Post: #26

(09-22-2016 09:46 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  While a lot of Ron Paul guys (like myself) are big Trump supporters, a lot of them are firmly in the "Trump will end democracy, and is a 'statist authoritarian' camp". They are either supporting Johnson, or not voting at all.

A lot of them are looking at stuff said in this NRO (CuckReview) article as arguments against Trump.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...ion-powers

Anyone have thoughts on countering these arguments?

Sure - for the Gary Johnson fool supporters, educate them that he's ***not*** a libertarian at all, just a leftist in a different getup.

Post: #27

Ron has always had a special place in my heart. I actually went to his 80th birthday which was a public event. Very swell guy in person and a person that's extremely hard to hate.

He's anti-Trump, but he's an old man with his own principles that's near the end of his life. If by that point in my life I didn't have some principles whose purity I would defend till death, I would have wasted my life. So kudos to him and glad to hear he's taking a stand.

Post: #28

(09-22-2016 10:22 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Still arguing with that guy, huh?

Haha I am just getting around to responding now. Have been busy.

I think I am going to start my post with "I like you, so I hope you lubed up..."

Post: #29

(09-22-2016 10:22 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Still arguing with that guy, huh?

It's a written gish gallop, man. It would take me all day to respond to the points, and it would be pointless. Some of them are right, many are twisted.

I think the best response is rejecting the premise to begin with. Does Mr. Trump have some ideas that are unconstitutional? Yep. But 99% of what the government does is unconstitutional. It's not as if Mr. Trump will be breaking some longstanding tradition of respecting it!

We should all principled and stick to the rules enforced on the government. Don't encourage bad behavior. Trump so far is a step in the right direction and I'd like to keep it going that way.

Otherwise why not have a Dictatorship or Monarchy. Why do rules matter? Right?

Quote:We have real problems that need to be fixed. Most of those problems were directly caused by the blatant disregard of the Constitution. How on earth is Mr. Trump supposed to fix the problems others have made over generations of ignoring the Constitution if he immediately shackles himself with it? It's not as if the government hits a reset button and starts at 100% Constitutional Purity every time a president is elected, and only presidential action can erode that purity. And Mr. Trump certainly can't wave a wand and make the whole rest of the government start following the Constitution.

Why do you think we're in the Trump camp in the first place? He's making America Great Again and part of that should be a way back to the Constitution. A way back to prosperity and order in the governmental sphere. A way back to liberty.

The point is he's so popular because he will bring us back to a simpler time. Sure the initial steps won't be constitutional, but don't decry the end goal as anything ignoble. The constitutions has its merits. It's the rotting heart of what was once something beautiful.

Quote:As much as I hate to say it, the US Constitution as written is long dead. Checks and balances and assignment of power have been broken for about 100 years. And the people who demand that we slavishly adhere to it when nobody else will are infantile. They are the very personification of the phrase "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Quote:In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.

These dumb fucks who demand purity are the sort who will never even consider the "wrong" option if the right option isn't available. They would prefer to do nothing, and lose.

So really, I suppose this is the best response to them:

I'm not idealist. I'm a pragmatist. And you know what the basis of being a pragmatist is? Authority and legitimacy. Where is authority and legitimacy derived from? A constitution. It's no dead document it's the only thing giving this superstate any legitimacy. So don't go babbling.

Plato and Aristotle are dead too. And they're still very much alive in their works today. Same with the brilliant writers, framers, signers, and enforcers of the Constitution. Are you claiming to be a better man than all those wise men?

If so, what do you have to show for it?

Respect your elders especially if they're long dead. They had some wisdom to them.

Now shut the door and have a seat sonny.

Post: #30

Were you going for "pompous, pedantic ass" with that? Because if so, good job.

Post: #31

(09-22-2016 11:00 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Were you going for "pompous, pedantic ass" with that? Because if so, good job.

