Better a Warren Harding, than a Stalin.

The only thing that gives me any pause is the international situation. Everything else that Trump could eff up could just as easily be fixed. Not so with the Democrats.

Big Maq’s question to DNW: Trump, Clinton, or Other (if possible)? and Why? (It’s a practical question.)

Other if possible.

And it is always possible but unlikely: unlike Libertarian which is impossible because it became for a time the party of cranks, of the drug worshiping “self-ownership sell my organs” insanity subsequent to the days of Ed Clark and a few admirable others.

What and where now are the sane types who once voted Libertarian before the crack-up? Republican precinct delegates like myself (at one time).

The convention has not happened yet, and Trump may simply self-destruct. Hillary might be indicted. Anything could happen.

Trump is probably as unfit today, not necessarily tomorrow, for office as that moral vermin Hillary will always be. He shows unfortunately as little familiarity with the principles of Constitutional government as Hillary has respect for them.

He and she share the conviction that it is all about the deal: what you want regardless of the principle involved, and what you can get to from that staked out position.

His way of behaving in this manner is instinctual and pragmatic; her’s is ideologically driven and based on the anti-principle principle.

The difference with Trump is that what he says he wants, just happens to align with traditional American rights and liberties moreso than does Hillary’s amoral appetite thing’s desire to refashion humanity in the image of her psycho-sexual mental disorders.

She, is just as likely to get us into a catastrophic confrontation with Putin through her duplicitous weakness, as Trump is, with his blustering vainglory. And when you go to the line for Hillary’s values and America, you are going to the line for your own destruction.

If Trump is elected, and we do not have an emperor president yet, there will be men on the right as well as the left who will stand to rein him in.

If Hillary is elected, no one on the left will stand to protect constitutional government, and no one on the right will count even if they have the Congress; since like Obama and the membership of the Democrat party at large, Hillary is no respecter of law much less truth.

Lastly, in general, I don’t give a fuck about illegals and their wants.

DNW’s question to Big Maq: Is freedom merely a necessary condition for a good society, or is it a good in itself? Is it the ultimate societal good? (It’s a theoretical question. It may lead to some complicated backroads of political philosophy, but the question is itself a fair one.)

And after five accusatory and suspicious rejoinders to a simple question, we are finally informed that the author does not want to say exactly what he meant; because, he fallaciously reasons, that if he says “yes”, he is trapped as a leftist, and if he says “no” (that he has no duty to sacrifice freedom for the sake of solidarity) he is somehow endorsing or must defend “authoritarianism”.

He’d rather spend his time on realistic matters such as discussing the likelihood of a libertarian candidate victory.

That’s fine. Of course, that was the same choice he faced five long and obfuscating rejoinders ago.

My last comment on this.

I don’t see that there really is a question to be answered, per se. How one gets “You may even agree with me that no social arrangement or polity is worth preserving or sacrificing for which does not reflect that value (freedom).” and “you believe that … pluralism is not only the definition of socially realized freedom but a moral duty as well; and that perhaps this encompasses a duty to the weak or those with antithetical views regarding the very value of freedom as a life way.” out of my statement, IDK.

Notwithstanding that, the stated “simple question” is not singular, and is not simple.

So what to do – “no social arrangement is worth preserving if it doesn’t reflect freedom?” – Does a yes mean you ought to then support “burning it all down”, since the “GOPe” and Dems have proven failures on this standard to some level? Does a no mean you are a hypocrite? How much explanation is then required to differentiate the nuances? In the end, you realize that it just leads back to the same old argument of Trump vs Clinton wrapped up in fancy language.

On the question of “pluralism with a duty to the weak or those with antithetical views?” – say yes and you get mired in differentiating that from the left’s position, say no and you must differentiate that from authoritarian rule. More spiral thorough explanations of the nuances to unpeel that onion to realize we are back at Trump vs Clinton, again.

And then “the phrasing seems to imply something more: that exclusionary liberty, even a relatively benign or tolerant one, is a greater moral ill than a possible temporary loss of liberty”. – just walk through that yourself and see where you get. I hope you see the point.

