What was the thought process that played out in your mind? I am not asking this to provoke a bicker of any sort; I am seriously interested at how you came to these conclusions.

I lean strongly libertarian. I was very much in agreement with Ron Paul on at least 80% of everything he said. Never a total sycophant to any man, there was 20% of what he said that I strongly was against; nonetheless...

Trump to my way of thinking is the anti-Ron-Paul.

What are you former Ron-Pauler's thinking that I am missing?

You're missing that Trump is the only non establishment candidate running for the GOP nomination.

You're missing that Trump is the only candidate to call out the media as being dishonest.

You're missing that Trump is the only GOP candidate that's being subjected to a media attack just like Ron Paul was.

You're missing the fact that if the media and the GOPe attacks them that they're a candidate that's not likely to carry on the neocon status quo.

Because isn't a businessman who's used his money to buy politicians influence exactly the problem with the Washington Cartel?


I believe you believe he was the first


Ron Paul was a kook. No one attacked him, they just avoided him.


nerocorns

I never did.
Rand was my choice this time. I'm glad he dropped out to concentrate on his Senate race. The Dems are trying hard to take it from him.
I will probably vote Libertarian unless McAfee wins the nomination.

For me I didn't


Some may laugh but I'm not bothered by the jibes of the ignorant so much

I'd take Ron Paul over trump any day

He's a decent man that understands the big picture


Hard to go back & see how things could have been different I know we've lived a very good life here for a long time thanks in large part due to cheap pill & govt meddling in the ME to ensure we'd have all the energy we need

Ron Paul probably has a better understanding of freedom & Liberty than the vast majority of Americans

For far too many of my countrymen they don't want freedom they just want whomever is most closely aligned with their vision of how things ought to be to have power

We've increasingly entered a world where a man or a woman has to be a bit forceful to gain much traction in our political system

Ron Paul with his physical presence and his libertarian leanings doesn't convey that sense of power

If a John Wayne type espoused the same things that Paul did it would have been much better received Imo

But perhaps not as too many Americans want power rather than freedom and are too blind to see the ultimate source of power is freedom

Now shut up and eat the blue pill.

Don't get run over by a train...

I really appreciate the way you think.

Robert,

Like you, I agreed with 80% of what Ron and Rand say and advocate. And I disagreed with 20%.

Unfortunately, The Paul's have not ever been able to expand beyond that small segment of libertarian minded segment of Americans. As much as I hate to say it, the Paul's have not demonstrated a leadership style that resonates. Too much policy wonky-ness, not enough leadership.

Trump identified--and nailed--4 issues (illegal immigration, trade with Mexico, trade with China, legal immigration of potential terrorists) AND proposed hardnosed, conservative solutions. That alone caught the attention of the press, and a significant segment of Americans.

More so, in contrast with the Paul's, Trump has a leadership style that definitely caught the attention of the press and America--and apparently the rest of the world too ( at least according to my son who just came back from a week in Spain and Italy).

More so, Trump went after the political establishment, and has been successful in pointing out how moribund and incredibly self-serving that political establishment has been. Importantly, Trump has equally criticized both of the political parties.

Say what we may about Trump's particular style, somebody who is going to take on the establishment, identify issues that really resonate in America, and propose tough solutions, is not going to descend from the heavens with a halo around his head as much as many folks would like to see.

Trump has blown holes in the Republican establishment, political correctness, Cheney/McCain interventionism, a media that has had it's way with the political establishment, etc.

In other words, Trump isn't just running for the Republican nomination, he taken on a much broader establishment at the same time. He's done so from the bully pulpit, appealing directly to the people--something that only Trump has been able to do with any effectiveness in a long time.

Like most folks, I rolled my eyes when Trump announced his candidacy, and Rand was my first choice. But once I listened to Trump I couldn't help but root for him too. In a field of 16-17 candidates, I didn't think Rand would last for long--his voice isn't one to rise above the crowd--Trump's voice did.

