In the end it doesn’t matter who is president of the US, but Donald Trump is especially scary because he’s even more bloodthirsty than Lincoln or FDR or Truman or Bush, יימח שמם. Economically he’s a lunatic, not any more lunatic than any of the other candidates, but only because he may be insane enough to try to force his policies by sheer might.
As for bloodthirsty, of all the candidates he may be the one to invade China or Russia, or both, because he’s so awesome that it would work just because. He believes China is devaluing its currency to hurt American exports (and what’s America doing?), and on that pretext he wants to “punish” them. He can do this by either restricting trade, in which case Americans will no longer have cheap stuff from China anymore, or by bombing China, which is bat guano crazy.
Here’s a good analogy that illustrates how bloodthirsty Trump is. The classic argument for Truman murdering 200,000 innocent people is that it somehow saved American lives. Truman could have simply stopped the war unilaterally after Hitler was defeated and just leave the Japanese the hell alone. That would have saved American lives without murdering 200,000 more. He did not have to continue conquering Japan.
He could have easily sent a video of the first nuclear bomb test to Horohito and the Japanese government, pulled all the troops out of the Pacific, and said to Japan, “Look, if you ever touch US territory again, we’ll drop one of these on your head.”
For the love of God there were better ways of saving American lives than dropping two nuclear bombs on civilians. It’s so ingrained that this was the justification that nobody questions it. Even if you want to say the first one was justified (which it categorically was not), there was no point in bombing Nagasaki 3 days later for God’s sake.
It took Japan another 3 weeks to surrender unconditionally. In those three weeks, Truman’s generals were urging him to bomb another city with yet another nuke that was almost ready, and Truman said no, that’s enough. He stopped the carnage.
Donald Trump would have destroyed another city and murdered another 100,000 people or more. Because remember, Japan’s surrender was not unconditional. They insisted that Horohito retain the title of “Emperor”. Truman said fine. Trump would have said no, and obliterated another city, just so some guy can’t call himself “Emperor”.
He’d say some snappy bloodthirsty line that makes the masses cheer like, “God help me if I let him call himself Emperor. I’ll nuke his country until he’s the last Jap standing! I’ll make him pay for bombing Pearl Harbor! Then we’ll see who he’s Emperor of!” and everyone would cheer and he’d keep murdering away. (Pearl Harbor, by the way, was a military installation of warships. It is therefore a legitimate target if you’re trying to retaliate against an oil embargo enforced by those ships. Yes, Japan committed lots of war crimes against the Chinese in particular, but Pearl Harbor was not one of them.)
Why? Because Trump is so arrogant that his bloodthirsty psychopathy knows no bounds. Had he been German in the 1930’s, he would have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Final Solution, instead of just a guy following orders. That is his personality.
Economically, he came out with a statement a few days ago on how he would not allow Ford to ship any factories outside the US. He said he would force Ford to move the factory back to the US if elected. And why are they moving it to Mexico in the first place? Because labor is cheaper there, and they need to keep costs down. If they keep the factory in the US, who pays the difference? Ford?
Ford is already $123 billion in debt. And unlike the US Government, Ford cannot inflate its way out.
The difference will be paid by the taxpayer in the next round of bailouts signed into law by President Trump.
Goods need to be made where they can be made cheapest, so we can have those goods for cheap. Those who would have been manufacturing cars here should do something else.
The Jewish Libertarian 
p://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2015/08/26/filled-with-bombast-and-excess-donald-trump-still-is-the-best-of-a-bad-gop-lot-on-foreign-policy/
Here’s an excerpt:
With typical hyperbole he declared that “I’m the most militaristic person” in the race. But all of the leading Republican candidates, with occasional hints of heterodoxy (it’s not clear where Rand Paul really stands these days), favor a policy of intervention and war. Compared to them Trump sometimes sounds like a veritable peacenik.
Trump is actually “assertive”, not AGGRESSIVE!
You’re speaking like a politician. Aggressive and assertive are meaningless contrasts. Aggression is violating innocent people. Assertive means not backing down. Trump is assertive about his aggression. He wants to go to war with China because they “manipulate their currency”. And “take the oil” of every Arab that has any. Because “OPEC is screwing us.”
OPEC is the only reason the dollar has any value left. Trump does not understand a damn thing.
