King, Jr.

    I could be wrong, but as long as it remains a vague aspersion instead of a hard allegation, I guess mine is as good a working theory as any...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  8. #276
    Republican party is fractured. I just don't see how Trump comes out of the general with a win. I fear a Democrat sweep up and down the board: POTUS, house, and senate.

    Only way I see Trump coming out of this is if he wildly changes his persona followed by announcing his cabinet ahead of time comprised of a conservative/libertarian dream team. Call me crazy, but I don't see this as a likely scenario but it's really the only thing I can think of that he could do to even come close to uniting the party. Even if he were to go this route, I also think he would have a hard time finding any credible people to willingly participate.

    Unless Hillary goes to prison or something major comes out regarding her investigations, I see no path to victory for Trump.

  9. #277
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,669
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Bossobass View Post
    Hi Bryan,

    Thanks for the effort. I must say that I respond in kind. I find it offensive in a person to respond otherwise. I apologize if that doesn't suit you personally or the rules or the vocal minority. Some of these guys get a free pass to snark puke all over other members in the name of Ron Paul. That's just as disgusting as supporting Clinton to me.
    Thanks for the note. There is no intent to provide anyone with a free pass to degrade other members but I understand there can be issues. As mentioned, the desire is to have a focus on intellectual exchange; the biggest issue that I can see right now is that the site has always allowed for name calling of other candidates and their supporters, something I've never been a fan of, which now presents a problem due to Trump. We do not allow for someone to directly apply a label to an individual member ("You're a ....") however. In general I suggest the following approach:
    - Stick to addressing facts and logic.
    - Avoid making commentary about other members (be careful of using the word "you")
    - Use the "Report Post" feature when someone attacks (snark puke, etc). It's the triangle "!" under each post in the Full View themes.


    I don't support Trump. No rallies, no donations, no signs, no emails. Rather, I have for months simply stated that he's the nominee, Never Trumpites, agent provocateurs, GOP royalty and various other talking monkeys notwithstanding, so get used to it and stop with the cartoon negative campaigns.

    It's my opinion that RP is obviously butt hurt over how Trump dominated his son with tactics that are appalling to RP, but I'm disappointed that Ron talks publicly about how his views "overlap on several issues" with Bernie freakin' Sanders of the Democratic National Socialist party, but refuses to say the same about Trump regarding Audit the FED, non-interventionism, NATO, debt, Yellen, etc.

    I feel that although a Bernie Sanders and/or Clinton will never change their agendas one iota, Trump is open to many things a guy like Ron Paul could impart to him instead of the rather silly things RP has said about Trump.

    These issues are disallowed to be discussed
    There is no intent to disallow such discussion, but do see some best practices when bring critical of things / people we generally support, which includes:
    - Focus on bring value to the movement
    - Be specific about the issue, vs. making vague generalities
    - Don't dwell on speculation that is negative of the thing / person we support.
    - Be careful to not blindly cheer lead something / person that we don't support.

    I'm not accusing anyone here, and there aren't rules, but I think doing this will help make the discussion fruitful with other members. To take your example, it's completely rational, and of value for the movement, to analyze the tactics used by the different candidates and debate what seemed to work. Doing so can trickle down to having stronger liberty candidates. Maybe Ron Paul is butt hurt on some things, it's worth considering, but it is also speculation and ultimately doesn't change an analysis.

    While I strive to make the site as good as possible I accept that it has issues; I am happy to receive functional criticism so it can be improved. It will always be an on-going effort.



    while negative establishment bull$#@! articles like the retard cartoon in this thread with Trump's finger on the nuclear button, a devolved modern version of what the establishment did to Goldwater in '64 are not only allowed, they dominate the forum landscape.
    There is certainly going to be material that is both pro and con on different issues post here, which comes from all over. I see value in the issues being discussed in an intellectual manner, if an article is total BS it should be easy to call out the BS and expose it. If an article is blindly positive on something those issues can also be exposed.