Casey

Nicely done, and in spite of Bristoe's hand-wringing, Trump will be the nominee.

I hope he does become the nominee and enough of the establishment resigns themselves to support him. He can beat Hillary with a little help from the establishment.

Right now, Trump is waaay off message.


Casey

I didn't believe 8 months ago that Trump wanted to be president and I'm still not sure I believe it today.


It's gonna be a wild year.

I was a big Ron Paul guy but not so much now.

Its not that he's changed, its just that it comes a time when you have to admit he's not effective. Ron may have laid the foundation for the Tea Party and open the eyes of some Americans about the downfalls of our agressive foreign policy but at the end of the day all I get are just a ton of emails asking for money. I'm done giving to the liberty foundation and whatever else he pimps as of late.

Also a big difference in Rand and Trump that I identify with is fair trade versus free trade.


I'm at a point where I think Ron needs to amend his way of thinking as the current approach to free trade just screws over the middle class.

I've been harping about fair trade versus free trade for decades - its Adam Smith economics 101

I also differ from Ron on Federal Parks. While I have no argument that its constitutional for the Federal Government to maintain parks - I feel its a luxury we can afford as Americans - but I have no idea where Trump stands on that.

I gravitated to Ron Paul early on because of his stance on protecting our own borders instead of some damn desert in the middle east, and when Trump starting talking about getting illegals out of our country and building a wall, I was all in after that. I considered Trump a joke candidate up until then.

Do I think he can build a wall? I have no idea but at least he's saying it - and no other GOP candidate would touch until then (and I don't give a damn what anyone says about Cruz and anti-immigration stance - he's a lying prick )

I will say this though - a big part of why I'm so pissed at the GOP is how they treated Ron Paul and totally dismissed his supporters.

its why I want Trump to just completely go scorched earth on them. I honestly don't care if the GOP in its 2012 form ever exists again - and honestly I think the country would be better off if another group rose up to take its place.

While Trump and I don't have the same friends, we do have the same enemies.

You're missing everything you say he's missing.

I have asked your question several times without getting any reasonable response. Usually just that Trump is the only non establishment candidate running. You have to be freaking blind to claim that Cruz is an insider.

Ron Paul: I wouldn't support Trump as GOP nominee

2/24/16 Trump has been able to tap into the anger and fear of a large "minority" of voters, Paul told CNBC's "Squawk Box." He said the billionaire businessman acts like he has all the answers but "zero" realistic solutions to the problems facing the nation.

"I hear the ability of politicians to capitalize on the worries," the libertarian Republican continued. "They're able to use the blame game."

alpine crick that was a very good post






And lt. Pat thank you, I may be able to ignore the jibes of the peanut gallery, but the guys ive come to respect upon here for how they conduct t & express themselves, their opinion of me does matter



But I believe JOG put it most succinctly

ABC

Ron Paul was anti-GOP as well, and pointed out the shortcomings. Trump just bashes through without a thought of how his message will be taken by the spectators or media.

We don't get to design our perfect candidate, so we have to choose among the willing.

The establishment professional politicians have gotten us to where we are, and I want something different. Trump or Bernie are the only ones offering something different.

its that leadership

Ron Paul isn't a leader, he doesn't command respect. You either had to be in tune with his message or not and if you weren't, he wasn't going to win you over by taking over a room.

that said he's pretty unwavering on his positions, even if he knows people will line in masses to go against. That's what we need, but its never played well in debates setup to take candidates down who don't kiss ass.

Trump is a leader - and in an era void of leadership in the GOP (Saying NO to everything is not leadership), people are willing to follow Trump to hell and back if he just takes a stand on something and follows thru - or at least tries.

