Who Inherits the GOP

[Renae]

If Trump wins, the conservative movement gets squeezed out of the GOP. If Trump loses, we rebuild the GOP and play this song for the Trump Humpers:

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know. Trump is a disaster and not one I had any part in helping create.

 

[Zyphlin]

In my mind, the Trump nomination has been an embarrassment and a disaster for the GOP. A low point for a party that I left 10 years ago for its continued failure to act upon the rhetoric it campaigns on. But in the wreckage, I hold out some hope that maybe something good can re-emerge. If that is the case, then maybe Trump's nomination isn't a total loss.

I honestly don't see this as something that gets decided within a 4 year span, if I'm being totally honest.

Had this been Ted Cruz, as opposed to Trump, then I think the issue would've been far less. That would've been an instance of the long standing divide between the moderate/establishment wing of the party vs the ideological/grassroots wing. That's a normal bit of conflict in every party and I don't think would've been very harmful. I also think, despite many peoples dislike of Ted, they would've gotten on board and supported him more so than they have Trump.

But Trump throws this strange "third way" into the mix. This is an individual who is not moderate in Tone, but definitely not wholly conservative in ideology either. This is a guy who breaks from long standing traditional Republican Party policy stances, while at the same time pushing for some of the long standing policy desires of the base. And he's someone who's building his campaign less on ideology (like grassroots candidates do), or on policy and tone (like most moderates do), but rather seemingly building it around rhetoric and attitude.

This has led to significant displeasure with him from BOTH of the normal traditional sides of the Republican party. At the same time, it's also pulled in a lot of people who normally wouldn't really be associated with the "party" in the fashion they currently are.

Where it goes from here if he gets blown out? I honestly don't know, but I wouldn't be shocked if we have at least one more of these knock down drag out type of nomination cycles.

That said, a few observations...

I have a hard time seeing another person on the horizon with the Cult of Personality that Trump has to be able to pull off his "3rd way" method of attracting people.

The Grassroots have had rumblings of displeasure in previous years about the "moderate" candidate that ran, and many have silently sat at home and not voted, but we've not really seen it to the VOCAL degree as we've seen from the establishment this time around. While I think the establishment will (wrongly) attempt to suggest that a Trump lost means a grassroots loss, I think a lot in the grassroots will see this as legitimizing the notion of actually legitimately, and vocally, "staying home" if they don't like a moderate candidate in the future.

The only real hope is to find a Grassroots individual, with the necessary cult of personality to get away with some moderate tendancies, in order to actually bring people together. Quite frankly, I don't see anyone on the horizon that can be that person, nor do I think it may be even feasible to do right now. Rubio would've been the closest example of this, and he floundered.

Trump, frankly, was the worst case scenario for the party and is why I was so distraught by the notion of him winning. Win or Lose, the Republican party is in for significant strife and conflict going forward. Win, and it marks a shift both away from many conservative ideals and many moderate goals in terms of tone. Lose, and it creates this three way split of mess that will take multiple cycles to truly sort out.

 

[Zyphlin]

Republicans tend to see their lack of support among black people and hispanics and get frustrated. The result of that frustration is talk of them wanting "free stuff", government hand outs, and so on. That is a stupid way to think of it, and further, being frustrated is a mistake. That low support should be seen as an opportunity. This is an easy area to expand your support. To do that, first you have to stop talking about them as being all welfare mothers, criminals, and having their hands out. People are funny, they tend to not vote for those who are insulting to them(and I really do not think republicans even realize they are doing this, though it is obvious when looking at it from the outside). Then you have to tailor your message to them when you talk to them. You do not change the policy, you change how you present the policy. Why are conservative principals going to make their lives better?

First, I see what you did there.

Second, Bobby Lashley for VP.

Third, what you said there is something I was stating a ton on this forum post 2012. Republicans don't need to significantly change themselves to try and do outreach to Latinos, Blacks, etc. Additionally, Republicans shouldn't start subscribing to "identity politics" as they define it, IE going to particular groups and going "for you specifically, we're going to do x, y, z that will specifically help out [group a]". To do so would be to tacitly admit that what Republicans have complained about and rallied against for years was actually correct, and all the bad things said about Republicans was right.

Instead, what they need to do is get MUCH better at crafting language and putting forth a consistent message, using specific examples tailored to each group, as to how the broader Republican message/principles/policies will help [group a]. It's not changing the policies or changing the principles, it's changing the MESSAGING and the means of how you target said messages.

