Tuesday, November 8, 2016

I Don't Think You Guys Get It...

...who keep writing comments under my posts that Hillary is horrific.

I agree. If she is elected we will be able to launch a unified front against her.

It is a Trump victory that is problematic for libertarians. Even though he is horrific on almost all issues some of you want to support him.

We should be objecting to both. You are fooling yourselves if you think Trump, who has advisers such as Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, Peter Navarro and Michael Flynn, has some libertarian inclinations.

As president, he would be a neo-con leaning tyrant. He would just go to war for other reasons.

Sheldon Adelson isn't supporting him for nothing and the Harvard high priest of neoconism, Alan Dershowitz, during an interview yesterday on CNN seemed to give the impression that he understood this.

And explain this tweet libertarian Trump fanboys from the neocon on nuclear steroids John Bolton.
Who do you think knows more about Trump's real intentions you or the insider Bolton?



  1. Neocons are aligned with Al Qaeda, ISIS, Saudi Arabia and other Sunnis against Assad, Putin, Iran and other Shias. If we can believe Trump that ISIS is enemy #1, and that the US can partner with Russia to destroy them, then something will have to give as this will put him at odds with the neocons and possibly Israel.

    1. Like I said only Hillary brings a unified libertarian front against the state.

      Trump brings crazy support from some libertarians. So it is oaky for the US to fight a Terrorists becasue of some supposed threat?

      That Trump is anti_Israel is absurd.

      Libertarians for Trump are in denial, only a Hillary victory brings them back to hate the state reality.

    2. Is there a Donald Clinton or Hillary Trump option on the ballot, or do I just wrote one of those in? Out of popcorn. Going to get coffee.

    3. I think it's wack to believe one can predict which of these two monsters is worse. Libertarians uniting against one or the other is pretty meaningless except to a very small group of people. It's very possible that Trump is more incompetent than Hillary, and at least Trump "might" (thin might) get rid of Obamacare. Of course, he might replace it with something just as bad or worse, but Hillary is guaranteed to do that.

      Trump "might" also not invite WWIII with enforcing no-fly zones against Russia -- Hillary seems intent on becoming the first female war president.

      There are too many variables to predict anything other than either Clinton or Trump is a disaster. Which one is the greater disaster is unknowable.

  2. The upshot to Hillary would be lots of people hate her, still under legal scrutiny for Clinton foundation, emails, etc, health problems.

    After listening to the Block vs. Gillespie debate I'm tempted to write in Ron Paul (suggested by the comedian that warmed up the crowd before the debate). That's what I did back in 2012.

  3. Ive been hearing what you've been saying Robert, I'm just glad that you've been sticking to your guns throughout the entire election unlike some others in the movement.

  4. A bad Trump is better strategically for libertarians than a bad Hillary.

    Libertarians are typically very good about pointing out the mistakes of whatever political party is in power. No one listens to us.

    The right is always against the left. The left and media elite blame the right for obstructing. They will say the bailout wasn't big enough, the intervention wasn't great enough.

    It's better for libertarians to counter the bad of a Trump president. We may win leftists who hate Trump by saying, yes Trump is bad, but Hillary/Obama had the same policy. The state shouldn't be doing any of this! We may win Trump supporters by saying, we understand the appeal of an outsider, but we need the proper intellectual foundations to crush the progressives. Have you heard of Ron Paul?

  5. "I agree. If she is elected we will be able to launch a unified front against her."

    And if Trump is elected, we will be able to launch a unified front against him, too. Two points. One, damn few libertarians support Trump in any meaningful way. Aside from Walter Block and a very few others, there has been no real libertarian (that is ideological) enthusiasm for Trump. Real support is giving time and money to push a candidate's agenda; which "libertarians" have done that? Second, the weak support that does exist is a pure judgement call about public policy risks between the major candidates. And here, frankly, your judgment call is just as subjective as Block's. Only time will tell who is correct.

  6. Hilary has the political history and connection to get things done. Trump is more likely to be opposed, even by the GOP.

  7. I remember Wenzel saying something to the effect of Hillary would not be able to get much done. She doesn't have the support etc etc.. and that was one of the reasons you chose to "support" (I use that loosely) Clinton over Trump. I believe you are correct but you have it backwards. A Trump Presidency would have the media and the Congress looking hard at everything he did. Hell, Congress might even remember they were supposed to be a check on the President, and take back some power from the executive. Hillary would get whatever shes wants done because she is an evil bitch who would stop at nothing to achieve her agenda. The amount of people disappeared by the Clinton's should be notice enough to anyone who dares stand in her way.
    Our best chance is a Trump presidency with a Congress that suddenly remembers they have some power and a media that suddenly remembers they are supposed to be journalists. It is too bad he won't win.

  8. I do get it. My assessment of Trump, however, is that he's more bark than bite. I give a lot of weight to the reports that people who work under him like him. Hideous Hillary is nasty to the people who work for her, and is just a nasty person through and through, I think.