Trump says alot of garbage I don't agree with, he wavers on positions that are important to some but from what I can tell he hasn't wavered on his position of immigration and fair trade - the two topics that vaulted him into the lead for the GOP nomination. But even if he waivers on positions beside the other two - abortion or Palestine or whatever - its not the swarmy used car salesman routine that we get from Cruz. Its the I'm not going to act like you want me to just because its what we've come to expect from politicians. And many people are attracted to that.

I'll stick with him as long as I believe he'll do whatever he can to make a difference in those areas.

I like Cruz--he's always been on my short list:

But Cruz is an insider that's disliked by the insiders.

Cruz has been angling for political jobs since he graduated from college--even moving back to Texas to start his elected politician career--a'la Hillary Clinton to NY.

Cruz hasn't exactly led the Senate or Congress on any forward progress--like immigration and trade.

As I stated before, Trump nailed the issues and proposed solutions that Americans believe are the most important issues currently.

It's not that Cruz is bad, he just hasn't demonstrated the leadership.



Casey

Damn, that's TWO in a row! Excellent post.

BTW: The libertarian presidential debate is on FOX tonight--hosted by Stossel

Thanks Jorge.

Casey

Cruz has been a Tea Party Constitutional Conservative Outsider since Texas.
You will never find another FRESHMAN Senator who has stood his ground and fought the fight as hard as Cruz.
Even in his first two years with Harry Reid in charge of the Senate.

I could just see John Wayne calling us the "worlds policeman", and leaving the weak to fend for themselves.

John Wayne undermining a war and getting Troops killed because of it...hardly.

Neither one of us can know how JW or anyone else would respond W4bear.


But I'd like to think JW would approach war the way a guy should approach a street fight.

Go all out and crush your opponent or stay home.

If you got to war & crush, go home anyway, leave a card that says "if I have to come back, it's gonna get ugly next time"

March 31, 2016, Ron Paul: I will not vote for Trump

Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said on Thursday he wouldn't vote for Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump.
"I was very explicit about that. I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump," he said on CNN on Thursday.

"If you can't stand any of them and you happen to be a dedicated progressive, you ought to make your vote count and vote for the Green Party and if you happen to be a libertarian, vote for the Libertarian Party," he continued.

Paul noted that some people say Trump is "far superior" or the lesser of two evils, but he doesn't know what the celebrity real estate mogul would do if elected president.
"Quite frankly, I'm not sure exactly what he'll do and that bothers me as well," he said, "because he can give two positions in one speech."

I'm not sure Paul backed Romney or McCain either

pretty sure he didn't

The corruption of the GOP did it for me.

I don't know if it was Ron Paul's intent to show the corruption of the GOP to the country, but he did it for many people.

Trump is showing a lot more people.

In fact, a candidate who wants to "punch them right in the face" is the natural response for anyone who followed the 2012 Ron Paul campaign.

Of course, I'm not surprised that it's not condoned by Ron Paul. He's a very ideological, principled man.

But I have to disagree with him on this.

A soft spoken, Libertarian student of Austrian economics isn't ever going to break down the establishment's walls.

It's going to take a Trump,...or it's going to take what comes after Trump.

Agreed, but paul never said anything like that did he? He was on the enemies side condemning our country. Phu-kk him to death.

Good article on this very question here,...from another Alt-Right website.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/4/11346078/donald-trump-support

excerpt:

I have always been right of center, though I never felt much affinity for the GOP. I have never registered as a Republican (or Democrat for that matter). I had meandered in my political identification, adopting various labels to shorten conversations with others but never really feeling as if they reflected my true sensibilities.

"Libertarian" was an effective catchall term for a while. It connoted as succinctly as possible to others, "Well, he's not a Republican, but he sure isn't a Democrat either," even if I wasn't drinking the Ayn Rand Kool-Aid and thinking magic dirt will transform everyone on the planet into prosperous, intelligent, self-reliant types who would all enjoy a standard of living beyond anything we could presently imagine and respect each other's rights if only that dang government weren't in the way.

