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

[Natural Citizen]

What if it's not about the cake?

What if it's about the fundamental concept of “what is liberty?”

What if the failure of Johnson to promote liberty, in no way promotes authoritarians like socialist Hillary or nationalist Trump?

It's clear - The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

I know that you know that. I'm just telling you that we've been over this all over the board. They don't care.

So quit being dogmatic, Gunny. Apparently, that's not what libertarian candidates run on anymore. Now they're running on sending men with government guns to take your stuff. Now it's popular to love them for it.

[nikcers]

What if In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.” he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities.On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild."

After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980’s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders. It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr.(came out in support of Trumps nomination in March 2016, senior managing director of Rothschild Inc). that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.

Jacob Rothschild son - Nat Rothschild, also dated Ivanka Trump.

[nikcers]

I've been through this a hundred times . They don't care. They laugh at it.

I just want to know how you think the cake scenario matters. I don't understand your perspective and you won't even think about mine. Did Gary Johnson really say that he would bypass state government and use federal power to force someone to do something? Is that something that a president can do? I know one thing I learned from school of rock and that laws are written by congress, and Gary Johnson is the most conservative person on all 50 ballots running, so if the number one problem in the country is debt, and he is the only one saying it, then why are we so scared of rhetorical cake?

[nikcers]

They just have to sell the cake if its for sale-I don't want to pass legislation

Is this this big deal? I still don't understand? I guess it's your job, what do you do? Do you do your job for money or compensation or do you do it to give back to people? Is this more of a philosophical question that I just don't understand because I am a shallow person?
___________________________________________

1) The government isn't making you put your cake for sale.

2) The government isn't making you sell your cake for less then you want to sell it for or forcing you to give away your cake.

3) The government isn't making you sell cakes to ISIS, they are saying if you are an American and something is for sale you have right to buy it. (are they buying your labor or the cake?)

[GunnyFreedom]

Is this this big deal? I still don't understand? I guess it's your job, what do you do? Do you do your job for money or compensation or do you do it to give back to people? Is this more of a philosophical question that I just don't understand because I am a shallow person?
___________________________________________

1) The government isn't making you put your cake for sale.

2) The government isn't making you sell your cake for less then you want to sell it for or forcing you to give away your cake.

3) The government isn't making you sell cakes to ISIS, they are saying if you are an American and something is for sale you have right to buy it. (are they buying your labor or the cake?)

This position has been walked back from it's start to the point where it's just about tolerable now, which I suppose is admirable, he is listening to his base and adjusting tact.

I bear no ill will to Johnson supporters and voters. Zero. I have even less than zero desire to talk anyone out of it. Indeed, to my mind the more of it I see the better. If Johnsonfire took over the whole dam country I would be well pleased. But I am not supporter, nor will I vote for him.

I largely try to avoid discussions involving Johnson so that I don't get in the way of it. I am not trying to persuade anyone to abandon their support. You asked above about reasons. If you are genuinely curious, I do have a few of those.

After Ron Paul, I pledged honor before God I will only ever vote for people who I think will bring us more into compliance with the State and federal Constitutions and not less. Even would that his particular transgressions of the Constitutional balance of power be such that I like, I am still bound by honor to not support it. I just can't. The only thing that will save this nation is more Constitution, not less, and that's pretty much the end of it for me.

I also know I am particularly disturbed by what I perceive as a lack of willingness to defend religious liberty. As to my perspective on life, the freedom of conscience is the most fundamental liberty of all. It is like the ontology of liberty. If you do not have the freedom of your own thoughts and beliefs, then it matters not whether you wear chains you are equally a slave. Oppression of conscience means the thought police. He should know that thought police are not any more tolerable just because the victims happen to be religious.

If you do not have freedom of conscience, then you do not have any kind of liberty at all.

You don't have to be a good spokesman, but I do want my spokesman to at least understand that much.

[nikcers]

You don't have to be a good spokesman, but I do want my spokesman to at least understand that much.

