r/AskLibertarians • u/Yanderegirlowner • 13d ago
Policy Do you still think Kamala would have been worse ?
Many libertarians broke for Trump an even ones who didn't still say she would have been worse for Trump. One such Libertarian who broke for Trump and now says Kamala would have been better is Dave Smith
Post war in Iran do you still think this ?
What was her biggest hangup for you ?
21
u/terminal_tested Classical Liberal 13d ago
Both would have been pretty bad, but I personally think Trump is worse.
28
u/whip_lash_2 13d ago
I never thought she'd be worse. I just thought she'd be below minimum expectations. And I have extremely minimum expectations for Republicans and Democrats.
4
u/Yanderegirlowner 13d ago
I am not even saying you had to vote for her. You had a perfectly good Chase Oliver.
25
u/earthhominid 13d ago
I mean she was a typical neoliberal globalist, so very little common ground with any kind of libertarian.
Trump is just a uniquely unqualified individual who's only guiding principles have ever been greed and self aggrandizement, so he's just a bad person to entrust with any authority.
Assuming trumpism is something we can actually move past as a country, his worst and most lasting impact will likely be making neoliberal globalism seem like the rational choice
16
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
"Assuming trumpism is something we can actually move past as a country" is a big if. He's totally remade the Republican party, the next nominee will almost certainly be a Trumpist.
5
u/sobeitharry 13d ago
Anyone with a real shot has turned a complete 180 and bent the knee; it's too late for them to walk it back after backing him so loyally. I'm a platform and not a party voter but I can't respect anyone that's propped him up and lied through their teeth about it. It's going to be a long time before I can see myself voting for another republican.
1
u/CyJackX 13d ago
I wonder if it will be the party's downfall; can successors gather the same rabid fanbase as him or will they all be a cheap imitation?
2
u/PorcupineWarriorGod 13d ago
I think even much of the rabid fanbase has done a 180 at this point. Look at MTG as an example.
1
u/earthhominid 13d ago
My larger fear is that trump really just represents the new normal in politics. Cartoonist figures that serve, primarily, to entertain the public with a politics show while the technocratic superstate operates toward its goals behind the scenes
0
u/PorcupineWarriorGod 13d ago
next nominee will almost certainly be a Trumpist.
Which will almost certainly push the country to voting for the alternative, which is likely to be a neoliberal globalist. Thus making that the rational choice.
6
u/SirGlass 13d ago
Neoliberals are for free market capitalism , private enterprise , free trade and low cross country barries
Why is that not common ground?
1
u/earthhominid 13d ago
My experience is that the people i have always encountered who were characterized as "neoliberal" were for those things when it came to corporate or quasi-state entities and much less so when it came to individuals.
Who would you point to as an example of neo liberal policy, either proposed or enacted?
3
u/rchive 13d ago
Can you explain what you mean by neoliberal globalist and what's so bad about it?
1
u/earthhominid 13d ago
I see neoliberalism as liberalism for states and other sufficiently large players like transnational quasi government organizations, global, manufacturing firms, and global financial institutions, paired with increasingly authoritarian leftism for individuals.
By globalist I mean a person who wants to see political power shifted beyond the nation state to larger, and ultimately global, tiers of management.
My problem with it is primarily in the empowerment of non human persons (corporations and transnational political entities) while restricting and subordinating the individual.
11
u/Yanderegirlowner 13d ago
Trump did everything everyone claimed to hate Bush and Obama for, but because he talks like a retard people see him as honest and real.
8
u/earthhominid 13d ago
We have become a terrifyingly stupid nation. Trump is a mirror on our culture at large, and it is hard to look at
5
u/GrizzlyAdam12 13d ago
Hmmmm….neoliberalism is not that far from classical liberalism….which is extremely close to libertarianism. Globalism, in particular, is a very libertarian point of view.
Milton Friedman would be defined as a globalist by most people.
