Trump is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party---and libertarians.
It was a major tactical error for libertarians to support Trump. He is doing nothing libertarian and the masses are now looking to the Bernie Sanders left for solutions,Tonight a Democrat in Iowa -- white, non-college district that flipped hugely from Obama to Trump -- won a +21 Trump district by 10 points. https://t.co/uVGvGEeiJr— Will Jordan (@williamjordann) August 9, 2017
Hillary in office would have been an easy intellectual target where the masses would have been looking for libertarians to provide the intellectual ammo to explain why Hillary was evil.
Now that energy has been co-opted by a buffoon who is losing support on a daily basis--to the interventionist left.
-RW
Trump vote did not equal pro-Republican.
ReplyDeleteTrump vote equaled anti-Hillary.
Now that she's gone, they're reverting back, and getting a huge boost by placing the current nut-job at the top of the Republican throne. Well done, Dems.
--- Trump is an absolute disaster for the Republican Party---and libertarians. ---
ReplyDeleteDon't say we true libertarians didn't warn you (not you you, Robert, but Trumpistas).
I warned that a Trump win would mean people could blame capitalism for everything without sounding so obviously foolish, because they coild point to the Cheeto-man as the face of capitalism for years to come. A Hitlery win would mean bad economic policies and other horrible things, for sure, but only the most recalcitrant of socialists would blame capitalism while putting a serious face. Liberty would have flourished even faster under Hitlery.
We lost. Welcome to Fascist USA, indeed!
I don't think the fact that some libertarians supported a Trump win means anything or will mean anything. If Hillary had won, there could have been tons of new "entitlements" like Obamacare that we would never be rid of. But we had nothing to do with who won.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what we say or do, the voter base for the most part is thoroughly and emotionally attached to their party and their partisan clowns. Nothing we say or do ever seems to invade the brains of average partisan voters on the subject of war crimes, spying, theft through inflation, inflation as a purposeful government policy or anything else we say. That's something to worry about.
Yeah, to infer that libertarians affected the election one way or the other is nutty -- even if every libertarian in existence had supported Trump.
DeleteI agree Hillary would have been just as likely to be disastrous. Her desire to prove just how tough a woman can be -- when backed by nuclear weapons -- would have been almost, if not every bit as dangerous, as Trump's idiocy.
Disclaimer: I didn't support Trump or Clinton.
"If Hillary had won, there could have been tons of new "entitlements" like Obamacare that we would never be rid of."
DeleteThe House would have been under Republican control from the start of her Presidency; therefore based on historical pattern, under their control throughout her tenure. As it is, no Republican voted for Obama Care and 34 Democrats voted against it. She would have united Republicans in opposition like never before.
The party out of power will often talk like they believe in libertarian ideas, principles, and so forth and then not do anything of the sort once they flip into power. Same rinse and repeat as always.
ReplyDeleteHilary's failures would have been blamed on capitalism, the free market, and not enough government. Of the 537 elected office holders in the federal government including the vice president there might be at best two who at any given time on a particular subject of the day may hold a libertarian view but that never stops the Ds and Rs, especially the Ds for blaming the libertarians for their failures and for obstructing them from materializing their utopia.
I would like to see Trump attacked by Ds for where he goes against liberty, but they won't. They can't. Deep down they believe in the principles behind those things if not the stance Trump takes. So it's "Russia, Russia, Russia" and similar. Civil asset forfeiture alone hands them something meaningful on silver platter since Obama took symbolic steps against it. Do they bother? Nope. Why? They want that power. That's why Obama only took symbolic steps.
That district is quite rural, but it is incorrect to say it is non-college.
ReplyDeleteFairfield, which I believe is easily its largest town, is home to Maharishi University of Management (formerly Maharishi International University). It is not a college town like Iowa City or Ames, each home to large state universities, but a college town probably unlike any other. People come from all over to practice TM, and many local businesses cater to that community.
Iowa City, easily the most liberal city in Iowa, also isn't that far away.
Below are links to the Wikipedia entries on Fairfield and Maharishi University, as well as the Des Moines Register article on this election, which includes party registration for the district. The local consequence was to replace one Democrat at the statehouse with another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield,_Iowa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maharishi_University_of_Management
Democrat Phil Miller wins Iowa House District 82 special election
https://www.google.com/amp/s/uw-media.desmoinesregister.com/amp/551242001
Anyway, the sample isn't what it appears. I'm not sure I would read that much into this result. Bernie Sanders was probably much more popular than Hillary Clinton in Iowa City; perhaps with many people in and around Fairfield as well.