Some more Trump vs. Hillary

[Stephen vJ]

I see a lot of Bernie supporters are now siding with Trump. That's worrying. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe he is worse than Hillary. Maybe he should choose Sarah Palin as vice president, so if he fails at destroying the planet, she can finish the job. Hillary should pick Al Gore for the same reasons.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Humphry Hamilton]

People like Trump for one reason and that is that he is anti-establishment. Bernie Sanders had a touch of that and so it is natural they should move to Trump.

The deep state in the US has grown too strong and it needs to be undone a bit, this is the big issue and it is only Trump that has the balls and wherewithal to do it (i.e. he hasn't been bought). Whether he will be successful is another story, he may end up like Kennedy.

There is no doubt that Trump is leading the story at the moment, look at how un-PC Hillary Clinton has become, she is following Trump. Political correctness is history as is the power of the state. We are probably at "peak government" and the pending sovereign debt crisis will make it plainly clear.

In a sovereign debt crisis you only want someone like Trump in charge. I doubt there is anyone more comfortable with debt than Trump.

Humphry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Garth Zietsman]

Trump has no intention of rolling back the state or even changing the rules.  All he does, and wants to do, is win.  The goal, the collateral damage, whether it is within or outside the rules, or whether the rules are just and productive, are all besides the point with him.

PG O Roark has it right about Clinton i.e. she lies a lot and is wrong about just about everything but she is wrong within normal limits.  It is the highlighted bit that may make her the lesser evil.

[Jaco Strauss]

Where is Trump wrong "outside of normal limits"? (Whatever "normal limits" is supposed to mean)

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Jaco Strauss]

Perhaps it is more Anti Hillary than Pro Communist voters...

In spite of all the media hysteria against him, Trump is doing remarkably well. I see he is doing double as well with Democrats compared to Hillary's support among Republicans....

Trump 41%, Clinton 39%

in Politics

Monday, May 02, 2016

Last week, Rasmussen Reports gave votersthe option of staying home on Election Day if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the big party nominees, and six percent (6%) said that’s what they intend to do for now. Clinton and Trump were tied with 38% support each; 16% said they would vote for some other candidate, and two percent (2%) were undecided.

But Trump edges slightly ahead if the stay-at-home option is removed. Trump also now does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 41% support to Clinton’s 39%. Fifteen percent (15%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

This is the first time Trump has led the matchup since last October. Clinton held a 41% to 36% advantage in early March.

Trump now has the support of 73% of Republicans, while 77% of Democrats back Clinton. But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats, while just eight percent (8%) of GOP voters prefer Clinton, given this matchup. Republicans are twice as likely to prefer another candidate.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads 37% to 31%, but 23% like another candidate. Nine percent (9%) are undecided.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

Interesting times ahead

J

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Garth Zietsman]

I did say may.  

O'Rourk did not identify anyone else but I'm sure he implied that Trump was one of those wrong outside normal limits.  My assessment is that Hillary is not as extreme as her opponents suggest - she is likely to be in line with other Democrat presidents.  For me it's much more of a maybe - rather than a given - that Trump is likely to step outside of the range of presidential behaviors we have seen so far but I still think it is more likely that he do so than Hillary.  

The other consideration is whether stepping outside the range is wrong.  Not necessarily.  It could be what's needed (although I don't think Trump is the one who will take the US that way) but then again it could be wrong on a whole new level.

The point is Hillary will be run of the mill (not a new or special kind of evil) whereas Trump is anyone's guess.  I don't think he will necessarily be bad (although in his case black swans loom).  I am much more convinced that he will not be the force for good you think he will. 

[Garth Zietsman]

Um that statistic seems wrong.  A wide range of surveys to date suggest it is just the opposite.

[Jaco Strauss]

 I am much more convinced that he will not be the force for good you think he will. - Garth

I don't think he "will", I think he "might"while I am fully convinced she "won't",. She is guaranteed bad news.... he could very well be bad news as well, but in his case at least the jury is still out....

[Jaco Strauss]

Perhaps, but Rasmussen is pretty well known and respected. 

But anyway look at these very recent ones from three key swing states:

Florida and Pennsylvania neck-and-neck with Ohio going to Trump. All of these went had been solidly Obama in 2012, if memory serves me right....

[Garth Zietsman]

I'll have a better look at the polls.  A lot depends on what question is asked.  The polls I was referring to asked what support Trump had among Republicans (85% - which is lower than usual) and the support Clinton had among Democrats (92% - which is typical.)

I am suggesting that Clinton will within (guaranteed) what Democrat presidents have usually been.  In my view that has been pretty mild i.e. I don't think this is a special level of evil, and in general not different to what Republican presidents have been.  I think the possibilities with Trump are much wider.  I think they range from Fascist level bad to run of the mill Republican awful but not better than that.  If you hope for some possibility of good then obviously the only option this time round is Garry Johnson.

[Garth Zietsman]

The betting markets still say Clinton.  PredictWise says 73% but Iowa University market shows a sudden drop from 73%.

 to 62%

Both markets show Dems recapturing the Senate 62% but the Iowa market shows Dems having higher odds of capturing both the House and the Senate than Republicans.  Right now the betting is that the Dems will have control of the executive and legislature, and then of course, with the death of Scalia and looming retirements, they could ensure a liberal Supreme court for a generation.

[Dewald Pieterse]

From:

https://mishtalk.com/2016/05/10/donald-trump-republican-party-savior/

"Misguided Analysts

Analysts, left and right, still don’t get it.

On the Right, it is absurd to believe Cruz would do better than Trump. On the Left, analysts ignore the shocking weakness of Hillary who was supposed to roll over Bernie Sanders without a fight.

Everyone cites Trump’s ridiculous statements on women, abortion and other things. Yep, they were shockingly poor.

