The Dangers of Trump's Militaristic Isolationalism

[Chris]

Surprise the resident neocons are not going after Trump.

The Dangers of Trump's Militaristic Isolationalism (https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/11/the-dangers-of-trumps-militaristic-isola)


...Many attribute his success to a loud-mouthed, no-holds-barred persona. That's certainly part of it, but that's not all there is. Indeed, the core element of his attraction to conservatives isn't his un-PC pomposity, but his promise of radical isolationism. Trump promises to "Make America Great Again" by using its military might to cordon the U.S. off from the evils of the world.

To understand Trump the isolationist, you have to first understand what he's not. He isn't a liberal, for sure. But his Republican rivals are also correct when they grumble that he's no conservative either. Trump is, after all, an erstwhile supporter of a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. He has no discernible commitment to limiting the size or scope of government. In fact, his campaign rhetoric is remarkably free from obligatory jeremiads against a lumbering federal bureaucracy crushing the animal spirits of American entrepreneurs. He pays lip service to the evils of crony capitalism because he instinctively understands its populist appeal, yet he simultaneously boasts about exploiting it. ("If you can't get rich dealing with politicians, there's something wrong with you," he harumphs.) Meanwhile, Trump issues blasphemous defenses of eminent domain—maintaining, incredibly, that rank-and-file conservatives oppose government seizures of poor people's private property on behalf of rich developers like himself only because no one has explained to them the public benefits of such grabs.

Trump is similarly not a fiscal conservative worried that America's ballooning entitlement state will bankrupt the country—a concern that has preoccupied serious Republicans for decades. The hapless Jeb Bush is promising to slash 10 percent of the federal workforce. Paul Ryan, the new speaker of the House, has staked his career on reforming old-age entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare and offering serious proposals to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Trump just yawns at all of this.

Trump is not a cultural conservative either; he wouldn't know "family values" if they hit him in the face. A twice-divorced Manhattan playboy, he once actually said if Ivanka Trump weren't his daughter, he'd date her because she has a "very nice figure." More to the point, he has no serious religious convictions, was never against gay marriage, and actually supported abortion rights for women.

None of this bothers Trump's conservative supporters. Why? Because they are preoccupied with the threat a fast-changing external world poses to them far more than the depredations of their own government. Hence, Trump's radically isolationist ideology—seeing the world not as a place full of opportunities waiting to be harnessed but a giant rip-off—resonates with them. His vow to "Make America Great Again" by nixing America's overseas commitments, slashing trade, and ejecting welfare-mooching foreigners makes perfect sense to many conservatives. Ann Coulter, perhaps Trump's biggest fan, has declared that she wouldn't care if he conducted abortions in the White House so long as he mass deported immigrants as he's promised.

In a fundamental sense, Trump is the anti-Reagan...

[Peter1469]

Our resident Neocon is a fake and has almost no understanding of geopolitics. His posts are rants.

[Kurmugeon]

The dangers of Isolationism are small compared to the dangers of the Obama Military foreign policy.

Having the U.S. act as the bomber wing of the Muslim Brotherhood has dramatically unstabilized the middle east and flooded Europe with an enormous wave of "Syrian Refugees", most of whom have never set foot in Syria, and almost none are "Refugees".

America has a very important role to play in international affairs, particularly military alliances and commitments, but NOT under this leadership!

Not as a pawn and strong arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Not with the Rules-of-Engagement being given by a Traitorous Anti-American President.

Not with the cuts in American Military funding, while at the same time, we are funding our enemies.

Not when our forces are fatigued, our discipline and focus blurred, and our equipment is worn out by over a decade of continuous deployment and war.

There are many very good reasons to do a complete Military RESET, pulling our forces back to U.S. Soil, while we straighten out a huge list of problems.

Currently, under the Obama Leadership, we are helping our enemies and worsening America's position in disastrous ways. Better, for now, to do nothing at all, but change leadership, and rebuild!

In a few years, when we are ready, and as budget allow, we can retake some of our international military burdens.

Obama has done far too much damage for U.S. to continue our historical roles, and nothing of American Value can be gained in the Middle East for the time being.

-
-

[Cigar]

Don't forget China is in the Middle East ... Ben said so. :laugh:

[Kurmugeon]

Our resident Neocon is a fake and has almost no understanding of geopolitics. His posts are rants.

More often than not, the term Neocon is tossed about as a pejorative for any "Conservative" who is disliked and the speaker wants to discredit and dismiss.

The Lefties have spent mounds of political capital in discrediting the "Neocon" brand, yet few have a consistent definition of what a Neocon actually is...

Here are several sites attempting to define Neocon:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism

They have differing and contradictory definitions.

One site states that Neocon are all newly converted Liberals who believe in big Government intervention. It stresses the concept of them being RINOs who support Leftist causes. This site claims that Neocon love President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and are exemplified by Dick Chaney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bill Kristol, ...[/URL]

Another defines Neocon as primarily being a tool of Israel and being primarily American-Jewish Intellectuals with a perchance for large military spending. It states they are very fond of Nation building. It lists President Reagan and Paul Wolfowitz as prime examples and founders of the group.

And yet the third site claims that the GodFather of Neocons was Irving Kristol, followed by Jeane Kirkpatrick, and was primarily about President George W. Bush. This source claims it was based on New York Intellectuals and was based on anti-communism until the end of the cold war.