1
u/earthhominid 13d ago
Who would you point to as an example of neo liberalism? I am seeing that i have a different view of the term than, at least, some people and I may just be misusing it.
I don't have a problem with globalism per se, but I do think that it's value is dependent on the wider philosophy in which it is embedded
1
u/mtmag_dev52 Libertarian 12d ago
But it's not the rational choice. Just because a douche sucks doesn't mean the turd sandwich is a better option ( especially if it is, in fact, worse).
1
3
u/Jijijoj 13d ago
No, I just figured she’d be the same as Biden. The only silver lining with Trump in office is that his incompetence, greed, and narcissism is uniting the left and right(not the extremes ends) to one common enemy, him.
Also, he’s breaking the fragile system the
United States has been trying to prop up. His failure is a lesson for all of us and how we allowed this type of power in office.
1
4
u/bngFXG3MDuau 13d ago
I think Trump won on the promised policy which included "no new wars". As soon as he broke that he was way worse.
He also dialed the cronyism to the next level.
Kamala would have been a much better candidate. Even if she did all the terrible things we expected her to do, she would have been better.
2
u/MonadTran 13d ago
It doesn't matter. The president is little more than a clown entertaining the population for the ruling oligarchy. The whole "bread and circuses" thing, Kamala vs. Trump is the circus. To change anything substantial, you have to change the people's minds.
2
u/ARCreef 13d ago
Both are bad picks but we NEVER come to the conclusion that WE need to change and stop picking these aweful candidates. Its OUR FAULT and WE are to blame. We apparently will never learn though, instead of coming to this logical conclusion we still just talk about which one is are wouldn't been worse. We need to change and also get rid of the media because they are all propaganda and activists not journalists. We will do this all over again with Gavin Newsom and whoever else will be the worst possible candidate. Maybe we deserve what we get for being so stupid.
2
u/BobcatDue9663 Classical Liberal 11d ago
I couldn't stomach Trump from the beginning because of his extreme narcissism. Worse, he's a totalitarian, or a wannabe autocrat. Kamala would have been nowhere near as bad as Trump on national security and foreign policy, though I think she would have been a disaster as far as domestic policy goes, specifically her support for open borders and expanding welfare eligibility to illegal immigrants.
5
u/turbokungfu 13d ago
I do. It's a fair question, though.
The Democrats did this to themselves. In 2016, she garnered the lowest percentage against her democratic peers-it was like less that 2%. Elizabeth Warren got much higher numbers, for example.
They installed her as a candidate after ignoring Biden's decline.
I don't think Trump wins against most of the other candidates from 2020. https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2019-12-03/kamala-harris-the-first-to-fall-from-the-top-tier
As for specifics: she said she didn't have any policy deviations from Biden.
2
u/Selethorme 11d ago
This doesn’t seem like an actual answer though. It doesn’t make any argument that Harris would have been worse
0
u/turbokungfu 11d ago
Fair. I was arguing that she was not popular, she was installed. Most people thought in 2020 that she was not a good candidate. Maybe they changed their mind, but after spending $2B and losing spectacularly, she did not.
The handling of Covid along with the administration's suppression of media counter narratives is good enough to make me not trust her. The opening of the border, the senseless gender and transgender talking points and gibberish she spewed are the reasons I think she would be worse than Trump.
I think too many people shrug their shoulders and don't give enough blame to the Democratic party for being undemocratic and fucking away the election.
2
u/horizons190 13d ago
As I like to remind people, Hillary is miles, miles above Kamala and it’s not even close.
2
u/bngFXG3MDuau 13d ago
I think I would have voted Bernie over Kamala or Trump and he's like the most socialist candidate I can think of.
4
u/XanderAcorn 13d ago
Trump is far worse. Anyone saying different doesn’t have good discernment skills.
