17 Dec 2015, 8:54 pm
GoonSquad wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
I would say that our founders were pretty extreme but I do not see Trump as so much as an extreme ideologue compared to the neoconservatives and "progressives" that dot the political landscape. He has a pretty hard line stances on immigration and trade but no one else wants to solve the problem because everybody else is owned by the money and the big money wants unlimited immigration, cheap labor, more outsourcing, more H1bs. The Democratic Party has played a zero-sum game with it's black and latino voters, they've abandoned blacks to welcome in an invasion of hispanics because they think that will permanently entrench themselves in power. For those of us on main street, immigration and the destruction of the American worker is the big issue and the finger is getting pointed at these awful trade deals, illegal immigration, and massive corruption. Part of Trump's whole appeal is his ability to make a deal, he's running specifically as a non-partisan, someone not beholden to party or someone else's money, he's someone that say's he'll get things done. We have a 3 supposedly equal branches of government, I do not worry too much about Trump being any sort of dictator. He has a public persona that might appear ugly and crass to you but I think he is very smart and competent person. I see upside with Trump, there is none with Hillary.
Dude you are suffering from some MASSIVE cognitive dissonance. You're quoting this fire-breathing Austrian economist and then complaining about how immigration and free trade are hurtig American workers....
Libertarians and Austrian economists ARE ALL ABOUT FREE TRADE and LETTING LABOR MIGRATE TO THE JOB!! ! Your posts don't make sense.
And Trump doesn't have policies. He simply spews a bunch of vague, outrageous nonsense that could NEVER BE DONE.
We cannot round up and deport 12 million people. We cannot force Mexico to pay for a border fence. We cannot persecute Muslims at home without CREATING an entire generation of homegrown terrorists and we cannot expect Muslim countries to cooperate with us against ISIS while we oppress muslims here.
In short the reason that no other politician talks like Trump is because other politicians try to be at least slightly realistic. Trump deals is silly unrealistic BS.
I was going to comment on the other two paragraphs, but they're just culture war propaganda and islamiphobic paranoid fantasy.
Are you having a manic episode?
Rothbard's general point about demagogues can apply to any anti-establishment figure
FWIW I have been talking about these trade deals for awhile now, I have never been pro-amnesty, I have always wanted to secure the border, this H1b visa issue is personal, plus Trump wants to make peace with Russia which is so important. I am not an open borders beltway libertarian, I don't believe we can have a country without borders unless you want to get rid of the welfare state because it is not services are already stretched to thing. At this point I don't feel the need to be as guided by some orthodoxy, I'm older and has experienced more things.
It really shouldn't surprise anyone, I stand with Rand but Rand has ran a bad campaign and has little chance at the nomination at this point so what are the alternatives? Basically Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, everyone is else is totally unacceptable. I feel like I've made my thoughts on Hillary clear, it's possible she won't be Democratic nominee but that will because she may be federally indicted and if she was any other person she would rot in prison for a long time. I don't feel like other Republicans are more realistic, these dodos are still talking about a no fly zone over Syria when Russian jets fly under the protection of the S-400 while ISIS doesn't have any air force. Wanting to remove Assad at this point is insanity, I'm starting to hear more politicians start to realize this like Tulsi Gabbard.
17 Dec 2015, 10:31 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
17 Dec 2015, 10:45 pm
17 Dec 2015, 10:48 pm
17 Dec 2015, 11:22 pm
Jacoby wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
^A long winded way of saying "I like Trump!". 
Murray Rothbard died in 1995 and wrote that in 1954 apparently
But I'm guessing you know that so I imagine that is directed at me. I think Trump is good for the race, good for US politics, he has brought to forefront some important issues that would not of been talked about, he single handedly destroyed Jeb Bush's campaign, smashing political correctness, plus he took all these politicos I hate down a peg as well. Would I vote for him? Maybe, I definitely know I won't vote for Hillary Clinton and every other Republican other than Rand and maybe Cruz. There will be a game of chicken going on between Trump and the establishment, I think most people expect Trump to run as a third party candidate if doesn't get the nomination but the real question to me is whether or not the establishment would try to try to spoil the election with a candidate of their own even if Trump does win the nomination. I think general election Trump will might be a bit different than primary Trump, probably incorporating more left-wing populist ideals and trying to make more of an appeal to the poor and working class that have traditionally voted for Democrats. Fascinating election season.
I liked Rothbard's other point too
It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong.
I meant you. Not the late Rothbard. Even if you are using someone else's words its still a long essay.
I got the impression that you dug up this quote for the expressed purpose of apologizing for liking Trump (like you had to admit that Trump was a demagogue so you dug up a quote that apologized for demagogues). So it struck me as a bit amusing.
But thats fine.
Trouble is that Rothbard's essay is rather problematic. He is actually talking about fringe politicians, and not really about "demagogues" per se. Not all demagogues are fringe politicians, and not all fringe politicians are demagogues. A demagogue is a rabble rousing orator. Hitler, George C. Wallace, and Farakhan, to my mind are all examples of demagogues.