Are Republicans going to win a 50% share of the minority vote within the next 20 years? Not very likely. HOWEVER, if they could make a 3 to 5% inroad every 4 years, that can add up quick and actually be quite significant. Swing the Black from from 95/5 to 85/15 and that can be a sizable change, despite Democrats still winning a massive majority.

The problem is, to get to that point successfully, Republicans have to not only change their communication focus, but also find a way to fight back against the Democratic narrative that they've been utterly incapable of truly fighting back against. Over the past 16+ years, Democrats have done an amazing job of depicting the Republicans as the bad guy out to get things/stop things/hurt things.

Anti-Environment. Anti-Poor. Anti-Women. Anti-Health Care. On and on. In every instance where Republicans are generally against greater government intervention, the depiction is instead that their against the thing in general. Republicans being against more government regulation on the environment means they're against THE ENVIRONMENT. Which, on the surface to reasonable people, sounds ludicrous but it's been a very effective means of messaging into the general social conscious over the past decade+.

Republicans have frankly been HORRIBLE at finding ways to attack this narrative and change it. To actually find ways to put out arguments that are more effective than the attacks at convincing those in the squishy middle that no, the Republicans don't actually hate/aren't actually against all those things.

And until they find a way to combat that narrative successfully, and change that perception that exists within the squishy middle of average voters, the job of changing the message regarding their policies to attract minorities is going to be that much harder to do.

 

[Redress]

First, I see what you did there.

??

Second, Bobby Lashley for VP.

I would vote for Owens/Lashley. Banks for Secretary of State.

...Snipped for word count...
Are Republicans going to win a 50% share of the minority vote within the next 20 years? Not very likely. HOWEVER, if they could make a 3 to 5% inroad every 4 years, that can add up quick and actually be quite significant. Swing the Black from from 95/5 to 85/15 and that can be a sizable change, despite Democrats still winning a massive majority.

If republicans ever see the minority middle class as the possible next Reagan Democrats, my party could be in trouble.

The problem is, to get to that point successfully, Republicans have to not only change their communication focus, but also find a way to fight back against the Democratic narrative that they've been utterly incapable of truly fighting back against. Over the past 16+ years, Democrats have done an amazing job of depicting the Republicans as the bad guy out to get things/stop things/hurt things.

Anti-Environment. Anti-Poor. Anti-Women. Anti-Health Care. On and on. In every instance where Republicans are generally against greater government intervention, the depiction is instead that their against the thing in general. Republicans being against more government regulation on the environment means they're against THE ENVIRONMENT. Which, on the surface to reasonable people, sounds ludicrous but it's been a very effective means of messaging into the general social conscious over the past decade+.

You are close. Both sides paint the other as negative things. I am an anti-American, constitution hating handout wanter. The difference is that the things we accuse the republicans of being against, are things that more people actually care about. We win on the "Wall Street vs Main Street" argument kinda thing. And we are going to, very soon, need a better argument, since that one is about tapped out.

Republicans have frankly been HORRIBLE at finding ways to attack this narrative and change it. To actually find ways to put out arguments that are more effective than the attacks at convincing those in the squishy middle that no, the Republicans don't actually hate/aren't actually against all those things.

And until they find a way to combat that narrative successfully, and change that perception that exists within the squishy middle of average voters, the job of changing the message regarding their policies to attract minorities is going to be that much harder to do.

I am reminded after 2012 of I think it was Ryan who went and talked at a mostly black college, and totally failed to connect to the kids there. It was...painful. I really think that republican politicians for the most part have these really weird ideas about black people.

 

[Zyphlin]

??

"went all Zyphlin"

I would vote for Owens/Lashley. Banks for Secretary of State.

Canadian. Ineligible Owens Ineligible.

If republicans ever see the minority middle class as the possible next Reagan Democrats, my party could be in trouble.

Agree 100%

You are close. Both sides paint the other as negative things.

I agree. I simply think the Democrats have been far more successful at it over the past 15+ years. Prior to that, I'd say the Republicans were far more successful at it, with the whole "family values" shtick being a perfect example of it back then.

 

[Redress]

Canadian. Ineligible Owens Ineligible.

