Donald Trump

Were Anti-War Libertarians Gullible for Believing Trump Would Take on the War Party?

Matt Welch talks with MilLiberty about foreign policy, post-communist Europe, collectivist antipathies, and the apocalyptic style within libertarianism

|

Yesterday I had the pleasure of conversing with Caleb Franz, podcast director for OUTSET magazine, who describes himself as "your neighborhood libertarian" and a media entrepreneur busy "finding new and unique ways to convey the message of liberty." One of those ways is via MilLiberty with Caleb Franz, a weekly podcast interviewing such characters as Austin Petersen, Isaac Morehouse, and, this week, me.

The conversation ranged from my formative years in post-commie Central Europe under the influence of Václav Havel, Cory Booker's doomed weed bill, libertarian/conservative overlap with and apologia for the alt-right, the now-curdled enthusiasm for Trump's foreign policy among anti-war libertarians, the ominous rise of collectivist antipathy in American politics, among other non-controversial topics.

MilLiberty—Episode 45: Exclusive with Matt Welch

Also, I'll be on Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO Friday at 10 p.m. ET, on which more tomorrow. You can submit questions to the show's "Overtime" segment at this link.

NEXT: Powerball Winner Comes Forward, Cantwell Surrenders to Police, Military Transgender Ban Guidelines Leaked: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …busy “finding new and unique ways to convey the message of liberty.”

    Let us know if you come up with a successful one.

    1. See: Sarwark’s twitter feed

      1. The one where he goes crazy on display?

        1. The proper term is “full retard”. Think first,then speak. No one cares about a few seconds’ pause. Just say, “Let me think about your trick question for a bit”.

  2. Were Anti-War Libertarians Gullible for Believing Trump Would Take on the War Party?

    Only if they were stupid enough to vote him.

    1. Aw, Hillary lost.

      1. I’m sorry that causes you so much pain.

        1. Every option caused me pain. On the other hand, I finished ff a bottle of tequila.

      2. We need more Hillary statues.

        http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/n…..-downtown/

      3. Correction, Whutzername’s PARTY could have come out for repeal of prohibition as in 1932. BUT NOooooooo… They had to copy the econazi planks for carbon taxes and banning power plants. God’s Own Prohibitionists and the LP both favored keeping electricity safe and legal. Prohibitionists got gubmint jobs and the LP increased its spoiler vote share 328%. Eleven states will remember that the LP got the votes that could have given either looter kleptocracy a win. Dems will realize that the electoral and popular vote were divvied btwn two pro-energy parties. With any luck the Dems will realize they were Gored by an econazi 5th column. “Git a rope” should be the motto of their next platform committee meeting amid clear and present measurements proving that the planet is cooling even as CO2 increases.

      4. Good! I’m glad Hillary lost.

        The bad news, however, is that Trump won.

      5. I see what’s going on here. Lefty Tulsa are running wild at night while working Libertarians aresleeping or trying to get this work week over with.

  3. I don’t think they were fools because there was a chance he would be anti-war. It entirely depended on who he appointed to his cabinet. He doesn’t give a shit either way. He’ll do whatever people tell him will win. As soon as I saw his cabinet start to assemble I knew it wouldn’t be good, although I still don’t think he’s sent any more troops or dropped any more bombs than Hillary would have by now.

    1. Still no regret voting for Johnson, flaws and all.

      1. Johnson and Stein voters love saying they have no regrets. Do you often have no regrets when you enable a calamity via an action you thought was actually meaningless?

        1. That’s such BS which comes from the Hillary can do no wrong camp that can’t understand why she wasn’t appealing.

          When you are a candidate, you have one job. To get people to vote for you. That’s it. If you fail to get people to vote for you, it’s your fault if you lose. Hillary lost because of Hillary. Not because of Stein, Johnson, Sanders, or non-voters.

          1. More people voted for Hillary (by millions of votes) than anyone else. So she clearly was the most appealing candidate by definition. She simply lost a rigged game.

            Yes I know “she knew the rules” blah blah. Attempt to understand that the electoral college is not relevant in an argument specifically about her appeal to voters.

            1. You have to admit, Tony, she should have actually spent some time in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

            2. Notice he said millions of votes, rather than millions of voters.

            3. She wasn’t the most appealing candidate to me.

              1. Nobody said this country was full of geniuses.

              2. +4 realities

            4. Yes it is. She had a more narrow appeal to the country’s population as a whole than to a sungle heavily populated state. A state which is utterly dysfunctional politically, due to the voters unrealustuc expectations of what government can do.

              1. Yeah California what a shit hole. Why not treat their voters as 1/60th as important as those paragons of good governance in Alabama.

                1. What are you even bitching about, hombre? Trump is about to send more troops to war! You fucking supported this for the LAST. GODDAMNED. EIGHT. YEARS.

                  You’re such a piece of shit partisan hack asshole, Tony. You have ZERO fucking principles and will support whatever the tribe tells you to support. Burn in hell, bitch.

                2. You’re such a bitch.

            5. Aw, Tony trying to get some crazy in writing while actual Libertarians are not here commenting.

              Hillary lost and she lost big. Hillary lost because she is Hillary and because Trump is better than her.

              1. Better than= Not as bad as?

            6. >More people voted for Hillary (by millions of votes) than anyone else.

