Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves as Anti-Trump Shills for Hillary Clinton

[Peace&Freedom]

However, seeing as how our guys aren't establishment candidates, & are without big donor connections, there's no need for such pretense.

They did not come across that way, compared to the outsiders of this cycle, and in most cases their walk did not match their talk. Resisting MSM or leadership pressure to cave on positions, or to the constant PC framing of issues is being concretely anti-establishment. Trump has done so to a fault this whole year. That resolve or backbone is largely how he engaged and held the anti-establishment voters.

I said to be specific, did I not?

How?

Based on several other threads, your calls for specifics is a mask for endless contentiousness. Those specifics have been covered in threads for months. The real issue is you don't even embrace the basics---if you won't acknowledge that Trump has been better at successfully defeating establishment attempts to block him than the Pauls were, you're not going to accept the details as to how he did it.

A. That has approximately nothing to do with his success. His support, to the extent its about issues at all, is about immigration and trade.

B. You really don't want to bring up Donald's policy positions if you're trying to defend him.

Disaffected voters are not so much about the policy positions at this point, as they are about seeing action taken on them. They've voted for people who were more coherent on the issues before, who promptly caved once in office and got nothing done, or the opposite done. Trump has been speaking to these voters by running on a theme of "I have the resolve" and "I will fight these losers" among the media, donors and leadership, instead of puffing them up. We couldn't get anywhere with policy positions (including questioning NATO) until this was done, so yes, to the extent he's doing this, he's helping liberty.

[MattRay]

I'll +rep for a positive post as well. The response does reflect what I have been saying about how the movement has plateaued from just focusing on positions. The universe of consistent liberty people and constitutionalists does not get us to 51%, so limiting the vote gaining talk to getting more fellow travelers to join us is not the path making the quantum jump we need to make. Building a voting majority involves reaching people who are NOT consistently with us ideologically, meaning not being only issue-oriented.

And the failure of the LP to make electoral gains has 95% to do with the establishment barriers, not internal problems. Why is it that every OTHER third party has had exactly the same problems getting anywhere, no matter who they run, at any level, in any part of the country, for decade after decade? Are they all equally incompetent across all the states, or have they been equally subject to the same suppression, marginalization and blackout routine?

My bet is on the latter, which is why the MSM so wanted Ron Paul to just run as a third party candidate---that way they could have efficiently blacked him out in a low profile way, like all the others. To win more elections, liberty candidates have to deal with winning the war against the elite's suppression scam, and stop blaming ourselves for the marginalization.

I forgot to mention to that Christians and social conservatives are an important part of a successful liberty coalition. Ron Paul knew this and it showed it Iowa. Religious freedom is an obvious one. That's the thing that's frustrated me the most about Gary, if he doesn't win Utah then I'll blame his stance(whatever his stance is) on religious freedom. I think his op-ed might have done a little damage control, but it may have been too late. Ron Paul had the right idea as he constantly said that everyone's freedom to live how they want, also includes every religion's freedom to live and practice how they want. Protecting freedom of speech is also protecting freedom of religion.

It's frustrating because Gary isn't even doing as good as he could with this. For instance, Gary did reiterate his opposite to late term/partial birth abortions this year, but he barely mentions that. Furthermore, Gary did oppose Roe v. Wade in 2011 and say abortion should be left to the states, a stance I really like, but he hasn't mentioned it so I'm left guessing if he even holds that. If Gary were to take the states rights position on abortion, he'd be MUCH more palatable to conservatives and suddenly find himself with more credibility as a constitutionalist. Finally, Gary has opposed tax-payer funding for abortion dating back to his tenure as governor, but I haven't heard him mention that in some time, possibly dating back to his 2012 run. If he mentioned these 3 positions he holds or has at least held recently, then suddenly he looks like a good option for more disgruntled conservatives. And I'm only using positions he holds or has held, so it's not as though he'd even have to flip flop like Romney on the issue. It's just a matter of knowing how to market yourself, but Gary seems to be writing off conservatives for some reason.

