Why Libertarians Are Hopeless • Christopher Cantwell

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

If it is our sequential right (the opposition) to the executive, then choosing the most ideologically consistent candidate is apt given the judicial crisis.

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated. Bloomberg has even threatened to introduce such a diversion with enthusiasm from Trump already.

But really, the clarion call should be, why leave money on the table?

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

If it is our sequential right (the opposition) to the executive, then choosing the most ideologically consistent candidate is apt given the judicial crisis.

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

But really, the abbreviated clarion call should be; why leave money on the table?

Nobody in the major parties will be conservative. Reps in 1995 did not reduce the gov. Rep Bush put in Roberts who fixed Obamacare.

Trump is the only hope for a change. Logically, Trump should be a spoiler, like Perot.

Maybe there is a fight in heaven.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

If it is our sequential right (the opposition) to the executive, then choosing the most ideologically consistent candidate is apt given the judicial crisis.

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

But really, the abbreviated clarion call should be; why leave money on the table?

Nobody in the major parties will be conservative. Reps in 1995 did not reduce the gov. Rep Bush put in Roberts who fixed Obamacare.

Trump is the only hope for a change. Logically, Trump should be a spoiler, like Perot.

Maybe there is a fight in heaven.

There is ample evidence that a vindicated Hillary (if that were to happen somehow) would beat Trump, even Bernie might. That should put the FOG into the most devout atheists. He's perfectly positioned to be either a losing candidate or guerrilla interference.

I say "all in", Cruz/Johnson 2016. Even Cruz/Rubio or Cruz/Kasich is acceptable.

Last chance, all aboard.

Is it our turn or not?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

If it is our sequential right (the opposition) to the executive, then choosing the most ideologically consistent candidate is apt given the judicial crisis.

The question is whether Trump would run a tamper campaign as an independent if not nominated.

But really, the abbreviated clarion call should be; why leave money on the table?

Nobody in the major parties will be conservative. Reps in 1995 did not reduce the gov. Rep Bush put in Roberts who fixed Obamacare.

Trump is the only hope for a change. Logically, Trump should be a spoiler, like Perot.

Maybe there is a fight in heaven.

There is ample evidence that a vindicated Hillary (if that were to happen somehow) would beat Trump, even Bernie might. That should put the FOG into the most devout atheists. He's perfectly positioned to be either a losing candidate or guerrilla interference.

I say "all in", Cruz/Johnson 2016. Even Cruz/Rubio or Cruz/Kasich is acceptable.

Last chance, all aboard.

Is it our turn or not?

The incumbent party gets reelected if the VP is the next candidate. T. Rex, Coolidge, Truman, Bush. Nixon lost on TV inexperience they say.

Has there ever been a successor from the same party who wasn't the VP? If not the VP then something must have been wrong with the administration's policies, and why reelect a goof up.

Also, the two party system means that nearly half of the electorate is unhappy. Alternation of the parties keeps everyone happy often enough to keep the system.

That said, Hillary is special, she has more name recognition than most non VP follow ups. Bernie is getting the hard core dems.

Trump could get voters from the silent majority, because he is an outsider. Libertarians seem to favor Cruz, I think his rhetoric is only collectivist on foreign policy, but the silent majority wont see that I think. I am not a political aficionado. I hate politics. It doesn't matter who gets elected, it is just a matter of time until Socialism. So I might feel the same as the silent majority. Trump looks like he is different. He should be afraid to die. He must have some hook up to the power.

So maybe there is a fight in heaven, and TPTB are straightening something out amongst themselves, and maybe the next golden age is less than a generation away. Faster biotech advancement or something.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree with you about Trump. He only has a voice because of his money. His self interested drive to remain a business mogul and to create a healthy market is what attracts me although his details are hazy. He seems to be stirring up issues that may shift the Overton window. Frankly getting sick of all of the socialist rhetoric for the last 8 years.

Cruz just bothers me for several reasons but the one most relevant is his wife. I don't know something smells fishy when the best candidate ideologically is literally in bed with the bank overseeing the ongoing massive transference of wealth. She is also closely tied with the proposal for an NAU which should terrify anyone who is concerned about the constitution. I also think he is unlectable against Hillary. He has zero charisma or personality and unfortunately that seems to count for something. Every time he opens his mouth its like Jim Neighbors and Bob Dole had a secret love child.

