Gary Johnson wins Libertarian Party nomination

[Divine Wind]

This thread has my vote for most awkward thread title of the month.

....or funniest.

 

[Divine Wind]

I might vote for Johnson.

An excellent alternative for those who can't hold their nose and vote for either Hillary or Trump. Sure, he probably won't win, but at least you did your civic duty of voting without voting for either of those two assholes.

 

[flacaltenn]

So your advice on getting libertarians elected is to stop being libertarians. Well, that seems rather pointless to me.

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

You should send Kaz and K.Kennedy and me Thank You cards.. At the very least. Or --- if you're really feeling grateful -- a sampler box of embargoed goods. These freedoms don't just fall into your pipe bud...

Either the American people are really dumb and don't get libertarianism or libertarians are horrible at explaining.

Makes not enough sense to me. It's doubling down on GOP retardedness

What's retarded is trying to measure all ingredients of a political "view" by one Left - Right index. That's why American's don't get it. Libertarians are not simply RIGHT or LEFT.. To maximize liberty and keep the govt focused on it's ASSIGNED tasks -- we require BOTH social freedom and economic freedom. We don't believe in harming others thru the exercise of those freedoms and we don't believe in coercing others to comply with our values or principles or to subsidize our ventures. .

Economic freedom is keeping the govt to it's ASSIGNED tasks and distributing authority as widely as possible. So we are "like" Republicans --- except that we MEAN it. And would end corporate subsidies TOMORROW. And that scalpel that Obama was gonna use to trim govt -- just became a lightning bolt.

Social freedom includes life decisions, body decisions, ALL of the BIll of RIghts (not just your favorite ones), relationship and associations, --- ANY practice that does not harm others. So we are "liberal" in the sense of the Dems on the social front. Except for liking ALL of the Bill of Rights not just 2 or 3 that the Dems would keep. In fact, given the national slide towards authoritarian rule by bureaucrats -- I'd be in favor of ADDING a couple to clarify the points.

And I cannot see it any other way. Why should freedom be ONLY about smoking weed and sex --- if my wallet or pocketbook are not mine to use as I see fit and the Govt won't allow me to drive a big ass Hummer? One current party blubbers about what goes on in your bedroom -- the other one blubbers about fairly distributing what's in your wallet.

.......................... And then I get asked............................ Are youse guyz left-wingers or right-wingers?

Pardon me if NOBODY really asked for that..

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- Because I am socially liberal -- does not mean that I personally CONDONE any other persons' lifestyle or choices. I can still be a judgmental asshole. I just would not interfere with the exercise of their liberty by relying on GOVT to make them stop. It's called tolerance. Doesn't mean I support Bruce Jenners' little money making scheme. Or that I actually love prostitution or alcohol or Socialists.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Couldn't care less.

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

Right, I'm not asking for purism. Ron Paul was certainly no purist, but somebody who understands the non-aggression principle and property rights and uses them as their guide, even if we may not come to the same conclusion isn't asking for much I don't think. Someone who wants to keep Gitmo open, ban burqas, engage in "humanitarian" wars, wants government to enforce "equality," etc.. etc... is somebody I can never get behind.

How about getting rid of that gigantic NSA complex in Utah? Would you overlook Gitmo if that domestic spy palace and Patriot Act both got fixed? It's four years bud. It's not all gonna happen in 4 years.

How about getting rid of the NSA? No, I wouldn't overlook Gitmo. Horrible crimes against humanity are currently happening there, and the so-called Libertarian Gary Johnson says it's alright.

Please detail the "horrible crimes" taking place.

People detained without trial.

 

[Divine Wind]

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

You should send Kaz and K.Kennedy and me Thank You cards.. At the very least. Or --- if you're really feeling grateful -- a sampler box of embargoed goods. These freedoms don't just fall into your pipe bud...

Either the American people are really dumb and don't get libertarianism or libertarians are horrible at explaining.

Makes not enough sense to me. It's doubling down on GOP retardedness

What's retarded is trying to measure all ingredients of a political "view" by one Left - Right index. That's why American's don't get it. Libertarians are not simply RIGHT or LEFT.. To maximize liberty and keep the govt focused on it's ASSIGNED tasks -- we require BOTH social freedom and economic freedom. We don't believe in harming others thru the exercise of those freedoms and we don't believe in coercing others to comply with our values or principles or to subsidize our ventures. .

Economic freedom is keeping the govt to it's ASSIGNED tasks and distributing authority as widely as possible. So we are "like" Republicans --- except that we MEAN it. And would end corporate subsidies TOMORROW. And that scalpel that Obama was gonna use to trim govt -- just became a lightning bolt.