              Yeah, but they weren’t citizens or authorized to.

        2. My state voted for Hillary. It was an all-or-nothing win. I could have voted for you for president, and it would have made no difference whatsoever.

          So no, I have no regrets and have no part in creating the calamity of a runaway government that you regularly agitate for. Oh, but to be fair to you, you advocate for that runaway government but with good people in charge. Fun fact: Those good people can change every 4 years.

          1. Just don’t come to me looking for respect for voting third party. I find it to be the ultimate in virtue signalling.

              1. My mistake, there is a higher plane of virtue signalling, the plane of nonvoters and goth kids.

            1. What could be more virtue signaling than selling your soul and voting for Hillary, while knowing that your vote doesn’t actually matter?

              1. My argument is based in cold pragmatic reality. Too many people treat election day as the perfect opportunity to tell their Facebook friends how special and nonpartisan and above-it-all they are.

                Those people gave us Bush II and then may have given us Trump too, so they can take their misguided sense of self-righteousness and fuck themselves with it.

                1. Those people gave us Bush II and then may have given us Trump too

                  No – that was dualistic knee-jerk partisans like yourself who did that.

                  1. No – that was dualistic knee-jerk partisans like yourself who did that.

                    Am I assuming too much when I say you know perfectly well how specious sentences like this are?

                    I knew 100% that a Democrat or a Republican was going to win and it’s not because I’m a fortune teller.

                    1. I knew 100% that a Democrat or a Republican was going to win and it’s not because I’m a fortune teller.

                      So – voting is an exercise in guessing who’s going to win?

                    2. As I said, it’s an exercise in choosing a Republican or a Democrat.

                    3. Do you believe your vote was wasted if you didn’t vote for the winner then?

                    4. Your underlying assumption is idealist as well, not pragmatic. It’s basically the assumption that if everything had gone how you wanted the person you wanted would have won. That’s obvious.

                      For instance, people don’t vote for Nader, maybe they vote for Bush, many democrats in the area did in fact vote for Bush. Or maybe they don’t vote at all because they don’t feel motivated towards anyone.

                      At this point you might as well just fall back to the argument that people should have voted for people you wanted, at which point we’re not making any pragmatic argument. We’re just wishing the world was different. Might as well wish everyone who voted Gore voted for Nader, since if they didn’t vote for Gore they obviously would have voted for Nader.

                2. Those people gave us Bush II and then may have given us Trump too, so they can take their misguided sense of self-righteousness and fuck themselves with it.

                  Assumes facts not in evidence. Namely, that those third party voters and non-voters would have voted for Gore or Hillary had they not too busy been “virtue signaling,” as you put it.

                  1. Assumes facts not in evidence. Namely, that those third party voters and non-voters would have voted for Gore or Hillary had they not too busy been “virtue signaling,” as you put it.

                    ^ This.

                    Most in my circle were Nader supporters (I had deeply mixed feelings about him, myself, but I was registered Green at the time).

                    I know not one person – and mean not one – who had the attitude “gee, I hope Gore becomes President, but I want to make a statement by voting Nader.”

                    The fact that Tony cannot understand this is due to his inability to transcend the binary thinking he’s constantly accusing us of – he thinks Nader and Gore were really on the same “team,” just that Nader was farther “Left.”

                    The people I know (including me) who supported Nader wouldn’t have supported Gore in a million years, and in fact (speaking for myself) didn’t see any meaningful differences between Gore and Bush.

                    But I was out of the country, and thus didn’t vote.

                    1. If they didn’t see a meaningful difference between Gore and Bush then they are fucking morons. Do they even have sensory input into their bodies? How many facts do you have to completely ignore to arrive at this thought?

                      Okay, that may be harsh for 2000 when we were all so innocent and might be forgiven for believing such utter nonsense (the parties have two diametrically opposed platforms! WTF?). But there is no excuse anymore. Not after Bush and fucking certainly not after the insane racist grapefruit.

                    2. Are you a libertarian? In what ways do you think Al Gore was a better choice for libertarians than Bush?

                    3. I know, subsidizing solar panels is worse than torture, wars based on lies, and global financial calamity. I’m aware of your priorities!

                    4. “didn’t see any meaningful differences between Gore and Bush.”

                      Ding ding ding

                      Both Bore and Gush were big-government statists.

                      I voted for Browne in that election and do not regret it one bit.

                  2. I consider not voting to be basically equivalent. There is no action that does not affect the outcome of a two-person race (which they mistake for a multiple-person race). Sitting on your ass eating cheetos denies your preferred candidate a vote. And if you don’t have a preferred candidate you’re called “low-information.”

                    1. I consider not voting to be basically equivalent.

                      So? I consider voting for a Democrat or a Republican to be a complete waste of your vote. What’s your point?

                    2. A Democrat or a Republican is always going to win though. Life is full of unpleasant choices.

                    3. A Democrat or a Republican is always going to win though.

                      That’s what they used to say about the Democrats and the Whigs. Things change, but you’ll never be any help.

                      -jcr

                    4. They changed once, centuries ago.

                    5. You said yourself that the American electoral system is a rigged game. Why should any voter dignify the rigged game by participating in it?