However, everyone knows about them. They were ignored. So why are they supposed to matter in November?

In contrast, have we heard everything there is to know about Hillary’s emails? About Clinton Foundation donations? About Hillary’s misguided policies in Libya?

Trump the Savior

Unlike Ted Cruz, Trump has a very good shot of picking up crossover Democratic votes.

As I stated last year, there are a lot of angry white voters who blame China, Vietnam, and India for stealing US Jobs.

I strongly disagree with Trump’s protectionist policies. But my vote is meaningless.

Trump has a strong chance of winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, and Michigan.

Ted Cruz cannot say the same thing.

Trump can also pick up Libertarians tired of war.

Millennials? They liked Bernie Sanders and many of them will sit this out.

Slogans

Trump has “Make America Great Again”

What does Hillary have? “I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman. Let’s bomb Libya”.

It matters not whether Trump can live up to the message. What matters now is whether or not people like the message.

This is about attitudes.

Pure Hell

In retrospect, Donald Trump is the “candidate from hell”.

• He will beat Clinton: Her Hell.
• He is the undoing of the neocon warmongers (of which Hillary is one): Their Hell.

In doing so, Trump will save the Republican party from itself. Even if Trump, loses, purging the party of the neocons and the evangelicals is a good thing.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock"

Dewald Pieterse

Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, page 55: "A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper. He must free himself from the habit, just as soon as something does not please him, of calling for the police.".

[Jaco Strauss]

Yes, I would also still not bet against Clinton at this stage, but it is still interesting that the gap is narrowing in spite of Trump's record level negatives among women and "minorities"

That - and being almost universally condemned by the glitterati, the talking heads as well as by and large the rest of the world (except the Russians it seems). Perhaps that is precisely one of the reasons for his success.

I must admit I like the fact that everybody I despise, abhor him. Face it, somebody like Gillian Schutte would never vote Trump! 

[Dewald Pieterse]

A lot of americans would not vote for anyone promising to feed their 2A rights to the crocodile.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Garth Zietsman]

Both Trump's and Clinton's statements and records have been factored in.  During the primaries Trump persistently polled well ahead of any of his rivals and after New Hampshire has pretty much led in the betting too.  Clinton has always led Bernie in both.  However for the presidential race Trump is behind in the polls and the Dem candidate has always led in the betting.

On 12 May 2016 at 16:04, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[Garth Zietsman]

The most reliable indicator at this stage of the game is an average of national polls.  When there are lots of state polls then putting those into the model gives a better estimate but there aren't a lot of state level polls (of the general election) right now.  Here is a trend line of national poll averages for Trump versus Clinton.  

As you can see currently it is 43.8% Clinton and 37.7% Trump.  (10.6% undecided and 7.9% other.)

A 6.1% point gap is kind of large - for every 6 Trump supporters Clinton has 7 - but this is early days and I expect the gap to narrow somewhat as the election approaches.  To turn things around Trump would need to pull in at least 79% of the undecided.  I think that very unlikely given that Trump tends not to do well with those who decide late.

The 7.9% other is encouraging for the libertarian vote.  Maybe the LP will do a lot better than it's usual 1% this year.  

[Frances Kendall]

The question that interests me now is will the dems hatred of Trump and Reps hatred of Hilary turn out the faithful in greater numbers - or will they stay home in disgust as Glen Beck suggests. 

Sent from Frances iPhone

12 May 2016, at 5:48 PM, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

The most reliable indicator at this stage of the game is an average of national polls.  When there are lots of state polls then putting those into the model gives a better estimate but there aren't a lot of state level polls (of the general election) right now.  Here is a trend line of national poll averages for Trump versus Clinton.  

As you can see currently it is 43.8% Clinton and 37.7% Trump.  (10.6% undecided and 7.9% other.)

A 6.1% point gap is kind of large - for every 6 Trump supporters Clinton has 7 - but this is early days and I expect the gap to narrow somewhat as the election approaches.  To turn things around Trump would need to pull in at least 79% of the undecided.  I think that very unlikely given that Trump tends not to do well with those who decide late.

The 7.9% other is encouraging for the libertarian vote.  Maybe the LP will do a lot better than it's usual 1% this year.  

On 12 May 2016 at 16:17, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

Both Trump's and Clinton's statements and records have been factored in.  During the primaries Trump persistently polled well ahead of any of his rivals and after New Hampshire has pretty much led in the betting too.  Clinton has always led Bernie in both.  However for the presidential race Trump is behind in the polls and the Dem candidate has always led in the betting.

On 12 May 2016 at 16:04, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I would also still not bet against Clinton at this stage, but it is still interesting that the gap is narrowing in spite of Trump's record level negatives among women and "minorities"

That - and being almost universally condemned by the glitterati, the talking heads as well as by and large the rest of the world (except the Russians it seems). Perhaps that is precisely one of the reasons for his success.

I must admit I like the fact that everybody I despise, abhor him. Face it, somebody like Gillian Schutte would never vote Trump! 

2016-05-12 14:44 GMT+01:00 Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com>:

The betting markets still say Clinton.  PredictWise says 73% but Iowa University market shows a sudden drop from 73%.

 to 62%

Both markets show Dems recapturing the Senate 62% but the Iowa market shows Dems having higher odds of capturing both the House and the Senate than Republicans.  Right now the betting is that the Dems will have control of the executive and legislature, and then of course, with the death of Scalia and looming retirements, they could ensure a liberal Supreme court for a generation.

On 12 May 2016 at 15:21, Garth Zietsman <garth.z...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll have a better look at the polls.  A lot depends on what question is asked.  The polls I was referring to asked what support Trump had among Republicans (85% - which is lower than usual) and the support Clinton had among Democrats (92% - which is typical.)

