Never Trump

[BYE]

This is a really nice interview. Weld makes a good case why Republicans should support his ticket: Trump isn’t a conservative, American based Libertarians are more fiscally conservative, favor free trade and a sane immigration policy, and have a more traditional, non-intervention, non-neocon based foreign policy. Weld is much more smooth and polished than Johnson. The Libertarian Party would be doing better with him at the top of the ticket. (Romney has said he most likely would have endorsed Weld/Johnson. No chance he endorses Johnson/Weld.)

Still, none of what Weld said to Tapper walks back on anything he said to the Boston Globe. In addition to bashing Trump, he talked about his future with the Globe, not necessarily the most opportune topic when you are in the middle of a campaign, and made it clear his future is with Republicans and not Libertarians. I can understand why that could be disheartening to hear for libertarians of all sorts. This election was their watershed moment. Now it’s all slipping away. No fifteen percent and no debates and if the downward trend in support continues, possibly not even five percent, the threshold for matching federal funds and automatic ballot qualification.

Weld is obviously the more competent of the two and is the only reason the ticket is remotely appealing. Without playing on Johnson's name, he is not very impressive. Clinton blows him away. Either way, I'm not putting an orange *** in the white house, and I'm glad Weld seems to be concentrating on Republicans a bit more. Everything he said about Trump is spot on.

 

[♪alt13]

This is a really nice interview. Weld makes a good case why Republicans should support his ticket: Trump isn’t a conservative, American based Libertarians are more fiscally conservative, favor free trade and a sane immigration policy, and have a more traditional, non-intervention, non-neocon based foreign policy. Weld is much more smooth and polished than Johnson. The Libertarian Party would be doing better with him at the top of the ticket. (Romney has said he most likely would have endorsed Weld/Johnson. No chance he endorses Johnson/Weld.)

Still, none of what Weld said to Tapper walks back on anything he said to the Boston Globe. In addition to bashing Trump, he talked about his future with the Globe, not necessarily the most opportune topic when you are in the middle of a campaign, and made it clear his future is with Republicans and not Libertarians. I can understand why that could be disheartening to hear for libertarians of all sorts. This election was their watershed moment. Now it’s all slipping away. No fifteen percent and no debates and if the downward trend in support continues, possibly not even five percent, the threshold for matching federal funds and automatic ballot qualification.

You've missed the point entirely. People who call themselves Libertarians have been voting for one of the two parties for a long time. Populism has gripped both parties in this election. It makes it very hard for them to choose either candidate. If weld goes on to drag the GOP toward the left on social issues that's a ****ing win for libertarians and the country. It is the opposite of disheartening it is heartening.

 

[Jonah]

You've missed the point entirely. People who call themselves Libertarians have been voting for one of the two parties for a long time. Populism has gripped both parties in this election. It makes it very hard for them to choose either candidate. If weld goes on to drag the GOP toward the left on social issues that's a ****ing win for libertarians and the country. It is the opposite of disheartening it is heartening.

If you want to talk about who is missing what point, it would probably be helpful to clarify our definitions so we at least understand each other. I would differentiate between the Libertarian Party and libertarians and then again between right-wing, Koch-style libertarians and left-wing, Chomsky-style libertarians. You could probably splinter it off even further but this should work for now.

This election is a major disappointment for the Libertarian Party. At one point Libertarian Party people had delusions that Trump would shatter Republicans to the point that the Republican Party would be destroyed and be replaced by a new coalition led by Johnson under the Libertarian banner. Reality soon hit and it became more about the 15 percent threshold and making the debates and somehow then becoming competative. Now Johnson is out of the debates and the Libertarian Party will be lucky to hit five percent and qualify for matching federal funds and automatic ballot qualification.

For the individuals who call themselves libertarians a lot would depend on how closely they identify with the Libertarian Party as to their level of disappointment as well as what type of libertarian they consider themselves. There are party-oriented libertarians and issue-oriented libertarians. Party people are likely disappointed whereas some issue people might be fine with the GOP co-opting their issues. Still other issue oriented libertarians would never be satisfied with a GOP version of libertarianism because it would be Koch influenced, which to them is the antithesis of true libertarianism and not a win for themselves or for the country.

 

[Red]

Its so weird why people like you think the way you do.