 

[Zyphlin]

God I love that trolling bastard

 

[haymarket]

If Trump loses big in November and the GOP loses the Senate as well as down ballot damage that goes to the state and local level - it should serve as a giant enema to purge the Republican party of the intestinal infection of right libertarians and tea party know nothing who have attempted to hijack the party over the last several years. It should have that effect in a rational environment where the adults rule the day.

Sadly, I suspect there is a good chance that it will NOT have that purging effect.

The reasons being rather simple:
1- Where do the tea party folk go? Nowhere.
2- Where do the right libertarians go? Nowhere.
3- Will the Republican establishment abandon the party and build anew? Nope.

So in a world where Hillary Clinton the demon of all their nightmares now rules the roost and has a majority in the Senate to push Supreme Court and judicial appointments through reforming that branch of government as well - the right is stuck with each other for one obvious reason: its simply too damn difficult and expensive and labor intensive to start a new party and make it viable in the short time that todays short attention spans demand results in.

Lets face one fact here: the personality type of many libertarians does not exactly lend itself to forming coalitions and doing the daily grass roots work necessary to build a majority party. They are by nature contrarians and outsiders who rather fancy their Don Quixote status of tilting at windmills and always maintaining their virginal purity - at least in their own minds.

The tea party people simply do not have the numbers - the education - the experience - nor the money to build a viable third party. Nor do they have a decade or two to do it while they stand by and watch their hated enemies the liberals win election after elections due to them dividing the GOP.

So they are all stuck with each other and the bloodletting will continue unabated - at least for the next decade or so until something happens nobody can see on the horizon.

 

[Fletch]

If Trump loses big in November and the GOP loses the Senate as well as down ballot damage that goes to the state and local level - it should serve as a giant enema to purge the Republican party of the intestinal infection of right libertarians and tea party know nothing who have attempted to hijack the party over the last several years. It should have that effect in a rational environment where the adults rule the day.

Sadly, I suspect there is a good chance that it will NOT have that purging effect.

The reasons being rather simple:
1- Where do the tea party folk go? Nowhere.
2- Where do the right libertarians go? Nowhere.
3- Will the Republican establishment abandon the party and build anew? Nope.

So in a world where Hillary Clinton the demon of all their nightmares now rules the roost and has a majority in the Senate to push Supreme Court and judicial appointments through reforming that branch of government as well - the right is stuck with each other for one obvious reason: its simply too damn difficult and expensive and labor intensive to start a new party and make it viable in the short time that todays short attention spans demand results in.

Lets face one fact here: the personality type of many libertarians does not exactly lend itself to forming coalitions and doing the daily grass roots work necessary to build a majority party. They are by nature contrarians and outsiders who rather fancy their Don Quixote status of tilting at windmills and always maintaining their virginal purity - at least in their own minds.

The tea party people simply do not have the numbers - the education - the experience - nor the money to build a viable third party. Nor do they have a decade or two to do it while they stand by and watch their hated enemies the liberals win election after elections due to them dividing the GOP.

So they are all stuck with each other and the bloodletting will continue unabated - at least for the next decade or so until something happens nobody can see on the horizon.

Um, right libertarians and the tea party are not the problem. Those are just problems that exist in your head because they oppose your leftist fantasies. A republican party devoid of right libertarians and tea party folks is the democrat party. And we already have one of those

 

[haymarket]

Um, right libertarians and the tea party are not the problem. Those are just problems that exist in your head because they oppose your leftist fantasies. A republican party devoid of right libertarians and tea party folks is the democrat party. And we already have one of those

Thank you for the post which proves I am righto n the money in correctly identifying the problem.

 

[Fletch]

Thank you for the post which proves I am righto n the money in correctly identifying the problem.

If what you want is one party rule--which being a good totalitarian leftist you likely do--then yes, you have correctly identified the problem. Right libertarians and the tea party are standing in the way of your leftist fantasies.

 

[haymarket]

If what you want is one party rule--which being a good totalitarian leftist you likely do--then yes, you have correctly identified the problem. Right libertarians and the tea party are standing in the way of your leftist fantasies.

could you produce the statement from me where I advocate one party rule to achieve my so called leftist fantasies .......... which you have utterly failed to identify in the first place?

 

[Fletch]

could you produce the statement from me where I advocate one party rule to achieve my so called leftist fantasies .......... which you have utterly failed to identify in the first place?