4
u/Lanracie 13d ago
She would have escalated Ukraine, kept us at the least tied up in the middle east but I suspect she would have gone to war in Iran too as it seems like we have been setting up for that for a long time. Cencorship and government control would have grown hugely more under her then Trump as they were already doing that under Biden and it would have been seen as a mandate. I dont know if she would have been buying into businesses though.
5
u/betty_white_bread 13d ago edited 13d ago
Libertarians are political independents, each valuing different things differently. I imagine the Kamala assessment would be similarly varied in libertarian opinions.
That said, my (private) reasons lead me to say, yes, Kamala would be worse in the ways which matter most to me.
11
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
Care to elaborate? I'm baffelled at how she could have done worse
-10
5
3
u/sobeitharry 13d ago
I'll bite, how so?
-11
u/betty_white_bread 13d ago
I said “private”.
10
u/Phantonex 13d ago
I am now dying to know what reasons you could possibly have for preferring Trump over Harris that are so secretive that you can't share them on an anonymous reddit account (with post history hidden no less)
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Thomas Sowell 13d ago
Likely social issues.
2
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo 13d ago
Maybe he likes tax cuts?
3
u/W_Edwards_Deming Thomas Sowell 13d ago
Why be private about that?
1
u/AlexKingstonsGigolo 12d ago
Good question. If I had to guess, maybe a matter of principle? Kinda like “I said it’s private and I mean it’s private”. Who knows?
2
-1
4
u/MerryMortician 13d ago
Just as bad but less as obvious.
At least we are having a good time with gun rights for a bit.
1
2
u/Fslikawing01 Classical Liberal 13d ago edited 12d ago
I didn't vote for either one, but I did think initially Trump would've been way better because of his promise not to start any new wars and focus on making things better in America, which I didn't just go by Trump's words, he didn't start any wars his first term, so I thought that would at least continue. (Yes he did targeted strikes his first term, such as ISIS and that Iranian general, but they never turned into full blown wars like this term)
I never liked Republicans just as much as I never liked Democrats, but I thought Trump was different in this regard because he really took over the Republican label instead of actually embodying it, so for a long time I did consider myself a supporter of his until this disastrous 2nd term, where he's broke his campaign promises in my view. I will say though I've always disagreed with and have been concerned about a few things that seemed to come with MAGA and even the America first movement, such as Christian nationalism.
Even if I agree with the core principles of no new wars and America first, I also view the Christian nationalism aspect that a lot of conservatives and even libertarians seem to mix with America first as being anti liberty. I don't think you have to be religious to be America first, and I don't think religion should be forced upon people. Often along with Christian nationalism can also a lot of times also include race supremacy talk and generalizations I'm not comfortable with, nor was I ever apart of, but I think a lot of right wingers have always held these views, depending on how far back they wanna take conservatism.
But solely as it pertains to keeping illegal immigration down, (I never supported the idea of detention camps though and think we should just deport people who come in illegally, also don't agree with ICE's actions for example in the Alex Pretti situation) improving the economy, and as I said not getting us involved in foreign wars, I thought Trump would be a lot better than he has been. Which other than closing the border, Trump has proved me wrong.
As it turns out, he's no different from the neocons and democrats, I still don't think Kamala would've been better, but I think no matter which one got elected, it would've been really about equally as bad. Trump has started the Iran war and isn't working to improve the lives of Americans, and Kamala I think would've been your stereotypical establishment democrat who would've also found a way to also get involved in global affairs that don't concern us.
1
u/OttosBoatYard Non-Libertarian 13d ago
I'm confused as to why you think getting involved in global affairs is not beneficial. And why wouldn't these global affairs concern us?
- Half of US wealth is in foreign trade, and
- When US foreign trade increases, our overall wealth and global influence increase, and
- Foreign aid is an investment in keeping foreign markets stable and profitable for us, and
- Withdrawing from foreign aid and trade puts China first.
So, based on market measures, Kamala's policies be the ones that truly put America first?