Do you have any facts or evidence involving anything to do with politics? No you dont. You only know exactly what someone else wants you to know. Hook line and sinker. . You just havent figured that out yet. You arent honest with yourself or anyone else. Im just an honest Computer. I speak the truth.

Actually, I think there is something to be said for your point of view. Perhaps the best example in recent years goes something like this:

Please, please, please tell me Obama is not really an American! He's a black man!! Please, please, please tell me he was not born here. Please, please, please tell me he's not one of us! I don't need good evidence, really I don't. I'll accept anything ya got, just please tell me this black man could not possibly be an American.....

 

[Red]

Its so weird why people like you think the way you do.

Do you have any facts or evidence involving anything to do with politics? No you dont. You only know exactly what someone else wants you to know. Hook line and sinker. . You just havent figured that out yet. You arent honest with yourself or anyone else. Im just an honest Computer. I speak the truth.

And ya know what? I think your computer has been Hacked.....

 

[Red]

Its so weird why people like you think the way you do.

Do you have any facts or evidence involving anything to do with politics? No you dont. You only know exactly what someone else wants you to know. Hook line and sinker. . You just havent figured that out yet. You arent honest with yourself or anyone else. Im just an honest Computer. I speak the truth.

My goodness, what a braindead observation. Deciding whether someone you don't even know is capable of being objective or not. Silly man, I have an absolute wealth of primary material to draw upon. Not simply the opinions of political pundants to whom I might agree. I do enjoy reading their spin. Very much so. But, since I know the value of unfiltered primary sources, and since, in Trump's case, they are so easy to access, I have been doing so all along. You really should not draw generalizations from your own subjective approach and apply it to others, such as myself in this instance, without actual evidence.

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCoswYMTz68KlHKn3oEzTm4A

 

[Hotdog]

My goodness, what a braindead observation. Deciding whether someone you don't even know is capable of being objective or not. Silly man, I have an absolute wealth of primary material to draw upon. Not simply the opinions of political pundants to whom I might agree. I do enjoy reading their spin. Very much so. But, since I know the value of unfiltered primary sources, and since, in Trump's case, they are so easy to access, I have been doing so all along. You really should not draw generalizations from your own subjective approach and apply it to others, such as myself in this instance, without actual evidence.

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCoswYMTz68KlHKn3oEzTm4A

What is your wealth primary material?

You legit have a official documents laying around your house? What do you do for a living?

 

[Red]

What is your wealth primary material?

You legit have a official documents laying around your house? What do you do for a living?

At the most general level, your observation seemed to amount to: people believe what they want to believe, and often depends on others to support those beliefs. This seemed so obvious as to not need to even be said. Very common I would say. I felt the birther mythology was a perfect example of that dynamic in action.

However, you also applied that observation to myself directly, claiming I could somehow not be honest and simply admit that it applies to me as well. And, from that perspective, you are mistaken. Where my beliefs regarding Donald Trump is concerned, what material could be more primary then the man's own words? Not the words of pundants interpreting his words, which are secondary sources, but Trump's own words-primary sources, in other words.

As for my living, I was an historian, now retired. And thus I am accustomed to doing research that deals with primary sources. Thus, if I were doing research on the American Revolution for instance, and say perhaps the role of the Committees of Correspondence for instance, the primary sources would be the writings of the members of that Committee. It's possible you don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources. In the case of determining the ideas of Donald Trump, his own words are a primary source, in that respect. Hence, I do not simply believe what I want to believe, or depend on the political pundants as secondary sources. Get it? You applied to me an assumption, on your part, that was not based in the reality of the situation.

I provided you with the same primary material I have used in judging Trump. His own words, in the form of his rally speeches. They have all been available to watch and listen to. I may despise the man, but I prefer to do so based on what sick ideas he himself has espoused. Right there, in the public record, and a primary source for researchers to draw upon. And since this is a Trump thread, I think he is a good example for me to use in describing what the primary sources on in this subject-the man's own words.

 

[Hotdog]

At the most general level, your observation seemed to amount to: people believe what they want to believe, and often depends on others to support those beliefs. This seemed so obvious as to not need to even be said. Very common I would say. I felt the birther mythology was a perfect example of that dynamic in action.

However, you also applied that observation to myself directly, claiming I could somehow not be honest and simply admit that it applies to me as well. And, from that perspective, you are mistaken. Where my beliefs regarding Donald Trump is concerned, what material could be more primary then the man's own words? Not the words of pundants interpreting his words, which are secondary sources, but Trump's own words-primary sources, in other words.