As for the Libertarian Party, well I know Rothbard became convinced they weren't interested in winning elections, but you're right, the media and establishment are primarily to blame. Ron Paul had bad timing in particular because the year he ran in 1988, was the first year the Commission on Presidential Debates took over for the League of Women Voters, who had previously allowed Independent Congressman John Anderson to debate just 2 elections prior. And Dr. Paulw as certainly up against some major obstacles with the populist sentiment on drugs as well as not too many people being interested in hearing the truth about the Republican Party since Reagan left office tied for the highest approval ratings with FDR and later, Clinton and his vice president was running.

It's amazing, the 2 major parties complain about people running who don't go along with the rest of the party, but they leave them no choice. Dr. Paul tried actively participating in another party for 5 years, including a presidential run as an inexperienced, respected congressman where he was on enough ballots to win, but they wouldn't even cover him except for an appearance here or there on Firing Line with William F. Buckley, Morton Downey Jr., C-SPAN and CNN. They have the audacity to complain that he shouldn't be running as a Republican in 2008 and 2012, doesn't represent them ect., but they left him no choice. He tried running on a 3rd party that represented him better, but they made sure he didn't get the same opportunity. They're the ones who forced him to run as a Republican to get his message out and get in televised debates.

It's not just Ron Paul either. I'll actually use Donald Trump as an example. The man pretty seriously campaigned for the Reform Party nomination in 2000 with a campaign policy book, Trump 2000 posters, appearances ect., but dropped out because even he determined a 3rd party can't win. 16 years later, he decides to run again, this time as a Republican and they complain he's an interloper as well, but Trump tried another party that suited him better and he saw that the monopoly wouldn't allow him an equal opportunity, so they really forced Trump to run Republican if he wanted a realistic chance of winning.

The proof is Ralph Nader. The man was a known national figure, he was generating some considerable buzz with the Green Party, yet 2000 was the year the CPD put in this ridiculous 15% requirement. Then they have the nerve to blame Nader for running because their candidate didn't win, despite the fact that Nader's candicacy was all about rightfully pointing out that there was no difference between the two anyway. And the Democratic Party went to such despicable lengths in 2004 as to file frivolous lawsuits against Nader so he'd have to use campaign funds, try to block ballot access ect. I'm no fan of Bernie Sanders and don't think he's as principled as Nader, nor does he have the integrity Nader does, but is there any doubt Bernie had to run as a Democrat? Despite the fact that the Green Party would have embraced him more than the Democratic Party, he would have met with roughly the same fate as Nader had he chosen that route. Nader himself wrote an excellent article about this.

Even Ross Perot, who was a viable candidate before he dropped about in the summer of '92 further proves this point. The Bush campaign thought he'd help their chances so they insisted he was included in the debates, then they have the nerve to blame Perot's candidacy for Clinton's win. Then in '96, you have a national figure Perot who has proven he's a viable candidate, the people want him in the debates, yet neither the Dole campaign nor the Clinton campaign want him, so he was excluded.

Not that there was any more proof needed, but Pat Buchanan is yet one more example. The man challenged an incumbent and made some serious noise, seriously competing in New Hampshire, then he wins New Hampshire in '96 and looks like he could win the nomination before the establishment did everything they could to prevent that because Buchanan's hardline positions on abortion and immigration were not welcome, as well as his strong non-interventionist stance and his opposition to trade deals like NAFTA. Finally, Buchanan decides the GOP is no longer his party and runs with the Reform Party, yet he was barely heard from in 2000 despite being a national figure like Ralph Nader and a man who had been a contender, at least early on for the GOP nomination the previous election.

Similarly with Gary Johnson this year, there's no excuse for him not to be included. Like him or not, he was a two-term governor with a good reputation as far as I can tell, he's polling in double figures with a tiny fraction of the coverage and money the other 2 have in a year where the 2 major party nominees are the most unpopular in history and he has a legitimate chance to win at least one state based on polling that put him in a virtual tie.

Back to coalitions to bring this 360, I think Ron Paul was really doing a good job with that in 2012. He even had a decent amount of former Obama voters from 2008 and appeal to some on the left and right, plus his unparalleled principled history attracted some populists who merely wanted politicians they could trust. I'd say the biggest thing he was missing was some acceptance or tolerance from the establishment. They couldn't stand him and I think that was the biggest obstacle in him seriously contending for the GOP nomination. I still believe he could have done at least as well in a general election as Romney if he had won the nomination. The problem is, we haven't seen any build on this. After Rand failed to even come close to matching Ron's success in the primary, we're sort of back to square one.