Social freedom includes life decisions, body decisions, ALL of the BIll of RIghts (not just your favorite ones), relationship and associations, --- ANY practice that does not harm others. So we are "liberal" in the sense of the Dems on the social front. Except for liking ALL of the Bill of Rights not just 2 or 3 that the Dems would keep. In fact, given the national slide towards authoritarian rule by bureaucrats -- I'd be in favor of ADDING a couple to clarify the points.

And I cannot see it any other way. Why should freedom be ONLY about smoking weed and sex --- if my wallet or pocketbook are not mine to use as I see fit and the Govt won't allow me to drive a big ass Hummer? One current party blubbers about what goes on in your bedroom -- the other one blubbers about fairly distributing what's in your wallet.

.......................... And then I get asked............................ Are youse guyz left-wingers or right-wingers?

Pardon me if NOBODY really asked for that..

It doesn't matter if they asked or not, it needed to be said. Well done, sir!

 

[Divine Wind]

BTW --- Because I am socially liberal -- does not mean that I personally CONDONE any other persons' lifestyle or choices. I can still be a judgmental asshole. I just would not interfere with the exercise of their liberty by relying on GOVT to make them stop. It's called tolerance. Doesn't mean I support Bruce Jenners' little money making scheme. Or that I actually love prostitution or alcohol or Socialists.

Agreed. Too many people these days equate tolerance with condoning. That simply isn't true. Like all of our rights, we should support the rights of others to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" in order to protect our rights to the same. That doesn't mean we have to applaud the goals of others. It just means we respect their right to pursue them.

Too many idiots think it's okay to pass laws banning or restricting a particular religion in violation of our First Amendment without realizing they are setting the precedent to restrict their own beliefs by an all-powerful authoritarian government.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW --- Because I am socially liberal -- does not mean that I personally CONDONE any other persons' lifestyle or choices. I can still be a judgmental asshole. I just would not interfere with the exercise of their liberty by relying on GOVT to make them stop. It's called tolerance. Doesn't mean I support Bruce Jenners' little money making scheme. Or that I actually love prostitution or alcohol or Socialists.

Agreed. Too many people these days equate tolerance with condoning. That simply isn't true. Like all of our rights, we should support the rights of others to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" in order to protect our rights to the same. That doesn't mean we have to applaud the goals of others. It just means we respect their right to pursue them.

Too many idiots think it's okay to pass laws banning or restricting a particular religion in violation of our First Amendment without realizing they are setting the precedent to restrict their own beliefs by an all-powerful authoritarian government.

An awful lot of the social battles you witness everyday and in USMB would disappear if people re-learned the role TOLERANCE plays in maximizing freedom.

 

[The Rabbi]

To your point to him, I agree. What I don't like about that is they keep nominating non-libertarians to do it. This will be the third election in a row I'd have voted for them if they'd nominated a libertarian. That follows three elections in a row I did voted them because they did nominate a libertarian. There's a clear correlation there ...

Right, I'm not asking for purism. Ron Paul was certainly no purist, but somebody who understands the non-aggression principle and property rights and uses them as their guide, even if we may not come to the same conclusion isn't asking for much I don't think. Someone who wants to keep Gitmo open, ban burqas, engage in "humanitarian" wars, wants government to enforce "equality," etc.. etc... is somebody I can never get behind.

How about getting rid of that gigantic NSA complex in Utah? Would you overlook Gitmo if that domestic spy palace and Patriot Act both got fixed? It's four years bud. It's not all gonna happen in 4 years.

How about getting rid of the NSA? No, I wouldn't overlook Gitmo. Horrible crimes against humanity are currently happening there, and the so-called Libertarian Gary Johnson says it's alright.

Please detail the "horrible crimes" taking place.

People detained without trial.

Why should they have a trial? They didnt commit any crimes.

 

[kaz]

What we are is not just an academic exercise. There are governing skills required if you are actually gonna quit debating and run candidates for office. Voters don't want to be prostelytzed. They want to know how you are gonna fix things without tearing it all down and being primmadonna about REBUILDING IT in your image.

We've had mental midgets nominated who believe that marijuana is a PLATFORM. Or that auditing the Fed is some kind of Holy Grail. It's on the freakin' list. The things I listed that we were mocked for are now commonly accepted. But that's not sufficient to dissect and defuse the mighty minions of bureaucrats who are out of control and under no particular supervision right now.

It's a big job. You cannot put a dogmatic zealot with no skills up for election...