In any case, "libertarian" was a term of convenience, which to my more D-party-leaning friends — and I suspect to all such types, friends or not — meant that I wasn't some culture warrior on abortion but I had right-wing beliefs to some extent.
_____________________________________________________

If anything, Trump is not a clown; he's the most serious candidate, Democrat or Republican, in decades. He is talking about actual issues that are on everyday people's minds. Whether or not over the span of several administrations an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine works out perfectly to deliver a Supreme Court capable of overturning Roe v. Wade is not something on normal people's minds when they vote. Things like an actual border and border enforcement, a meaningful definition of "citizen," and not seeing their jobs go overseas are.

Trump tapped into the dead obvious, but it took a certain amount of courage to do so, as these issues are taboo, and the heat he is getting for it on all sides demonstrates that. Any other candidate would crumble, meekly apologize, and slink off into the night, never to be seen again. Trump got the other end of the equation right too: Never back down, never apologize.

As for what I would like to see in place of the GOP, I think framing things in terms of liberal/conservative is a system on its way out. The future, not just in America but effectively around the globe, will be defined by globalists and anti-globalists. The neocons can return home to the Democratic Party (being a mutant strain of Trotskyists that went "right wing"), and the few Democrats still under the delusion that they are members of a party that gives a damn about labor can join up with the anti-globalists. And that's the future of American partisan politics — an explicitly anti-globalist party versus a globalist party of transnational elites. I stress that the hegemon absolutely has the right to say it does not want to be the hegemon anymore.

Immigration is the only issue that matters. Either we stem it or all these nice ideas about constitutionalism and the like are just mental masturbation. We will be drowned in a wave of third world peasants who have no appreciation for our culture and history, or worse are outright hostile to our values.

Trump IS THE ONLY PERSON of national stature to address this issue in nearly two decades. It is the reason he is attacked so.

I wouldn't say I went "from" RP "to" the Donald. I supported Rand early on, but when he dropped out I had to choose between two turds. Both are equally stinky (Ted & the Donald) and I cringed as I watched them in the debates.

I came to the conclusion that Ted is the establishment's anti-establishment candidate. On paper he is less wrong than The Donald clearly, but I don't trust him to do what I'd elect him to do any more than I would trust Kasich; the only difference between them is a few years in DC and Kasich's predilection toward bath houses vs. Ted's whore houses.

The Donald sucks. I am not excited to vote for him. He just sucks less, and has more ability to win, than Cruz. It also helps him in my mind that many of the same people who worked actively to block RP are blocking him. When establishment, MSM, Dems, and Party Hard Cores here speak loudly against someone I look hard.

Bottom line: this Party and its ruling class need a hard core reality check and a guy they despise as deeply as Trump may be a good start. If he sucks, he can't suck any worse than another Democrat because there is no comparing him IN THE PRESIDENCY against Cruz who is CERTAIN to lose BIG TIME. The comparison is, and has got to always be, Trump & Hil.

Oh and for all his negatives, he'll be AWESOME to watch in a debate w/ Hillary. All the stuff we've wished Reps would say to/about her will come out on that stage and it'll be a sight to see!

I've held my nose at the polls enough even while knowing my state would go blue. I believe Trump could actually make Michigan Red w/ all the union folks here. That'd be awesome and well worth the stench.

If he blows up the Party, good riddance. If we have to suffer more democratic rule to get a Party that actually represents its constituents' interests, that's an investment.

Honestly I am a pilgrim just passing through. I want to leave my kids something better than this, but I can only do what I can do and empires have come and gone and my hope and that of my children isn't in DC. Nor has my Lord been elected, but is the king/President maker. So those who wring their hands over all this get a shrug from me; the Christians who do so leave me in genuine consternation. It's not gonna be ok; it's gonna be AWESOME.

Grace and peace y'all,

efw

JoeBob seems to be one of the few who "get it". Brilliant point.

