In the link below you write that you would much rather have a crony in charge who takes bribes rather than a megalomaniac who doesn't need the money and isn't afraid to challenge anyone.
I understand your angle on this except I have to ask whether you really believe that Hillary "needs the money". To me she's more likely the megalomaniac. I'm not a fan of Trump btw but I think he's at least somewhat of a wildcard (which could at least mean "good" on some issues). We *know* that Hillary is terrible.
Btw, if you thought a candidate was terrible but was at least "less militaristic" (eg Bernie - who I know is still terrible on war issues, just maybe not AS terrible) would you vote for them? For what it's worth I'm not sure who I think is the least militaristic. I think there are some comments Trump has made (anti Iraq war, talks about brokering peace between Israel and Palestine) that make me think he might be the guy, though it's definitely not clear. Keep in mind that Bernie recently expressed support for the NDAA (presidential kill lost), essentially saying we live in a dangerous world.
I guess these are ultimately silly points as all of these candidates are terrible and the focus should be on educating the public.
RW response:
Look, everyone in this group is certifiable, Trump, Clinton, and Sanders,
Bill and Hillary seem to be the most aggressive as far as going after crony cash. "Needs money" is subjective. If they go after money every chance they get, even to the extent of raiding the cash in their foundation of nearly every penny, it suggests that they value the marginal dollar very highly.
I really don't know what you mean by Trump being a wildcard. He is certainly not a libertarian wildcard.
There is not one issue where he has demonstrated a libertarian posture and he certainly has zero understanding of how free markets work. At the same time, he is clearly a protectionist, has said he will send US troops to fight ISIS, has said Israel should continue to building settlements in Judea and Samaria, says if he is president he may bomb Libya and likes the Fed keeping interest rates low.
And he has demonstrated an ability to attract rabid followers that fill stadiums. This all looks very dangerous to me.
Hillary is terrible on every issue and so I don't want to publicly support her and have it thrown in my face, "Well, you were in favor of her." A Hillary Clinton administration would be absolutely horrific. But, as I say, she can't pack the stadiums like Mussolini and Hitler---Trump can. That's not good, not good at all.
As for Sanders, he might be a little better on foreign wars, but he is a total whack job when it comes to domestic policy---much worse than Hillary. And those, who promote the idea that foreign wars must be the most important litmus test, fail to take into consideration Adam Smith's observation regarding empathy and location.
Yes, if there is a foreign war, it is likely to bring about more oppression domestically, as Murray Rothbard has noted, but if the guy in charge wants to bring on major league domestic oppression anyways (like Sanders does) the foreign war position becomes less important.
These three are all nut jobs but I think Trump has the potential to be the most oppressive.
The evil neocons are against Trump and they are throwing everything they can at him, which means occasionally even the truth. The neocon P.J. O'Rourke spoke truth when he said Hillary was "the second worst thing that could happen to this country. But she's way behind in second place, you know? She's wrong about absolutely everything. But she's wrong within normal parameters!"
-RW
I may not understand what RW referred to as "Adam Smith's observation regarding empathy and location" but while we all hope that large scale nuclear war is unlikely, the effects (according to some theories) would eliminate the location part of Adam Smith's observation.
ReplyDelete