Today, the term Neocon is used as a term to Demonize anyone the Lefties don't like.

-
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-21"] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mike_Huckabee)

[Tahuyaman]

When did Trump become an isolationist?

[Tahuyaman]

Our resident Neocon is a fake and has almost no understanding of geopolitics. His posts are rants.

lol

[Kurmugeon]

lol

Out of curiosity, who is the Resident Neocon?

-

[Tahuyaman]

Out of curiosity, who is the Resident Neocon?

-

ask the person who made the comment.

[Kurmugeon]

Our resident Neocon is a fake and has almost no understanding of geopolitics. His posts are rants.

Out of curiosity, who is the Resident Neocon?

[Mac-7]

When did Trump become an isolationist?

When some babe at Reason Magazine decided she didnt like Trump and is now doing Chris and Peter's thinking (and talking) for them.

Who does the brain behind the article that Chis cut and pasted support for president?

[Kurmugeon]

When some babe at Reason Magazine decided she didnt like Trump and is now doing Chris and Peter's thinking (and talking) for them.

Who does the brain behind the article that Chis cut and pasted support for president?

Why can't any one use names, or at least aliases...

What babe?

And Yes, I've noted the close kinship in thinking between Chris and Peter.

And who is this Resident Neocon?

I'm relatively new here, in number of posts, not calendar years, and haven't posted much consistently. So other than the Trolls of Common, Exotix and Cigar, I don't know many of the people here.

-

[Mac-7]

Why can't any one use names, or at least aliases...

What babe?

And Yes, I've noted the close kinship in thinking between Chris and Peter.

And who is this Resident Neocon?

I'm relatively new here, in number of posts, not calendar years, and haven't posted much consistently. So other than the Trolls of Common, Exotix and Cigar, I don't know many of the people here.

-

Her name is Shikha Diamia.

But Chris did not credit her by name when he posted her opinion here.

I never heard of her before and still dont know anything except that she has a foreign name and writes for a libertarian magazine.

So I'm not sure why her opinion is so essential to Chris and why we needed to hear it.

But when we read the criticism of Trump it is important to know the political bias of the woman making the criticism.

[Kurmugeon]

Her name is Shikha Diamia.

But Chris did not credit her by name when he posted her opinion here.

I never heard of her before and still dont know anything except that she has a foreign name and writes for a libertarian magazine.

So I'm not sure why her opinion is so essential to Chris and why we needed to hear it.

But when we read the criticism of Trump it is important to know the political bias of the woman making the criticism.

Ok, that's useful information to put the OP in context.

A quick search found this article: https://reason.com/archives/2014/08/26/why-obama-cant-lead-on-racial-justice

And from that, this link to a list of all of her writing at Reason.com : https://reason.com/people/shikha-dalmia/all

So, who do you suppose the Resident Neocon referred to is?

I am only curious, because of the obvious contempt. When moderators start making such opinions, it usually leads to problems on the forum.

I've posted on dozens of forums over the last few years, and have learned to watch for the signs.

Quite a number of the forums I posted on three years ago simply no longer exist.

-

[Mac-7]

Ok, that's useful information to put the OP in context.

A quick search found this article: https://reason.com/archives/2014/08/26/why-obama-cant-lead-on-racial-justice

And from that, this link to a list of all of her writing at Reason.com : https://reason.com/people/shikha-dalmia/all

So, who do you suppose the Resident Neocon referred to is?

I am only curious, because of the obvious contempt. When moderators start making such opinions, it usually leads to problems on the forum.

I've posted on dozens of forums over the last few years, and have learned to watch for the signs.

Quite a number of the forums I posted on three years ago simply no longer exist.

-

The shortcomings of the mods would need an entire thread of its own.

As for which non libertarian was referred to take your pick.

There are a lot of us here.

[Kurmugeon]

The shortcomings of the mods would need an entire thread of its own.

As for which non libertarian was referred to take your pick.

There are a lot of us here.

Just out of curiosity, where in the political spectrum and the common labels would you put me?

-

[Mac-7]

Just out of curiosity, where in the political spectrum and the common labels would you put me?

-

I tend to agree with your opinions and consider myself a conservative.

[Mac-7]

I must admit that as a conservative I do like tTrump because he correctly identifies the invasision of illegal aliens and our loss of manufacturing as the leading cause of American decline.

The trouble with purist libertarians is that they expect to find a perfect candidate that agrees with them on everything.

Which is why they are eternally against whoever republicans nominate.

And why they cannot inderstand how any conservative could support a compromise candidate that does not give conservatives 100% of what we want.

I try to find the person closest to my views without expecting perfection.

But libertarians are not that flexible.

[Kurmugeon]

I tend to agree with your opinions and consider myself a conservative.

I get that allot, yet every once in a while I get into a discussion where my views are complex or divergent enough that it disturbs people.

BTW, its vice-versa, I find myself generally in agreement with your opinions. Does that make me a Conservative?

I think of myself as a Classic-Liberal, as in JFK era, or a Conservative Libertarian, except on gender / orientation issues.

I got into a Kerfuffle the other day on another forum over the "Gay-Rape" Epidemic in the military. I don't think it is the open gays who are the problem, nor do I think the people commit such acts are "Gay" any more than most Hetero-Rapists/Serial Killers are "Straight".