[r3volution 3.0]

They did not come across that way, compared to the outsiders of this cycle, and in most cases their walk did not match their talk. Resisting MSM or leadership pressure to cave on positions, or to the constant PC framing of issues is being concretely anti-establishment. Trump has done so to a fault this whole year. That resolve or backbone is largely how he engaged and held the anti-establishment voters.

And Trump accomplished this - as I've said - by hurling insults and incendiary nonsense at groups which low information white GOPers dislike, which gave him a base sufficient to win the primary (barely), but which is incapable of expanding into a general-election-winning coalition.

Trump has been speaking to these voters by running on a theme of "I have the resolve" and "I will fight these losers"

Yes, that's true. He successfully conned the rubes into believing he's a competent leader.

I would say that he accomplished this mostly through the force of his megalomaniacal personality.

In other words, confidence (even when totally unfounded) is contagious.

That, along with the idea of threatening to run third party, is a genuinely useful strategy for us - and those are the only two you've identified.

Of course, these are also fairly obvious strategies, which we didn't need Trump to teach us.

And, finally, to reiterate, none of this is a justification for supporting Trump; one can observe and learn without supporting.

[Peace&Freedom]

Yes, that's true. He successfully conned the rubes into believing he's a competent leader.

I would say that he accomplished this mostly through the force of his megalomaniacal personality.

In other words, confidence (even when totally unfounded) is contagious.

That, along with the idea of threatening to run third party, is a genuinely useful strategy for us - and those are the only two you've identified.

Of course, these are also fairly obvious strategies, which we didn't need Trump to teach us.

And, finally, to reiterate, none of this is a justification for supporting Trump; one can observe and learn without supporting.

Just to close this out on my side, we can agree that certain strategies are "obvious" (among additional ones I've discussed on other threads), but receiving and applying them is part of the deal. We may know what to do, but not how to do it, hence the need to follow the case examples set by those who did succeed. And we have to have the will to do it as well. If these strategies have been soooo obvious, why did neither Ron or Rand adopt them in their Presidential campaigns, and why have I encountered a brick wall for years, when bringing them up on the forums? Take a look at this thread, from almost two years ago, meaning long before Trump, where most of us were predicting Rand would do better than Ron in 2016:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...n-Ron-Ever-Did

I took the minority view that there appeared to be no plausible pathway established for Rand to win the early contests (i.e., no voting bloc coalition) and no plan to deal with the elite special interest (i.e., establishment) obstacles to his liberty candidacy. I proposed Rand should have run a fusion/third party candidacy (on GOP plus LP lines, or threaten the same) to give himself leverage to reach rank and file voters, and to keep the elite from rigging things against his alternative candidacy.

I also urged we come up with ways to defeat the establishment's "electable" meme by which it would be manipulating primary coverage in favor of its anointed one. At the time, I suggested Rand be more non-PC, openly discuss election rigging, at least hint at covert ops and cover-ups, and make a real play for the socons and Tea Party folks, etc. But the Pauls pursued none of these "obvious" strategies, and the regular posters here mainly met the ideas with silence, or outright derision.

So who turned out to be correct, and which alternative candidate DID come along and adopt these strategies?? And who fared much better by doing so? It's fairly obvious. I rest my case.

[anaconda]

You sure have a weird idea about how prostitutes eat sandwiches.

Like anyone else...with their mouth.

[anaconda]

Bernie isn't a globalist either.

Sander's 2011 amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill indicates that he is a complete puppet of the banks. This makes him a globalist in the grandest manner.

[unknown]

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...llary-clinton/

Johnson can easily get 5% without taking a single electoral college vote away from Trump or Hillary.

Trump supporters in Blue states can vote Johnson.

Hillary supporters in Red states should do the same.

It doesnt matter if someone hates Johnson.

Many if not most of the Libertarian principles are valid.

Just as importantly, we need to break this 2-Party stranglehold on this nation.

[Madison320]

Except it's not comparative. It's one or the other. Gary is not a Libertarian.

There's no such thing as a pure libertarian or pure communist or pure whatever. It's ALWAYS a matter of degree. I have some issues with Gary Johnson but he's WAY more libertarian leaning than Donald Trump. It's not even close.