Please read the article I linked to. He uses “war” as a metaphor. I pride myself in despising politicians et al no less than the great Rafi Farber, but if the question is “who is WORST”, I am still unsure. Forbes’s arguments of contextual analysis of his speech are highly convincing. (I refer to aggressive and assertive in their traditional psychological context, not the NAP.) He is no more “arrogant” than the rest of them ימח שמם; he has greater CONFIDENCE (Ashir ya’aneh azos).
I’ll read it, but I doubt there’s any chochma or hidden code. I think my Japan analogy is accurate.
OK I read it and I see your point. I still see him though as finishing the job on Japan that Truman thankfully stopped. I don’t know if he’d be the worst. But he would nevertheless be a disaster.
“Immigrants to the U.S. tend to take the words of the Constitution very seriously, much more so than a native born American. They are more libertarian in their world view than, say, people from Iowa”
Ummmm, no.
“Would more immigrants substantially change the character of America? God, I hope so. I hope, with their idealism and their literal reading of the Constitution, they would inject some common sense into an otherwise delusional native American population.”
Why don’t Mexicans in Mexico vote for libertarianism? At what point in crossing the border do they become libertarians?
Bottom line: the more Mexicans in the U.S. the more the U.S. will resemble Mexico. Some people might find that preferable, but I cannot imagine why a libertarian would.
Interestingly, many Social Conservatives are under the impression that Mexicans are natural conservatives who will start voting for them any. minute. now. You can’t both be right, and, as it happens, you’re both wrong.
Regarding Michelle Bachmann, apart from Ron Paul, she is the only person to run for President in recent history to have cited and publicized Von Mises.
Have you spoken with Mexican immigrants? Have you done business with Central American immigrants? I have. The ones I know came here because they can’t change Mexico, so they voted with their feet. (Obviously there are bad actors among them who lounge on welfare and commit crimes…but they are not the ones who put that system in place, they are taking advantage of what is being given to them.)
Have you spoken with Iowa farmers? I have. The most ‘entitled’ group of socialists you’ve ever met.
As those Iowa farmers are voting themselves benefits from the public treasury, they are setting in motion the rest of the welfare state that is helping to draw the unsavory part of Mexico here.
Michelle Bachmann may have name-dropped Von Mises, but I have no sense that she understood what she was saying.
Great insights…thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Trump won’t win because both parties will rig votes against him not to win, they’d go beyond limits to prevent this, because nobody can picture what he’ll do (he did say he won’t do “party policies” and this is his “swan song” in politics).
Or he’ll win. And if he does it will definitely be a strange thing to happen.
[there some of Hillary’s supporters who’d vote for him and this scary enough for those who don’t want him most, like the Dems and Reps parties]
I don’t think he’d take war decisions easily because he’s a corporate manager. He’d fend off this kind of decision to ones in charge – army, NSA etc – even if he said Heidi Klum is not a 10 anymore, that’s just a silly game, if it’s about a big decision I imagine him fending responsibility the way it happens in corporate management.
About economics I do imagine him implementing any ideas he said, unless it’s dangerous and then he’d fend off responsibility to some department to handle it.
He did say he won’t fight the Russians for Western Europe’s sake, why do you think he absolutely means anything else? I’m sure he wants to show off that he’s a money and management wiz, not that this isn’t dangerous either. I’m sure he’ll be a status quo in the end (apart from immigration which he must do because he promised this very specifically). We’ll see. He has to fend off the GOP first who apparently are doing everything in their power to present Jeb Bush and make Trump trip.
If all is tragedy or potential tragedy – this is too depressive for me today. Nobody said Obama will be that confusing and yet he was.
Funny thing about the Soviets and the capitalists in USA (GOP) – they always got along better in reality than with the Democrats. Maybe because they both believe the devil exists and rock is satanist (KGB used to write these reports about rock bands being satanists, for some particular reason, that I’m sure any right-wing Christian GOP member would completely agree with). Or maybe it’s not funny. It’s just fact that the Democrats are counter-productive and this is definitely a loss for the … materialism dialectic of democracy and elections {and money-making}!:D
“The classic argument for Truman murdering 200,000 innocent people is that it somehow saved American lives. Truman could have simply stopped the war unilaterally after Hitler was defeated and just leave the Japanese the hell alone. That would have saved American lives without murdering 200,000 more. He did not have to continue conquering Japan.”