                    6. You don’t have any choice. You can’t opt out of a president.

            2. Christ, what an insufferable cunt. Getting called out for virtue signalling by a party man….what an insult.

        3. The fact that a numbnuts like Trump could beat Hillary shows how bad Hillary was.

          1. By any remotely sane or objective measure she was not worse than Trump, so this specific argument is utterly fucking stupid.

            1. Your opinion doesn’t make it fact, and the voters of the six or so states that matter in a presidential contest disagree with you.

              1. Then they’re retards.

                The point is that there is a logical hiccup in the argument “She was so unappealing because she lost to someone absolutely revolting.” Obviously being appealing wasn’t what mattered in this contest. As you note, it was a few retards in a few random states.

                1. Aw, Hillary lost and she lost big. She lost because Trump was better and has already made the USA a better place to live.

                  Here comes ObamaCare repeal and agency budget cut season.

                  1. > Here comes ObamaCare repeal and agency budget cut season

                    Not fucking likely. 🙁

                    RINOs will see to that.

            2. Notice that the devoted party man didn’t make an argument for why he was worse; just that he wasn’t better.

              Hey partisan twat, they both sucked ass. You dumb fuck Team Blue loyalists could have run a principled man like Jib Webb….but no, he wasn’t promising you shiftless layabouts enough free shit. Reap the whirlwind, bitch.

              1. I’d have voted for any Democrat. I mean, look at the alternative.

                And why don’t you go bitch at loveconstitution for his ridiculous Trump humping?

                1. I’d have voted for any Democrat.

                  You just validated my point, party man. Hell, even the Team Blue loyalists on Twiiter can construct better arguments before inevitably falling on their swords!

                  1. Oh do sell me on the virtues of voting for Trump.

                    1. Trump’s campaign was far more anti-war than Hillary’s. Better judicial appointments than Government-can-do-no-wrong Merrick Garland. Less regulation.

                      Hasn’t come through on A), but Hillary would’ve had us well into WW3 by now.

                2. Aw, poor Tony cannot defend his own statements for being a lefty. Looking for allies.

            3. -20 IQ points

            4. You are wrong beyond all comprehension. Hillary is orders of magnitude more corrupt than Trump, and has decades inside the beast to perfect her craft (of corruption). Read her emails, you moral half-wit.

        4. Tony, you’ve never been able to explain which election you voted in, where the result would have been different had you done something else.

          1. Well – he voted for Hillary, and OK went for Hillary, right?

          2. But nobody’s talking about any individual’s effect on the outcome, but rather the very consequential aggregate effects of many individuals doing the same thing.

            In other words, enough people thinking it would make them look cool to their friends for voting for third party means an election can swing from one candidate to the other (and logically to the one who least aligns with your politics if it’s your third-party guy causing the effect).

            1. Or perhaps one of the teams looks at the amount of third party votes and the voters that crossed party lines, and the voters that stayed home and decides to retool their message and run better candidates. Kind of what Team Blue is not doing right now.

              Sorry, but I’m not forced to pick between the giant douche and the shit sandwich. I’ll vote my conscience or not vote.

              1. You have three years and 364 whole days to preen about your conscience. The task on election day is choosing between the Republican and the Democrat, because one of the two will win, and any action you take affects that outcome.

                And it’s completely beyond belief that anyone is trotting out the false equivalence horseshit after living through the last 7 months.

                I know that she’s a liberal and has cankles and emails, but come the fuck on.

                1. I know that she’s a liberal

                  No, she isn’t. Not by a long shot. I don’t think she’s ever even claimed to be.

                2. She is corrupt and incompetent and eoyld continue the Democrats gosl of sliding towards the rule of men over the rule of law.

                  1. Thank God we avoided corruption and incompetence and the rule of man over the rule of law.

                3. And you obviously have never read those emails, or worse, you have and you still spout this bullshit.

            2. Tony, just because the votes matter, doesn’t mean your vote matters. In fact, by design, your vote has a statistically impossible likelihood of affecting anything.

              You’re not personally accomplishing anything, so I don’t see why you give others a hard time over it.

              Democracy: how does that work?

              1. I understand your argument perfectly well, so why don’t you try understanding mine?

                If enough individuals get on the internet and boast to their friends about how they support Jill Stein, that motivates more people to support Jill Stein, perhaps, and she ends up getting more votes than she would have if those individuals had just been a little more intelligent.

                1. Oh my god, you’re really going for the “my comments affects democracy” position?

                  Yes, your comments helped Hillary… almost exactly as much as jerking off to your favorite internet porn would have helped Hillary.

                  See: election.

                  Coping mechanisms are fun, but you’ve got a long way to go before you take someone on a guilt trip with this. And it comes across more pathetic than insulting.

                  1. Bernie people like to tell me how my mean internet comments actually affect how they’re going to choose between a Democrat and a Republican next time, too. Don’t be as dumb as them.

                    1. I think I’ve been consistent in my message that you’re internet comments are about as affective an election influence as a hand job.

                      If you’re looking for someone to stop being dumb, then find a mirror, because I’m not blame throwing on any tiny minorities (minorities have feelings, too, dontcha know?).

                    2. I’m not here to convince anyone I’m talking to of anything. Certainly not people who find it useful of their time to join a political ideology so inept that it forces them to interpret reality so that it conforms to it. (And then probably pat themselves on the back for being the heirs to the Enlightenment.)