I believe that Sexual Predators are acting out of insecurities for purposes of domination and reassurance against insecurity, and it has little to do with sexual orientation or sexual gratification. I believe that most Sexual Predators are Bi-Sexual, because its not about gratification, it is about Domination.

Many decades ago, when I was serving in the AF, we had an incident on the base, and I knew both the perp and the victim. Horrible incident. It wasn't about Sexual Gratification!

Therefore, it is not the new, open gays in the military leading to the epidemic in assaults, but rather a Predator problem driven by insecurities.

The "Gays" shouldn't be punished for something they did not do, and has little to do with them.

Well, that didn't sell so well with a couple of staunch Conservatives on the forum.

-

[Safety]

A budding bromance in the making...

[Kurmugeon]

A budding bromance in the making...

Friendship. I am VERY straight, and old enough to not care much about women anymore regardless.

Are you jealous?

-

[Safety]

Friendship. I am VERY straight, and old enough to not care much about women anymore regardless.

Are you jealous?

-


Extremely. I was hoping Mac would settle down with Tahuyaman, but now you're in the picture.

Team Kurmugeon or Team Tahuyaman...decisions, decisions...

[Kurmugeon]

Extremely. I was hoping Mac would settle down with Tahuyaman, but now you're in the picture.

Team Kurmugeon or Team Tahuyaman...decisions, decisions...

Nothing to fear, I am not long for this world.

-

[Safety]

Nothing to fear, I am not long for this world.

-

Don't be a buzz kill.

[Kurmugeon]

Don't be a buzz kill.

Part of the coping, is changing your point-of-view about death.

I'm about to start a whole new adventure!

-

[Common Sense]

Trump in a nutshell...Fear is a powerful motivator (for simpletons).

[Mac-7]

Trump in a nutshell...Fear is a powerful motivator (for simpletons).

You fear Trump.

[Common Sense]

You fear Trump.

I fear a nation of idiots falling for his simplistic message. It doesn't bode well.

It's the birth of idiocracy.

[Safety]

I fear a nation of idiots falling for his simplistic message. It doesn't bode well.

It's the birth of idiocracy.

Seems like the same ones fell for the birtherism. Maybe it's linked...

[Mac-7]

I fear a nation of idiots falling for his simplistic message. It doesn't bode well.



Then you do know fear after all.

See, in some ways you are almost human.

[Chris]

More often than not, the term Neocon is tossed about as a pejorative for any "Conservative" who is disliked and the speaker wants to discredit and dismiss.

The Lefties have spent mounds of political capital in discrediting the "Neocon" brand, yet few have a consistent definition of what a Neocon actually is...

Here are several sites attempting to define Neocon:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism

They have differing and contradictory definitions.

One site states that Neocon are all newly converted Liberals who believe in big Government intervention. It stresses the concept of them being RINOs who support Leftist causes. This site claims that Neocon love President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and are exemplified by Dick Chaney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bill Kristol, ...[/URL]

Another defines Neocon as primarily being a tool of Israel and being primarily American-Jewish Intellectuals with a perchance for large military spending. It states they are very fond of Nation building. It lists President Reagan and Paul Wolfowitz as prime examples and founders of the group.

And yet the third site claims that the GodFather of Neocons was Irving Kristol, followed by Jeane Kirkpatrick, and was primarily about President George W. Bush. This source claims it was based on New York Intellectuals and was based on anti-communism until the end of the cold war.


Today, the term Neocon is used as a term to Demonize anyone the Lefties don't like.

-
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-21"] (http://www.conservapedia.com/Mike_Huckabee)


We use it here for exactly its meaning. Neoconservatives arose in the 60s. They were ex-communists, ex-Trotskyites, ex-liberals--liberals mugged by reality their founder said--who while they retained their liberalism domestically took a hawkish stance on intervention abroad, and still do. Given that definition, my open remark I'm surprised the resident neocons are not trashing Trump who is an isolationist.

[Chris]

Out of curiosity, who is the Resident Neocon?

-

I see more than one. I wouldn't be surprised they've responded to defend themselves.

[Chris]

When some babe at Reason Magazine decided she didnt like Trump and is now doing Chris and Peter's thinking (and talking) for them.

Who does the brain behind the article that Chis cut and pasted support for president?

^^A resident neocon.

Silly ad hom aside, Trump's wanting to wall us in against foreigners is isolationism, Mac, plain and simple.

Oh, but wait, he's a Republican so you an interventionist defends an isolationist. Too funny.

[Chris]

Her name is Shikha Diamia.

But Chris did not credit her by name when he posted her opinion here.

I never heard of her before and still dont know anything except that she has a foreign name and writes for a libertarian magazine.

So I'm not sure why her opinion is so essential to Chris and why we needed to hear it.

But when we read the criticism of Trump it is important to know the political bias of the woman making the criticism.



And even though you have no clue who she is you made up the following about her:


When some babe at Reason Magazine decided she didnt like Trump and is now doing Chris and Peter's thinking (and talking) for them.

Who does the brain behind the article that Chis cut and pasted support for president?

[Mac-7]

^^A resident neocon.