I am suggesting that Clinton will within (guaranteed) what Democrat presidents have usually been.  In my view that has been pretty mild i.e. I don't think this is a special level of evil, and in general not different to what Republican presidents have been.  I think the possibilities with Trump are much wider.  I think they range from Fascist level bad to run of the mill Republican awful but not better than that.  If you hope for some possibility of good then obviously the only option this time round is Garry Johnson.

On 12 May 2016 at 14:49, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps, but Rasmussen is pretty well known and respected. 

But anyway look at these very recent ones from three key swing states:

Florida and Pennsylvania neck-and-neck with Ohio going to Trump. All of these went had been solidly Obama in 2012, if memory serves me right....

<image.png>

[Graeme Levin]

Please substantiate your assertion that " Trump has no intention of rolling back the state or even changing the rules". How can you possibly know that with such certainty?
Of course there will be practical impediments, but that doesn't mean his intention is faulty.

Your dislike for him doesn't render him dishonest.

 

Trump is the best bet for making a significant change to the size of government and how it runs.

[Humphry Hamilton]

Graeme, I agree with you.

 

As for his protectionist ideas this is disappointing but we are in a negative mood period that started in 2000.  In this period which was predicted to start in 1995 by Robert Prechter (he was a bit early) we should see an increase in the negative side of human nature.  This would include protectionist ideas, the reversal of multi-culturism, the break-up of nation states, increase in racism, secular bear markets and finally war or revolution, etc.  I think if we look at the western world since 2000 this is exactly what has happened except for the war or revolution which I still expect to play out.

 

In a democracy one has to be sensitive to what the masses want, even if you know it is counterproductive, otherwise you don’t get any votes.  I am not saying that Trump isn’t for protectionism even though he says he is but that he has very little choice.  If he becomes president, which I think he will, then he will have to move in this direction to some degree.  He can’t just say “I was only kidding”.  Well, he could, they do it here in SA but it is unlikely.

[Garth Zietsman]

On 13 May 2016 at 11:19, Graeme Levin <gra...@gamblingcity.com> wrote:

Please substantiate your assertion that " Trump has no intention of rolling back the state or even changing the rules". How can you possibly know that with such certainty?

 

Well Graeme Trump has never cared what the game is he has only cared about beating the other guy in whatever game is being played.  You can see that by the way he talks about anything.  He may change the rules or role back the state but that isn't his main motivation.  BTW the fact that he knows almost nothing about policy suggests he doesn't think about the rules all that much.  PS he could just as easily increase the size of the state.

 

Of course there will be practical impediments, but that doesn't mean his intention is faulty.

Your dislike for him doesn't render him dishonest.

There is more than enough evidence out there about his dishonesty.  For a start he on factual claims he utters falsehoods more than any of the other candidates (from both parties) and is in fact so bad that he practically never makes an accurate factual claim.  He has claimed to be worth $10 billion but the fact of the matter is that he is worth less than half that.  He is routinely and almost comically selective about what polls he quotes and frequently even gives those a spin.

 

Trump is the best bet for making a significant change to the size of government and how it runs.

Now you can't possibly know that.  How about Johnson? 

[Frances Kendall]

If you listen to anything Trump says it implies growing the state: he wants to spend more on defence, not interfere with social care, tighten immigration, build a wall, increase protectionism, increase taxes for the wealthy - I have never heard him say he is interested in freedom or doing less. 

Lately he is backing off and repositioning - just like all the other politicians he pretends not to be like. 

Sent from Frances iPhone

[Humphry Hamilton]

This has been causing a bit of a buzz.

 

Apologies if you have all seen it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY

[Jaco Strauss]

Johnson's chance of being elected is only marginaly better than yours or Graeme's

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Jaco

If you know what Trump's for, you know more than me. And more than him.

Apart, that is, being for megalomania, lies, protectionism (for inferior businesses/workers), bigotry, anti-Semitism (or is it anti-Islamism? whichever), sexism, racism, and the like.

Oh, I nearly forgot, he's for making America great. Now that's a great idea.

The latest news about him pretending to be his PR person, is dishonest, but I confess to thinking it's brilliant -- pretending to be your PR person saves lots of money and ensures content control.

On 12 May 2016 at 12:25, Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Leon Louw

work:  +27-11-884-0270

mobile:  +27-84-618-0348

www.freemarketfoundation.com

If you want to know who has power over you, ask who you cannot criticize.

[Jaco Strauss]

Still seems to be within "normal limits" as far as politicians go

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

@Garth

I agree.

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

For anyone who doubts Trump, here divine proof that he's God's choice, that he will win, and that he will save America and the world:

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

PS: It's long, so no need to listen longer than is necessary to be convinced.

[Garth Zietsman]

In terms of the probability of affecting the result your vote doesn't matter anyway so the effectiveness of your vote shouldn't determine who you support - if you are rational.

[Stephen vJ]

So let me summarize the debate so far;

Bla, bla, bla... politicians are evil... Bla, bla, bla... Trump is a politician... Bla, bla, bla... Hillary is a politician... Bla, bla, bla... Even if you were American and you could actually vote, it would be at best meaningless and at worst complicit in installing greater evil into positions of power.

S.

Sent from an electronic device.

[Garth Zietsman]

Stephen I believe your summary misses a bla or two, misrepresents a few blas and is outright incorrect on some blas - otherwise you are spot on.

[Jaco Strauss]

Tell that to the Florida voters of 2000...

[Trevor Watkins]

I put Trump's appeal down to the 3 D's - he is dumb, different and decisive. 

The average voter can identify with dumb - Trump makes no effort to appear well-informed or thoughtful, and certainly does not come across as intellectual or superior.  I think his huge ego is to compensate for a real inferiority complex.

He is different. I would vote for him for that reason alone. He is not beholden to the GOP interest groups. He is mega-wealthy. He is unpredictable, inconsistent, but fun. No one (himself included) really knows what he might do next. I would trust Trump to overturn the Washington establishment more than any other candidate. I would expect him to blow the whistle on JFK, 9/11, Roswell where no other candidate would.