                    3. Tony:

                      I’m not here to convince anyone I’m talking to of anything.

                      Oh, I’m sure you’re not.

                      In terms of reality: I’m not the one who was pretending to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, or blaming individuals for that not happening.

                      But, I hope you enjoyed your champagne.

                    4. I’m only bothering to blame the individuals disproportionately responsible for it AND who would have preferred Hillary if they were honest about anything. They shot themselves in the foot and the rest of us in the knee.

                    5. You could try blaming the people who voted for Trump. That would actually be reality-based.

                      But, knock yourself blaming the Stein voters.

                      BTW, which president will you choose for us next time?

                    6. The people voting for Trump knew what they were voting for. I’m accusing Stein voters of both voting for Trump and being too fucking stupid to realize they were doing it.

                    7. I get it: it’s really the Trump voters fall, but you don’t want to playing them, because they don’t care what you think.

                      The Stein voters, however it might be bothered by being blamed, so you’ll blame them, even though it doesn’t make any sense, because they didn’t dictate the outcome of the election.

                      Yes, it makes perfect sense as a coping mechanism.

                    8. I argue that they can dictate the outcome of an election and have done so to historically disastrous effect twice in my lifetime. I accuse them of betraying their own political goals by being self-righteous snowflakes who don’t understand how an American election works.

                      But if you like I’ll talk about how stupid Republican voters are, Trump voters in particular. I can make a night of it.

                    9. Knock yourself out not trying to convince anyone of anything. It’s very compelling.

                    10. You have simultaneously recognized that only the aggregate of the votes determines the outcome, while you blame tiny minorities for the outcome.

                      Good luck trying desperately to not convince anyone of your incoherent, self-contradictory position on this.

                    11. Sounds like win/win.

                2. Intelligent people vote reflexively for whichever candidate one of the two major parties coughs up.

                  Duh!

                3. why don’t you try understanding mine?

                  We understand your position perfectly, tony. That’s why nobody here respects you.

                  -jcr

              2. It works like this:
                People take a lot of money from other people to spend on advertising and stuff in order to “tell the people my views”
                Then media outlets “explain” how what ever got said is really something else, and most likely a bad thing.
                This loop goes on (instead of doing their job if incumbent) until an election is held.
                The people the ads were aimed at go to a polling place, or a mailbox, and mark a piece of paper if they are lucky, punch a touch screen if they are not lucky.
                Then a bunch of computers spit out a bunch of numbers, and the results of the election are announced. Followed by stories about how many more votes were counted than voters voted. Or how many fewer votes were counted than voters voted. Or how many names on the voter rolls are also on the social security list of dead people.
                Then there is ‘recount’ where the same computers spit out the same numbers.
                Then there are a few lawsuits.
                The the candidates who won get a government salary in addition to all the money in step one, and everybody starts over at step one.
                This is how democracy works. (at least in a representative democracy)

            3. This is an example of the Tony/Brian Tulpa commentariat when actual Libertarians are fast asleep or trying finish out the work week. Tony/Brian great paid to troll This Libertarian website, so no need to earn an honest dollar.

              1. Says the person constantly massaging Trump’s nutsack.

                1. Aw, poor Tony wishes he could be massaging Hillary’s empty nut sack and swallowing her “manhood” more than he is already.

                  Just add some more tears Tony. Hillary will thank you for it.

            4. Tony, you blithering idiot, don’t you know that all studies on the topic show that the Libertarian Party pulls nearly equally from the Dems and the Repubs?

        5. It’s basically a trolley problem where there are four people tied to each branch of train track, there’s no substantive difference between the four people on each track, and I know that the lever is rusted and won’t do anything to change the trolley’s path.

          No, I don’t have regrets that I didn’t stand there fruitlessly pushing on the lever and instead tried to get some other bystanders to help me cut the people free.

          1. You should pull the lever in such a way that Trump gets obliterated. Stein too if possible.

            1. And how did that work out for you, exactly?

              I hope you at least enjoyed people watching while you “destroyed” Trump.

        6. Living in a state that was penciled in for Hillary +20 in 2016 on the day Obama was re-elected in 2012, I would say any action short of an assassination attempt would have been “enabling a calamity”, and since I’m not a murderous type that was off the table – you know, NAP and all.

          1. If you ever talked to anyone about how voting for third party is a good idea, and if any of those people expressed the same sentiment to anyone living in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc., you enabled.

            1. Your salty ham tears are delicious.

              I guess those voters in swing states have no agency.

              1. Even children understand that you don’t blame tiny minorities for what happens in an election.

                1. I was permanently affected by what people on the far left did in 2000. It’s a core part of my political identity. I’m not giving it up without a fight.

                  1. Achievement unlocked: victim status!

                    1. Tony gets the Victimhood Power-up and wins the game!

                  2. I was permanently affected by what people on the far left did in 2000. It’s a core part of my political identity. I’m not giving it up without a fight

                    Yes – we get that your a petty, small-minded, vengeful, grudge-motivated person. We just don’t agree with you that those qualities make you a good person.

                    1. Remember: if you don’t like democracy, you’re a tyrant child.

                    2. “Remember: if you don’t like democracy, you’re a tyrant child.”

                      Remember, if you don’t like being in a constitutional democratic republic, you’re a tyrant child.