Silly ad hom aside, Trump's wanting to wall us in against foreigners is isolationism, Mac, plain and simple.

Oh, but wait, he's a Republican so you an interventionist defends an isolationist. Too funny.

I'm still wondering who the libertarian babe supports for president.

[Chris]

Ok, that's useful information to put the OP in context.

A quick search found this article: https://reason.com/archives/2014/08/26/why-obama-cant-lead-on-racial-justice

And from that, this link to a list of all of her writing at Reason.com : https://reason.com/people/shikha-dalmia/all

So, who do you suppose the Resident Neocon referred to is?

I am only curious, because of the obvious contempt. When moderators start making such opinions, it usually leads to problems on the forum.

I've posted on dozens of forums over the last few years, and have learned to watch for the signs.

Quite a number of the forums I posted on three years ago simply no longer exist.

-


The shortcomings of the mods would need an entire thread of its own.

As for which non libertarian was referred to take your pick.

There are a lot of us here.

Friendly warning to discuss topic not moderators or moderation.

Labelling members for their political position is fine, libertarian, liberal, conservative or neocon.

[Chris]

I must admit that as a conservative I do like tTrump because he correctly identifies the invasision of illegal aliens and our loss of manufacturing as the leading cause of American decline.

The trouble with purist libertarians is that they expect to find a perfect candidate that agrees with them on everything.

Which is why they are eternally against whoever republicans nominate.

And why they cannot inderstand how any conservative could support a compromise candidate that does not give conservatives 100% of what we want.

I try to find the person closest to my views without expecting perfection.

But libertarians are not that flexible.


You frankly have no clue what a libertarian is.

[Chris]

I get that allot, yet every once in a while I get into a discussion where my views are complex or divergent enough that it disturbs people.

BTW, its vice-versa, I find myself generally in agreement with your opinions. Does that make me a Conservative?

I think of myself as a Classic-Liberal, as in JFK era, or a Conservative Libertarian, except on gender / orientation issues.

I got into a Kerfuffle the other day on another forum over the "Gay-Rape" Epidemic in the military. I don't think it is the open gays who are the problem, nor do I think the people commit such acts are "Gay" any more than most Hetero-Rapists/Serial Killers are "Straight".

I believe that Sexual Predators are acting out of insecurities for purposes of domination and reassurance against insecurity, and it has little to do with sexual orientation or sexual gratification. I believe that most Sexual Predators are Bi-Sexual, because its not about gratification, it is about Domination.

Many decades ago, when I was serving in the AF, we had an incident on the base, and I knew both the perp and the victim. Horrible incident. It wasn't about Sexual Gratification!

Therefore, it is not the new, open gays in the military leading to the epidemic in assaults, but rather a Predator problem driven by insecurities.

The "Gays" shouldn't be punished for something they did not do, and has little to do with them.

Well, that didn't sell so well with a couple of staunch Conservatives on the forum.

-



I was going to say you in your posts sound libertarian, right libertarian rather than left. As a libertarian myself I agree with what you just posted. Libertarians have a wide range of views. Something Mac fails to understand.

[Mac-7]

You frankly have no clue what a libertarian is.

And you have no idea how differently others see you than the idealized image you have of yourself.

[Common Sense]

Lol...

[Mac-7]

I'm still wondering who the Indian babe at Reason Magazine that does Chris' thinking for him support for president?

[Chris]

I'm still wondering who the libertarian babe supports for president.


Ad hom is a logical fallacy. But based on your illogical arguments, like not voting Rep is voting Dem, that is to be expected.

[Chris]

And you have no idea how differently others see you than the idealized image you have of yourself.

I have an idea based on what many say.

I also know you speak for no one but yourself.

Am I concerned what you think about me, no.

[Chris]

Surprise the resident neocons are not going after Trump.

The Dangers of Trump's Militaristic Isolationalism (https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/11/the-dangers-of-trumps-militaristic-isola)


...Many attribute his success to a loud-mouthed, no-holds-barred persona. That's certainly part of it, but that's not all there is. Indeed, the core element of his attraction to conservatives isn't his un-PC pomposity, but his promise of radical isolationism. Trump promises to "Make America Great Again" by using its military might to cordon the U.S. off from the evils of the world.

To understand Trump the isolationist, you have to first understand what he's not. He isn't a liberal, for sure. But his Republican rivals are also correct when they grumble that he's no conservative either. Trump is, after all, an erstwhile supporter of a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. He has no discernible commitment to limiting the size or scope of government. In fact, his campaign rhetoric is remarkably free from obligatory jeremiads against a lumbering federal bureaucracy crushing the animal spirits of American entrepreneurs. He pays lip service to the evils of crony capitalism because he instinctively understands its populist appeal, yet he simultaneously boasts about exploiting it. ("If you can't get rich dealing with politicians, there's something wrong with you," he harumphs.) Meanwhile, Trump issues blasphemous defenses of eminent domain—maintaining, incredibly, that rank-and-file conservatives oppose government seizures of poor people's private property on behalf of rich developers like himself only because no one has explained to them the public benefits of such grabs.

Trump is similarly not a fiscal conservative worried that America's ballooning entitlement state will bankrupt the country—a concern that has preoccupied serious Republicans for decades. The hapless Jeb Bush is promising to slash 10 percent of the federal workforce. Paul Ryan, the new speaker of the House, has staked his career on reforming old-age entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare and offering serious proposals to repeal and replace ObamaCare. Trump just yawns at all of this.