I think i understand the cake thing now,lesser evil is still evil, you described my feelings on Gary Johnson to a Tee, If we start supporting false messages then our base becomes undermined. I guess that's why voting for Gary Johnson always feels like a protest vote. I think I just assumed he was pandering to liberals but a watered down message won't win.

[Ender]

This position has been walked back from it's start to the point where it's just about tolerable now, which I suppose is admirable, he is listening to his base and adjusting tact.

I bear no ill will to Johnson supporters and voters. Zero. I have even less than zero desire to talk anyone out of it. Indeed, to my mind the more of it I see the better. If Johnsonfire took over the whole dam country I would be well pleased. But I am not supporter, nor will I vote for him.

I largely try to avoid discussions involving Johnson so that I don't get in the way of it. I am not trying to persuade anyone to abandon their support. You asked above about reasons. If you are genuinely curious, I do have a few of those.

After Ron Paul, I pledged honor before God I will only ever vote for people who I think will bring us more into compliance with the State and federal Constitutions and not less. Even would that his particular transgressions of the Constitutional balance of power be such that I like, I am still bound by honor to not support it. I just can't. The only thing that will save this nation is more Constitution, not less, and that's pretty much the end of it for me.

I also know I am particularly disturbed by what I perceive as a lack of willingness to defend religious liberty. As to my perspective on life, the freedom of conscience is the most fundamental liberty of all. It is like the ontology of liberty. If you do not have the freedom of your own thoughts and beliefs, then it matters not whether you wear chains you are equally a slave. Oppression of conscience means the thought police. He should know that thought police are not any more tolerable just because the victims happen to be religious.

If you do not have freedom of conscience, then you do not have any kind of liberty at all.

You don't have to be a good spokesman, but I do want my spokesman to at least understand that much.

^^THIS^^
YES, YES, YES!

[69360]

double post

[69360]

I think you will almost always find the motivation behind those who seek to dismiss Johnson over his lack of Libertarian "purity" are really shilling for a major party candidate. Especially on here.

It's a fairly simple choice when you break it down. Clinton and Trump are crooks. One of them is going to be potus. Probably Clinton, but it really doesn't matter, they both equally suck. Johnson isn't going to win, but maybe he gets enough votes to push the LP closer to being a real party with matching funds and ballot access. He is at least a decent human being. So it just makes sense to put aside your silly pet issues and go for Johnson.

[ronpaulhawaii]

It makes strategic sense. They are more likely to pull a lukeworm Clinton supporter if they refrain from attacking her too much. And all the non Trump supporters know he is a crazy nutjob so attacking him helps with that demographic as well and probably does no harm with those who only support him because he is not Clinton. The diehard Trump supporters, anti immigrant, nationist, alt-right types would never defect anyway so there is no point targeting them.

I agree it makes strategic sense and I don't think it hurts the effort to educate people on the ideas of liberty as much as some try to suggest. Most voters could care less, and those that do end up caring will most likely take the path that I have seen others take. It was less about Ron Paul and more about their own studies and interactions with liberty folk.

What if In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.” he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities.On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild."

After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980’s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders. It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr.(came out in support of Trumps nomination in March 2016, senior managing director of Rothschild Inc). that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.

Jacob Rothschild son - Nat Rothschild, also dated Ivanka Trump.

Well, you don't say... I'll be looking more into this

I think you will almost always find the motivation behind those who seek to dismiss Johnson over his lack of Libertarian "purity" are really shilling for a major party candidate. Especially on here.

It's a fairly simple choice when you break it down. Clinton and Trump are crooks. One of them is going to be potus. Probably Clinton, but it really doesn't matter, they both equally suck. Johnson isn't going to win, but maybe he gets enough votes to push the LP closer to being a real party with matching funds and ballot access. He is at least a decent human being. So it just makes sense to put aside your silly pet issues and go for Johnson.

For me, and most Johnson supporters, ballot access is the peimary goal

[angelatc]

Gary Johnson doesn't need votes from "liberty lovers" of your variety. He needs them from moderate republicans and moderate democrats. He kills his campaign dead in the water if he tries to cater to dogmatic libertarians or the socon/paleo right wing.