                  3. Put up your dukes Tony. Put ’em up!

                  4. “I was permanently affected by what people on the far left did in 2000. It’s a core part of my political identity. I’m not giving it up without a fight.”

                    We were all affected by the election of 2000, and by every national election since. It’s not just all about you, ya know.

                    Look, you are blaming a few people who had an outsized impact in a very close election. Why not look instead at why the election was so close in the first place? Why was the election decided by just a few hundred votes in Florida? Why were Bush and Gore so inept and so awful of candidates that the final result basically came down to a statistical coin flip? It was millions of decisions by millions of people which gave us the final result, not just a few angry Nader voters in Florida. Blaming the Nader voters is like blaming the receiver who doesn’t catch the Hail Mary pass in the endzone at the end of a close football game. It’s not the receiver’s fault that the game was so close in the first place, and it’s not Nader voters’ fault that the national election was so close.

            2. Isn’t the flaw in your thinking that anyone who voted third party would have preferred Clinton to Trump? On this board and most others people here comment on, it would probably be the other way around for most people, so if anything by your logic they helped Clinton.

              1. ^ This.

                I voted exactly by my ISideWith.com score, with was 97% for Gary Johnson. Second place was Jill Stein, third was Bernie.

                HRC was not just below Trump, even, but at the very bottom of the list with Chris Christie.

                And I want to pause to point out that HRC and Chris Christie have enough in common to have overlapped at the bottom of my list.

                1. Maybe there’s something wrong with your beliefs? Maybe that test doesn’t take into account peripheral factors like Trump being an insane racist man-toddler who might actually kill us all on a whim.

                  1. No, Tony, but he just might get around to killing you.
                    I mean, how much trouble would it be to resurrect the draft?
                    I know lots of programmers who could be sure your number came up.
                    A nice free trip to interesting foreign lands. A big red cross to make you stand out.
                    And if you survive, you can be assigned to take temperatures in a free clinic to keep Obamacare costs down.
                    Win, Win, Win.

                    1. I’m blind as a bat and have no ethical qualms about dodging a Trump draft.

                    2. Tony, haven’t you heard they don’t want cisgendered crazy socialists in the military anymore?

              2. Yes, I whole-heartedly reverse my position and encourage third-party voting for conservatives and others who would prefer the Republican in their heart of hearts. Gary Johnson can totally win, if you just believe!

                1. You can stop being a tool now. Gary Johnson probably did more to help Hillary this election than Trump.

                  You’re plying your self-righteous bullshit to the wrong crowd.

                  By the by how exactly do you think Gore would have been better than Bush? He might have taken terrorism slightly more seriously than Bush did at the beginning of his term, but he absolutely would have invaded Iraq. To say otherwise would be ignoring everything he has said and done during his time in the Senate and as Vice President. Not to mention his own moral crusades like violent lyrics and Liberman’s crusade against video games.

                  1. Well we can’t truly know, but I can think of a few hundred thousand people who would have liked to tried Gore out instead. If they weren’t dead as a result of Bush and Cheney’s specifically incompetent and ideological crusade.

                    1. I guess you cannot ask the few thousand more dead Americans as a result of Obama and Hillary’s specifically incompetent and ideological crusade(s).

        7. I have no regrets not voting for Trump. I have no regrets not voting for Clinton.

          1. You must be super duper smart and morally virtuous because you are so far above the fray that you can’t tell the difference between Trump and Clinton.

            But for some reason you’re under the impression that there was a real third option, so maybe you’re as mind-blowingly ignorant of reality as having such an opinion would more likely indicate.

            1. Trump beat Hillary and that’s because she is horrible.

              1. And he’s merely a douche.

      2. Nor should you for two reasons.

        1) Any libertarian who voted for someone else and conservatives who voted for Hillary are not what they claim. This I’ve come to believe.

        2) Tony thinks otherwise.

        1. On point number two; to quote Perry Mason,
          “Objection, your honor, irrelevant, immaterial, and not germane to the subject at hand.”

        2. I have a slight twist on that.

          I voted for the Bern during the Primary to make him a problem for Hillary in Georgia. It’s only one vote but, I think a lot more people than expected did similar stuff by voting strategically in primaries.

          I then voted for Gay Jay in the general election.

          It’s not always who you you give your vote to but sometimes when and why.

      3. I voted for the Libertarian Platform, but I agree that Gary did us a favor by defeating the antiabortion warmonger infiltrator and the legalize-murder anarchist for the nomination. I would’ve cast my libertarian spoiler votes for a yaller dawg sooner than any of them murdering looter kleptocrats. Those lying bastards have worn out their welcome, like the Whigs, Know-nothings, Communists, National Socialists, Tea, Consta2shun, Fascist, Prohibition and socialisti of all stripes.

        1. I have no idea who you are referring to. Seriously. Enough with the euphemisms and name calling.

    2. As soon as I saw his cabinet start to assemble I knew it wouldn’t be good, although I still don’t think he’s sent any more troops or dropped any more bombs than Hillary would have by now.

      ^ This.

      Believing that “Trump would take on the War Party” is a bit strong, but I do think that we are currently having less hostile military action than we would have had with either HRC or a more traditional Republican.

      And I, too, still have no regrets about voting Johnson. He was far and away the least flawed candidate.