Trump is not a cultural conservative either; he wouldn't know "family values" if they hit him in the face. A twice-divorced Manhattan playboy, he once actually said if Ivanka Trump weren't his daughter, he'd date her because she has a "very nice figure." More to the point, he has no serious religious convictions, was never against gay marriage, and actually supported abortion rights for women.

None of this bothers Trump's conservative supporters. Why? Because they are preoccupied with the threat a fast-changing external world poses to them far more than the depredations of their own government. Hence, Trump's radically isolationist ideology—seeing the world not as a place full of opportunities waiting to be harnessed but a giant rip-off—resonates with them. His vow to "Make America Great Again" by nixing America's overseas commitments, slashing trade, and ejecting welfare-mooching foreigners makes perfect sense to many conservatives. Ann Coulter, perhaps Trump's biggest fan, has declared that she wouldn't care if he conducted abortions in the White House so long as he mass deported immigrants as he's promised.

In a fundamental sense, Trump is the anti-Reagan...



Not one of the points, all based on facts, has been addressed by our resident neocons. One of them is attempting to attack the messenger. But that's it so far.

[Mac-7]

Come on Chris.

Ask the Indian babe who you support for president.

You should at least be curious to know.

[Chris]

Come on Chris.

Ask the Indian babe who you support for president.

You should at least be curious to know.

Come on, Mac, don't you have any argument with her message?

You say Indian as if you're bigoted about it, as if that disqualifies her.

[Mac-7]

Come on, Mac, don't you have any argument with her message?

You say Indian as if you're bigoted about it, as if that disqualifies her.

Its pointless to argue policy with libertarians who are never going to vote republican anyway.

Her agenda is to sit in the weeds and vote for some 3rd party loser that supports open borders and legslized drugs.

All of which complements the democrat party agenda.

[Chris]

Its pointless to argue policy with libertarians who are never going to vote republican anyway.

Her agenda is to sit in the weeds and vote for some 3rd party loser that supports open borders and legslized drugs.

All of which complements the democrat party agenda.


IOW, you cannot argue with the message so you attack the Indian.

[Common Sense]

IOW, you cannot argue with the message so you attack the Indian.


She sounds "foreign" to him...

[Kurmugeon]

Seems like the same ones fell for the birtherism. Maybe it's linked...

I recently posted on another forum addressing the Birther issue.

I do NOT know whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or somewhere outside the U.S. .... But I do not believe it really matters:




The beef I've always had with the Birther, and anti-Birther Battle is...

It really doesn't matter where Obama was squeezed out and lived as an infant.

That was a rule established back in the founding days of the country when sea travel by sail driven ships was extremely hazardous, particularly for weaker women and young children. Hell, strong Men and Women often died of the diet, prolonged sea sickness, bad water, ship wrecks, ....

People rarely risked young children on sea voyages, or birthing aged and weakened women. If you were BORN in a country, it was extremely likely you were raised to an age of 8-10 years old in that country.

In other words, birth place determined the time spent in the person's formative years. The ages when cultural values, customs, loyalties, dietary preferences, religious affiliations and mannerisms are formed.

Obama may in fact have been squeezed out in Hawaii, or not. It doesn't really matter, because we KNOW he did not spend his critical formative years in the United States.

The Intent of the Birth requirement was to insure that the people sitting in the critical position of Commander-in-Chief were of America, and loyal to America ( an not say, the British Crown! )

What ever else you might want to say about Obama, it has become abundantly clear, he is virulently Anti-American, slavishly pro-Muslim, and completely out of touch with the values and beliefs of most common Americans.

I don't care where Obama was Born, He is NOT American!

- Kurmugeon

[Common Sense]

Lol...

[Matty]

I recently posted on another forum addressing the Birther issue.

I do NOT know whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or somewhere outside the U.S. .... But I do not believe it really matters:


Wherever he was born I can't wait until he returns there. He is applauding the anarchists again. He's an idiot.

[Common Sense]

I expect he might retire in Hawaii. Why not? It's nice there.

[Chris]

Wherever he was born I can't wait until he returns there. He is applauding the anarchists again. He's an idiot.

Obama is big government as much as neocons are, neither would applaud anarchists.

[Matty]

Obama is big government as much as neocons are, neither would applaud anarchists.


Oh no, he's definitely applauding the Missouri anarchists. Just as he did when they burnt Ferguson down.

[Chris]

Oh no, he's definitely applauding the Missouri anarchists. Just as he did when they burnt Ferguson down.

What's your definition of anarchy? Politically it doesn't mean chaos but governance without government, rules without rulers.

[Mac-7]

Obama is big government as much as neocons are, neither would applaud anarchists.

You helped elect obama.

[Mac-7]

What's your definition of anarchy? .

Open borders which you have expressed support for

[Kurmugeon]

I fear a nation of idiots falling for his simplistic message. It doesn't bode well.

It's the birth of idiocracy.

You fear the simplistic message, "(Mr.Trump-) If you come to America Illegally, you will be deported!"?