He is decisive. If you are no good, he fires you. As opposed to most politicians who endlessly cover their asses, he does make a decision, even if it is the wrong one. He is the sort of guy who would probably invade Russia in winter, but that puts him in strong company.

America is in poor shape - Hillary will make it worse. Who knows what Trump might do?

Trevor Watkins

[Julian le Roux]

Hillary is "wrong within normal limits"? Hillary is better because she will continue the previous policies of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama?

Trevor rightly pointed out that one's opinion on Hillary vs. Trump will depend on what you consider "normal".

You see, I consider the status quo of the last three decades (at least) to be an absolute horror show. The status quo is the decline of the Western civilisation - culturally, morally, legally, economically, educationally etc. This decline has been masked by (among other things) cheap money, technological progress, and economic growth in the East.

The cherry on top has been Western elite's complicity in the creation of ISIS - an organization that embodies suffering, slavery and destruction.

My time is too valuable to engage with individuals who claim (without extraordinary evidence) that Hillary Clinton represents the safer / saner / more civilised / more orderly choice.

[Julian le Roux]

"Apart, that is, being for megalomania, lies, protectionism (for inferior businesses/workers), bigotry, anti-Semitism (or is it anti-Islamism? whichever), sexism, racism, and the like."

More SJW smear words ... wow now you've really convinced me.

[Julian le Roux]

"The average voter can identify with dumb - Trump makes no effort to appear well-informed or thoughtful, and certainly does not come across as intellectual or superior."

Give the average voter more credit, she has realized that intellectuals and their sophistry should not be trusted.

"He is the sort of guy who would probably invade Russia in winter, but that puts him in strong company."

Enough with the bullshit Hitler comparisons ... please Trevor, I have too much respect for you.

[Julian le Roux]

"He is the sort of guy who would probably invade Russia in winter, but that puts him in strong company."

Yes, his incompetent foreign military adventures led to the unnecessary death of his country's own soldiers. Oh wait, that was Hillary.

And yes, he is the most likely to invade Russia, given that he was one of the few (only?) candidates who even PRETENDED that he wanted a better relationship between Russia and USA.

[Garth Zietsman]

Actually Trump isn't dumb, and neither are his typical supporters if demographics e.g. education, are anything to go by.  As a general rule it is a bad mistake to think the other side is stupid or irrational - at least more so than yourself or your side.

As Julian implies, 'normal' limits simply means the 'usual' limits.  Now you (Julian) believe that the typical US administration is an extremity of evil.  It seems to me that many libertarians tend to agree with you in thinking modern liberal democracies (the status quo) are close to the ultimate in evil - it may even be seen as a requirement to signal your libertarian bona fides.  BTW Noam Chompsky and SJWs share your view of America.  Most libertarians claim we are as fully slaves as was Spartacus. SJWs claim that if anything violence and exploitation today is worse than it was under ancient and aristocratic times.  I on the other hand think that both these views lack a reasonable sense of proportion.  

Many times on this forum I have argued that under modern liberal democracies quality of life, safety and liberty/freedom have, and continue to, improve dramatically over the state of affairs prior to liberal democracies.  Liberal democracy has been the only system which has seen a steady improvement in these outcomes.  Furthermore, the current level of quality of life, safety and liberty (while not ideal by any means) already is quite fair in general i.e. on a scale of 0 to 100 we are already well past 50, 75-80 I would say.

Finally Julian just because something is the view of SJWs doesn't mean it is wrong.  After all I hope you wouldn't dismiss their view (or that of those who repeat it) that it is often cold in winter.

[Julian le Roux]

If someone is a fan of liberal democracies, then Hillary Clinton should be their bête noire, for she represents the amalgam of social forces that are undermining liberal-democratic societies the world over.

[Garth Zietsman]

Maybe so but I think that is an exaggeration.  I can't see that she is any worse than any other president of a liberal democracy.  

[Trevor Watkins]

On 14 May 2016 at 13:24, Julian le Roux <leroux...@gmail.com> wrote:

Enough with the bullshit Hitler comparisons

Actually, I think Trump is more like Napoleon than Hitler, but the parallels to Germany in 1933 are certainly ominous. Then again, the parallels to Stalin's Russia are pretty ominous too, with PC insanity substituting for Communist propaganda, a heavily militarised police force and a pervasive, spying state. With a bit of luck perhaps China will colonise us all.

Trevor Watkins

[John Pretorius]

Here’s an interesting take from The Daily Bell entitled “Signs from Mainstream Media that Clinton’s Campaign Might be Over”:

http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/mainstream-media-follows-trumps-suit-in-bashing-clinton/

--

[Julian le Roux]

"Actually, I think Trump is more like Napoleon than Hitler,"

More bullshit. Trump is almost as anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist as the Pauls. He is even against the EU empire.

Isn't a European empire what Napolean was famous for? In that case, the entire Western political establishment is more like Napolean than Trump.

--

[Trevor Watkins]

This taken from a comment on the Daily Bell article above rather neatly fits my 3D description of Trump.

Americans have had it with endless wars, crippling taxes, suffocating regulations, uncontrolled immigration, 24/7 surveillance and above all political correctness used as a club to censor speech and trash property rights in the name of social justice. Thanks to the internet, once highly respected American institutions are rapidly losing the public's trust. Americans feel betrayed by those they were taught to trust. The political class, the media, the police, the courts and the education establishment are now held in contempt by a large body of the public. Worst of all, until Trump came along, the many millions of hurting and angry Americans had no effective means to voice their real grievances.