      1. Clinton would have been a bit more civilized, a bit more politic, a bit more diplomatic. But I don’t see how she would have been any better.

        1. I agree completely. Trump is a source of constant embarrassment and cringing. But his total inability to accomplish anything at all is a distinct plus, in my book.

          1. Just wait till his first natural disaster. I wonder how a small-government philosophy will fare after he fucks that up.

            1. America is numb to presidential fuck ups after Obama.

        2. She would have been better in these three ways, but I don’t see how that makes her better.

          1. She would have been a diplomatic pushover… got it.

            Trump has done more diplomatically positive things than Hillary did her entire term a secretary of mishandling classified information.

        3. There you have the view of the voter-for-teevee-personalities. Then there are the platform readers who vote for what we believe. We are the ones whose votes repeal moronic laws at something like 21 times the law-changing clout of a vote flushed down the toilet of the grinning looter kleptocracies. Fool me thrice…

      2. Trump didn’t take on the War Party (deep state), but the War Party certainly has taken him on. Look at how the MSM (deep state) attacks him constantly and endlessly.

  4. Were individuals who are “Anti-War” gullible for believing Trump would take on Democrats and Republicans (both of which seem to constitute the very same “War Party”)?

    1. Yeah, that’s my question. I didn’t listen to the podcast, but can someone give me a little spoiler and clarify which party is the War Party?

      1. It’s a term of art among many anti-war types signaling that there’s a permanent party, Dem or Rep (+ deep state and media cheerleaders), who just constantly egg on more intervention.

        1. Matt,

          As I attempted to express to Curt, I am under the impression that the majority of Democrats and Republicans are not “Anti-War” – it seems to me that many or even most members of both parties advocate aggression with similar enthusiasm.

          1. most members of both parties advocate aggression with similar enthusiasm.

            Its a funny thing, because i don’t think it actually works quite like that.

            I think the thing with congress isn’t that they’re all firebreathing supporters of ‘aggression’. Its just that they will never actually vote “no” when it comes for a new vote on sanctions, war-spending, or any of the the derivative things that eventually lead to ‘more war’.

            1. GIL,

              I think that most Congresspersons have various incentives to vote (including, of course, financial ones). I do not think that you nor Matt would disagree with me in this regard.

              What is your view on my original statement: Were individuals who are “Anti-War” gullible for believing Trump would take on Democrats and Republicans (both of which seem to constitute the very same “War Party”)?

        2. Well Duh! They have the choice, time after time: initiation of harmful/deafly force, FER or AGIN?
          Socialists and nationalsocialists alike invariably vote FER the initiation of force, and get no sympathy from me. Most poor bastards never have the opportunity to cast a vote for a libertarian party platform. Them I pity.

  5. just wanted H to lose.

    1. Yep. No bigger example of privilege in the U.S. than Hillary.

  6. Trump is doing less intervention wise than past war presidents, so we’ll see.

    If Trump sticks to a training plan in Afghanistan and pulls troops out in 12 months or less, its bad but could be worse.

    1. You’re so full of shit it’s actually entertaining.

      The distinctiveness of Trump’s approach to managing the Bush wars, to date, is the serious loosening of our “try not to kill too many innocent civilians” policy, and putting the new policy frequently into practice.

      1. the Bush wars

        I thought Obama ended the Bush wars.

        1. He did, right after he closed Gitmo. That’s why he got a Peace Prize.

        2. Bush wars are very difficult to extricate from, it turns out.

          1. I see. But despite that, they’re Trump’s fault now. But they weren’t Obama’s.

            Gotcha.

            1. I went out of my way to blame Bush dude.

              1. You lefties always do when Obama’s failed policies and constant war monegering need to be deflected.

          2. So Obama did the equivalent of shrugging shoulders (because he’s got no principles) and upped his bombing game. Bush totally made him do that, right Toto?

            Obama was totes pushed into it.

            Ma va cacare.

            1. Oh great a whole new excursion into massively retarded false equivalency that can serve no purpose but to give Republicans some much-needed extra credit. What’s with that anyway? Did they ask you to help them out by making all their disasters seem a little better by equating them to Obama’s objectively much better approaches?

              1. No, you set the course of this line of argument. You basically said, ‘Obama tried to fix things but it was harder than he thought so that he failed is Bush’s fault.’ This is what you inferred.

                I turned around and argued, based on your assertion, Obama didn’t really scale down wars but just refitted the theatre of war via a massive bombing campaign (boots on the ground, invasion, air campaigns are all part of a ‘war equation’ so this bull shit pimped on the left that somehow because he didn’t invade but bombed makes it okay; it’s like the girl who doesn’t fuck vaginally but gives blow jobs and takes it in the ass thinking it’s not sex) and because this fact is irrefutable the left manages to claim he had no choice because he couldn’t extricate’ himself from it. He had a choice. He just didn’t take it.

                Nice little way of protecting yourself from any responsibility and accountability, no?

          3. You’re a fucking racist piece of shit, Tony.

            Obama campaigned in ’08 on escalating the Afghanistan war, in office escalated the Afghanistan war, and in his first term managed to triple the number of American dead in the Afghanistan war — twice as many bodies in four years as Bush managed in eight!

            And yet you insist on crediting all the glory of Obama’s successful warmongering to the rich white male who wasn’t even in office any more!