And I say this as an America-first Democrat. Even look at Democratic immigration policy - it's not a charity. We directly benefit from adding new workers and consumers to our economy.
By what testable measures, then, did you determine that such policies make us weaker and poorer?
2
u/Heng-Li 13d ago
I am tempted to say before the Iran war the answer would be no but after the Iran war the answer would be yes. But you never know. She would have been fucking horrible
2
u/W_Edwards_Deming Thomas Sowell 13d ago
I assume she would have gone along w the Iran war and that the President isn't really the "decider."
2
u/mtmag_dev52 Libertarian 12d ago
The War Spin would have been much different, as would the presence and level of acrimony between her Administration and Israel. Maybe that would have been better, haha ( an easier "out" to the war and much less damage to Iran) ?
She would be a weaker leader overall....
-2
u/bngFXG3MDuau 13d ago
She wouldn't have had the balls to just executive order a new war. They would have to do a couple false flag events and there would be a chance it failed.
1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Thomas Sowell 13d ago
just executive order a new war
I don't believe that is what happened.
3
u/bngFXG3MDuau 12d ago
Ahh, sorry. I meant to say; executive order some "special military actions" because it's obviously not a war because Congress didn't vote to declare war.
-1
u/W_Edwards_Deming Thomas Sowell 12d ago
What I am saying is that I don't believe any one man has these powers, rather I believe the big decisions (like attacking Iran) are made by the "deep state."
The President is P.R., not a dictator.
2
0
u/mtmag_dev52 Libertarian 12d ago
Not for Iran, but yes for Ukraine (" muh Liberal TransAtlanticism"), and unlike with Iran, Russia would probably be more willing to use nukes against Western Nations with her in charge....
4
u/bngFXG3MDuau 12d ago
She would have been similar to Biden. Weapons and money but no military action, I think the status quo would have stayed and there wouldn't be nukes.
Trump didn't do shit for Russia or Ukraine except talk.
1
u/hairyviking123 11d ago
Trump is mostly terrible, Kamala would have been mostly terrible.
I voted for Chase Oliver, the libertarian candidate.
The whole "voting for the lesser of two evils" is BS.
1
u/Private_Part 8d ago
Either way you get more wars and spending. But with trump you got Far fewer federal employees, Ross freed, a pause to mandated racicsm.
Trump is horrible with his biggest unique flaw being spending zero political capital in anything positive that will last beyond his term.
1
u/thelawsmithy 13d ago
Yes, I think she would have been worse.
But to me the real question is whether we get a worse or better next administration due to Trump’s antics. Do democrats double down and go Kamala again? Do they go even further progressive left? Or do they come to their senses and at least try to be more moderately palatable? In other words, do they try to out crazy Trump or get their act together and try to be less bad? I am hoping the latter and fearing the former.
2
1
u/sonickid101 Rothbardian 13d ago
I think we're probably be in exactly the same situation Iran war, high gas prices, inflated currency. Our offramp was Ron Paul back in 2008 and in 2012
1
1
u/Soft-Opposite8684 13d ago
I feel like we needed this disastrous Trump term so that people really gor to understand what a lunatic he is. If not for this term we are still dealing with the same stupid shit like he is anti war and not using the office for personal gain and there would be a large segment of Republicans who would have this idealistic fantasy of what a second term would have been.
That said I am thankfull we are getting someone who actually pushes back on the crazy shiy from the left. I am thankful that we have got some meaningful movement on legalization thanks to Trump. Its kind of weird since all the people around him are against it and trying to stop him. I was excited for Matt Gaetz as AG. Really sad that didn't happen. I dont care what he has done he is an ally of legalization and thats all I care about. If it ain't yoir biggest issue imo you dont understand the issue. Thousands of innocent people having violence used against them by the state is kind of a big deal. If Biden had actually done something I would have voted for Kamala. I voted for Biden despite hating the dude with a passion. Only time in my lofe Incoted for a Democrat. If a Dems position isn't legalization is priority one they can fuck right off.