Yet again, a “libertarian” regurgitates Soviet/Fascist anti-capitalist propaganda as if it’s just an obvious fact. There’s a well known theory that peoples’ negative views towards Truman’s use of the bomb is in inverse proportion to their knowledge of Japanese conduct in WW2. You certainly conform to the rule perfectly.
Reflective people are happy that Japan was crushed and is now a productive and peaceful part of the international division of labour, rather than the epitome of bloodthirsty, destructive statism and are aware of the chain of causation that brought about this change. Infantile “libertarians” not so much.
Anyway, support for Trump is about one issue and one issue only, viz immigration, but that brings us to infantile “libertarians”, strangely convinced that the best way to advance liberty is to bring over millions of people to vote for socialism.
Hooray for the murder of civilians.
Yours is a curious argument. You blame libertarians for believing all people should be free to travel and immigrate/emigrate, but you fail to mention that libertarians believe there should be no government benefits to subsidize these immigrants (or citizens!). Conservatives and liberals, on the other hand, are loath to eliminate the very thing that has drawn millions of people to enter the U.S. surrepticiously: free stuff. As a consequence, thousands of laws and regulations are on the books, tens of thousands of INS and Border Patrol agents on the beat, Real ID privacy invasion is on the way along with travel restrictions if we citizens don’t comply, checkpoints are INSIDE the U.S. to check people’s papers, E-Verify is hassling employers, all to protect the socialist system from its’ own contradictions. Despite all of the tough talk and punitive laws, the immigrants keep coming. So the first tool people like you reach for is another law, another document, another punishment, but all it does is make life more difficult for American citizens. The immigrants keep coming because our system pays them to come (via benefits).
You can scapegoat the immigrants if you want, but few of them vote. They are not the source of the socialism. The people voting for all the ‘benefits’ that are bankrupting us are true-blue Americans who think they can have their socialism and keep their freedom. Your fight is with them, not the libertarians.
Ron Johnson: read this https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade-and-restricted-immigration-0
Support for unlimited immigration right now, without any prior reform of the welfare state, is very popular among large swathes of libertarians. See especially here http://openborders.info/
Rafi:
Even by your standards that was a spectacularly unintelligent response. I am happy that 50 years of Japanese military adventurism on the Asian mainland which was, from the beginning to then end, characterized by the most appalling brutality, which involved slaughter as bad as anything in the Holocaust, which plunged China into chaos that it did not emerge from until the late 1980s, which led to tens of millions of deaths and which could have gone on another 5 decades, was brought to a swift and total end and that, since then, Japan has been a peaceful and productive member of global society.
If I want to mourn casualtie in WW2 there is a plethora to choose from. Even if, for some reason, I was particularly interested in those caused by America, I could choose, say. the Tokyo fire bombing. It is sad that at no point between 1895 and 1945 did the Japanese population decide to overthrow their murderous government, it is even more sad that they did not do so in 1945 when it was clear that fighting on had no purpose whatsoever other than increase death and destruction, it is even more sad that they ignored leafleting of major cities warning them of what was to come. However, it is not sad that no more Americans, Chinese, Singaporeans, Indians, Koreans had to die because, to paraphrase Feiglin, Truman had a plan to win, and won and made the world a vastly better place.
Gavriel, let me examine further your concerns about open immigration. Leaving the situation exactly as it is today and opening the borders, I would say that ,yes, America will vote itself into welfare state bankruptcy. If there is no illegal immigration at all…America will still be voted into welfare state bankruptcy. The reason is that our current trajectory is toward financial disaster based on expensive foreign policy, corporate welfare, and a social welfare network that pays better than most work. The illegal immigrants are just the cherry on top of that pile of dog-do. And they don’t vote in any significant numbers.
Immigrants to the U.S. tend to take the words of the Constitution very seriously, much more so than a native born American. They are more libertarian in their world view than, say, people from Iowa (I mean no disrespect to Iowans, but, come on folks….Bachmann was a top choice?), because they came here for the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution (and ignored by our politicians). I have no reason to believe illegal immigrants are much different, though that would be an interesting question to validate.
Would more immigrants substantially change the character of America? God, I hope so. I hope, with their idealism and their literal reading of the Constitution, they would inject some common sense into an otherwise delusional native American population.
If you do not wish to open the borders because of the welfare state, I understand. Do I understand you that, if the welfare state were to be curtailed or eliminated, you would then have no objections to open borders?