So how long did it take for a movement called “libertarians for Trump” to realize that they are dealing with a politician? What is it about certain libertarians that they simply refuse to accept historical facts about the nature of politicians, and aspiring politicians once they are in power? The phrase “fool me once, shame on you…” does not even apply here, as these libertarians allow themselves to be fooled time and time again. Continue Reading
Only a couple of weeks before Donald Trump takes a 4 year seat in the White House. Yet we are to wonder if nothing cataclysmic will happen before that happens, as, despite Trump’s promises to strengthen ties with Russia, the United States has now sent 100s of tanks and trucks to Eastern Europe, close to the Russian border, allegedly to “protect” the area from a “Crimean-style annexation.”
Never mind the referendum in Crimea that clearly showed inhabitants’ support for ties with Russia after a Russia-hostile coup took place in Kiev. Never mind that such a situation does not even apply in the smallest degree to any other country in Europe. Never mind that it will only be a few weeks before Donald Trump will take over the reigns from Obama. This all smacks of something sinister happening. Will we see an “incident” occurring just before Trump takes over, that would serve as an excuse for genuine conflict? To potentially force Trump to accept “reality” of a conflict between the U.S. and Russia and thus sabotage his intentions for peaceful relations? Continue Reading
Can there be any doubt now that Donald Trump is a fascist?
Apparently there is doubt at Reason Mag that virtually all current mainstream politicians are fascists at heart. This despite their love for aggressive wars, imperialistic foreign policy, centralized economic policies that especially benefit big corporations and other special interests, a love for more and more surveillance of the population and a militaristic police state, cult-of-personality level president-worship, a desire to disarm the population, an ever-growing state apparatus in general, and other clear indicators. And this goes for virtually all mainstream politicians, because virtually all of them, left and right, support the above.
The only difference between them and Trump is that Trump dares to focus on the group of people that, by and large, spawns most terrorists and therefore national security threats. It is certainly generalistic, and collectivistic of Trump to cast doubt on the whole muslim community for what an extremist minority of them do. But at least he is not avoiding the elephant in the room entirely out of political correctness like the rest of them do. How stupid can you be, or how despicably hypocritical, to generate a continuous stream of muslim terrorists by waging endless wars on the Middle East and bombing people, after decades of propping up and supporting oppressive puppet regimes, and with unwavering, uncritical support for Israel, and then to pretend that there is no threat to be expected from people who adhere to the islamic religion?
This is not bigotry. This is a realistic assessment. What makes politicians despicable is not that they are ‘bigoted’ if they make such assessments, but that it is politicians themselves whom have largely created this problem, and continue to exacerbate it, with their foreign policy past and present.
It is easy to call Donald Trump a “bad person” based on some of the evidence used in the Reason piece. But as usual with Reason Magazine, this is simply a bunch of hypocritical bullshit disguised as a reasonable and ‘factual’ piece from a ‘libertarian point of view.’ It is sin by omission.
Because, from a libertarian point of view, a politician is by very definition a bad person, for the endless stream of lies, dishonesty, moral corruption, law-sanctioned criminality (aka criminal behavior that is law-sanctioned because the behavior is exhibited by government personnel), pro-fascist domestic policies, and other disreputable characteristics. Donald Trump would be no exception to any of this.
What he does seem to be an exception to, is that at least he is honest about all the shitty things he would want to do.
I understand, between the lines, from the likes of Peter Suderman, that politicians are kinder, nicer, more morally acceptable people if only they cover their immoral lard with sprinkles of dishonest sugar dust. Apparently he likes shit sandwiches so long as they look and smell like donuts.
After all, we can call the likes of Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama “civil” in comparison to Trump. But how many people are now DEAD because of the three current or previous presidents? How many civil and especially libertarian rights have they wiped their asses with? How many more did they wish they could violate (the second amendment being one example)? How many bombs have they dropped? How about torture? The Patriot Act? Rendition? Warrantless searches? No knock raids? The war on drugs? Executive decision making on executions without so much as a trial? The list goes on and on eternally of the various policies, agendas and rights violations that presidents – and politicians in general – impose on the people. That’s what they do. That’s why we’re libertarians.
But hey, they’re nice about it, aren’t they? They smile at you. They listen to you as if they care about your opinion. They shake your hands and kiss your babies.
And then they turn around and screw you. Because they’re politicians. Because they’re government. They’re the state. Because they get away with it.
There have been all kinds of soft or hard ways in which governments have always been bigoted to specific sets of people, mostly through laws. Whether it was women, blacks, gays, or simply freedom-loving individuals in general. Leftist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for right-wing people, and Rightist politicians refuse to hide their contempt for left-wing people. Both camps refuse to hide their contempt for libertarians. In the culture war, white heterosexual men are often talked about as one step up from Nazi’s by virtually all the groups that are somehow “oppressed” even today as a black man is president and a woman is one of the two main candidates for the next presidency, and as anyone on college campus who so much as sneezes politically incorrect is pressured and intimidated out of his position.
So is a bigoted politician really anything new? No. But an honest one may be. Trump simply says what he really thinks. He is refusing to don the mask that politicians usually wear to hide their contempt for societal groups, and to hide their fascistic fantasies.
I would never vote for someone like Trump, because a powermad statist is a powermad statist. But call me a fool: i have at least more respect and more admiration for an honest scumbag than for a lying and deceitful scumbag, who pretends he is making love to you when he is really sodomizing you.
Reason magazine is simply showing off its preference for meaningless and deceitful social justice platitudes out of the mouth of people no less evil, as proven by their votes and actions, than Trump.
Because social justice platitudes matter to politically correct, progressive faux-libertarians such as those at Reason.
There have been many reasons for libertarians not to be too high on Rand Paul. But when even Barack Obama is more peaceful in any foreign policy decision that Rand would like, it really is time to call a spade a spade. I don’t hold out much hope that all libertarians will finally realize he is bad news, but that would say more about those libertarians than about Rand Paul.
Anyway, a nuclear deal has been made with Iran, but Rand Paul doesn’t like it. He prefers treating Iran with animosity. He couldn’t be farther removed from his father’s vision of foreign policy.
The libertarian position on Iran isn’t that difficult:
1: Iran is a sovereign nation and America doesn’t get to rule over its decision making. Anyone that thinks it should prefers to see America as an empire. Rand Paul obviously does so.
2: Even if Iran was developing a nuclear weapon; SO WHAT? How many of those does the U.S. have? The U.S. is also the only nation in the world ever to have used them. Yet Rand Paul thinks the U.S. is the nation to lecture other nations on whether or not they deserve to develop nuclear weapons. The arrogance of this is stunning. It is to be expected of the usual war hawks. Rand Paul is now one of them.
There is no more mistaking it: Rand Paul is an interventionist plain and simple; he is proving that by his stance on Iran as well as other regions like in the Russia/Ukraine conflict or when it comes to Israel and ISIS. Foreign intervention will always be the reason for big budgets, for creating new enemies and for more control domestically.
Personally i take no libertarian seriously that still stands behind Rand Paul, no matter the reputation of the former. The simple fact is that even Obama is now better on this issue than Rand Paul is. In fact, the wretched socialist Bernie Sanders is much, much better on foreign policy than Rand Paul is, and more believable in his opposition to the domestic police state.
For those libertarians who claim that foreign policy, especially war, is the single most important issue for libertarians, their credibility is completely shot when they insist on endorsing Rand over Bernie Sanders. Rand Paul is in no meaningful way the same as his father, politically speaking. Libertarians really need to get over that.