As far as the unions they will be a bit of a wild card this time around I think. I know firsthand that many of the union members related to coal, steel, power, rail and some others are shifting their votes to anything that is going to help them stay in business and is anti-TPP. I know life long union members and Dem supporters who are going against Hillary for that reason alone but there is plenty of time for things to change.

a reply to: greencmp

Guess it is almost time to hoist up the black flag.

A benevolent dictator??? There will be a lot of people that will not allow that crap to happen here.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree with you about Trump. He only has a voice because of his money. His self interested drive to remain a business mogul and to create a healthy market is what attracts me although his details are hazy. He seems to be stirring up issues that may shift the Overton window. Frankly getting sick of all of the socialist rhetoric for the last 8 years.

Cruz just bothers me for several reasons but the one most relevant is his wife. I don't know something smells fishy when the best candidate ideologically is literally in bed with the bank overseeing the ongoing massive transference of wealth. She is also closely tied with the proposal for an NAU which should terrify anyone who is concerned about the constitution. I also think he is unlectable against Hillary. He has zero charisma or personality and unfortunately that seems to count for something. Every time he opens his mouth its like Jim Neighbors and Bob Dole had a secret love child.

As far as the unions they will be a bit of a wild card this time around I think. I know firsthand that many of the union members related to coal, steel, power, rail and some others are shifting their votes to anything that is going to help them stay in business and is anti-TPP. I know life long union members and Dem supporters who are going against Hillary for that reason alone but there is plenty of time for things to change.

Trump is a celebrity. Everyone who watched the news back in the day knew his face and name from his business deals. I don't knowhow big his show was, but I heard TV and AM radio people talk about him and the show. Trump is like Reagan in that way. I have no idea what he can do or wants to do.

Definitely hazy.

I saw a printout from a voter precinct in Columbia, South Carolina. In SC both parties can vote in the primary. The printout said 251 out of 252 voters voted and Rubio had twice as many votes as either Bush, Kasick, or Trump. I didn't see Cruz, he had less than Bush, Kasick, or Trump. Trump was 3rd or 4th. Rand Paul got zero. The Dems like Rubio or else there was impressively disciplined voter operation.

How much could Trump be paid to get Hillary elected, hypothetically? They can afford a trillion in money or solved problems.

a reply to: greencmp

You are never going to get the left to vote for Cruz / Anything. And they outnumber you, by quite a bit. By pandering to and carrying the water for people who hate all government interference (except the Jesus kind) and want to remove all social safety nets (in spite of the fact that both parties have been running the table and stacking the deck against the working class for a century) they guarantee opposition. And that opposition dwarfs libertarians.

"I'm alright jack," aint cutting it against people who literally have to choose the best two of shelter / food and medicine this week.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: greencmp

You are never going to get the left to vote for Cruz / Anything. And they outnumber you, by quite a bit. By pandering to and carrying the water for people who hate all government interference (except the Jesus kind) and want to remove all social safety nets (in spite of the fact that both parties have been running the table and stacking the deck against the working class for a century) they guarantee opposition. And that opposition dwarfs libertarians.

"I'm alright jack," aint cutting it against people who literally have to choose the best two of shelter / food and medicine this week.

We know we've lost.

The author is simply commenting on the disintegration of our constitutional republic and speculating on what the form of its replacement might take.

It's not your fault alone. Indeed, we think it is ours that we failed to pierce the veil of ignorance that enshrouds the majority.

Either way, whomever you choose to blame, the damage is done and the last rays of the light of freedom are diminishing as we speak. The long night that follows this sunset is unknown to us all.

Good luck and take care of those who you are close to.

a reply to: greencmp

Likewise.

Understand. I am 46 years old. I have literally been hearing about the death of freedom and the coming apocalypse since the mid 80's. In the meantime I have educated myself, worked hard, bought houses, raised children, been laid off three times and watched as both R's and D's vote for things like Nafta and Cafta.

Your hyperbole does you little credit. It's literally been the end of freedom every year for decades. What does it look like from my perspective? Coordinated boom / bust cycles designed to enrich the ultra-class at the expense of everyone else, every 6-7 years since before I was born.

If it blows up, it blows up. It was a garbage system anyway, and most of us never felt any more free to do anything but pay the banker every time we pass go regardless.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I hope you're right.