Whatever his shortcomings from a libertarian point of view, Trump, the incorruptible billionaire outsider, is embraced by middle America as a bigger than life, super hero cartoon character who's expected to vanquish the evil establishment. He's criticized by the elites for his "unpresidential" behavior. But what have decades of "presidential" behavior done for us?

Ron Paul's erudition and intellectual brilliance went beyond "presidential", but his persona and demeanor were too gentlemanly for the bruising political ring. Trump's visceral appeal is precisely his unpresidential style. He is a plain speaking, bare knuckles brawler who won't hesitate to ridicule and slap around his establishment opponents. It's long overdue for someone to take his gloves off against people who have wrecked the country. Ron Paul could write a thoughtful, compelling essay questioning Hillary's ethics and itemizing her catastrophic failures, yet the public would yawn. Trump acts unpresidential, calls her an incompetent, trigger-happy crook, and the public cheers. This is what sells when the public is in a revolutionary mood. The public no longer wants to hear presidential sounding language describe what it knows are incompetent, trigger-happy crooks! The public is electrified by plain language and body slams in the political ring, and Trump is their man.

Trevor Watkins 

[Julian le Roux]

@Trevor: Thank you for highlighting that pitch-perfect comment. I can definitely relate to the sense of betrayal when I look at the vitriolic way the "libertarian" intelligentsia have responded to Trump.

Let's not forget that Trump himself said Ron Paul should be taken seriously, back in 2011:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/106011126889852928

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

I'm more intrigued by pro-Trump libertarians than the Trump phenomenon. I'd have expected the discourse here to be about how bizarre it is that he could be so popular amongst non-libertarians. 

Trump's neo-Nazi attitude to Muslims explains Jews for Trump. His protectionism explains socialists for Trump. His bluster and megalomania explain dirigistes for Trump. His authoritarianism and espousal of central planning explains fascists for Trump. His sexism and racism explains bigoted white men for Trump. His narcissism explains submissives for Trump.

But Libertarians? That's puzzling. I haven't read everything libertarians have written here or elsewhere, so there might be a perfectly plausible explanation. Based on what I have read, I just cannot imagine what it is.

Disagreeing is one thing, but the level of ad hominem vitriol here is specially curious. 

Politicians lie. We know that. We expect it. We're amazed by seemingly honest and decent politicians (Thatcher, Reagan, Ron Paul). 

But Trump? He seems to me to be one of the great pathological liars of all time. Does that bother libertarians for Trump? Or do they think he's honest? Here are some websites that document his lies. 

The subject of this exchange is Trump vs Clinton. On that I'm with Stephen: none of the above. I would not vote were I given that choice. What would I do if forced at the point of a gun as in Sophie's Choice to select one of two excruciating options? Like Stephen, I'm not going to subject myself to such misery in the absence of coercion.

Trump’s (or is it John Miller's) Lies:

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2015-biggest-lies_us_56787039e4b014efe0d66a79

 

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/11/catalog-donald-trumps-divorce-reality

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/31/ninety-one-percent-donald-trump-false.html

PS: I predict someone dismissing these lists because they're from (as far as I know) anti-Trump sources. Of course they are. What matters is the message, not the messenger. 

[Graeme Levin]

INITIATION OF FORCE
It's utter nonsense to talk of Trump initiating an invasion, especially of Russia.
His watchword is RETALIATION. We should expect him to use retaliatory force.

 

And it's nonsense to compare Trump to empire seekers like Hitler or Napoleon. He is interested in improving America, not conquering other countries.

 

DISHONESTY
Personally I think wrong minor facts are not necessarily proof of dishonesty. It's more a result of inadequate research, impromptu (no teleprompter) speeches or minimal concern with minutiae (as with most highly successful businessmen). Obama and Clinton are outright liars on major issues.

 

Please watch this video on Trump's dishonesty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv8siN4aCWc

Katrina Pierson is Trump's spokeswoman. She is well worth listening to. Articulate, intelligent, stunning and knowledgeable. She is one of the many black Americans who passionately support Trump.

 

INCONSISTENCY
A number of comments have been made about Trump changing his tune.
Sometimes this is simply the media stressing different elements of his statements at different times. For example he clearly called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until it could be worked out what was going on.

Initially, the media generally only showed the first sentence of Trump calling for a complete ban. And now when Trump repeats the ban should be temporary the media say he is changing his stance.

 

Clinton says he changes his policies from day to day.

Well here is what Trump said 9,900 days ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg

On such core issues I would say that's pretty consistent.

 

Anyway, there is nothing wrong in changing one's mind. Especially if one is wrong, like Trump's speedily retracted statement that women should be penalised for having an abortion.

 

WOMEN
The media have portrayed Trump as anti-women.

But in his entire campaign spread over hundreds of speeches and interviews he has made only a couple of remarks offensive to women. He surmised that Megan Kelly's demeanour was hormonal and he commented on Carly Fiorina's face. He has made far more offensive comments about men and is tougher on men.
In the past he called one woman (not all women as the media would like you to believe) a bimbo. This was a woman who was suing Trump over a property transaction. He also germanely remarked on the size of a woman's breasts when discussing a beauty pageant with which he was connected. There might be other incidents that the media have not yet been able to drag up.

There have been a number of programmes, especially on Fox news, where women have said Trump has no problem with women.

 

LIBERTARIAN

It has always been my contention that people whose actions advance the Libertarian cause are more valuable than academics who nit-pick over that person's Libertarian credentials.

I might even request to give a presentation on that topic at the next Libertarian Conference.

 

Trump says man-made climate change is a load of rubbish. He's my man on that count alone. Clinton would be a disaster on this.

He says politicians should be accountable, regulation should be slashed, taxation should be significantly simplified and reduced, millions of taxpayers should be taken out of the tax system, individuals should be able to protect themselves, there should be retaliation/defence against economic warfare, immigration should be monitored/controlled (not out of his personal choice but because one can't be blind to real-life dynamics), death taxes should be abolished, etc.