If your country is over run with 3rd world migrants who will not assimilate then your country is gone anyway and so is your Constitution. Because they will be in the majority and kill it all.

This.

Couple outstanding posts there JoeBob and efw.

The Zionist joos here in America "get it". Their cousins in Israel built a wall, and strictly control immigration.

Bad ideas for America though, according to them.

There is a Pew Research study predicting this will be an entirely different country by 2050 if immigration continues unabated and without question to main reason why I will support Trump if he is the nominee.

Yes!

robert white: I didn't!
For the majority of Americans the idiocy that is the "libertarian" mentality is completely unacceptable - and I agree completely with the majority in this instance.
Re-assess your misguided position.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

If you've ever been to England, you know how proud they are of their history. I once had a guy cleaning tables at Gatwick with a Cockney accent so thick that he was unintelligible lecture us Americans on our lack of history. The guy was probably their equivalent of a high school dropout but he was proud of their history and knew some of it quite well.

So what do you think would happen if you went to some of those
Muslim neighborhoods and asked about the Magna Carta? Maybe they could tell you about the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and its impact on Britiah Constitutionalsim? Maybe they could give you an answer as to why even though it has been stripped of most of its power, the Crown still plays an important role in the English system of government?

England is gone. We're headed that way. I doubt we can stop it and I doubt even more that Trump will or can do the things he says. But there is a train coming through the tunnel at 80 mph and he is the only one who is even looking up the tracks and pointing.

Historical ignorance has always been around in this country, at least during my 56 years of living here. The Cockney Guy was right. This is a product of our schools and traditions, but yes, England, as well most of Europe is gone.

Ignorance and lack of appreciation are a little different. Lots of ignorant people will go on and on about "The Constitution". Are they as well informed as they should be? No, but they do have an appreciation. I think we are getting to the point where the mention of it will bring blank stares.

It does bring blank stares, but i contend we've always had both here. The Brits and their history have always been a part of their soul. Practically their entire population was immersed in their traditions and history. I can almost guarantee few in this country even know when WWI was, much less the extent of Us involvement. I can remember many years ago whilst riding in a London Cab with my dad on the way to the Imperial War Museum and the cabby, the friggin' Cabby, launched into a dissertation on the Battle Of Jutland. Try that here about Chateu Thierry, or even Iwo Jima with a schoolteacher and stand by for that blank stare.

I don't disagree. Which is the point. England is lost. Lost in a way that we don't even understand. To go from a country so self aware to where they are now, is incredible. At least the Germans have the excuse of all that NAZI guilt. At least the Swedes have the excuse that no one cares what happens in Sweden, not even the Swedes. But England, "That green and pleasant land"?

BINGO!

Didn't!

Phil

You have to sell out your libertarian principals...if you have any in the first place.

This.

There's nobody in the running who is selling Libertarian principals.

There's communists, globalists, and Trump.

So border controls are anti-libertarian. But of course, so is welfare. And of course, open borders and a welfare state is disaster.

So, does the principled Libertarian just sit there and advocate for the whole hog...an ideologically perfect candidate who will repair everything in one fell swoop, no matter how unlikely that is, or does he support someone who might tackle the problem I piecemeal in a practical fashion?

I would think it difficult to transition to the humble Trump after watching the narcissistic Paul.

"Liberty Defined" Ron Paul (c) 2011

Just finished reading it yesterday. Thought provoking, well stated, eloquent. 80% perfect.

I see almost no common ground between Ron Paul and Trump. Chapter 11, "Demagogues" describes Trump perfectly. Right down to a gnat's arse.

As a Southern Nationalist Patriot Christian, I view Trump as a carpet baggin New York liar who wants to gain the throne and will say or do anything to get there. He reminds one a bit of Teddy Roosevelt. Just another big government goon who worships at the altar of Lincoln.

Mark my words; if he wins, and he might, he will turn on me and mine as fast as you can say Macky Velly at Waco...