Yet you embrace these simplistic messages:

"(Obama-) I've got my pen and my phone."
"(Obama-) If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."
"(Hillary-) It takes a village to raise a child."
"(Hillary -) What does it matter now?!"
"(Obama -) The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person... ."
"(Rev. Wright -) White folks' greed runs a world in need."
"(Obama -) The private sector is doing fine."
"(Anti-White Racists -) You were born with White Privilege."
"(Lefties -) Bush Lied and people died."
"(BLM -) Hands up, don't shoot."
"(Eric Holder -) We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."
"(Justice Sotomayor -) ... a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male..."
"(Lois Lerner -) No one will ever believe that both your hard drive and mine crashed within a week of each other,... "
"(Eric Holder -) ...My People..."
"(Hillary -) ... it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been..."
"(Bill Clinton -) It depends on what the meaning of the word "Is" is."
"(Obama -) That’s just how white folks will do you."
"(Obama -) I won." (therefore, the rights, needs and wants of everyone who disagrees with him, does not matter)


That's just a brief sampling, I could go on to show; simplistic, misleading, racist, perjurious, lying, deceptive, dismissive, outrageous statements by the Left for hours and pages upon pages.

-

[Matty]

What's your definition of anarchy? Politically it doesn't mean chaos but governance without government, rules without rulers.




The once govenernors are now being governed by the once governed. They have overthrown the governors.

[Chris]

Open borders which you have expressed support for

Why do you need to make things up?

[Chris]

You helped elect obama.

Why do you need to make things up?

[Chris]

The once govenernors are now being governed by the once governed. They have overthrown the governors.

Not sure I understand your meaning. I get the people are governing.

[Mac-7]

Why do you need to make things up?

At least be honest and take responsibility for your own beliefs.

You may be fooling yourself but you're not fooling me.

[Matty]

Not sure I understand your meaning. I get the people are governing.


Perhaps it will help if you tell me what you do not understand.

[Matty]

At least be honest and take responsibility for your own beliefs.

You may be fooling yourself but you're not fooling me.


Why are you baiting him? What is the end game?

[Mac-7]

Why are you baiting him? What is the end game?

Chis is an intellectual terrorist who does not even bother to vote.

His only goal is to sew anarchy and chaos.

[Chris]

At least be honest and take responsibility for your own beliefs.

You may be fooling yourself but you're not fooling me.

We have discussed what I support. It is not open borders. You lie as usual.

[Common Sense]

LOL @...intellectual terrorist.

[Chris]

Chis is an intellectual terrorist who does not even bother to vote.

His only goal is to sew anarchy and chaos.

General warning to discuss topic and not members.

[Chris]

Perhaps it will help if you tell me what you do not understand.

I tried: "I get the people are governing." Right? Wrong? Explain.

I would assume as a conservative you are for limited government, which then implies you are for maximizing the liberty of the people to rule and regulate themselves sans the government.

[Mac-7]

We have discussed what I support. It is not open borders. You lie as usual.

you accuse me of lying so I will explain why I am not.

You have an asinine defination of border security which allows anyone to enter the country if you or someone else agees to hire them or allow them on you land.

Sort of everyman as a border patrol agent and immigration judge rolled into one.

And you may be denying that today but its where you have been in the past.

[Matty]

I tried: "I get the people are governing." Right? Wrong? Explain.

I would assume as a conservative you are for limited government, which then implies you are for maximizing the liberty of the people to rule and regulate themselves sans the government.


Are we we discussing government or college government? Or are they the same to you?

[Mac-7]

I tried: "I get the people are governing." Right? Wrong? Explain.

I would assume as a conservative you are for limited government, which then implies you are for maximizing the liberty of the people to rule and regulate themselves sans the government.

You are confusing conservatism with libertarian wackoism.

[Chris]

Are we we discussing government or college government? Or are they the same to you?

I assumed government.

[Chris]

You are confusing conservatism with libertarian wackoism.

Then you are not conservative, you do not advocate limited government.

[Matty]

I assumed government.



That might be where we misunderstand each other. I am focused on this college and the way the minority students overthrew the faculty.

[Chris]

you accuse me of lying so I will explain why I am not.

You have an asinine defination of border security which allows anyone to enter the country if you or someone else agees to hire them or allow them on you land.

Sort of everyman as a border patrol agent and immigration judge rolled into one.

And you may be denying that today but its where you have been in the past.


You fail to fully explain my position therefore the asinine is in your strawman version of my position. Try again.

[Chris]

That might be where we misunderstand each other. I am focused on this college and the way the minority students overthrew the faculty.

OK, yes, misunderstood. My bad for not getting your reference.

I haven't followed that situation, so no comments on it at this time.

[Mac-7]

You fail to fully explain my position therefore the asinine is in your strawman version of my position. Try again.

I got the essentials correct.

[Kurmugeon]

That might be where we misunderstand each other. I am focused on this college and the way the minority students overthrew the faculty.

On that issue, if there is a good thread going here, on the whys and hows of that event, please point me to it.

As to the WHY Missouri, well:

http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/all-states/black-population-percentage#table

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population

13461

I believe we can expect very concentrated similar movements and attacks at all of the top Black population states in the top 25, that are part of the contiguous Block of states conjoined with Illinois, but are not part of the "Deep-South" or the "North-East".