Yes, it would help with the stupid oh, Libertarians, you're the ones who want legal weed if the Libertarians would stop focusing on wanting legal weed

I'm smoking legal weed right now. So what?

You should send Kaz and K.Kennedy and me Thank You cards.. At the very least. Or --- if you're really feeling grateful -- a sampler box of embargoed goods. These freedoms don't just fall into your pipe bud...

Either the American people are really dumb and don't get libertarianism or libertarians are horrible at explaining.

Makes not enough sense to me. It's doubling down on GOP retardedness

What's retarded is trying to measure all ingredients of a political "view" by one Left - Right index. That's why American's don't get it. Libertarians are not simply RIGHT or LEFT.. To maximize liberty and keep the govt focused on it's ASSIGNED tasks -- we require BOTH social freedom and economic freedom. We don't believe in harming others thru the exercise of those freedoms and we don't believe in coercing others to comply with our values or principles or to subsidize our ventures. .

Economic freedom is keeping the govt to it's ASSIGNED tasks and distributing authority as widely as possible. So we are "like" Republicans --- except that we MEAN it. And would end corporate subsidies TOMORROW. And that scalpel that Obama was gonna use to trim govt -- just became a lightning bolt.

Social freedom includes life decisions, body decisions, ALL of the BIll of RIghts (not just your favorite ones), relationship and associations, --- ANY practice that does not harm others. So we are "liberal" in the sense of the Dems on the social front. Except for liking ALL of the Bill of Rights not just 2 or 3 that the Dems would keep. In fact, given the national slide towards authoritarian rule by bureaucrats -- I'd be in favor of ADDING a couple to clarify the points.

And I cannot see it any other way. Why should freedom be ONLY about smoking weed and sex --- if my wallet or pocketbook are not mine to use as I see fit and the Govt won't allow me to drive a big ass Hummer? One current party blubbers about what goes on in your bedroom -- the other one blubbers about fairly distributing what's in your wallet.

.......................... And then I get asked............................ Are youse guyz left-wingers or right-wingers?

Pardon me if NOBODY really asked for that..

That's a lot of work to put in for an imbecile

 

[amrchaos]

Gary Johnson takes the un-libertarian position that governments can punish those who exercise their free-will to not participate in something that is against their beliefs. We’re not talking about a physical harm between two parties; we are talking about an exercise of conscience. Here, it is baking a cake specific for a homosexual wedding. It could be any kind of situation where a customer asks a business to engage in something against one’s beliefs. In this light, Austin Petersen rightly makes a comparison about forcing a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi customer. You can see Johnson squirm as his libertarian credentials take a serious hit. Johnson favors punishing who he has a disagreement of conscience over a misguided “progressive” interpretations of discrimination and equality. He ultimately favors empowering the state over the individual. He favors compulsion.

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Libertarians believe in maximizing an individual rights, not allowing individual to have absolute freedom. There is a distinction, a balance , between the rights of the individual and society need for order.

The problem with libertarians is thast they have yet to agree on exactly where that point is. This theoretical problem is a source for infighting between libertarians and anarchist.

Yes, SOME libertarians(and most anarchist) believes that individuals have the right to discriminate. However, allowing people to act upon their personal bias greatly undermines society!

That has been demonstrated time and again, from race to religion to nationality. Society suffers due to slow ability for it to become homogenized due to several distinct groups refusing to 'socialize' with each other.

The bakers refusing to bake a cake is a good example.
Is it the same?
1 Christian bakers and gay couple?
2 Jewish bakers and Nazi Org?
3 KKK members that bake and Black couple?
3a Black baker and KKK member
And a special case
4. Iraqi baker and US vet

Why did I add 4? I had seen something similar to this

In my opinion, they all must bake the cake. The libertarian position appears to suggest otherwise, they all can refuse.

But 4, is telling. It should lead you into deeper questions about this little problem.

What is the purpose of society? When rights conflict, what principles should apply to determine who is right or wrong?

What about the counterexamples where principles produce the wrong results?

They all must have the right to serve whoever the hell they want to serve. For the complaining malcontents: There is another baker who would be happy to take your business. Go to them and shut the hell up.

Another baker may not exist in your locale.

The same can go for hospitals, grocery stores etc.
If the fire house is private, like in Tennessee, then they can just refuse to serve certain individuals in the community.


That's chaotic. It would be better to hide your identity in such a society than participate and help it grow.

Yes, a baker refusing to bake a cake due to who they think the customer is can lead to anarchy.