Its just an objective analysis of what you post. The problem, in your head, is that the right wingers have to leave the republican party. If that happens, you have two democrat parties, or, stay with me now, one party rule. That you aren't aware of this indicates that you haven't actually thought through what you say or are just dishonest. As to which of those two possibilities is correct is anyones guess.

 

[haymarket]

Its just an objective analysis of what you post. The problem, in your head, is that the right wingers have to leave the republican party. If that happens, you have two democrat parties, or, stay with me now, one party rule. That you aren't aware of this indicates that you haven't actually thought through what you say or are just dishonest. As to which of those two possibilities is correct is anyones guess.

Again I ask you to please support your claim that I want a one party system to further my supposed leftist fantasies. I realize this list he Loft and I do not want to derail the topic but you did make a charge about me and it was unsupported - and still is.

You will notice t hat I have no declared lean on this site. I support very liberal progressive things .... I support some conservative things .... and I support things that are moderate or in the middle.

So the idea that I am promoting leftist fantasies is far from the truth.

I am not advocating that people on the right leave the Republican Party. I fully expect that conservatives of the Willam F. Buckley and George Will stripe will still be there - and they should be there. My comment was about right libertarians and the tea party folk who are not at all intellectual conservatives and have shown themselves to be a bad ingredient in the mix causing far more problem than they are wroth in term of benefit. And Trump is the proof.

I want a Republican Party that is to the right ... is conservative. That is important to the health of our two party system.

 

[Fletch]

Again I ask you to please support your claim that I want a one party system to further my supposed leftist fantasies. I realize this list he Loft and I do not want to derail the topic but you did make a charge about me and it was unsupported - and still is.

You will notice t hat I have no declared lean on this site. I support very liberal progressive things .... I support some conservative things .... and I support things that are moderate or in the middle.

So the idea that I am promoting leftist fantasies is far from the truth.

I am not advocating that people on the right leave the Republican Party. I fully expect that conservatives of the Willam F. Buckley and George Will stripe will still be there - and they should be there. My comment was about right libertarians and the tea party folk who are not at all intellectual conservatives and have shown themselves to be a bad ingredient in the mix causing far more problem than they are wroth in term of benefit. And Trump is the proof.

I want a Republican Party that is to the right ... is conservative. That is important to the health of our two party system.

I see. So you want a democrat party that is a big tent and welcomes all but you would like the republican party to be a table of three. And you wonder why you have no credibility on the subject of republican politics. Do you support the same level of intellectual purity for the democrats? No, of course you don't. Any non-intellectual dolt is welcome on the left, but non intellectual conservatives must be shown the door by republicans. I don't know how to break this to you, but any intellectualism on the republican side is being driven by the tea party and right libertarians. The people on the right that you adore simply ponder upon ways of improving the efficiency of the welfare state--which, again, makes them indistinguishable from democrats. The people you despise and want driven from political life are those who oppose you intellectually and argue against you intellectually. Those are right libertarians and tea party folk for whom you have no ability to argue or debate intelligently. So you want them silenced and removed from politics so the left republicans and left democrats can govern as one.

 

[Jack Hays]

There has always been a center-right tendency in American politics although it has been expressed by a series of parties: Federalists to Whigs to Free Soilers to Republicans. Periodically the center-right party crashes on an issue and a new party arises. (The Democrats avoid this difficulty by simply abandoning their principles periodically, and adopting new ones.)

I think it's probably time for a new party that will stand for strong defense, individual liberty, free trade and free enterprise, without getting bogged down in social issues.

 

[haymarket]

I see. So you want a democrat party that is a big tent and welcomes all but you would like the republican party to be a table of three.

I have no idea what that means.

And you wonder why you have no credibility on the subject of republican politics.

Your assessment of my credibility means nothing - to me or to this discussion.

Do you support the same level of intellectual purity for the democrats?

I see no level of intellectual purity for any political party which is by their very nature unsure since humans are unsure as part of our basic nature.

I don't know how to break this to you, but any intellectualism on the republican side is being driven by the tea party and right libertarians.

I see no evidence of intellectual excellence from right libertarians nor tea party know nothings. Feel fret provide the evidence of that claim.

The people on the right that you adore simply ponder upon ways of improving the efficiency of the welfare state--which, again, makes them indistinguishable from democrats. The people you despise and want driven from political life are those who oppose you intellectually and argue against you intellectually.