That would be:
Maryland
Delaware
West Virgina
Virgina
Illinois
Michigan
Ohio
Missouri
Indiana
Wisconsin

This is the contiguous group of States that those of the Uhuru, BLM, and Black Homelands orientation groups have decided is their "Turf" or "Claimed Territory", much like the states and lands claimed by the Militant La Raza crowd in their quest for Atzlan.

This is what the Radical Blacks intend to claim as their land, after America Breaks apart, into Ethnic, Religious and Political Belief Enclaves.

This has been the Obama goal from the start, the collapse and break up of America.

It Divides off the North-East, making it a small and therefore less threatening neighbor.

It gives them a Sea Port and control of the Great Lakes.

It gives them a large trade border with Canada.

It isolates them, with buffer zones, from Atzlan.

It gives them heavy industry and large natural resources including Iron, Coal, and some Oil.

It gives them sufficient farmlands to feed themselves with no imports.

It avoids having to fight against the Deep-South states with white people of Confederate Heritage and beliefs. They are too stubborn and own too many guns.

I believe we will see allot more efforts in these states to simply drive out Whites at every level, but particularly in high Government / Institutional Offices.


-

[Peter1469]

Out of curiosity, who is the Resident Neocon?

Ransom.

[Mac-7]

I think following the attack by muslims in Paris Trump, Rubio and Cruz look like leaders who can maintain a strong national defense and that will appeal to many voters.

[donttread]

Surprise the resident neocons are not going after Trump.

The Dangers of Trump's Militaristic Isolationalism (https://reason.com/archives/2015/11/11/the-dangers-of-trumps-militaristic-isola)

Just curious but how can one me an anarchist without isolationism?

[Chris]

Just curious but how can one me an anarchist without isolationism?

Anarchists are non-interventionists by the non-aggression principle. Doesn't mean like isolationists they won't defend themselves, just that they will not initiate aggression like neocons.

[Matty]

Anarchists are non-interventionists by the non-aggression principle. Doesn't mean like isolationists they won't defend themselves, just that they will not initiate aggression like neocons.




Obama's best friend was an anarchist. He initiated violence aggressively, then lamented the fact that he hadn't done more.

[Chris]

Obama's best friend was an anarchist. He initiated violence aggressively, then lamented the fact that he hadn't done more.

Well, then, he wasn't an anarchist but a terrorist.

[Matty]

Well, then, he wasn't an anarchist but a terrorist.


That is exactly what he was.

[Chris]

OK, let me clarify. There are two sorts of anarchists, libertarian and authoritarian. Libertarian anarchists abide by NAP and seek to remove the authoritarian state. Authoritarian anarchist do not abode by NAP and seek to remove the authoritarian state only to put themselves in power. Marx was an authoritarian anarchist, the result, the USSR. Ayers was a Marxist terrorist.

Authoritarian anarchist is an oxymoron.

[donttread]

Anarchists are non-interventionists by the non-aggression principle. Doesn't mean like isolationists they won't defend themselves, just that they will not initiate aggression like neocons.

Funny, I never looked at isolationism as a state that would not defend itself.

[Chris]

Funny, I never looked at isolationism as a state that would not defend itself.

Isolationists build walls to hide behind, to shut the world out.

[Mac-7]

Isolationists build walls to hide behind, to shut the world out.

If you mean uneducated illegal aliens we don't need them

They are harming America

[Chris]

If you mean uneducated illegal aliens we don't need them

They are harming America

No, I said the world out, protectionist walls.

[Tahuyaman]

Isolationists build walls to hide behind, to shut the world out.


It's not that simplistic. I think isolationists are more protectionist in their views. They don't want to shut out the world, they just want to protect every element of American society first and foremost. Plus return to an era where we have no input on affairs beyond our shores.

Thats no longer possible. It hasn't been possible since WWI ended

[Chris]

It's not that simplistic. I think isolationists are more protectionist in their views. They don't want to shut out the world, they just want to protect every element of American society first and foremost. Plus return to an era where we have no input on affairs beyond our shores.

Thats no longer possible. It hasn't been possible since WWI ended

I agree it's a simple statement but isn't what you describe, shutting off from the world, closing the door on immigration, trade, etc?

I agree, it's simply not possible, and it's foolhardy to try.

[Peter1469]

I agree it's a simple statement but isn't what you describe, shutting off from the world, closing the door on immigration, trade, etc?

I agree, it's simply not possible, and it's foolhardy to try.

Except for a few needed products, it could work if we wanted to commit to it.

I don't advocate for it.

[Matty]

Except for a few needed products, it could work if we wanted to commit to it.

I don't advocate for it.


I do. We should try it. Everything else we have tried has failed. We need to trade with non hostile countries. Get our corporations back up and in the running. We will have to keep the whining loud mouthed liberals out of power though. Without that there is no chance.

[Chris]

We need to let people trade with whomever they want and not restrict it with protectionist schemes. Such advice goes back as far as Adam Smith.


...It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The taylor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a taylor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbours, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for.

...What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished, no more than that of the above-mentioned artificers; but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage. It is certainly not employed to the greatest advantage when it is thus directed towards an object which it can buy cheaper than it can make....

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book IV, Chapter II

[Mac-7]

No, I said the world out, protectionist walls.