I applaud him for this.

His target would be to achieve increased investment and economic growth as part of the plan to fund his policies.

 

I don't care if he doesn't go around propounding the consent axiom. He doesn't deliver Rand Paul-type analyses of Clinton corruption. He speaks to the people in simple passionate language.

And his policies would advance elements of the Libertarian cause.

 

His supporters don't expect him to be perfect. And he is certainly far from perfect. He is a real person which will be a refreshing change from professional politicians being politically correct and "presidential". He is self-confident and highly intelligent. Some academics who have achieved somewhat less than Trump describe this differently. But his followers, as true Americans, value and admire success and are not disaffected by Trump boasting of his wealth and successes. They want someone to create a favourable environment for them also to achieve.

 

And the Establishment should be very scared.

[Jaco Strauss]

While on the subject of lying....

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/t-day-evergreen-7-wildest-lies-hillary-clinton/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

Clinton lying for 13 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

Hillary Clinton: Career Criminal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kypl1MYuKDY

Jaco Strauss
Kaapstad

[Jaco Strauss]

Sheldon Adelson endorses Trump and pledges $100m

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sheldon-adelson-i-endorse-donald-trump-for-president/2016/05/12/ea89d7f0-17a0-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

[Trevor Watkins]

Attempting to explain Trump's rise and rise does not make one pro-Trump. Having watched the RT libertarian debate, I would guess I am pro-Perry, if it made the slightest bit of difference.

However, Trump is a real phenomenon which will likely have a major impact on how the future unfolds. The last time we had a showman in office, in 1980, it turned out quite well for our side. Perhaps it will again. 

They say the biggest deciding factor in support for a candidate is whether they have a nice smile. It would be just as silly to dislike a candidate because you don't like his smile (or the rest of his persona).

Trevor Watkins

[Outeniqua Travel Lodge]

Who is more shallow? Me who would vote for a president with a strong jaw bone, clean hair cut, wholesome smile and pretty wife or the shallow Americans who admire a grillerige, oily, silver back, alpha primate like Trump?     Dawie & Sue Tel: +27 82 316 7720 Fax: +27 86 693 4027 Web: www.outeniqualodge.co.za

[Graeme Levin]

Here is Donald Trump's energy policy. It focusses on removal of regulations, reduction of fuel taxes and an end to support of pseudo-scientific politically motivated environmentalism.

How can anyone fail to see its merits. He is the only Presidential candidate with substantial and refreshingly meaningful policies, despite what his critics constantly portray.

If implemented, I believe these policies would advance the Libertarian cause (see my earlier post below)

 

Did the mass media cover this? Of course not. They continued to say Trump is a megalomaniac who calls all women bimbos and constantly offends Muslims and Hispanics.

 

- May 26, 2016 -

​An America First Energy Plan

I’m delighted to be in North Dakota, a state at the forefront of a new energy revolution.

Oil and natural gas production is up significantly in the last decade. Our oil imports have been cut in half.

But all this occurred in spite of massive new bureaucratic and political barriers.

President Obama has done everything he can to get in the way of American energy. He’s made life much more difficult for North Dakota, as costly regulation makes it harder and harder to turn a profit.

If Hillary Clinton is in charge, things will get much worse. She will shut down energy production across this country.

Millions of jobs, and trillions of dollars of wealth, will be destroyed as a result.

That is why our choice this November is so crucial.

Here’s what it comes down to.

Wealth versus poverty.

North Dakota shows how energy exploration creates shared prosperity. Better schools. More funding for infrastructure. Higher wages. Lower unemployment.

Things we’ve been missing.

It’s a choice between sharing in this great energy wealth, or sharing in the poverty promised by Hillary Clinton.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Just listen to Hillary Clinton’s own words. She has declared war on the American worker.

Here is what Hillary Clinton said earlier this year: “We are going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work.”

She wants to shut down the coal mines.

And if Crooked Hillary can shut down the mines, she can shut down your business too.

Let me tell you how President Obama Undermined Our Middle Class

President Obama’s stated intent is to eliminate oil and natural gas production in America.

His policy is death by a thousand cuts through an onslaught of regulations.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s use of totalitarian tactics forces energy operators in North Dakota into paying unprecedented multi-billion dollar fines before a penalty is even confirmed.

Government misconduct goes on and on:

• The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against seven North Dakota oil companies for the deaths of 28 birds while the Administration fast-tracked wind projects that kill more than 1 million birds a year.
• The U.S Fish and Wildlife Service abuses the Endangered Species Act to restrict oil and gas exploration.
• Adding to the pain, President Obama now proposes a $10-per-barrel tax on American-produced oil in the middle of a downturn.
  
  At the same time President Obama lifts economic sanctions on Iran, he imposes economic sanctions on America. He has allowed this country to hit the lowest oil rig count since 1999, producing thousands of layoffs.

America’s incredible energy potential remains untapped. It is a totally self-inflicted wound.

Under my presidency, we will accomplish complete American energy independence.

Imagine a world in which our foes, and the oil cartels, can no longer use energy as a weapon.

But President Obama has done everything he can to keep us dependent on others. Let me list some of the good energy projects he killed.

He rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline despite the fact that:

• It would create and support more than 42,000 jobs.
• His own State Department concluded that it would be the safest pipeline ever built in the United States.
• And it would have no significant impact on the environment.
• Yet, even as he rejected this America-Canada pipeline, he made a deal that allows Iran to transport more oil through its pipeline that would have ever flowed through Keystone –with no environmental review.

President Obama has done everything he can to kill the coal industry. Here are a few of President Obama’s decrees:

Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones.

A prohibition against coal production on federal land.

Draconian climate rules that, unless stopped, would effectively bypass Congress to impose job-killing cap-and-trade.