When your only response to one of the most vocal, intelligent activists for freedom in America is that of calling all his supporters "dumb fucks" and telling them to "grow up" because you don't have the energy to argue is startlingly Jeb Bush of you.

And yeah I'm being a pompous, pedantic ass because your low energy self isn't worth more than that when you've devolved to insults.

Post: #32

(09-22-2016 10:34 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:46 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  While a lot of Ron Paul guys (like myself) are big Trump supporters, a lot of them are firmly in the "Trump will end democracy, and is a 'statist authoritarian' camp". They are either supporting Johnson, or not voting at all.

A lot of them are looking at stuff said in this NRO (CuckReview) article as arguments against Trump.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...ion-powers

Anyone have thoughts on countering these arguments?

Sure - for the Gary Johnson fool supporters, educate them that he's ***not*** a libertarian at all, just a leftist in a different getup.

Damning for Gary Johnson, I never paid much attention to him, he is nowhere near being a libertarian. He is nothing but a social-liberal, the kind who wants lower taxes for high incomes (himself and friends), while not giving two shits about the regular people and their problem with immigration.

Ron Paul is a libertarian. Johnson is a social-liberal or libertarian on VALUES only, not on economics.

It's important to understand, libertarianism is the nice guy way of being a hardcore right winger, at least for most. Many libertarians are so because they actually are quite rightwing on everything, but do not want to be the authoritarian because they themselves hate authority.

For the ancap-libertarian, the hope is some kind of societal collapse into revolver-capitalism at which point feminism, socialism, mooching parasites, literally cease to exist. That's what real ancaps secretly want.

Of course there's always been some people masqerading as libertarians in that movement, when they are mostly there because of stuff like legal weed, atheism, gay marriage or whatever. They're not libertarian. You CANNOT be a feminist and be libertarian. You CANNOT be sjw and libertarian.

Libertarianism is a breakdown of everything into its natural state of voluntary association. What does that mean? That means seggreation, that means privatized security (gangs), it means no real government, environment protection is limited to lawsuits.

Libertarianism seems to have been taken over. Paul was a revolver-capitalist, not a bleeding heart social-liberal.

Post: #33

Allow me to explain it to you then.

If someone builds a ridiculously long, complicated argument that I'm supposed to respond to, but bases it on false premises, I don't need to argue. Because they are wrong from first principles. You understand what first principles are, yes?

Besides that, I was presenting a line of argument. Turn off your "dialectic only" switch and maybe you'd understand that.

You just said you support Trump despite the fact that he intends to violate some aspects of the Constitution. I am saying people who demand Constitutional purity and refuse to vote for him "for their conscience" are the problem. I know many such people. They're people who wouldn't get on a lifeboat if it was the wrong color, and that is the very definition of being a DUMB FUCK who is going to fuck the rest of us over by staying home.

You're right, I'm going to insult people who would rather keep their hands clean out of wishy washy principle than actually get the fucking job done. I have no respect at all for people who are too fucking pussy to step up when it's time. And that describes most libertarians.

You don't like it? That's your fucking problem, pal. Talk to your oh-so-sanctimonious buddies, if your, hmm, highly individual style of persuasion works on them.

Post: #34

Post: #35

(09-22-2016 11:17 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Allow me to explain it to you then.

If someone builds a ridiculously long, complicated argument that I'm supposed to respond to, but bases it on false premises, I don't need to argue. Because they are wrong from first principles. You understand what first principles are, yes?

Your refutation of said principles was nothing more than sanctimonious babbling on your own behalf and why you're so right. Please tell me why you want do with away with law and order while basing rule of law around a cult of personality.

Your own premise is pretty false to me.

Quote:Besides that, I was presenting a line of argument. Turn off your "dialectic only" switch and maybe you'd understand that.

And your premise and line of argument was bullshit as I stated earlier quite clearly.