As for my living, I was an historian, now retired. And thus I am accustomed to doing research that deals with primary sources. Thus, if I were doing research on the American Revolution for instance, and say perhaps the role of the Committees of Correspondence for instance, the primary sources would be the writings of the members of that Committee. It's possible you don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources. In the case of determining the ideas of Donald Trump, his own words are a primary source, in that respect. Hence, I do not simply believe what I want to believe, or depend on the political pundants as secondary sources. Get it? You applied to me an assumption, on your part, that was not based in the reality of the situation.

I provided you with the same primary material I have used in judging Trump. His own words, in the form of his rally speeches. They have all been available to watch and listen to. I may despise the man, but I prefer to do so based on what sick ideas he himself has espoused. Right there, in the public record, and a primary source for researchers to draw upon. And since this is a Trump thread, I think he is a good example for me to use in describing what the primary sources on in this subject-the man's own words.

Congrats on retirement.

I agree that a mans own words can be used as primary. But thats about all we actually have access to. Most other information has been filtered and possibly doctored up by people with probable bias. Or we actually have no access to. Therefore you are really taking people's word for it on most stuff.
Im not saying one cant make an accurate guess on accuracy of something, but its still a guess. Therefore you choose to believe what you want. Even with words used as an example, thats still problematic. Words can be twisted an interpreted how one wants too. For example, Trump says build a wall, the left hears exterminate mexicans. Again, believing what you want.

 

[BYE]

For example, when Trump says "[Mexicans] are bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." "[These immigrants] are killers and rapists." "Mexico...sends over the bad ones because they don't want to pay for them." "Jeb Bush has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife." "Jeb Bush is crazy, who cares that he speaks Mexican, this is America, English !!," sane human beings hear exactly what this is, hate speech marginalizing of minorities. Again, analyzing credible sources (such as the candidates exact words), looking at the candidates long proven history of similar comments, and coming to a rational conclusion that he influences using racism, xenophobia, hate, power dynamics, and no amount of logic at all.

This is the best post you've ever written. Well done!

 

[Hotdog]

This is the best post you've ever written. Well done!

I dont mean to sound like Im ever defending Trump. He is a dumbass, and is unfit to be president.

I dont think he is racist though either. Just a dumbass who plays right into the hands of liberals who are on a crusade right now to make anything and everything racist and offensive. I think the liberal movement on racism is out of control right now. Its comes off as actually very anti white, and racist its self. Sorry, but I dont have white guilt, and wont be ashamed of who I am. I didnt choose my race.

 

[BYE]

I dont mean to sound like Im ever defending Trump. He is a dumbass, and is unfit to be president.

I dont think he is racist though either. Just a dumbass who plays right into the hands of liberals who are on a crusade right now to make anything and everything racist and offensive. I think the liberal movement on racism is out of control right now. Its comes off as actually very anti white, and racist its self. Sorry, but I dont have white guilt, and wont be ashamed of who I am. I didnt choose my race.

Your general thinking is indicative of a young person. Also, I don't know if you're a racist, but as Clinton herself has said, we all have our biases. Your "Liberal" bashing with respect to racism is really suspect, and your constant harping of "white guilt" is disturbing. Just because someone claims they won't indulge in "white guilt," which was unfairly forced on them, they can still be racist, support racist comments, and support other racists.

Illogically using "the other" as the purveyor of "white guilt" is a small step from white supremacy, and at the core of many of these white supremacists is something not far from what you're saying in your statements. "I didn't choose my race." "I'm not ashamed of who I am." "You are forcing white guilt on me." "So what if my race is superior in most ways, and so what if someone is denigrating another 'race.'" "I'm proud of my race and refuse to betray my race." "If you point out anyway a 'white' person is behaving in a racist way, you're just using the 'white guilt' card."

 

[♪alt13]

If you want to talk about who is missing what point, it would probably be helpful to clarify our definitions so we at least understand each other. I would differentiate between the Libertarian Party and libertarians and then again between right-wing, Koch-style libertarians and left-wing, Chomsky-style libertarians. You could probably splinter it off even further but this should work for now.