President Obama has aggressively blocked the production of oil & natural gas:

• He’s taken a huge percentage of the Alaska National Petroleum Reserve off the table
• Oil and natural gas production on federal lands is down 10%.
• 87% of available land in the Outer Continental Shelf has been put off limits.
• Atlantic Lease sales were closed down too – despite the fact that they would create 280,000 jobs and $23.5 billion in economic activity.
• President Obama entered the United States into the Paris Climate Accords – unilaterally, and without the permission of Congress. This agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use right here in America.

These actions have denied millions of Americans access to the energy wealth sitting under our feet.

This is your treasure, and you – the American People – are entitled to share in the riches.

President Obama’s anti-energy orders have also weakened our security, by keeping us reliant on foreign sources of energy.

Every dollar of energy we don’t explore here, is a dollar of energy that makes someone else rich over there.

If President Obama wanted to weaken America he couldn’t have done a better job.

As bad as President Obama is, Hillary Clinton will be worse.

• She will escalate the war against American energy, and unleash the EPA to control every aspect of our lives.
• She declared that “we’ve got to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels,” locking away trillions in American wealth.
• In March, Hillary Clinton said: “by the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place.” Keep in mind, shale energy production could add 2 million jobs in 7 years.

Yet, while Hillary Clinton doesn’t want American energy, she is strongly in favor of foreign energy. Here is what she told China as Secretary of State:

• “American experts and Chinese experts will work to develop China’s natural gas resources. Imagine what it would mean for China if China unleashed its own natural gas resources so you are not dependent on foreign oil.” 

Hillary Clinton has her priorities wrong. But we are going to turn all of that around.

A Trump Administration will develop an America First energy plan. Here is how this plan will make America Wealthy Again:

• American energy dominance will be declared a strategic economic and foreign policy goal of the United States.
• America has 1.5 times as much oil as the combined proven resources of all OPEC countries; we have more Natural Gas than Russia, Iran, Qatar and Saudi Arabia Combined; we have three times more coal than Russia. Our total untapped oil and gas reserves on federal lands equal an estimated $50 trillion.
• We will become, and stay, totally independent of any need to import energy from the OPEC cartel or any nations hostile to our interests.
• At the same time, we will work with our Gulf allies to develop a positive energy relationship as part of our anti-terrorism strategy.
• We will use the revenues from energy production to rebuild our roads, schools, bridges and public infrastructure. Cheaper energy will also boost American agriculture.
• We will get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation, so we can pursue all forms of energy. This includes renewable energies and the technologies of the future. It includes nuclear, wind and solar energy – but not to the exclusion of other energy. The government should not pick winners and losers. Instead, it should remove obstacles to exploration. Any market has ups and downs, but lifting these draconian barriers will ensure that we are no longer at the mercy of global markets.

A Trump Administration will focus on real environmental challenges, not phony ones:

• We will reject Hillary Clinton’s poverty-expansion agenda that enriches her friends and makes everyone else poor.
• We’ll solve real environmental problems in our communities like the need for clean and safe drinking water. President Obama actually tried to cut the funding for our drinking water infrastructure – even as he pushed to increase funding for his EPA bureaucrats.
• American workers will be the ones building this new infrastructure.

Here is my 100-day action plan:

• We’re going to rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule.
• We’re going to save the coal industry and other industries threatened by Hillary Clinton’s extremist agenda.
• I’m going to ask Trans Canada to renew its permit application for the Keystone Pipeline.
• We’re going to lift moratoriums on energy production in federal areas
• We’re going to revoke policies that impose unwarranted restrictions on new drilling technologies. These technologies create millions of jobs with a smaller footprint than ever before.
• We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.
• Any regulation that is outdated, unnecessary, bad for workers, or contrary to the national interest will be scrapped. We will also eliminate duplication, provide regulatory certainty, and trust local officials and local residents.
• Any future regulation will go through a simple test: is this regulation good for the American worker? If it doesn’t pass this test, the rule will not be approved.

Policy decisions will be public and transparent. They won’t be made on Hillary’s private email account.

We’re going to do all this while taking proper regard for rational environmental concerns. We are going to conserve our beautiful natural habitats, reserves and resources.

In a Trump Administration, political activists with extreme agendas will no longer write the rules. Instead, we will work with conservationists whose only agenda is protecting nature.

From an environmental standpoint, my priorities are very simple: clean air and clean water.

My America First energy plan will do for the American People what Hillary Clinton will never do: create real jobs and real wage growth.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, lifting the restrictions on American energy will create a flood of new jobs:

• Almost a $700 billion increase in annual economic output over the next 30 years.
• More than a $30 billion increase in annual wages over the next 7 years.
• Over the next four decades, more than $20 trillion in additional economic activity and $6 trillion in new tax revenue.

The oil and natural gas industry supports 10 million high-paying Americans jobs and can create another 400,000 new jobs per year. This exploration will also create a resurgence in American manufacturing -- dramatically reducing both our trade deficit and our budget deficit.

Compare this future to Hillary Clinton’s Venezuela-style politics of poverty.

If you think about it, not one idea Hillary Clinton has will actually create a single net job or create a single new dollar to put in workers’ pockets.

In fact, every idea Hillary has will make jobs disappear.

Hillary Clinton’s agenda is job destruction. My agenda is job creation.

She wants to tax and regulate our workers to the point of extinction.

She wants terrible trade deals, like NAFTA, signed by her husband, that will empty out our manufacturing.

During her time as Secretary of State, she surrendered to China – allowing them to steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property.

She let them devalue their currency and add more than a trillion dollars to our trade deficit.

Then there was Libya.

Secretary Clinton’s reckless Libya invasion handed the country over to ISIS, which now controls the oil.

The Middle East that Clinton inherited was far less dangerous than the Middle East she left us with today.

Her reckless decisions in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Egypt and Syria have made the Middle East more unstable than ever before.