            I’m sure Nathan Bedford Forrest, Reinhard Heydrich, and Hendrik Verwoerd are looking up from Hell with pride in you, Tony, you disgusting scum-sucking worm.

          4. You mean Boosh and Obama wars.

            Boosh had some period of peace with his presidency. obama had 8 full years of constant war. Obama and LBJ, the only presidents who kept the USA in combat operations during their entire presidency.

    2. But then anyone who voted for him would have known that his stated policy is “You have to kill their families,” so it should be no surprise.

      1. When Trump surpasses the number of children killed vs children Obama killed. We can revisit.

        1. Not fair since he won’t last a full term.

          1. Well, your side has been calling for his assassination. Right about now the left’s version of Carl Spackler is out there plotting – baldly of course because progressives are losers – to shoot the son of a bitch.

            In the meantime, punch a Nazi Tony! IT’S YOUR MORAL DUTY.

            1. Your comrades are right here on this website advocating for killing all Democrats, so throw that stone.

              God how awkward would it be to have to nationally mourn that fat stupid fuck.

              1. Not all democrats; we have to keep a few in museums so people remember.
                Maybe a statue or two for the same purpose?

                1. You special snowflakes would just demand they be taken down.

              2. Yeh? They are? Who? Go ahead and prove it right now. Of course, being a lefty means you can hurl all the accusations you want and not have to prove or face the consequences, right?

                I haven’t seen anyone do it but I’m listening.

                WHO. Or else fuck off and I reserve the right to call you a lying scumbag.

                Also. Cute. Calling libertarians and true liberals “comrades”. That’s a commie pejorative and a well earned one. You’re a comrade.

                Let’s keep things real here. You ain’t gonna pull that little game here.

                Derelict progressives think they can just change terms and definitions and shift them as they please.

              3. Trump will be just fine during his two terms as president. If the lefties start a civil, so be it. Good luck with that commie.

                Socialist Nazi Germany lost and so will socialist lefties here in the USA.

          2. Trump will be president for two terms in fact, not just one full term. You are right about that.

    3. “”Trump is doing less intervention wise than past war presidents, so we’ll see.””

      Well, he did inherit both of Bush’s wars, plus Obama’s wars. So he has a pretty full plate. Does he want to take on more? That would be bigly.

      1. I know most don’t agree here but Trump’s foreign policy is really the only part of his presidency that I find a huge mistake.

        Repealing Obamacare and tax reform is congress dropping the ball and that’s on them.

        Trump has gotten a partial cease fire in Syria, got The Norks to take a deep breath and decide if war is worth it, gotten gorsuch appointed, EO 2 for 1 repeal, etc.

        Not bad for 7 months.

  7. Don’t blame me, I voted for Melania.

  8. It was the one thing I was hopeful for coming into his presidency. Must say I was disappointed, but not surprised.

  9. Honestly, I don’t make a habit of listening to Trump, and parsing the details of his words fits the definition of insanity.

    However, I do seem to recall that he was always big on the military.

    Were people hoping that we’d pay for it, just skip using it?

    1. Well, if you pay for one big enough, you do not have to actually use it.
      Research Reagan and the Soviet Union.

      1. Peace through superior firepower!

  10. I think it’s pretty obvious that he was going to be more influenced by Washington than the other way around. It’s a big job. He’s especially out of his element. I’m not surprised at all he defers to the MIC. I was hoping he was going to be more non-interventionist but wasn’t really expecting it.

    1. Your choice was known war-monger (HRC), possible war-monger (Trump), person that had no chance of winning (Mr. Aleppo), and person that had even less chance of winning (Stein and others). Nobody was duped. Some were cautiously optimistic.

      Just like I was cautiously optimistic that race relations would be improved and the drug war largely ended under Obama.

      1. Who, just to clarify, I never voted for.

        1. Yeah, I voted for the guy who didn’t know what allepo was.

  11. Were Anti-War Libertarians Gullible for Believing Trump Would Take on the War Party?

    Yes.

    1. I remember the same line of question being asked about Obama. Only it was along the lines of, ‘Were libertarian gullible for believing Obama would enhance liberty?’

      One thing I learned about libertarians who voted for Obama. Man they can be such naifs and useful idiots. How you could not see through that guy is beyond me.

      Maybe it’s because I’m Canadian and can spot left-wing gibberish from a km away.

      So SLAP! all around.

  12. Anti-war is the #1 election issue for me.

    I was thrilled when Hillary lost to Trump. I had no illusions about Trump: my assessment was that his war policies would be a tossup, and overall he’d be 20% great and 80% terrible. As for Hillary, I assessed she’d be a guaranteed warmongerer, and overall 100% bad.

    I felt the best candidate was Johnson, and I never even considered voting for anybody else. I was happy to tout Johnson’s virtues to others, the same way I always tout libertarians. If this someday tilts an election from a bad candidate to a worse one, I’ll be absolutely thrilled – not because I like the worse candidate, but because the libertarian’s support will then have proven big enough to make a difference.

    When libertarian support is strong enough to make a difference, that’s when the main parties will start catering to us by adopting some of our policies. I see this as a good thing. As Milton Friedman pointed out (and I like to quote), this worked for the socialists in the last century: they may never have gotten more than 5% of the vote, but if you look at their party platforms from the early 1900’s, they’ve been enacted into law virtually in their entirety.

