Friday, April 29, 2016

Trump: "I Would Stay in Afghanistan"

Donald Trump appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last night.

Bill O'Reilly, despite spewing out some anti-Putin propaganda, asked some penetrating questions about Trump's foreign policy.

Trump flat out stated he would leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

He also seemed to indicate that he would perhaps bomb Liya and possibly use U.S. ground troops in Libya to gain control of Libyan oil fields.

It appears his thinking is pretty much the same with regard to ISIS-controlled territory in and around Syria and Iraq.

He added that once oil properties were removed from ISIS control, he would "keep the oil."

With regard to Russia, he said he would try to negotiate with Putin, although outside of nuclear arms reductions, I don't see what there is to "negotiate" with Russia.

And, of course, he seems to think all kinds of negotiations must be conducted with China. He stated once again the absurdity the U.S. "recreated China," and brought up the non-issue of the trade deficit.




  1. I really don't see the point of Libertarians for Trump other than possibly muddying the waters for people unfamiliar with the political ideology. This is down right dangerous. I LOVE Block and pretty much everyone involved which is why I don't understand; maybe the writing on the wall is in another language.

    I get the semantics involved, Trump is "better" and none concede he is "good... but what the hell?

    People who simply read "Libertarians FOR Trump" will stop there and won't bother to look into the matter further. Either they will reject it, or they will assume libertarians are on the same page as themselves (most likely statists).

    The benefit is not worth the egregious cost.

    I liked how Ron Paul did it... Libertarians for LIBERTY, TRUTH, SOUND MONEY, A HUMBLE FOREIGN POLICY, ETC.

    He just made sense, and that was enough to get gears turning. I would say it worked better in terms of growth than any other method. Now that he got us the 'pulpit' so to speak why not use it to CONTINUE in such efforts.

    1. Block is one of the most overrated libertarian thinkers, who never seems to think things through. This is just his latest example of such, for precisely the reasons you mentioned. There is absolutely no point in voting for the "least of all evils" because it is still evil and serves no effective purpose in the long run. Unlike with Ron Paul, there is also not a single shred of educational value.

      There is no reason whatever to believe that Trump would be "the least of all evil" as Barack Obama has clearly exhibited as the so-called "peace candidate" of 2008. The notion that you have to go by words relies on the equally stupid notion that a libertarian "must" vote AT ALL. What purpose will ever be served by it even if campaign rhetoric could be counted on to be accurate? A libertarian puts his signature under whatever said president would do no matter how horrible. To put your signature under it in such a public way makes it even worse because it defilés libertarianism as a philosophy. Why would the world need to know that you, as a libertarian, support someone like Trump, when Trump does not have a shred of libertarianism in him? If you insist on voting for him, keeping it to yourself at least makes some sense, but to be public about it is to smear the libertarian philosophy as one without principles.

      Libertarians for Trump, in terms of PR for libertarianism, does nothing but damage when it comes to potential converts. And for what? For letting people know you consider Trump least of all evils even when you have no evidence to that fact?

      Sure, the U.S. political establishment hates Trump. But they would also hate Hitler. The point is not that they're the same, but that being opposed by the establishment does not mean a libertarian ought to endorse him just to spite the elites.

  2. From part of his answer to a question by Hugh Hewitt about the nuclear triad, in a debate in December:
    ...The power is so massive that we can't just leave areas that 50 years ago or 75 years ago we wouldn't care...