 

[Iceweasel]

The same too often but Republicans have put some brakes on obama's insane spending. Throwing a vote away on a third party guy with no chance won't move you closer to your goals. The best way is the move the party by influence. Bernie has moved the Dems to the left. Hillary has to placate his voters to win them over. Trump apparently is moving to the right on some issues, guns, abortion, etc. A vote for Hillary or Johnson will be a zero percent chance of changing anything.

What you don't get is that I don't care between Trump and Hillary. In fact I may vote for Hillary as I've said because at least she's not going to try to end free trade like Trump says he will do. Capitalism is my one litmus test issue and free trade is the beating heart of socialism. I might vote for Johnson if his poll numbers are high enough. The only candidate right now I will not vote for, for 100% certainty, is Trump

He didn't say he wants going to end free trade, that's just you being hysterical about what he did say. Hillary will be more of the same, jobs marching overseas due to the uneven playing field and anti-business atmosphere.

Trump is anti free trade. That is maybe one thing he's actually been consistent on.

His point is that it isn't really free trade if US business have to do it to compete and the playing field is uneven. He wants fair trade, not isolationism.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. Free trade means I decide. Trump wants government to decide. That is anti-free trade. I understand you believe he'll make the world fair. I don't believe him, I want him to stay out of it

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

 

[Seawytch]

What an election year! The GOP nominates Donald Trump and the Libertarian party might break the 3-5% of the vote they normally get. Still means ya'll get used to saying President Hillary Clinton.

 

[kaz]

Maybe he just sees the difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy.

Or he prefers compulsion over the free market and slavery over liberty. If he is truly libertarian, he'll leave the businessman alone, choose to personally not do business if that's what his conscience dictates, and leave the government out of the equation.

libertarianism: definition of libertarianism in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"An extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."

Definition of “libertarian” | Collins English Dictionary

"a believer in freedom of thought, expression, etc"

Definition of LIBERTARIANISM

"a person who believes that people should be allowed to do and say what they want without any interference from the government"

Three quite different definitions from three dictionaries.

Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]"

I think I prefer Wikipedia's version.

What is The Libertarian Party?

"Libertarians believe in the American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility."

It's not that much different to what the Libertarians say themselves.

So, it's about liberty which is about not being controlled by the government or others.

However, I'd say, like any right, there are limitations. Many freedoms conflict with other freedoms, many desires of free will conflict with other desires of free will. Who is there to mediate between the two? Should it be a free for all? No, that's Anarchy.

Libertarianism would be maximum freedom for all, which requires government regulation in order to achieve this.

So, I'd say liberty is the ability to walk down the street, go into any public business and conduct business there. If I am denied conducting business the same as everyone else, then I don't have liberty.
If I am denied service in a shop because I am black, or because I am a woman, or because I am gay, or because I have a deformed part of my body, or if I am denied because of something I was born with, then I am not free, I don't have liberty.

anarchy: definition of anarchy in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Anarchy

"A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:"

This is what some people believe is Libertarianism. It's not.

Libertarians believe in maximizing an individual rights, not allowing individual to have absolute freedom. There is a distinction, a balance , between the rights of the individual and society need for order.

The problem with libertarians is thast they have yet to agree on exactly where that point is. This theoretical problem is a source for infighting between libertarians and anarchist.

Yes, SOME libertarians(and most anarchist) believes that individuals have the right to discriminate. However, allowing people to act upon their personal bias greatly undermines society!

That has been demonstrated time and again, from race to religion to nationality. Society suffers due to slow ability for it to become homogenized due to several distinct groups refusing to 'socialize' with each other.

The bakers refusing to bake a cake is a good example.
Is it the same?
1 Christian bakers and gay couple?
2 Jewish bakers and Nazi Org?
3 KKK members that bake and Black couple?
3a Black baker and KKK member
And a special case
4. Iraqi baker and US vet

Why did I add 4? I had seen something similar to this

In my opinion, they all must bake the cake. The libertarian position appears to suggest otherwise, they all can refuse.

But 4, is telling. It should lead you into deeper questions about this little problem.

What is the purpose of society? When rights conflict, what principles should apply to determine who is right or wrong?

What about the counterexamples where principles produce the wrong results?

They all must have the right to serve whoever the hell they want to serve. For the complaining malcontents: There is another baker who would be happy to take your business. Go to them and shut the hell up.

Another baker may not exist in your locale.

The same can go for hospitals, grocery stores etc.
If the fire house is private, like in Tennessee, then they can just refuse to serve certain individuals in the community.


That's chaotic. It would be better to hide your identity in such a society than participate and help it grow.