The US admits more legal immigrants than any other country

But illegal aliens do not belong here

That's not isolation

Trade should be balanced

Many countries only want to sell to us but don't buy from us

That is unsustainable

[Matty]

Isolationists build walls to hide behind, to shut the world out.


No, just the thieves known as illegals.

[Peter1469]

We need to let people trade with whomever they want and not restrict it with protectionist schemes. Such advice goes back as far as Adam Smith.



An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book IV, Chapter II

The problem comes when other nations break the rules and dump (legal term of art) their products on our markets.

[Chris]

No, just the thieves known as illegals.

Illegals should be kept out, I don't disagree with that.

[Chris]

The US admits more legal immigrants than any other country

But illegal aliens do not belong here

That's not isolation

Trade should be balanced

Many countries only want to sell to us but don't buy from us

That is unsustainable

Out and out protectionism. You sure you're not a progressive? Oh, wait, neocon, same thing.

http://i.snag.gy/FggD5.jpg

[Bob]

We need to let people trade with whomever they want and not restrict it with protectionist schemes. Such advice goes back as far as Adam Smith.



An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations Book IV, Chapter II

This is the vital quote from his work.


If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.

[Chris]

The problem comes when other nations break the rules and dump (legal term of art) their products on our markets.

Then they do so at their own harm, at the harm of their own people.

[Peter1469]

Then they do so at their own harm, at the harm of their own people.

And at ours. Solendria was a victim of Chinese dumping.

[Chris]

And at ours. Solendria was a victim of Chinese dumping.

Caveat emptor, but that true even buying American.

[Peter1469]

Caveat emptor, but that true even buying American.

No.

When China pays its corporations money so they can sell solar panels for much less than market value, that is fraud. It is not the free market. And to make matters worse, the Chinese solar panels were crap.

The belief in the free market with not government oversight is naive.

[Chris]

No.

When China pays its corporations money so they can sell solar panels for much less than market value, that is fraud. It is not the free market. And to make matters worse, the Chinese solar panels were crap.

The belief in the free market with not government oversight is naive.


It's not free market. It's basically slave market, China slaving its own people.

The free market has existed longer than the government.

[Mac-7]

Out and out protectionism.




Absolutely

Protect American industry, American workers and the American way of life

[Chris]

Absolutely

Protect American industry, American workers and the American way of life

So you are a progressive. Not surprising.

[donttread]

Isolationists build walls to hide behind, to shut the world out.

How would anarchist interact with real governments?

[Chris]

How would anarchist interact with real governments?

Leave me alone. Don't tread on me!

[donttread]

Leave me alone. Don't tread on me!

How would they defend themselves from real governments

[Chris]

How would they defend themselves from real governments

Same way those with governments would.

[donttread]

Same way those with governments would.

Please describe your vision of anacry to me, either here or in a PM. As you know I am a small government Constitutionist, however I do find your ideas interesting. What I can't get my head around is how an anarchy could attain the size and structure necessary for military defense

[Mac-7]

How would anarchist interact with real governments?

They would complain about everything but refuse to vote

[Chris]

Please describe your vision of anacry to me, either here or in a PM. As you know I am a small government Constitutionist, however I do find your ideas interesting. What I can't get my head around is how an anarchy could attain the size and structure necessary for military defense

Starts with self-defense, right. Then you form alliances for mutual defense, say neighborhood watch. Then, recursively, you form higher and higher alliances. You would also have available private defense, agencies that provide defense as a service. The private agencies might be paid through insurance, insurance companies hiring them. What you're talking about is protecting property with a defense market where unless insurance and defense agencies do not provide valued service they don't get paid. Freeriders would unfairly be protected because the value of any property depends on the value of neighboring property. Agencies would avoid fighting because it's too costly so would instead seek arbitration from a system of private arbitrators who, again, get paid for their service only if they provide something of value.

One of the earlier essays on this was Robert P Murphy's Chaos Theory: Two Essays On Market Anarchy (https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory).

David Friedman goes into great detail in his The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Here a video summary:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

[Chris]

They would complain about everything but refuse to vote

Silly.

[Peter1469]

Please describe your vision of anacry to me, either here or in a PM. As you know I am a small government Constitutionist, however I do find your ideas interesting. What I can't get my head around is how an anarchy could attain the size and structure necessary for military defense

I think it would only work small scale. Very small scale.

[donttread]

Starts with self-defense, right. Then you form alliances for mutual defense, say neighborhood watch. Then, recursively, you form higher and higher alliances. You would also have available private defense, agencies that provide defense as a service. The private agencies might be paid through insurance, insurance companies hiring them. What you're talking about is protecting property with a defense market where unless insurance and defense agencies do not provide valued service they don't get paid. Freeriders would unfairly be protected because the value of any property depends on the value of neighboring property. Agencies would avoid fighting because it's too costly so would instead seek arbitration from a system of private arbitrators who, again, get paid for their service only if they provide something of value.

One of the earlier essays on this was Robert P Murphy's Chaos Theory: Two Essays On Market Anarchy (https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory).

David Friedman goes into great detail in his The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Here a video summary:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

That sounds a lot like a government Chris

[Chris]

That sounds a lot like a government Chris

Private as opposed to public government. The most immediate difference is private markets for government, or as I prefer, governance, are competitive while public governments are monopolistic. Which do you think would provide more value?