    1. Could you imagine HER with all that power? We’re talking comic book villain territory. Despite all the pant shitting and all the hyper-shrill jibber-jabber babbling (of which Reason dabbles in), I still think America got it right.

      The country wasn’t ready for a Huma-Hillary sex scandal anyway.

    2. When libertarian support is strong enough to make a difference, that’s when the main parties will start catering to us by adopting some of our policies. I see this as a good thing. As Milton Friedman pointed out (and I like to quote), this worked for the socialists in the last century: they may never have gotten more than 5% of the vote, but if you look at their party platforms from the early 1900’s, they’ve been enacted into law virtually in their entirety.

      ^ Exactly.

      1. Absolutely. That’s why they call dismantling of their policies stuff like ‘deregulation’.

        Illiberal policies had to come from somewhere, no?

        Socialist/progressives only had to convince liberals and conservatives that they cared harder than anyone and experts and elites had to guide people to understanding theirs was for the greater good. So they managed to get their agenda through mostly because Democrats and Liberals in Canada held the majority of power during the 20th century.

        Marxism by other means.

        You gotta hand it to them. Fabian, Frankfurt…all of them.

        Learn.

        And turn those tables.

    3. So we risk global nuclear war in order to avoid a hypothetical bombing of Syria.

      1. Global nuclear war? I thought Russia was best buds with Trump?

        1. He’s their beeeotch, right? Cable news says so, so it must be true, right? RIGHT?!

      2. Who was this hypothetical global nuclear war going to happen with?

        Russia fixed the election and Trump is their man, so why would Trump and Russia get into a nuclear shooting match?

        Oh that’s right, because lefties make up retarded shit constantly. The funny thing is people are really ignoring socialist media and lefties now, so the lefty nonsense is not working like it used to.

  13. Trump doubling down in Afghanistan doesn’t impress me much, but if being condemned by both anti-Putin Democrats and necons for cutting a deal with Putin in Syria means anything, it’s that Trump isn’t all bad on the anti-war front.

    The partial ceasefire deal is holding after a good seven weeks. The hope continues to be that it holds and spreads to the rest of Syria.

    Some complain that the ceasefire is effectively a concession that Assad will remain in power. The problem with that criticism is that it’s essentially correct. We’ve essentially agreed to stop trying to remove Assad from power, and Assad’s backers in Iran and Russia have agreed to agree with that.

    The important question is whether wading deeper into Syria for the sake of removing Assad is in America’s security interests, and it’s clear to me, anyway, that it isn’t.

    Being anti-war isn’t just about the wars we have now. Trump could have dove head first into Syria. He seems to have dragged us out of Syria instead–over the objections of both anti-Putin Democrats and neocon Republicans. He deserves credit for that.

    1. He’s too stupid to know the correct decision on any foreign policy option. “I don’t like war” is truly an admirable, and difficult, very difficult, stance to take. But it’s not a foreign policy for the United States, unfortunately.

      1. Though it’s certainly an improvement on Cheney and ilk.

        1. President Choom didn’t exactly make a name for himself as a peacemaker either, did he?

          I lost count… How many countries did he bomb without any constitutional authority to do so?

          Of course, you’ll never criticize him, since he came around on the gay marriage issue so shortly after Cheney did, amirite?

          -jcr

        2. And Obama. You can say it. It’s okay lefty.

      2. Tony is really good at ignoring facts.

        Take for instance the fact that Trump campaigned on doing exactly what he did (with Putin) in Syria.

        If you won’t acknowledge facts that put Trump in a good light, why should anyone pay attention to you when you say bad things about Trump?

        1. Trump is more willing to do for America than anyone on the left can admit. All tweeting aside. The left knows this which is why they have gone insane these last 7 months. Trump campaigned on draining the socialist swamp and has made a few inroads. This is unacceptable to the left, hence the bigger protests than even Boosh received when getting us into the Iraq quagmire.

          I look at how strong an insane reaction from the left is to gauge Trump’s good performance. The better Trump is doing the more crazy the left becomes.

        2. Because he’s a dangerous, ignorant buffoon?

          1. Tony, you mean Obama was a dangerous, ignorant buffoon. He is not president anymore. Its okay.

    2. I like how well the cease fire in Korea has worked out – – – – – –

      1. We can only hope the Syrian ceasefire lasts as long as the one in Korea.

        That’s the way peace happens, regardless. First, there’s a ceasefire, and, then, the combatants agree to a peace.

        If there is ever peace in Syria, it will only come after a ceasefire. It’s a necessary but insufficient condition for peace.

        I suppose there are other ways to get to step three without going to step one, but most involve things like carpet bombing or genocide–and there’s no reason for the U.S. to do that in Syria.

        1. That is correct. There were even ceasefires in WWII.

          Sometimes talking is what ends wars and not talking is what starts them.

        2. > First, there’s a ceasefire, and, then, the combatants agree to a peace.

          Unless, like with North and South Korea, the US prohibits it.

  14. Clinton the gun grabber will NEVER be president !!!

    LOL X forever and a day….

  15. Ronald Reagan was the last Ruling Party candidate who disappointed me. I have never expected anything but business as usual from any of them since. I really pity the suckers who voted for Obama or Bubba.

    -jcr

  16. Yes. Next question.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.