Yes, a baker refusing to bake a cake due to who they think the customer is can lead to anarchy.

And a hang nail can lead to the fall of civilizations. What a ridiculous post. Our choices are to be slaves to government or live in anarchy. If those are my only choices, I'd pick anarchy, but they are not. Government is what most threatens our freedom, like forcing citizens to bake each other cakes

 

[kaz]

What you don't get is that I don't care between Trump and Hillary. In fact I may vote for Hillary as I've said because at least she's not going to try to end free trade like Trump says he will do. Capitalism is my one litmus test issue and free trade is the beating heart of socialism. I might vote for Johnson if his poll numbers are high enough. The only candidate right now I will not vote for, for 100% certainty, is Trump

He didn't say he wants going to end free trade, that's just you being hysterical about what he did say. Hillary will be more of the same, jobs marching overseas due to the uneven playing field and anti-business atmosphere.

Trump is anti free trade. That is maybe one thing he's actually been consistent on.

His point is that it isn't really free trade if US business have to do it to compete and the playing field is uneven. He wants fair trade, not isolationism.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. Free trade means I decide. Trump wants government to decide. That is anti-free trade. I understand you believe he'll make the world fair. I don't believe him, I want him to stay out of it

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

 

[Toro]

I might vote for Johnson.

An excellent alternative for those who can't hold their nose and vote for either Hillary or Trump. Sure, he probably won't win, but at least you did your civic duty of voting without voting for either of those two assholes.

I really don't want to vote for Hillary, and I would never vote for Trump, so Johnson/Weld is a decent option.

To me, this election is a rerun of the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election, when both choices were really bad. The question is, does one vote for the crony insider/possible criminal, or the demagogue playing on the worst instincts of Americans? At least Johnson offers a reputable choice.

 

[Iceweasel]

He didn't say he wants going to end free trade, that's just you being hysterical about what he did say. Hillary will be more of the same, jobs marching overseas due to the uneven playing field and anti-business atmosphere.

Trump is anti free trade. That is maybe one thing he's actually been consistent on.

His point is that it isn't really free trade if US business have to do it to compete and the playing field is uneven. He wants fair trade, not isolationism.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. Free trade means I decide. Trump wants government to decide. That is anti-free trade. I understand you believe he'll make the world fair. I don't believe him, I want him to stay out of it

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

 

[kaz]

Trump is anti free trade. That is maybe one thing he's actually been consistent on.

His point is that it isn't really free trade if US business have to do it to compete and the playing field is uneven. He wants fair trade, not isolationism.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. Free trade means I decide. Trump wants government to decide. That is anti-free trade. I understand you believe he'll make the world fair. I don't believe him, I want him to stay out of it

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

 

[Iceweasel]

His point is that it isn't really free trade if US business have to do it to compete and the playing field is uneven. He wants fair trade, not isolationism.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. Free trade means I decide. Trump wants government to decide. That is anti-free trade. I understand you believe he'll make the world fair. I don't believe him, I want him to stay out of it

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

 

[kaz]

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. Free trade means I decide. Trump wants government to decide. That is anti-free trade. I understand you believe he'll make the world fair. I don't believe him, I want him to stay out of it

He wants government to make better deals, like their governments do. The problem with you hard line purists is you can't see that the issue isn't as simple as trading baseball cards with your neighbor. When products move across borders governments are involved. If it favors one over the other it is not a fair deal.

How he justifies being anti-free trade doesn't contradict that he is anti-free trade. You're incredibly naive that you think ceding more power to government will result in more freedom, that never happens. So if my not wanting to cede my liberty to government means that I'm a "hard line purist" then that works, I'm a hard line purist. And you're a slave. But at least you are one who wants to be a slave.

The naivety is all yours. Nor can you read. You are a purist that isn't getting his way so you want to misrepresent others' views. I didn't call for more government, I want smarter government. Unequal trade deals should be improved on. I'm a slave for that? You're a nut for saying so.

You want government to decide what trade we can and can't do, how is that misrepresenting your view? You're giving government more power.

And using the term "smart" with "government" is, wow, let's go with "unrealistic"

That isn't what I said, nor have I heard Trump say it. Deciding what to trade and how to trade are not synonomous. Sorry that you can't grasp it.

So he's just going to ask nicely and not restrict trade if he doesn't get his way? We know that's not true, he's saying he's going to put punitive tariffs on companies that try to leave and restrict the ability of companies to operate efficiently by moving jobs overseas when it makes economic sense for them to do that.

Clearly you are giving government the power to restrict our choices, and that's exactly what Trump says he will do