Quote:You just said you support Trump despite the fact that he intends to violate some aspects of the Constitution. I am saying people who demand Constitutional purity and refuse to vote for him "for their conscience" are the problem. I know many such people. They're people who wouldn't get on a lifeboat if it was the wrong color, and that is the very definition of being a DUMB FUCK who is going to fuck the rest of us over by staying home.

Ends justify the means. I'm a pragmatist who wants to see greatness restored even if people are being dropped out of helicopters. As long as we get to that end goal where things are eventually back to the way it should be.

And you know what. You need those people. Who else besides those people know what the dream looks like. You just need to lie to them to alleviate their honest souls. Some people aren't cut out for dirty work.

They're no dumb fucks as I'd put them as better men than myself. They stand by their principles. I'd have them in a bar fight with me, rather than you who damns loyalty to the abyss.

Quote:You're right, I'm going to insult people who would rather keep their hands clean out of wishy washy principle than actually get the fucking job done. I have no respect at all for people who are too fucking pussy to step up when it's time. And that describes most libertarians.

They are stepping up by standing their ground. You're the pussy who wants to take a stab at the dreamers. Pragmatism is corruptible. A dream can't be. They direct the course and someone else does what's needed to get there even if it isn't the straight path.

A dream almost got Alexander to the ends of the Earth. If it wasn't for his intelligent generals to help direct him how else would he stand side by side with his men wanting to be the first to see it at the front lines.

Quote:You don't like it? That's your fucking problem, pal. Talk to your oh-so-sanctimonious buddies, if your, hmm, highly individual style of persuasion works on them.

I do quite like it and I do quite like them. Loyalty and being principled are things I look for in people.

Post: #36

Kay dude. You have me all figured out, and you're just way smarter than me. This poor ol' country boy never stood a chance!

Of course, if you'd paid attention to the very first thing I said to Slim, you would've maybe realized I was continuing a conversation that started offline. And nobody asked you to butt in with an enormous pile of assumptions and Ron Paul white-knightery. What the fuck do you know about my beliefs? Have we ever discussed politics? Yet you've got me all figured out from a throwaway, shut-down-an-idiot-on-facebook argument I was offering him.

You sound like an idealistic 20 year old. You sound like me when I was younger. Anyone who claims foolishly holding to principles is superior to actually getting something done in the real world has a worldview so useless, it's not worth considering.

Keep "fisking" my responses if you want, but I'm done talking to you.

Now I'm going to keep actually fixing problems and doing what I can to improve things for America. Good luck convincing anyone of your point of view by acting like you do.

Post: #37

(09-22-2016 11:48 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Kay dude. You have me all figured out, and you're just way smarter than me. This poor ol' country boy never stood a chance!

Of course, if you'd paid attention to the very first thing I said to Slim, you would've maybe realized I was continuing a conversation that started offline. And nobody asked you to butt in with an enormous pile of assumptions and Ron Paul white-knightery. What the fuck do you know about my beliefs? Have we ever discussed politics? Yet you've got me all figured out from a throwaway, shut-down-an-idiot-on-facebook argument I was offering him.

You sound like an idealistic 20 year old. You sound like me when I was younger. Anyone who claims foolishly holding to principles is superior to actually getting something done in the real world has a worldview so useless, it's not worth considering.

Keep "fisking" my responses if you want, but I'm done talking to you.

Now I'm going to keep actually fixing problems and doing what I can to improve things for America. Good luck convincing anyone of your point of view by acting like you do.

I have trouble taking anyone seriously that posts in a Public Thread on a Public Forum for all to see that didn't expect a response. It's like the slutty chick on Facebook that posts inspirational quotes to make herself seem smart then gets mad when someone calls them out on their holier than thou attitude saying "IT WAS FOR MY FRIENDS!!!111 OOOOO MMMMM GGGGG!!!!".

Now step up or get out of this thread. No one wants to hear you talking out loud to yourself especially when you can't even back up your own argument.