You confuse people I have respect for - Buckley and Will - with those I "adore". Right libertarians argue from their own self imposed belief system while tea party know nothings seem to be able to argue about nothing at all as they simply pontificate and rant and rave.

Those are right libertarians and tea party folk for whom you have no ability to argue or debate intelligently. So you want them silenced and removed from politics so the left republicans and left democrats can govern as one.

I do NOT want them removed from politics. That is your fatal error. Just the opposite. I want them to stop trying to hijack the Republican Party and do the damn hard work of having their own.

 

[Fletch]

I have no idea what that means.



Your assessment of my credibility means nothing - to me or to this discussion.



I see no level of intellectual purity for any political party which is by their very nature unsure since humans are unsure as part of our basic nature.



I see no evidence of intellectual excellence from right libertarians nor tea party know nothings. Feel fret provide the evidence of that claim.



You confuse people I have respect for - Buckley and Will - with those I "adore". Right libertarians argue from their own self imposed belief system while tea party know nothings seem to be able to argue about nothing at all as they simply pontificate and rant and rave.



I do NOT want them removed from politics. That is your fatal error. Just the opposite. I want them to stop trying to hijack the Republican Party and do the damn hard work of having their own.

Hijack the party?? Howso? Are you making the same gripe about the Bernie brigades hijacking the democrat party? Why doesn't he and his immature band of looters start their own social democrat party and stop 'hijacking' the democrat party? You are silent on that front I see. Why? Hypocrisy of course. If anybody is hijacking anything, it is Sanders, the lifelong independent, soiling the democrat party with his discredited, backwards ass, Robin Hood ideals. But rather than address that elephant in the room, you focus on your small minded hatred of libertarians.

Oh, and you can stop pretending any time now that you actually know or care anything about the strength and survival of the republican party. If you had any credibility on the subject, you would understand that it is right libertarians and tea party folks that are what distinguish the republican party from the democrat party. The libertarian principles of limited government and individual liberty is what republicans should stand for. Instead they have become democrat lite, efficiency experts for the welfare state. THAT is why you hate right libertarians and the tea party. You hate that they upset the status quo that you desire, and that they offer legitimate counter arguments to the failed leftist scams you rely upon and cannot intelligently defend.

 

[haymarket]

Hijack the party?? Howso? Are you making the same gripe about the Bernie brigades hijacking the democrat party? Why doesn't he and his immature band of looters start their own social democrat party and stop 'hijacking' the democrat party? You are silent on that front I see. Why? Hypocrisy of course. If anybody is hijacking anything, it is Sanders, the lifelong independent, soiling the democrat party with his discredited, backwards ass, Robin Hood ideals. But rather than address that elephant in the room, you focus on your small minded hatred of libertarians.

Oh, and you can stop pretending any time now that you actually know or care anything about the strength and survival of the republican party. If you had any credibility on the subject, you would understand that it is right libertarians and tea party folks that are what distinguish the republican party from the democrat party. The libertarian principles of limited government and individual liberty is what republicans should stand for. Instead they have become democrat lite, efficiency experts for the welfare state. THAT is why you hate right libertarians and the tea party. You hate that they upset the status quo that you desire, and that they offer legitimate counter arguments to the failed leftist scams you rely upon and cannot intelligently defend.

That little rubber hammer apparently has hit your knee cap and it involuntarily jerked in spasm. You just can't help it can you? I talk about the subject of the thread - Who Inherits the GOP? - and you have to drag in the Dems and Sanders.

Just on that you lose and lose big.

You respond to criticism of libertarians like I have urinated publicly on a statue of the founder of your religion. Its sad.

You see - I am for limited government also. I don't want the government to be any larger than it needs to be to carry out its duties to the people of our nation.

I also want as much individual liberty as can be had for the citizen of our nation consistent with the Constitution.

So you are not the only virgin in the whore house and quit pretending that you and other libertarians are something special because you are not.

 

[Fletch]

That little rubber hammer apparently has hit your knee cap and it involuntarily jerked in spasm. You just can't help it can you? I talk about the subject of the thread - Who Inherits the GOP? - and you have to drag in the Dems and Sanders.

Just on that you lose and lose big.

Bringing up Sanders was only a small part of what I said and only done to demonstrate your hypocrisy on the topic at hand. Whine all you want.

You respond to criticism of libertarians like I have urinated publicly on a statue of the founder of your religion. Its sad.