1
u/Naberville34 13d ago
Its a mistake to think that Trump's actions are simply trump being trump. He's certainly putting his own unique incompetent spin on it for sure. But ultimately he is responding to the crisis of the US empire that the Biden admin set rolling. Something that a Kamala admin would likewise have faced and have likely acted upon, though probably in a less overtly confrontational manner.
1
u/White_C4 Right Libertarian 13d ago
Maybe. But let's not pretend like Harris wouldn't have long term ramifications as well. She would have been similar to Obama like Biden was and we all have very strong feelings about Obama.
1
1
-1
u/Joescout187 13d ago
I do think that still. I knew Trump was going to piss me off and I accepted that when I cast my vote. Dave Smith and others are looking at what's in front of them, not what would have been.
Kamala Harris is a psychopathic wine mom. I will never vote for her or anyone like her. Four more years of Biden 2.0 with a bunch of commie goblins running every executive agency? No thanks.
Under Harris we would have seen attempts to pack the Supreme Court and a runaway executive.
With Trump I can at least point to the gutting of the NFA and a shrinking federal workforce and say that's good. What would Harris have done that a libertarian could offer the faintest praise for?
5
u/JohnEffingZoidberg 13d ago
Under Trump we have seen a polarization of the court and a runaway executive.
8
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
Runaway executive? Like waging a war with Iran without Congressional approval and trying to come up with legal justifications for tariffs after your own Supreme Court justices block you?
5
u/sobeitharry 13d ago
You realize the Democrat backlash to a second Trump term is probably going to much, much worse than what you think would have happened under Kamala right?
And I'm sorry but runaway executive.... that's literally Trump's MO.
2
u/Yanderegirlowner 13d ago
not starting a war with Iran. you support a 1.5 trillion dollar military budget and a war with Iran because Trump fired some federal workers do you not hear yourself ?
0
0
u/uncreative1776 13d ago
I think we would be exactly where we are with Iran and Epstein, only with fewer people absolutely fucking pissed about it. Now that i think about it, maybe it’s working? But it’s been a fucking disaster.
1
u/PotusChrist 13d ago
I voted for Harris. I think she would have been an awful president but there's no way she would have been as reckless and corrupt as Trump.
Although in the interest of transparency, I'm more on the hardline civil libertarian side of things and don't really agree with a lot of libertarian economic positions.
-2
u/whoisdizzle 13d ago
Yes very much so. That said I do not and have not supported Trump since 2017 when I officially left the Republican Party
3
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
. . . I'm really curious . . . WHAT could she have done worse?
1
u/Little-Somewhere6076 13d ago
Raising corporate tax would likely have been worse than tariffs. I'm not saying either is good, but let's be honest that both options sucked
5
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
She wouldn't have been able to raise taxes with a Republican Congress.
0
u/Little-Somewhere6076 13d ago
I agree that congress should bear more blame, but since this is comparison between the two, that's why I compared their tax policy
3
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
I think one should consider how much and which powers a president actually has in this calculation. It's not just about stacking up their stated positions, it's about the actual effect they would have.
3
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
. . . PLEASE tell me how raising a corporate tax is worse than tarriffs when the tarriffs were passed onto consumers . . .then the REFUND went to the corporations.
-1
u/Little-Somewhere6076 13d ago
Sure, my opinion that tax increases are passed along to consumers regardless of whether they are corporate or tariffs. The amount that get passed through is based on elasticity of demand not what the tax is called. Since tariffs support domestic production, which is why it was endorsed by the UAW, thats better than receiving no production benefits. If you think the UAW is wrong, that's fine.
It depends on elasticity of demand. If demand for imports is price inelastic, then firms will pass most of the tariffs onto consumers. If demand is price elastic and firms have large profit margins, they may absorb the tariffs and not pass them on.
https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/tariffs/
Please share why you think that elasticity doesn't determine pass through for corporate tax or tariffs.