    The only bias the site introduces is that we're not keen on non-functional support for things we generally don't support. For example, if a Bernie support showed up here there would be no problem of debate in a thread on "Bernie's take on issue X", but a thread of "Bernie is awesome" wouldn't be taken well. Beyond that, what is posted here is based on what people see of value to be engaged in.

    Thank you for the input, I do wish to address functional problems and will continue to process things.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  10. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    For those who actually care about liberty, strategic thinking about the future involves finding ways around the silly-assed wedges that the powers that be use to divide us one against another, and concentrating on building coalitions which can concentrate on things that are actually important to more than three dozen evangelist bakers.
    Actually, private property rights are the very foundation of liberty.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  11. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Bryan View Post
    T the biggest issue that I can see right now is that the site has always allowed for name calling of other candidates and their supporters, something I've never been a fan of, which now presents a problem due to Trump.
    Maybe that is something that needs to change. It was never a good idea and did the opposite of attracting other candidates' supporters to our candidate.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 05-05-2016 at 02:07 AM.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  12. #280
    I just think libertarians for Trump is disingenuous at best. Most likely it's a scam, because the campaign of the biggest wall and the biggest military and the biggest healthcare is not Libertarian. Anyone who thinks that the government should get involved with healthcare at all is not libertarian. Trump is not saying lets get rid of Obamacare, he wants to get rid of it and make it Trump care because he hates Obama and its going to be HUGE.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #281
    Staff - Admin
    Houston, TX
    Bryan's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    6
    Posts
    8,669
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Maybe that is something that needs to change. It was never a good idea and did the opposite of attracting other candidates' supporters to our candidate.
    Perhaps it is, and good points.
    This site has a specific purpose defined in our Mission Statement.

    Members must read and follow our Community Guidelines.

    I strive to respond to all queries; please excuse late and out-of-sequence responses.

  15. #282
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I just think libertarians for Trump is disingenuous at best. Most likely it's a scam, because the campaign of the biggest wall and the biggest military and the biggest healthcare is not Libertarian. Anyone who thinks that the government should get involved with healthcare at all is not libertarian. Trump is not saying lets get rid of Obamacare, he wants to get rid of it and make it Trump care because he hates Obama and its going to be HUGE.
    Libertarians for Trump was the name that Walter Block was giving to a group he was starting. So, no, it was not a scam. Read the article posted by the TS.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  16. #283
    LFt is a non-issue now, right? Block said it would disband once trump won the Republican nomination.

  17. #284
    So, has it been disbanded yet? Trump is now the nominee.

  18. #285
    A similar group has been formed.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/...cholars-trump/

    The following statement of support for Donald Trump is intended to counteract the dishonest presentation of this promising presidential candidate as someone whose followers are illiterate or, in the words of Ted Cruz, “badly informed.” Those who have attached their signatures to this statement are accredited scholars, mostly with Ph.D. s, who are endorsing Donald Trump as a credible candidate for the presidency and as the only barrier now standing between us and (Heaven forfend!) the election of Hillary Clinton. It is our hope that the appearance of this statement on a respected website will generate signatures from other scholars and that our statement of support can then be placed in the national press. We are fully aware that signing this statement will not bring the signatory the same professional rewards as speaking at a conference on why Trump is a “fascist” or on why he reminds one of the late German Fuhrer. Expressing support for the Republican presidential candidate undoubtedly requires more courage, particularly for someone in the academic profession. But we trust that there are lots of gutsy scholars who read this website and who will be eager to append their signatures to our statement.