I agree, but he still needs to remind those people why they should pick him instead of Hillary and/or Trump. At some point, he needs to attack HRC, because otherwise, they might as well vote for her in order to stop Trump.

[CPUd]

I think you will almost always find the motivation behind those who seek to dismiss Johnson over his lack of Libertarian "purity" are really shilling for a major party candidate. Especially on here.

A lot of them are, but there are a few looking at the CP ticket who have a real problem with Johnson.

[r3volution 3.0]

It makes strategic sense. They are more likely to pull a lukeworm Clinton supporter if they refrain from attacking her too much. And all the non Trump supporters know he is a crazy nutjob so attacking him helps with that demographic as well and probably does no harm with those who only support him because he is not Clinton. The diehard Trump supporters, anti immigrant, nationist, alt-right types would never defect anyway so there is no point targeting them.

Spot on

He's not a L/libertarian. He's not. He does not believe in personal liberty. He just wants certain liberties for himself.

He isn't proposing reforms that would increase the liberty of the general public?

...such as abolishing central banking, cutting hundreds of billions in federal spending, eliminating whole departments, ending the PATRIOT Act?

Rhetorical question, since I know you know this (not least because I myself have told you a couple dozen times).

So, why are you lying about Johnson?

...hold on, that too is a rhetorical question.

It's obviously because you're a Trump supporter.

What if In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.” he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International a CIA and Mossad front company which had been established for the purpose of money laundering the profits from drug trafficking, gambling, and other illegal activities.On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild."

After quickly expanding the reach of Resorts International to Atlantic City in the final years of the 1980’s, Donald Trump found himself in financial trouble as the real estate market in New York tanked. The three casinos in Atlantic City, like other Trump assets, were under threat from lenders. It was only with the assistance and assurance of Wilbur L. Ross Jr.(came out in support of Trumps nomination in March 2016, senior managing director of Rothschild Inc). that Trump was allowed to keep the casinos and rebuild his threatened empire.

Jacob Rothschild son - Nat Rothschild, also dated Ivanka Trump.

Very interesting..

If you would, gather your sources and post it all in the Trump Opposition Research thread.

[69360]

A lot of them are, but there are a few looking at the CP ticket who have a real problem with Johnson.

There is nothing at all wrong with the CP or their candidate. If they were polling 12%, I'd go for them. But they aren't the LP is.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think you will almost always find the motivation behind those who seek to dismiss Johnson over his lack of Libertarian "purity" are really shilling for a major party candidate. Especially on here.

It's a fairly simple choice when you break it down. Clinton and Trump are crooks. One of them is going to be potus. Probably Clinton, but it really doesn't matter, they both equally suck. Johnson isn't going to win, but maybe he gets enough votes to push the LP closer to being a real party with matching funds and ballot access. He is at least a decent human being. So it just makes sense to put aside your silly pet issues and go for Johnson.

Pray tell, I forgot who I am reporting to and must find my handler. It's about time for another steak dinner. Which major party candidate am I shilling for?

[euphemia]

A lot of them are, but there are a few looking at the CP ticket who have a real problem with Johnson.

That number is growing. People I never thought would consider the CP ticket have embraced it.

[phill4paul]

That number is growing. People I never thought would consider the CP ticket have embraced it.

Not a fan of all the party principles but I like the candidate. Unfortunately, it is going to be a tough row to hoe regarding voter access...

[GunnyFreedom]

So it turns out this guy I know, a hyperchristian, collected signatures for Castle in NC. Two of his counties disappeared, and now the police want to question him. If it prevents the certification of the write in campaign, it will be a tragedy, but even though he's done literally nothing wrong (like nearly ever), here is some investigator trying to impeach him. I told him to lawyer up because cops breaking down your story are only look for victims. Maybe we miss having Castle as a write in because of these two missing counties. That would be a demonstration of how this machine works I guess. A top Constitutional lawyer is closely involved, and we may be looking at an order to count the write in despite a no ruling by the BOE. It's a freaking mess.

[euphemia]

That would be a huge shame.