That's just your imagination at work again. What is sad is your twisted hatred of libertarians. So twisted, in fact, that you blame them and the tea party for the rise of Trump. No libertarian I know of supports the man. The problem facing the GOP is that they selected a liberal buffoon to head the party. You, being you, simply take any opportunity to slam libertarians which is why you lack any credibility.

You see - I am for limited government also. I don't want the government to be any larger than it needs to be to carry out its duties to the people of our nation.

I also want as much individual liberty as can be had for the citizen of our nation consistent with the Constitution.

So you are not the only virgin in the whore house and quit pretending that you and other libertarians are something special because you are not.

Ah, so you can add being a self-hating libertarian to your long list of issues. Good luck with that.

 

[haymarket]

What is sad is your twisted hatred of libertarians. So twisted, in fact, that you blame them and the tea party for the rise of Trump. No libertarian I know of supports the man.

Then why are there people here who profess to be libertarians who support the man?

That is NOT my imagination but reality.

Ah, so you can add being a self-hating libertarian to your long list of issues. Good luck with that.

So everybody in the USA who wants a limited government and freedom is a libertarian? Gimme a break already. If that is true your definition is so overly broad as to render your definition of LIBERTARIAN completely meaningless.

It shows you just how vapid and empty your profession in limited government and freedom is as a definition of ones political beliefs when nearly everyone in America subscribes to it.

And that is why your whole faux ideology is as phony as a four dolllar bill with a picture of Donald Duck on it.

 

[Fletch]

Then why are there people here who profess to be libertarians who support the man?

That is NOT my imagination but reality.

Who?

So everybody in the USA who wants a limited government and freedom is a libertarian? Gimme a break already. If that is true your definition is so overly broad as to render your definition of LIBERTARIAN completely meaningless.

It shows you just how vapid and empty your profession in limited government and freedom is as a definition of ones political beliefs when nearly everyone in America subscribes to it.

And that is why your whole faux ideology is as phony as a four dolllar bill with a picture of Donald Duck on it.

I am sure you have heard of civil libertarians, perhaps even the American Civil Liberties Union. Are they just phonies? Should the ACLU have Donald Duck as their mascot? Or are you just continuing to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about? To understand what libertarianism is, perhaps you might take a course at the local college or open a book, or learn the magic of google. BUt I am willing to help you get around all of that for the sake of time. Ready? Here is your free education tip for the day: A libertarian is simply someone who places individual liberty at the top of their hierarchy of political values. Now jot that down so that in the future when discussing anything to do with liberty or libertarians, you wont look like a fool.

 

[haymarket]

Who?

This thread has some.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...65-support-trump.html?highlight=support+Trump

 

[cabse5]

Who?




I am sure you have heard of civil libertarians, perhaps even the American Civil Liberties Union. Are they just phonies? Should the ACLU have Donald Duck as their mascot? Or are you just continuing to demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about? To understand what libertarianism is, perhaps you might take a course at the local college or open a book, or learn the magic of google. BUt I am willing to help you get around all of that for the sake of time. Ready? Here is your free education tip for the day: A libertarian is simply someone who places individual liberty at the top of their hierarchy of political values. Now jot that down so that in the future when discussing anything to do with liberty or libertarians, you wont look like a fool.

I have to jump in to refute your right-leaning libertarian philosophy.

Sometimes the country is in trouble. Sometimes, for example, there is a massive personal debt crisis and many could go to debtor's prison. Sometimes, there is a different currency for each state so trade and arbitrage, as examples, are non existent. This was the climate of the US after winning their independence from England. These are great reasons why The Constitution was written. States rights and individual rights that you cherish are unconstitutional. Notice I didn't say non-existent. I said unconstitutional.

Fast forward to a time when the country is again in trouble. Sometimes, for example, the country is in a massive debt crisis. Sometimes borders aren't being guarded for whatever ideological reason. Sometimes there is an enemy of the US and the rest of the world depriving personal liberties.

Mind you, after these crises are solved, things can go back to normal.

What will your libertarianism do for either what actually happened in the late 18th century in the US or is currently in the process of happening? How would libertarianism have stopped Nazi Germany or Japan in WWII?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

People... you are in The Loft. That means NO sniping or personal crap in any way, shape, or form. Fletch and haymarket have already been removed from the thread. Anyone else?