The Hillary Clinton foreign policy legacy is chaos.

Hillary Clinton also wants totally open borders in America, which would further plunge our workers into poverty.

Hillary’s open borders agenda means a young single mom living in poverty would have to compete for a job or a raise against millions of lower-wage workers rushing into the country, but she doesn’t care.

My agenda will be accomplished through a series of reforms that put America First:

• Energy reform that creates trillions in new wealth.
• Immigration reform that protects our borders and defends our workers.
• Tax reform that brings millions of new jobs to America.
• Regulation reform that eliminates stupid rules that send our jobs overseas.
• Welfare reform that requires employers to recruit from the unemployment office – not the immigration office.
• Trade reform that brings back our manufacturing jobs and stands up to countries that cheat.

There is one more thing we must do to make America wealthy again: we have to make our communities safe again.

Violent crime is rising in major cities across the country. This is unacceptable. Every parent has the right to raise their kids in safety.

When we put political correctness before justice, we hurt those who have the least. It undermines their schools, slashes the value of their homes, and drives away their jobs.

Crime is a stealth tax on the poor.

To those living in fear, I say: help is coming. A Trump Administration will return law and order to America. Security is not something that should only be enjoyed by the rich and powerful.

By the way, I was endorsed by the National Rifle Association, and we are not going to let Hillary Clinton abolish the 2^nd amendment, either.

My reform agenda is going to bring wealth and security to the poorest communities in this country.

What does Hillary have to offer the poor but more of the same?

In Chicago, for instance, one-fourth of young Hispanics and one-third of young African-Americans are unemployed.

My message today to all the people trapped in poverty is this: politicians like Hillary Clinton have failed you.

They have used you.

You need something new. I am the only who will deliver it.

We are going to put America back to work.

We are going to put people before government.

We are going to rebuild our inner cities.

We are going to make you and your family safe, secure and prosperous.

The choice in November is a choice between a Clinton Agenda that puts Donors First – or a new agenda that puts America First.

It is a choice between a Clinton government of, by and for the powerful – or a return to government of, by and for the people.

It is a choice between certain decline, or a revival of America’s promise.

The people in charge of our government say things can’t change.

I am here to tell you that things have to change.

They want you to keep trusting the same people who’ve betrayed you.

I am here to tell you that if you keep supporting those who’ve let you down, then you will keep getting let down for the rest of your life.

I am prepared to kick the special interests out of Washington, D.C. and to hand their seat of power over to you.

It’s about time.

Together, we will put the American people first again.

We will make our communities wealthy again.

We will make our cities safe again.

We will make our country strong again.

Ladies and Gentlemen: We will make America Great Again.

[Frances Kendall]

It was covered very fully in the media. It is (for a change) the mainstream conservative position.

Sent from Frances iPhone

[Julian le Roux]

Well I didn't know anything about this energy policy, so thanks Graeme

[Graeme Levin]

I must have missed that. Which media fully covered Trump's energy policy?

I did see one very brief mention on CNN.

 

Yes, many Republicans (conservatives?) do hold similar views on energy policy. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was comparing to the other presidential candidates,  Clinton and Sanders.

[Frances Kendall]

Sent from Frances iPhone

[Frances Kendall]

Sent from Frances iPhone

On 29 May 2016, at 9:14 PM, Graeme Levin <gra...@gamblingcity.com> wrote:

[Frances Kendall]

I seem to keep sending nothing!

 I saw a lot of the speech live on CNN then discussed by pundits - also covered on Bloomberg, in NYT & Vox. My main sources of news.

My point was in this case he was in line with republicans - in many he is not. This appears to be part of the attempt to unify the party, where he reads a prepared speech on a subject on which he & the party agree.

Sent from Frances iPhone

On 29 May 2016, at 9:14 PM, Graeme Levin <gra...@gamblingcity.com> wrote:

[Graeme Levin]

I searched on Google and found a couple of USA Newspaper articles covering Donald Trump's energy policies. And I saw a brief mention on CNN.

 

Whenever the IPCC changes their assumptions in order to make their standpoint more pronounced, the mass media give massive exposure to the "new discovery". But when a prominent person questions the correlation of climate change with any anthropogenic activity, the publicity is subdued.

 

Another example is UKIP's energy policy as put forward by their energy spokesman Libertarian Roger Helmer. This is very much along the lines of Trump's policies especially reopening coal power stations where still possible, reduction of regulation, cessation of subsidies for wind and solar energy, development of nuclear power, withdrawal from climate agreements and a strong opposition to support of environmental codswallop.

 

The UKIP arguments against man-made climate change are detailed and well made. The mass media refrain from comment, even critical, because the sacred tenets of their faith might be called into question in the public arena.

[Jaco Strauss]

Yes indeed, take this NY Times one as a good example

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html?_r=0

They talk about man-made "Climate Change" as if it were already a fait accompli.... 

And if you follow the "Global Warming" clickthrough you are taken to no less than 10 "Pro man made climate change / global warming articles" of which this anti Trump one is probably the most skeptical,,,

http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/global-warming-climate-change?inline=nyt-classifier&version=meter+at+1&module=meter-Links&pgtype=article&contentId=&mediaId=&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.za%2F&priority=true&action=click&contentCollection=meter-links-click

Further down the subtle editorialising propaganda continues....

[Leon Louw (gmail)]

Libertarians for Trump are like nuns for promiscuity and Jews for Hitler.

(Oh, okay, that's unfair, the gap between Trump and liberty is smaller than the gap between nuns and whores, or Jews and Nazis. But the principle as opposed to the degree is valid.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/libsa.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jaco Strauss]

I disagree

On many issues he seems almost Libertarian minded. At least far more than his opposition.

Would as Libertarians for Hillary make more sense? That would be far more like Jews for Hitler