[GunnyFreedom]

Most of the backbone BOE bureaucrats are dems, most of the newer front liners are Reps. I predict the Dems pushing to certify the Castle write in and Republicans arguing against it. The Republicans do hold a majority on account of a Republican Governor. But this is a central committee decision, and I don't know where it sits. If Castle is certified as a write in I will actually have someone to vote for in Nov.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not a fan of all the party principles but I like the candidate. Unfortunately, it is going to be a tough row to hoe regarding voter access...

I think what's going on is the Constitution Party came out of reformed Christian Party members who didn't think it was a good idea to legislate for God as much as we do. There are a lot of it's grassroots that are fundamentalist theocrats, but the ones who get promoted to candidates usually seem to have their head on right when it comes to the roles of God and the State.

It does seem like they are teetering on the edge of something not good. Like if they were given reign they COULD turn into some kind of statolater theocratic despotism. Like you know they would ally with the Prohibition Party if it meant victory right?

It's almost like there is a 'glow' about them that comes from their base. Thus far their organization has manages to successfully keep it's own lunatic fringe in check and consistently nominate high value candidates. I think if it turns out the CP grows in popularity the influx of 'non-radicals' will only help add to the already existing pressure to prevent such things from happening.

[4_God_N_Country]

I'll be voting but it won't be for fake libertarian Gary Johnson or Killery Clinton.

[phill4paul]

I think what's going on is the Constitution Party came out of reformed Christian Party members who didn't think it was a good idea to legislate for God as much as we do. There are a lot of it's grassroots that are fundamentalist theocrats, but the ones who get promoted to candidates usually seem to have their head on right when it comes to the roles of God and the State.

It does seem like they are teetering on the edge of something not good. Like if they were given reign they COULD turn into some kind of statolater theocratic despotism. Like you know they would ally with the Prohibition Party if it meant victory right?

It's almost like there is a 'glow' about them that comes from their base. Thus far their organization has manages to successfully keep it's own lunatic fringe in check and consistently nominate high value candidates. I think if it turns out the CP grows in popularity the influx of 'non-radicals' will only help add to the already existing pressure to prevent such things from happening.

That's a fair enough evaluation. As I've stated the party platforms as a whole I can't get behind, but, Castle seems a good choice. It seems he will only be a write-in in N.C. though.

[phill4paul]

I'll be voting but it won't be for fake libertarian Gary Johnson or Killery Clinton.

Or fascist Trump?

[RandallFan]

Johnson has a young white voter problem.


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-.../05/id/742296/

Johnson thinks Clinton is not a liar.

[parocks]

Gary Johnson doesn't need votes from "liberty lovers" of your variety. He needs them from moderate republicans and moderate democrats. He kills his campaign dead in the water if he tries to cater to dogmatic libertarians or the socon/paleo right wing.

That campaign is already dead in the water. The part about moderates sounds right. Conservatives might not like Trump but they've hated Clinton for 24 years.

[parocks]

I agree, but he still needs to remind those people why they should pick him instead of Hillary and/or Trump. At some point, he needs to attack HRC, because otherwise, they might as well vote for her in order to stop Trump.

Well, if they're anti Trump shills for Hillary, that's exactly what they want. It's not like they're going to win. They're just trying to make Hillary seem less unpalatable.

[Occam's Banana]

Libertarian Candidates Expose Themselves [...]

Wow! Really? Did they run around with no clothes on and smoke pot?

'Coz if they did, that would be pretty cool and ...

[...] as Anti-Trump Shills for Hillary Clinton

... oh ...

... never mind ...

... *yawn*

[anaconda]

Yeast doesn't have gluten in it...

What if the prostitute had just eaten a sandwich for lunch?

[anaconda]

It's clear - The right to property is an indispensable and principal material support, not only of Man's God-given unalienable rights, but of Man's right to Liberty itself.

I know that you know that. I'm just telling you that we've been over this all over the board. They don't care.

So quit being dogmatic, Gunny. Apparently, that's not what libertarian candidates run on anymore. Now they're running on sending men with government guns to take your stuff. Now it's popular to love them for it.

Yet polls indicate that Gary Johnson hurts Hillary more than The Donald.:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...eadache-226700