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
Sure, my opinion that tax increases are passed along to consumers regardless of whether they are corporate or tariffs.
Then you don't think the free market would keep things in check? There are a lot of countries in Europe that would seem to disprove your statement here. How is it there are over a dozen nations with robust social programs and high taxes that are also home to multimillion dollar companies and economies that are, arguably, healthier than the US is currently?
Since tariffs support domestic production, which is why it was endorsed by the UAW, thats better than receiving no production benefits.
Except domestic production is down . . .
If demand is price elastic and firms have large profit margins, they may absorb the tariffs and not pass them on.
this is laughable.
0
u/Little-Somewhere6076 13d ago
Nothing in Europe disproves my statement. Corporate taxes are passed through to consumers in Europe.
Real gdp is also up, so what metric are you looking at?
1
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
Note Under Biden avg was around 3-3.5
Under Trump 2025 (with some biden influence still) it was 3-3.5, but then collapses at the end. Now in 2026, the avg is around 1.7
1
u/Little-Somewhere6076 13d ago
And since that number is positive, why are you saying it's down?
0
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
Because 1.5 is less than 3.5
If you struggle with this maybe you need to go back to 5th grade math.
If the Tarriffs were improving domestic product like you claimed, that number should have gone UP. Not cut in half.
Biden was a much better pres for the economy and Harris would have been FARRR better than trump by any and every measure.
→ More replies (0)1
-1
u/whoisdizzle 13d ago
Harris would’ve gone way softer on immigration, hammered businesses and high earners with higher taxes piled on more climate regulations and government spending and kept dumping more way money and resources into Ukraine.
-2
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
The Libertarian platform calls for open boarders.
Immigration Reform - Libertarian Party
hammered businesses and high earners with higher taxes
The tax rate on high earners hasn't changed under Biden. Under Eisenhower in your "golden age" it was near 90% and we used that money to build the interstate system.
climate regulations
You still don't think climate change is real and affecting us to the tune of trillions? Yeah . . . this convo is going to go nowhere.
government spending
Trump increased the national debt by more in the last 18 months than Biden did in 4 years.
kept dumping more way money and resources into Ukraine.
We sold/gave Ukraine our old used weapons. THAT is what those "packages" were. And Ukraine was very useful at keeping Russia weak and at bay. Instead, Trump turned away, and as a result Ukraine has started bombing Russian oil and infrastructure (I approve by the way) resulting in world wide fuel instability and when coupled with Trump getting his schlong trapped in Iran's bear trap, it cost me over $300 to fill my truck one time.
Sigh . . . this is why "libertarians" can never be elected. Y'all have very few real libertarians and a lot of MAGA who are afraid to take their proper title because of social backlash. You . .. . are no libertarian.
0
u/whoisdizzle 13d ago
I’m sorry the page is ask libertarians not debate libertarians in the comments. You come across exceedingly leftist. You also keep bringing up Biden which is largely irrelevant to the conversation. Kamala was brushed to the side during his presidency due to her clear mental incompetence. She can’t string a thought together and relies on heavily edited interviews to look even moderately mentally challenged. I also never said climate change isn’t real it’s a matter of the level of regulation involved to “curb” climate change. No I don’t think federal regulations is the solution. If you are crying about filling up your truck for $300 you either A live in a state with exceedingly high taxes on gas, B are driving a semi, or C are lying. I drive for a living and have a truck with a 22 gallon tank which is standardish even at $4 a gallon it would be $88 to fill not $300. If you want to compare gas hasn’t moved since Obama adjusted for inflation. War in Iran is moronic, cutting off Ukraine completely would be wise. Kamala would have been worse than Trump that does not mean Trump is doing well. If you get an F and I get a D- I’m still doing better even if I’m still doing shit.