Ross Perot was a fringe politician, but he was anything but a demagogue.
Perot was a bit to nutty to actually qualify for the Oval Office, but he did do democracy a service by forcing the establishment in both parties to pay to attention to ignored issues. So Perot (it could be argued) is indeed an example of what Rothbard is praising: a whacky pol who serves democracy despite being whacky.
Is Trump another Perot? Is he another George Wallace? Is he some of both? Maybe.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
18 Dec 2015, 12:41 am
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
18 Dec 2015, 12:49 pm
18 Dec 2015, 1:01 pm
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
18 Dec 2015, 1:37 pm
18 Dec 2015, 2:08 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
^A long winded way of saying "I like Trump!".
Murray Rothbard died in 1995 and wrote that in 1954 apparently
But I'm guessing you know that so I imagine that is directed at me. I think Trump is good for the race, good for US politics, he has brought to forefront some important issues that would not of been talked about, he single handedly destroyed Jeb Bush's campaign, smashing political correctness, plus he took all these politicos I hate down a peg as well. Would I vote for him? Maybe, I definitely know I won't vote for Hillary Clinton and every other Republican other than Rand and maybe Cruz. There will be a game of chicken going on between Trump and the establishment, I think most people expect Trump to run as a third party candidate if doesn't get the nomination but the real question to me is whether or not the establishment would try to try to spoil the election with a candidate of their own even if Trump does win the nomination. I think general election Trump will might be a bit different than primary Trump, probably incorporating more left-wing populist ideals and trying to make more of an appeal to the poor and working class that have traditionally voted for Democrats. Fascinating election season.
I liked Rothbard's other point too
It is the fashionable belief that an idea is wrong in proportion to its "extremism" and right in proportion as it is a chaotic muddle of contradictory doctrines. To the professional middle-of-the-roader, a species that is always found in abundance, the demagogue invariably comes as a nasty shock. For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think, some for the first time in their lives. Out of the muddle of current ideas, both fashionable and unfashionable, he extracts some and pushes them to their logical conclusions, i.e. "to extremes." He thereby forces people either to reject their loosely held views as unsound, or to find them sound and to pursue them to their logical consequences. Far from being an irrational force, then, the silliest of demagogues is a great servant of Reason, even when he is mostly in the wrong.
I meant you. Not the late Rothbard. Even if you are using someone else's words its still a long essay.
I got the impression that you dug up this quote for the expressed purpose of apologizing for liking Trump (like you had to admit that Trump was a demagogue so you dug up a quote that apologized for demagogues). So it struck me as a bit amusing.
But thats fine.
Trouble is that Rothbard's essay is rather problematic. He is actually talking about fringe politicians, and not really about "demagogues" per se. Not all demagogues are fringe politicians, and not all fringe politicians are demagogues. A demagogue is a rabble rousing orator. Hitler, George C. Wallace, and Farakhan, to my mind are all examples of demagogues.
Ross Perot was a fringe politician, but he was anything but a demagogue.
Perot was a bit to nutty to actually qualify for the Oval Office, but he did do democracy a service by forcing the establishment in both parties to pay to attention to ignored issues. So Perot (it could be argued) is indeed an example of what Rothbard is praising: a whacky pol who serves democracy despite being whacky.
Is Trump another Perot? Is he another George Wallace? Is he some of both? Maybe.
It's what I know.
You have to look at the way Rothbard defined demagogue since I do believe he makes the distinction.
All demagogues are ideological nonconformists and therefore are bound to be emotional about the general and respectable rejection of what they consider to be vital truth. But not all ideological nonconformists become demagogues. The difference is that the demagogue possesses that quality of mass attraction that permits him to use emotion to stir up the masses. In going to the masses, he is going over the heads of the respectable intellectuals who ordinarily guide mass opinion. It is this electric, short-cut appeal direct to the masses that gives the demagogue his vital significance and that makes him such a menace to the dominant orthodoxy.
I think Trump definitely is adding something in to American political discourse that it was missing, there have been Democrats lamenting for years for years about how the base of the GOP was voting against their own interests so now comes along one that does speak to those interests. An evolution out Ross Perot to Pat Buchanan to Jesse Ventura, there is a rising tide of populism which is evident with Bernie Sanders gaining so much support but Bernie is not a demagogue and plays by the establishments conventions, he should of pounded Hillary as corrupt crony of Wall Street and about her failings in foreign policy and I dunno any number of horrible disqualifying things in her background but instead he's just there to fulfill a dream of his(to run for president) before he retires and not be a serious challenge. O'Malley might surge I think, I wouldn't vote for him either but lets see if he can be a little more cunning like his character on The Wire.
18 Dec 2015, 2:27 pm
18 Dec 2015, 3:45 pm
18 Dec 2015, 4:44 pm
18 Dec 2015, 4:47 pm
18 Dec 2015, 4:56 pm
18 Dec 2015, 5:35 pm