    Yours truly,

    Paul Gottfried and Walter E. Block

    We the undersigned scholars hereby express our support for the presidential bid of Donald J. Trump. Contrary to a fiction invented and disseminated by both the mainstream media and the Republican Party establishment, Trump supporters are by no means limited to the badly educated and ill-informed. We feature numerous academics and other professionals, who share Trump’s vision of “making American great again.” Our group is vitally concerned about reversing the direction in which this country has been moving for decades under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. That is, we want to move away from harming our economically strained middle and working classes. We reject their pattern of stifling freedom of thought and speech that is being imposed by government agencies as well as by the media and our universities in the name of an increasingly restrictive political correctness. Moreover, we respect Trump as the law and order presidential candidate, who is dedicated to making our borders and our streets safe. Instead of blaming such scapegoats of the Left as white Christian bigotry and gun owners for our increasing lawlessness and terrorist attacks, Trump places responsibility for the breakdown of our safety where it belongs, on Muslim extremists and violent criminals.

    Finally, we see Donald Trump as a leader who will give a new direction to American foreign policy. Neither an isolationist nor an ideological crusader, he will base his dealings with other nations firmly on American interests. He is searching for a path in international relations that advances those interests without involving us in playing policemen to the entire world or confusing statecraft with imposing a global democratic agenda. In this respect, Trump emphatically distinguishes himself from recent Republican presidential candidates and from the utterly ineffective Democratic administration of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Both forces of opposition to Trump have been badly misguided. Whereas establishment Republicans have tried to make the rest of the world conform to their preferred notions of democracy, their Democratic opponents have not dealt competently with either international relations or domestic social disorder.

    We believe Donald Trump will offer an alternative to the failed approach to foreign relations of our last two presidents.

    Walter E. Block , Loyola University, New Orleans, Ph.D., Columbia University

    Paul Gottfried, Elizabethtown College, Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus, Ph.D., Yale University

    Darren Beatty, Ph.D., Duke University

    Boyd Cathy, North Carolina State Archives, Ph.D., University of Navarra

    Marshall DeRosa, Florida Atlantic University, Ph.D., University of Houston

    Jack Kerwick, Rowan College (Burlington County, New Jersey), Ph.D., Temple university

    Donald W. Miller, professor of surgery emeritus, Seattle Swedish Medical Center

    Ralph Raico, SUNY Buffalo, Ph.D., University of Chicago

    Clyde Wilson, University of South Carolina, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

    If you are willing to have your name added to this list, please drop a note to Paul Gottfried at gottfrpe@etown.edu and give us your scholarly affiliation, along the lines of the other signatories.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  19. #286
    Walter E. Block, Loyola University, New Orleans, Ph.D., Columbia University

    Paul Gottfried, Elizabethtown College, Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus, Ph.D., Yale University

    Darren Beatty, Ph.D., Duke University

    Boyd Cathy, North Carolina State Archives, Ph.D., University of Navarra

    Marshall DeRosa, Florida Atlantic University, Ph.D., University of Houston

    Jack Kerwick, Rowan College (Burlington County, New Jersey), Ph.D., Temple university

    Donald W. Miller, professor of surgery emeritus, Seattle Swedish Medical Center

    Ralph Raico
    , SUNY Buffalo, Ph.D., University of Chicago

    Clyde Wilson, University of South Carolina, PhD, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    That is $#@!ing retarded...

    Is the Aubern city council putting stupid pills in the water or what?

  20. #287
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Gross. They have zero credibility.

  21. #288
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    Libertarian Chumps for Trump. It's not difficult to understand that politicians say one thing during a campaign, but do another once elected. Unless you're a libertarian chump for Trump. These chumps would have supported Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush



    Hell, FDR would have deserved their endorsement - after all, his platform :
    "called for a 25 percent reduction in federal spending, a balanced federal budget, a sound gold currency “to
    be preserved at all hazards,” the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s
    farm programs.
    Furthermore:
    During the campaign,
    Roosevelt blasted Hoover for
    spending and taxing too much,
    boosting the national debt,
    choking off trade, and putting
    millions on the dole. He accused
    the president of “reckless
    and extravagant” spending,
    of thinking “that we ought to
    center control of everything
    in Washington as rapidly as
    possible,” and of presiding
    over “the greatest spending
    administration in peacetime
    in all of history.” Roosevelt’s
    running mate, John Nance
    Garner, charged that Hoover
    was “leading the country down
    the path of socialism.”
    Maybe we can root for Paul Ryan in 2020 - after all I heard he's a fan of Atlas Shrugged!