His vow to build the southern wall is seductive; along with his vow to do a better deal with China. Beyond that he has no substance. And his erratic way a doin lately makes me believe he will not keep any of his promises; just like he has never been faithful to a woman or the vows of marriage.

If folks are excited about Trump OK I get it, he is a fighter, but how about a qualified affirmation of the man? All in? Not me..

As an Alaska Nationalist Trump can get votes from crossover democraps and independents that Cruz can't. The alternative is Hitlery.

I don't agree with your post 100%, but I agree with a lot of it and it was very nicely put. Thanks for your contribution.

Very nicely put and I agree. I look on almost every election as a roll of the dice and on this one, I'm rolling for Trump.

I probably agree 80% with the Paul's also but the last 20% of disagreement has really turned me against them. In the first place, the Paul's are in the same camp as political forces that have made huge inroads into destroying the state of Kansas. There are some other states in the same boat. Nobody here has or will listen to what I've said about it and that's fine. Nor will they remember the warning I gave if it comes to their state. That's fine too.

I also find Ron's penchant for running the USA down tiresome. I don't want to be in the middle east fighting endless wars either, but the idea that the Muslims will just stay in their [bleep] and not try to export their backward, stone-age religion and ways if we just don't provoke them, is foolish. I neither agree with provoking them nor agree that they'll leave us alone. There were no vehicles running on oil when they attacked and subjugated southern Europe. Sometimes you have to rally the troops.

In the face of Stalin and world wide "evangelistic" communism I have to also hold some of Ron Paul at arms length, and with regard to the muslims too.

What happened in Kansas?

It's been explained dozens of times to you. Are you not reading the posts? They are not from the same anti-establishment position, but their appeal is/was that they were/are anti-establishment, thus not controlled by folks with an anti-American agenda.

The establishment is anti-American, and that without regard for Party. They are one establishment. When a candidate comes along with some good ideas (with Trump, it's build a wall, stop illegal immigration, remove illegals, stop the flood of Muslims, stop the anti-American economic policies, bring manufacturing back by getting rid of the bad international trade deals, don't get involved in every war Israel would like us to be involved in, etc., and with Paul it was something similar on trade and wars, and he also agreed with Trump on immigration, but as to the latter, only because open borders and the Welfare State are incompatible, thus Paul wanted to eliminate the Welfare State, which he thought would eliminate the flood of illegals, but in the meantime beef up enforcement of immigration laws.), who is hated and feared by the establishment, folks see the latter as an endorsement.

The Buchanan appeal was also mainly his opposition to the ruling establishment of both parties, and that he was hated and feared by them, along with some good common sense ideas that in many ways paralleled both Paul and Trump on trade, immigration, and wars.

Conservatism and libertarian-ism are the same thing.

try telling that to someone who thinks the federal government should define marriage

Close but not quite. The core of Conservatism is libertarian, but they are not the same.

These days with the scales shifting left constantly true Paleo-Conservatism appears Libertarian but that is due to a shift in the overall scale not because Conservatism or libertarianism have changed philosophically.

Conservatives have always and always will hold tighter to governmental checks and balances reigning in the inherent risks to the whole that are presented by (misuse of) individual freedom vs. Libertarians always view government (and the depravity of the tyrant) as the risk and the preservation of the freedom of the individual (rather than the integrity of the collective culture) as tantamount.

Now days, with the shift left, true libertarians look like anarchists even though Barak would (rightly) explain until he is blue in the face that they're very, very different.

This is where those of us on the right are losing; the scale is moving left at an ever-increasing pace so that the vocabulary and tone of political rhetoric is morphing. A lot has to do with post-modernity, but a lot also has to do with downright intellectual sloppiness and imprecision.

Yep this.

To the extent that there was a candidate who espoused Ron's ideological purity (Rand) available I supported him.

When he left I had to put my support somewhere else. The least of those remaining evils (and EVIL they are) was, to my way of thinking, Trump.