We can debate if DNW wants to go down that path for mere discussion. IDK for certain one way or the other. But, I see where it goes and I don’t want to get sidetracked employing the time and energy to MAYBE bring that discussion to a point that DNW is satisfied with.

I’d much rather deal with the real question we face and are debating about (elsewise), not worrying about what may be hiding behind language like this. This is why I put forth the straight question about where DNW stands, a question he doesn’t seem to want to engage in.

My own “straightforward positive statement” (such as it is) is that we ought to look beyond the binary choice, because they are both bad in terms of preserving what we can of our existing freedoms. I urge we thus support the Libertarians (short of a conservative third party) and GOP the rest of the way down.

I don’t assure anyone that they are a viable alternative, but have already addressed that point elsewhere… If we wait for an alternative to become “viable” (however that determination is made), and if everyone plays that same waiting game, that alternative vanishes by default.

There really isn’t much more than that, given the poor circumstances we face – all are far from my ideal.

The assertion that precipitated this line of discussion is the observation that some of the “Trump is better” arguments being commented on this blog are incongruent with a path to preserving the freedoms that we have. I’m not discounting the problems with a Clinton admin (and the implications for Obamacare, IRS targeting, judicial choices, and other general continued implementation of leftist policy, etc), and yes it represents an erosion of our freedoms. It is just that those who admit that Trump would certainly be, or likely turn, authoritarian (their assessment, not mine) have set a high bar for how that is the path to preserving our existing freedoms. Unless… that is not the bar to measure our decision by – my concern expressed.

I think there are some reasonable arguments for Trump…
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-09/five-reasons-decent-people-may-want-to-back-trump

…but I just don’t see some folks here getting past their demagoguery of the left, as somehow that is going to be so much worse over the next four years (than we’ve seen under Obama or exists in several other countries further down that path – of course, if we never get our act together and stop the Dems, the worst fears EVENTUALLY come to fruition, but the next four years is our focus), and therefore we have no choice but to voluntarily submit ourselves to a likely (their assessment) Authoritarian.
.

“if indeed you even are thinking” Indeed, I’m sorry to disappoint DNW, as he sees fit to question even if there is any thought. Probably just more goading to carry on down the path he wants to engage in.

He seems to have made some good points along the short time I’ve been here, so I’m not happy it has come to this.
.

The discussion here IS more in depth, and has been more educational than the two line test of wits and insults thrown around elsewhere on conservative sites.

It is NOT a contradiction to choose to not run down a rabbit hole unless I also see it as productively moving the conversation forward. As you can tell, I’m not convinced that it is.

” Nick Says:
June 14th, 2016 at 5:25 pm

Big Maq and DNW — My two cents.

I’ve looked over this thread, and you seem to be having an intelligent conversation with clarity as a goal. That’s rare online. My hat’s off to both of you. The fact that you’re getting bogged down and frustrated is a testimony to the difficulties of conversation on comment threads. I don’t know if there’s more history between you two from other threads, but you both seem to have put a fair question to each other. It’d be cool if you’d take a few minutes and answer the other guy, even if it seems unproductive.”

If you can tell me what his question actually is, I will answer it tomorrow. LOL

Done with the office for the day.

I’ve looked over this thread, and you seem to be having an intelligent conversation with clarity as a goal. That’s rare online. My hat’s off to both of you. The fact that you’re getting bogged down and frustrated is a testimony to the difficulties of conversation on comment threads. I don’t know if there’s more history between you two from other threads, but you both seem to have put a fair question to each other. It’d be cool if you’d take a few minutes and answer the other guy, even if it seems unproductive.

” So, I gotta wonder, is the rabbit hole he’d like to go down really about answering his question, or an avoidance of discussing the real issue we face, otherwise, why burn time and energy on a side topic that is not going to turn anyone’s decision on Trump, Clinton, or other?”

All I did was to ask you a simple question regarding what it was that you meant when you wrote,

“Makes one wonder if we are arguing about Liberty and Founding Principles anymore, or if we are just talking about freedom for our group/tribe at the toleration, if not expense of everyone else …”

Attempting to understand your meaning, I repeatedly asked, in various formulations, if you meant to imply for example,

“that preserving freedom within a polity, by denying peer status to would-be entrants, or ethical aberrants, was morally worse than a — presumably temporary — loss of freedom across the board.”