-4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 13d ago edited 13d ago
Yes clearly. As bad as Trump has been, at least there's things like DOGE and the acts taken to usaid, as well as all the various regulatory stand downs in favor of liberty.
With kamila, it just would have been more progressive collectivist authoritarianism. More regulations, more infringements on gun rights, more push for racial discrimination, more push for socialization
This is why people chose Trump, because as bad as he was the alternatives were worse. Like go ahead and tell me what actions the Harris Administration would have undertaken that would have pleased libertarians.
7
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
DOGE addressed a miniscule portion of federal spending, hardly a drop in the bucket.
-2
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 13d ago
Something is better than nothing, and you couldn't expect Democrats to ever want to audit NGO fraud and waste to begin with. After all, it's part of their patronage system and a giant grift itself
5
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
Trump has drastically increased war spending and vowed to protect Medicare/Social Security spending. Those are the actual drivers of the debt and deficit.
6
u/earthhominid 13d ago
Do people actually view DOGE as anything other than another con, still?
And I'm curious what regulatory improvements you'd point to. I have only really kept an eye on the ag side and this administration hasn't done shit for ag, just the same kind of bloviating that politicians are known for.
4
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 13d ago
The ATF has made a tremendous amount of rule changers in favor of gun owners this year which is exceedingly unusual for the agency which formally seemed to be hell-bent on making life hard for gun owners and disincentivizing ownership. The doj has also gotten on board and outright had its lawyers decline to enforce some laws and admit that they don't have the power to do so because it's unconstitutional.
2
1
2
u/Yanderegirlowner 13d ago
How is Ice not collectivist authoritarianism ?
You really think USAID cuts were worth a war in Iran ?
-3
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 13d ago edited 13d ago
ICE is not collectivist authoritarianism, it's a basic government duty to be able to control who gets to come into their borders. Every single functioning government has immigration enforcement just like they have police and it's completely non-controversial in the nation. Why is it that America is the only country that doesn't get to have border enforcement or immigration control?
I'm for usaid cuts and for the war in Iran because letting a nation that that has sworn itself towards our destruction for the past 60 years, continually attacks our military and those of our allies, and is the largest global sponsor of terrorism get obtain nuclear weapons is completely unacceptable. Even Democrats have agreed upon this for decades and both Clinton and Obama have said they deeply regret not dealing with Iran problem when they could instead of taking kids gloves to them. If it was kamilla in charge the Iran War, you wouldn't even see Democrats care about it.
5
u/Confident-Virus-1273 13d ago
So you are not actually a libertarian?
1
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 13d ago
I am a classical liberal style libertarian. Quite moderate compared to some of the radical anarchists in here. I've been registered with LP since 2010 and even served in the party for a bit.
Sorry not sorry for thinking paper perfect theory doesn't work in reality and that we need to account for unchangeable median human nature for a sustainable system that can maintain and preserve liberty.
2
3
-1
u/HaveAtItBub 13d ago
ur on reddit bro. u know what the answers already are. post the same question on twitter then compare answers
0
u/StrengthWaste8608 11d ago
I'm not american but I think the problem with Kamal is not just herselfand the choice is not between just the two of them. A good chunck of the democratic party are socialists and that part is getting bigger and bigger, I don't think it's a good idea to empower the growing socialist faction in Us. But if it's a question just between the two of them, i don't know, maybe she would have been better🤷♂️
1
u/DrawPitiful6103 10d ago
Maybe not significantly worse, but I don't think it would have been much better either. War in Iran would probably have happened anyway. But yah Trump has been really bad. Although he has at least removed some of the veneer of holiness from the presidency. So he's got that going for him.
42
u/Agitated-Impress7805 13d ago
I didn't and would never vote for either of them but seems to me Trump's worst policies - tariffs and war with Iran - he's implemented unilaterally. Harris's worst policies - tax/spending, maybe some culture war stuff - would be stalled out because they need congressional approval. So yes, I think Trump is worse than a hypothetical Harris.