Edit: And even if your initial argument was directed at someone else. I took a bit of umbrage towards some of your points. Not to mention I can't stand anyone seriously who resorts to insults as a way to direct an argument.

Post: #38

Ron Paul aside, US support of Israel is the number one reason why Islamic terrorists want to commit acts of terror on our soil. Once we next Israel we will not be seen as the ultimate evil by International Muslims. Also, drone strikes instead of stoppin terrorism are actually just creating more terrorists.

Post: #39

(09-22-2016 09:46 PM)Slim Shady Wrote:  While a lot of Ron Paul guys (like myself) are big Trump supporters, a lot of them are firmly in the "Trump will end democracy, and is a 'statist authoritarian' camp". They are either supporting Johnson, or not voting at all.

A lot of them are looking at stuff said in this NRO (CuckReview) article as arguments against Trump.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...ion-powers

Anyone have thoughts on countering these arguments?

(09-22-2016 09:38 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 09:22 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(09-22-2016 06:44 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  I'll always have a soft spot for Ron Paul. He seems like a genuine, red-blooded American dude who wants the best for his country. We really missed a good chance by not electing him, not that he ever had a shot anyway.

I'm going to light a candle for his political career after this incident, though.

From what I recall though, a lot of the college kids who cheered him on and shouted his name at the GOP conventions later wound up supporting Obama. Same kids would read Atlas Shrugged cover to cover, love it to death, then support all things socialist - the exact opposite of what's contained in any of Ayn Rand's writings. I think they were only hoping for a shot at legalized pot by supporting Paul.

Disagree, most the Paul supporters are the driving force of the Trump meme war.

That's a weak article. Lots of flowery language, and very little in the way of citations. Buried in the comment section is a good refutation of this article:

Stoic Patriot

"Trump has already promised that he will knowingly break the law and violate the Constitution."

Alright. So the criteria here is that it must break the law and violate the Constitution.

"Free speech? He will “open up the libel laws” to allow public officials to sue the media, and use the Federal Communications Commission to fine critics."

Are you saying all libel law is unconstitutional? Defamation of character, even under SCOTUS' very expansive view of the 1st Amendment, is still viewed as punishable act.

"Private property? To Trump, eminent domain is a “wonderful thing” and is not actually “taking property” because the owner can move “two blocks away.”"

Again, are you saying all eminent domain laws are unconstitutional? Last I checked, even with the badly decided Kelo v. New London, private property can still be taken for public use.

"Faithfully executing the law? His harebrained scheme to make Mexico pay for the border wall ignores the clear text of a statute and unilaterally prohibits foreign commerce."

Are you so daft as to not know that he can work with Congress to change statutes, including the follow-up talk of taxing remittances, which can easily be achieved through appropriate financial regulation? You make it sound like no President has ever promised to get a law passed before, but has only talked about what he promises to do as if all laws would stay exactly the same.

"Serving as commander in chief? Trump has already pledged that he would violate international treaties and domestic law. The military “won’t refuse” his illegal orders. “Believe me,” he promised."

His orders about waterboarding aren't in violation of international treaty, and they're only illegal under congressional statute if you consider waterboarding torture, which any serious person knows isn't.

"Protecting our national security? Trump has lauded FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, one of the darkest hours in the history of our Republic."

The only reason that period of our republic was dark was because of Japan and Nazi Germany. The internment of Japanese Americans, although possibly ineffectual in hindsight, was not an oppressive death camp. Let's save terms like "darkest hours" for things which actually matter: abortion, slavery, etc, not any ol' thing that you can use as a pretext to stamp your foot. Also, where's that illegality or unconstitutionality, hmmmmm?

"And what about the Supreme Court? Assuming he keeps his promise to appoint conservative jurists — and that this promise is not merely a negotiating tactic — Trump’s approach would likely mirror that of George W. Bush: appoint justices who will defer to bold assertions of federal power. Judicial minimalist, thy name is John Roberts."