You have now put up a series of four fulminating evasions, refusing to answer a simple question which could have been settled with a simple “yes” or “no” or “I don’t want to say” reply. All while you have been simultaneously claiming that you have no time for such an involved exercise.

You also assure us that Libertarians offer a viable alternative to Trump, should it come to that. And that failing there, that Hillary would merely propel us a bit further down the socialist road: to some place akin to Great Britain, or Canada. Supplementing perhaps our descent into the legal and moral fiasco of Obamacare with its “individual shared responsibility” mandate, the Administration’s lawless targeting of individual citizens by organs of government for political purposes, and the intentional subversion of the national interest through a deliberate refusal to take care the laws are enforced, with additional touches; such as the speech codes and limitations which they have in those countries, and some Democrats admit to wanting here. Some plan. Some evaluation.

What in the world you could possibly be thinking, if indeed you even are thinking, is beyond my powers to intuit.

But not all is in vain. In light of your current comments, this earlier remark of yours: ” … we rarely get to the depths of discussion like we do in places like this blog to probe it that deeply.” is a richly, and comically ironic thing to behold, is it not?

Authoritarianism is a rather drastic position to defend, and it is incredibly unclear how one navigates a path under those circumstances back to non-Authoritarianism, let alone preserve our current freedoms for the duration and thereafter.

The vociferous support of Trump with this possibility, and the over hype of the problems of a Clinton admin, while ignoring any third options just makes me wonder if we are seeking solutions to best preserve the freedoms we enjoy today.

That logic just seems too much like the mother in King Solomon’s court who chose to split the baby, just another variation of the “burn it all down” argument.

That’s it.

You want to make this about some “interpretation” you have, to make a finer point on, and which is less relevant than the question at hand. Sorry. Had too many “conversations” on the net to see that this line of question is headed down a rabbit hole.

My problem is the guy who wants to have that discussion doesn’t come out and simply answer Trump, Clinton, or other? Let alone, justify it.

So, I gotta wonder, is the rabbit hole he’d like to go down really about answering his question, or an avoidance of discussing the real issue we face, otherwise, why burn time and energy on a side topic that is not going to turn anyone’s decision on Trump, Clinton, or other?

” Big Maq Says:
June 14th, 2016 at 1:22 pm

DNW — you are goading, as you want to take us down a path of a nuanced discussion of philosophy, and perhaps walk through point by point… until one of us tires, as these things usually work themselves out to be. Been there, done that at other times.

Right now, that is turtles all the way down a rabbit hole, and is particularly an avoidance of the real question we face today: Trump, Clinton, or something else over the next four years?

We don’t have to get into the finer points of philosophy to argue one vs the other in terms of retaining the freedom we have today.

Where do you stand, if I’ve pegged you wrong?”

I’ve asked you a simple question regarding your predicate case.

“Makes one wonder if we are arguing about Liberty and Founding Principles anymore, or if we are just talking about freedom for our group/tribe at the toleration, if not expense of everyone else …”

It seemed possible that you were implying that preserving freedom within a polity, by denying peer status to would-be entrants, or ethical aberrants, was morally worse than a – presumably temporary – loss of freedom across the board.

You came back instead with some accusation that I was being coy.

I then reminded you of what was actually being mooted, and what it was that you had said to evoke the notion of the question in the first place.

I then, without waiting further, rephrased the original question regarding your remarks: narrowing the quoted text so that there could, or should be, no mistaking what it was about your remark that I found interesting.

You don’t have to answer the question.

But it was based on an implication which you could reasonably have been construed as intending to present.

They were your own words and possible insinuation I was asking about, not some philosopher’s.

I have even taken the trouble to quote you repeatedly and in context. Something you seem to have trouble dealing with.

I don’t know why you should find it so difficult. I had no trouble in stating that I was not a Trump supporter, when you falsely suggested it. It seems likely that you should have had as little trouble denying what you seemingly implied – if you did not mean to imply it.

Hard to say what your real problem is.