Posted on 05/22/2019 6:44:37 AM PDT by deplorableindc
Rep. Justin Amash's tweets declaring that President Trump committed impeachable offenses have made him an outcast among Republicans, but many of his supporters are excited about what they see as a sign he will run for president as a Libertarian.
The Michigan Republican, 39, is known for defying party leaders on issues such as mass surveillance and government spending. And since Trump took office, he’s been viewed as a possible Libertarian champion in 2020 — a notion amplified by his Saturday remarks.
Amash’s emergence as a possible competitor may have caught Trump’s campaign off-guard.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
But about two weeks before the election, I came on board and voted for Trump.
~~~
I voted early. I think it would have made a difference if I had voted on election day.
“And if had my way after 9/11 Afghanistan would have been made an example of in quick fashion...”
~~~
Totally agree with that sentiment, although I was less libertarian at the time, I thought there was no reason that anyone even losely supporting OBL wouldn’t be collateral damage.
I do, however, remember GWB giving a state of the union during the build up to Iraq claiming that ‘we are not in the business of nation building’ and getting up from my couch and shouting at the TV as if it was Sunday afternoon and the opponents QB just threw a bomb over our weak secondary, “WHAT DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF YOU UNSEAT A LONG ESTABLISHED DICTATOR?”
I would vote for a Libertarian if the Republican Party nominated a Republican, but since a Trump is a Nationalist and not a real Republican I can enthusiastically support him.
That retarded baboon GWB destroyed the Republican Party, in my opinion.
For the umpteenth time- WHAT IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES?
Franklin Roosevelt’s rapid conversion from Constitutionalism to the doctrine of unlimited government is an oft-told story. But I am here concerned not so much by the abandonment of states’ rights by the national Democratic Party — an event that occurred some years ago when that party was captured by the socialist ideologues in and about the labor movement — as by the unmistakable tendency of the Republican Party to adopt the same course. […] Thus, the cornerstone of the Republic, our chief bulwark against the encroachment (on) individual freedom by Big Government, is fast disappearing under the piling sands of absolutism.The destruction of the GOP was in progress long before Dubya’s father even got within reach of the highest office in the land.
The Republican Party, to be sure, gives lip service to states’ rights. We often talk about “returning to the states their rightful powers”; the Administration has even gone so far as to sponsor a federal-state conference on the problem. But deeds are what count, and I regret to say that in actual practice, the Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, summons the coercive power of the federal government whenever national leaders conclude that the states are not performing satisfactorily. …
— The Conscience of a Conservative (1960), pp. 24-25
All good points, but I’m not sure how relevant that is to the destruction of the Republican Party. We have two parties pushing for Big Government because MOST AMERICANS want some form of it.
If that were true, then Hillary would be president right now.
And the quote is relevant because it illustrates that the “Uniparty” is indeed real. It’s been going on long before either of the Bushes were in politics.
Donald Trump was a lot of things as a presidential candidate. He absolutely did NOT run on a platform of limited government. Reducing regulatory burdens? Yes. But the only real difference between him and the other contenders is that he wants our bloated Federal government to spend trillions more dollars HERE nstead of in Third World dumps all over the globe.
Where does he want that? and where was that in his platform?
He’s governed more conservatively than any GOP president since Reagan, thus far, excluding of course that spending bill that he was vocally against (but the GOP half of the Uniparty was of course not). He wouldn’t have pulled billions away from wasteful projects if he really was interested in continuing the “spending here” at the same rate it has been going on. It’s not 2016 anymore.
Libertarian isn’t the same as small ‘L’ libertarian.
But if I’m still a pain in the ass, there’s Astrolube.
The Dems may own the black vote,
but the GOP does not own the libertarian vote.
The votes aren’t the GOP’s to lose.
I used to think I was economically conservative and socially liberal until someone pointed out the definition of socially liberal. Now, I’m just a plain, libertarian, Trump fanatic.
Forget about Congress. Just look at Trump’s OWN proposed fiscal year 2020 budget and see how fiscally responsible he is. He’s proposing a spending hike in excess of $200 billion and a sizable increase in our budget deficit.
Which was the difference in 2016. Every vote is going to be important.
Trump supported cutting taxes at all levels, and his opposition to international free-trade deals was a trademark of his campaign. His tax proposals included cuts at all income levels, an end to the estate tax, and a tax deduction for childcare expenses. He called international trade deals like NAFTA and TPP “a disaster” and pushed for increased tariffs on imports. […] He was critical of financial regulatory legislation such as Dodd-Frank, which he called “terrible.” He called government regulations, in general, a “stealth tax.” …That is Ballotpedia’s rendering of the 2016 platform. Does not look fiscally irresponsible, and more than expected (barring GOP-e reticence) has been enacted.
Agree wholeheartedly with that.
I could have cut our leaders (i.e. Bush) some slack if they had decided to attack Pakistan and Afghanistan together, with alQaeda and the Taliban having control of both countries. I think when an enemy attacks our civilians directly (most deaths that day weren't in the Pentagon), using civilian means, while wearing civilian clothes, and the whole time integrating their own military structure within their civilian population for the purposes of minimizing retaliation from whatever western power they attack, then the Geneva Conventions gloves should come off and the civilians of citizens associated with AlQaeda are fair game. Them working so hard to make attacking them back look ugly doesn't give them the right to attack us without retaliation.
I think Bush's failure to do that was part of the reason to go to Iraq. 9/11 was awful and he probably felt like he hadn't done enough to retaliate (I agree) and force our enemies to surrender (I agree), so to save face he got Saddam to surrender (the part I don't agree with). He should have been harder on Afghanistan instead of trying to "win over hearts and minds" in a war that "won't have a treaty signing moment" and all the other redefinitions of victory he did to make victory impossible. Had he not done that, I bet there would have been no Iraq war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.