Samuel Alito has been a superb justice, and was nominated by George W. Bush. And the nomination of justices, even if you think they are terrible, isn't unconstitutional.

----

That's how simple the article is when you get down the nails and bolts and take away the fluff.

The "unconstitutional" measures of Trump are nothing but nit-picking, meanwhile the National Review gives a pass to the US Republican Congress that routinely does jack shit in the face of Obama's unconstitutional onslaught.

It's controlled opposition, anyone who reads National Review is being brainwashed.

Post: #40

(09-22-2016 11:35 PM)Comte De St. Germain Wrote:  Pragmatism is corruptible. A dream can't be.

I disagree strongly. Pragmatism is the strategic doctrine of doing what works, and eschewing what doesn't. The difference between the pragmatic and the dogmatic isn't ideology, it's intelligence.

Dreams are remarkably easy to corrupt, which is why the term "useful idiot" exists. Dreams and their dreamers are the fodder for any revolution; those intelligent enough to make room for pragmatic concerns, like how to actually influence reality to achieve their goals, win the day always.

And in relation to the topic at hand, anyone voting for Gary Johnson because of dogmatic ideological reasons is doing their bit to ensure their ideology dies forever. That kind of stupidity isn't commendable, and it marks a complete sacrifice of the real to the abstract.

(09-23-2016 08:13 AM)AboveAverageJoe Wrote:  Ron Paul aside, US support of Israel is the number one reason why Islamic terrorists want to commit acts of terror on our soil. Once we next Israel we will not be seen as the ultimate evil by International Muslims. Also, drone strikes instead of stoppin terrorism are actually just creating more terrorists.

I'd love the US to stop sucking Israel's cock, but this is just popular nonsense. Islam is the number one reason why Islamic terrorists want to commit acts of terror on your soil, and until people stop propagating liberal excuses for Islam, ignorance of this fact will allow the situation to grow worse.

Israel's actions are primarily against Palestinians, yet it's non-Palestinian muslims that commit acts of terror against the US and Europe in response? If support of Israel was the root cause, then why isn't the Middle East plagued with Christian terrorism by Brazilian Catholics and English Protestants in retribution for the ongoing genocide of Christian Arabs? Because suicide bombing is not a tactic of proxy warfare.

If you want to know why muslims blow up Western civilians, read the Qur'an and the Hadith. It really is that simple.

Post: #41

(09-22-2016 11:16 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Libertarianism is the nice guy way of being a hardcore right winger, at least for most. Many libertarians are so because they actually are quite rightwing on everything, but do not want to be the authoritarian because they themselves hate authority.

For the ancap-libertarian, the hope is some kind of societal collapse into revolver-capitalism at which point feminism, socialism, mooching parasites, literally cease to exist. That's what real ancaps secretly want.

Very nicely put.

Describes me rather well.

Post: #42

^Number one reason is Palestinians cannot leave their country so it kind of difficult for them to leave the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, so other Muslims take their cause at heart since Palestinians, while some being Christian they are as a majority Muslim.

Americans invading Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and soon Iraq is obviously also a substantial reason for Muslim terrorists to strike in the US.

The Saudis who have a very cozy relationship with the US and buy almost exclusively US armaments, are the ones who spend billions to export there Extreme Wahhabist views across the world. There are many moderate forms of Islam and countries who practice it.

Post: #43

I ended up writing a 4 page response to that little fucker about Trump.

I could have written 4 more but there are just too many reasons for a "Libertarian" to vote for Trump.

I think I actually spent so much effort on this, instead of shit posting and deflecting with memes like I normally would, because it was a cathartic experience for me that helped me think through and solidify the actual reasons I was supporting Trump, and what exactly it is that we are fighting for.

I would post my writings on here if it didn't risk outing me.

For some more entertainment however, here is Gary Johnson being more mentally ill than I could imagine:





You can physically see the repulsion and feel the vaginas drying.