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #289
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post

    The liberty movement is not in any imminent danger of dying.
    No, but it will be called the Alt-Right from now on. Well,..until it's just simply referred to as the Republican Party.

  24. #290
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty View Post
    No, but it will be called the Alt-Right from now on. Well,..until it's just simply referred to as the Republican Party.
    This should happen around the year 2525

  25. #291
    It's happening now.

  26. #292


    Neocons have nothing on this guy:


  27. #293
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    28,739
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Quote Originally Posted by robert68 View Post


    Neocons have nothing on this guy:

    Flynn is a breath of fresh air. He knows ISIS is being assisted by Western governments and wants no part of destabilizing Syria.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/retired...g-isis/5463275

    “Flynn says that the invasion of Iraq was a strategic mistake that directly contributed to the rise of the extremist group the Islamic State. ‘We definitely put fuel on a fire,’ he told Hasan. ‘Absolutely … there’s no doubt, I mean … history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003.’”

    DIA Report Warning that the Western Intelligence Agencies Were Grooming Terrorist Elements To Take Down Assad:
    https://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/...syrian-regime/
    Last edited by AuH20; 07-24-2016 at 04:55 PM.

  28. #294
    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Flynn is a breath of fresh air. He knows ISIS is being assisted by Western governments and wants no part of destabilizing Syria.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/retired...g-isis/5463275




    DIA Report Warning that the Western Intelligence Agencies Were Grooming Terrorist Elements To Take Down Assad:
    https://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/...syrian-regime/

    The Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies, with Michael Ledeen, was published by St. Martin's Press in 2016.[37]


    Michael Ledeen is a super neocon. "American exceptionalism", which he repeated numerous times in his speech, is the opposite of "a breath of fresh air". From the book:

    • We have to organize all our national power, from military and economic to intelligence and tough-minded diplomacy. It's not cheap, and it's probably going to last through several generations.

    • They must be denied safe havens, and countries that shelter the have to be issued a brutal choice: either eliminate the Radical Islamists or you risk direct attack yourselves. Yes, there will be some foreign countries that can't defeat their indigenous Islamists, even though they want to, and they'll need help. They shouldn't be punished twice—first by the Islamists, then by us and our allies—and we should welcome them to our ranks.

    On the other band, some of these countries are considered "partners' of ours, but they aren't. We can't afford to be gulled by foreign countries that publicly declare their friendship, but then work in cahoots with our enemies.

    • We've got to attack the Islamists everywhere and in every way...

    We're going to have to learn to think like the evil men—women don't really count in their ranks, aside from being used to breed new killers and occasionally blowing themselves up—who have sworn homage to al Qaeda, the Islamic State, various other jihadi groups, and to the leaders of radical regimes like the one in Iran. They will continue to do terrible things, and escalate their war against us, against Muslims who reject their doctrines, against Christian "infidels," against Jews, against women, indeed against the entire Western enterprise. We have to destroy them before they fulfill their mission.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/read-...ry?id=40465022

    Hardly refreshing if you're a libertarian and don't want blowback.
    Last edited by robert68; 07-25-2016 at 08:33 AM.

  29. #295
    Quote Originally Posted by emazur View Post
    Libertarian Chumps for Trump.It's not difficult to understand that politicians say one thing during a campaign, but do another once elected. Unless you're a libertarian chump for Trump. These chumps would have supported Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush

    Bump

  30. #296
    Libertarians are to Trump what _________ are to Cheatos.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #297
    'Libertarians for Trump' lobby unfortunately is much much smaller than 'Neocons for Trump' and have relatively very shallow pockets.

    That said, there have been some neocons masquerading as 'libertarians' exposed since the latest episode of Deep Pockets (parasitic wing) funded politicians globalist intervetions unfolded.

  33. #298
    Rumor has it that Walter Block to this day is still trying to recruit libertarians for Trump.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910


Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •