QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:It is the establishment that is bat-shit crazy over a potential Trump presidency; they know they will be exposed for just playing the DC game with all its graft, corruption and sleaze.
First, a good chunk of them are backing Trump. There are PLENTY who are taking the same position as you, giving him the nod because he's not Clinton.
If Clinton was the establishment candidate, and if Trump was not, and if their livelihood depended on establishment-backed corruption continuing, they'd all be backing Clinton.
Except they're not.
Point to "the establishment" being all worked up in fear of Trump becoming president.
Again, I was speaking of the rubes who are creaming themselves at the idea of him becoming president.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:Any real American should be glad this might happen, especially libertarians I would think.
Except the card has been laying on the table for several elections, and the first time Republican party-line voters pick it up is when they try to convince the Libertarians to vote for their establishment candidate (and again, don't kid yourself ... Trump has been rubbing shoulders with the establishment for decades). We're not duped as easily as those who think Trump is a skilled businessperson.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:And yes, libertarians quite often identify with many, if not a majority, of the republican positions, especially conservative fiscal policy, taxation, limited government etc....
You forgot Second Amendment. However, what Libertarians insist on, most contemporary Republicans only pay lip service. Fiscal policy? Sure, until the tax dollars would go toward drilling US oil or growing the military even larger than it already is. Then, it's, "Spend, baby! Spend!"
Taxation? Gotta pay for those new, state-of-the-art drones and jets somehow, right? Of course, we could always deficit-spend to fund our military, too. Wouldn't be the first time.
Limited government? See my list above. Contemporary Republicans have, largely, been supporters of:
- denying two consenting adults the ability to get married
- militarizing police
- granting police or federal enforcement the right to search or surveil without a warrant or probable cause, using defenses like, "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about."
- controlling what substances I can and cannot put into my own body
- controlling what other people may use my body or control decisions I make with it
- controlling and monitoring my ability to enter and leave the country
- the allowance or withdrawal of rights based on one's birthplace, residence, or religion
Do these actually sound like limited government to you? Well, they're not. They increase governance.
You have a different brand of authoritarianism than Democrats, but just because it's not the same, that doesn't make it inherently better.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:Obviously you listed the items where some differences exist; we get it that they like to smoke dope and for some that is all that matters; but on a lot of issues there is not insurmountable difference.
I've never done a single illicit drug. I still resent someone else deciding whether or not I can do so without risking imprisonment, as it is STILL 'big government' in every sense.
As for the other 'not insurmountable differences', I assume you mean the rest of that list. Are you willing to compromise on the rest of that list? I'm not.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:As for Trump himself, I am pretty sure he goes to work every day, and runs a pretty sizable business in the private sector employing thousands of people and contributing to society. He is not a Kennedy or other NE liberal elite sitting on Martha's Vineyard sipping chardonnay all day.
He was handed the damn CEO chair when he was five months removed from being a college student. He might go sit in the chair, but he hardly built the damn thing, and anything he tries to build outside actual properties ends up being a failure.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote: Again, as I posted earlier, Trump was put over the top by crossover democrats and independents in the primaries. I am not here to apologize for that.
You honestly think a mass migration of non-Republicans into the Republican Party for the sole purpose of nominating Trump is the cause for his nomination?
I thought Alex Jones was a conspiracy theorist.
Care to cite one credible source?
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:With respect to SCOTUS, given the average age on the bench now, and the average when a justice retires/dies (75 I believe), it is very likely that the next president could nominate up to 5 justices. Trump has already listed his potential nominees, 11 of them, already vetted; they all look very good. Further, do not forget about the entire federal judiciary - extremely powerful judges and appeals court judges who have the power to steam roll states' and just about everyone. I would think libertarians would think long and hard about this topic.
We do. However, we don't see judges who stand at odds on all the bullet points listed above as being substantially better options.
And as for the "average age when a justice retires/dies," speculation on who they might pick (Trump is not limited to those 11 he listed) is hardly grounds to give someone a job that requires mostly other things. It would be like giving a graphic design job to someone based on whether or not they know how to take screenshots. There's too much else for which they are responsible.
And again, you can assume that one might die during that time, but it's speculative. There is zero certainty that the next president will influence ANYONE's replacement but Scalia's. So why are we using something that MIGHT end up being in their job description to hire someone for a position full of other things that are certainly in their job description? That's a fairly silly way to assess criteria for the job.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:If libertarians wish to remain a fringe element, so be it. Would they be better served by promoting their ideas within the republican party and hopefully build from the ground up and over time effect change on a larger scale; or should they help splinter the right and assist in helping democrats win and watch their country crumble?
As I already said, we tried working with the Republican Party in 2012, but the Republican Party seemed to only want the votes.
But why would we try beyond that, when the party itself is as big-government as the Democrats at the end of the day? Sure, it pays lip service to small government, but what it really means is usually just "different big government."
Encouraging a group to assimilate and abandon their core while dangling the possibility that they could maybe change things someday from within ... after they've assimilated ... is nonsensical.
QuakerOats;1809139 wrote:In the end, what will be left for them and their cause? Or maybe you somehow think republicans are a bigger danger than the radical leftists that have overtaken the democrat party.
I think it's a tie, and America is the one who loses.