You can disagree you're free to do that, but there it is, and this carousel has indeed gone round and round and round thousands of times on this board. If someone doesn't understand it by now they either don't want to, can't, or don't recognize the difference between understanding and agreeing (which I think is where an awful lot of people are on this board).

Wow! Very well said.

its reached critical mass to the point that anyone could have come in and been Donald Trump

its actually an amazingly simple task he had in front of him.

go hard line to the point of being shocking in support of positions that are core to Americans - not conservatives, not liberals but Americans

and Trump just happened to fall on the side on the Republicans.

and its easy for people to fall in line with someone who espouses positions that Americans can believe in

so much so they readily accept he isn't perfect

and that is what kills GOP candidates - they are so conditioned to not take a hard stand that people are ready to tear them down whenever they provide an answer that isn't neutral.

People tried that with Trump over abortion or any other number of topics and he's like screw you, and people loved him more for it.

Conservatives understand that Libertarianism does not work.

hows that been working out for you lately?

Rand endorsed friggen Romnoid and was/is Israel's bitch.

He's a total joke compared to his Dad.

I've been waffling on Rand. its clear Rand learned from Ron's obstacles to becoming president, and he made a deliberate decision to avoid those landmines - like endorsing Romney and softening his position on foreign aid to avoid pissing off Israel.

At one point I thought Ted Cruz was a better Rand Paul than Rand, then I got to know the real Ted Cruz and starting thinking better of Rand.

Rand is handicapped by the same issues that plagued his father. He has good answers to tough solutions but people don't see him as the guy that will kick down a door to make it happen.

Yep and Liberals understand that Conservatism doesn't work.

Socialists understand that Liberalism doesn't work.

Communists understand that Socialism doesn't work.

Anarchists recognize that Communism doesn't work.

And of course, Libertarians recognize Anarchism doesn't work.

Get the picture?

(don't worry that was a rhetorical question)

PS- this demonstrates just how lost we truly are if we put our hope in the systems of men. There can be no hope for DC or this country if all we have are ideological fixes. Things have to change on a more fundamental level.

There are some important differences. Two quick examples.

Conservatives generally want military spending maintained or increased. Libertarians want it slashed, with all or nearly all overseas troops coming home immediately.

Conservatives are beginning to make reluctant noises, some of them, about legalization of marijuana under heavy taxation and regulation. Libertarians want all drugs from caffeine to PCP decriminalized, with no more taxation or regulation than is imposed on granulated sugar.

There are similarities between conservatives and libertarians, just as there are between conservatives and liberals (both support legal tender laws and government courts, for example) but those similarities don't qualify as congruence in any but the most cursory glance.

I liked Ron Paul and see no reason Trump is an alternative.

Look at it this way

Trump's election or being robbed of it makes way for someone like Ron Paul to actually get elected down the road.

To push for a standard bearer politician (which Cruz has morphed into over the last 3 months) just means the RNC can continue to influence their control over managing their priorities over the will of the people.

You Cruz guys can't honestly say if Cruz getting elected is the will of the people or the will of the GOP at this point.

its something you should think about. You won't of course because you're more #NEVERTRUMP than you are pro Cruz at this point, but its still a major issue in the viability of Cruz as a presidential candidate.

Personally, I think the Libertarian moment has passed.

Those young people who flocked to Ron Paul got a front row seat to view the corruption of the electoral process and they really want no part of any candidate that doesn't come out swinging,....because they now know that that's what it will take.

If there's any interest left in the GOP "brand" in 2020, it's going to be a bare knuckle situation. I don't think there will even be anything close to a traditional election again if Trump gets pushed aside.

Woulda been great to see a 4-way race and we still could:

Hillary (D)

Establishment schmuck (R)

Trump (I)

Sanders (I)

I think Trump is ultimately a vehicle to reform. And that is regardless of whether he is elected. In order to get something better, we first have to knock down the wall in the way.