This election is a major disappointment for the Libertarian Party. At one point Libertarian Party people had delusions that Trump would shatter Republicans to the point that the Republican Party would be destroyed and be replaced by a new coalition led by Johnson under the Libertarian banner. Reality soon hit and it became more about the 15 percent threshold and making the debates and somehow then becoming competative. Now Johnson is out of the debates and the Libertarian Party will be lucky to hit five percent and qualify for matching federal funds and automatic ballot qualification.

For the individuals who call themselves libertarians a lot would depend on how closely they identify with the Libertarian Party as to their level of disappointment as well as what type of libertarian they consider themselves. There are party-oriented libertarians and issue-oriented libertarians. Party people are likely disappointed whereas some issue people might be fine with the GOP co-opting their issues. Still other issue oriented libertarians would never be satisfied with a GOP version of libertarianism because it would be Koch influenced, which to them is the antithesis of true libertarianism and not a win for themselves or for the country.

GJ got more votes than any L candidate in History in 2012. He will likely more than double his last showing. Very few party libertarians ever gave GJ more than a long shot chance. The cards are stacked heavily against 3rd parties and Libertarians know it. As far as issue based libertarians being upset about Koch influence. You're projecting your views onto others. Koch funds the CATO institute(and also NOVA btw) and I've never met a libertarian that was upset about it.

 

[Hotdog]

Your general thinking is indicative of a young person. Also, I don't know if you're a racist, but as Clinton herself has said, we all have our biases. Your "Liberal" bashing with respect to racism is really suspect, and your constant harping of "white guilt" is disturbing. Just because someone claims they won't indulge in "white guilt," which was unfairly forced on them, they can still be racist, support racist comments, and support other racists.

Illogically using "the other" as the purveyor of "white guilt" is a small step from white supremacy, and at the core of many of these white supremacists is something not far from what you're saying in your statements. "I didn't choose my race." "I'm not ashamed of who I am." "You are forcing white guilt on me." "So what if my race is superior in most ways, and so what if someone is denigrating another 'race.'" "I'm proud of my race and refuse to betray my race." "If you point out anyway a 'white' person is behaving in a racist way, you're just using the 'white guilt' card."

See what I mean?

You went way out of your way to make connections of racism that just arent there. Its a cheap way of arguing. And this is the new normal for leftist debating.

Let me give you an example. If someone wants to talk about immigration and its effects on the country, and whats the best way to do it. The left will automatically pull the race card. Ive never heard an honest debate about the subject from someone on left. Its always comes back down to race. Always.

Not everything is a about race. Not all white people are racists. Thats just the plain truth. All the unjustified race baiting does is divide people, and undermind the real issues of racism and the people it effects. Its causing more problems than its helping.

 

[BYE]

Once again, it's apparent you like to express your opinions with no evidence, wide-sweeping generalizations, little attempt to say things within the context of the discussion, absolutely no willingness to learn, and zero persuasive power. In sum, your comments appear to be those of a troll, because there is absolutely nothing to say to these, except for "cool."

 

[Hotdog]

Once again, it's apparent you like to express your opinions with no evidence, wide-sweeping generalizations, little attempt to say things within the context of the discussion, absolutely no willingness to learn, and zero persuasive power. In sum, your comments appear to be those of a troll, because there is absolutely nothing to say to these, except for "cool."

That is amazing. Ive never seen this before. You literally just described your posts, with your own post.

 

[BYE]

That is amazing. Ive never seen this before. You literally just described your posts, with your own post.

Cool.

 

[BYE]

Here's a very fair appraisal of Trump by one of the most unique intellectuals out there. It's a bit old, and his debate assumption was off. In other words, it was even worse than he anticipated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y25qB2n2ptQ

 

[Hotdog]

Here's a very fair appraisal of Trump by one of the most unique intellectuals out there. It's a bit old, and his debate assumption was off. In other words, it was even worse than he anticipated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y25qB2n2ptQ

Cool

 

[Ron Mexico]

See what I mean?

You went way out of your way to make connections of racism that just arent there. Its a cheap way of arguing. And this is the new normal for leftist debating.

Let me give you an example. If someone wants to talk about immigration and its effects on the country, and whats the best way to do it. The left will automatically pull the race card. Ive never heard an honest debate about the subject from someone on left. Its always comes back down to race. Always.

Not everything is a about race. Not all white people are racists. Thats just the plain truth. All the unjustified race baiting does is divide people, and undermind the real issues of racism and the people it effects. Its causing more problems than its helping.

So in summary you are kind of racist and dont like being called out for it and want to continue to be racist?