Trump has a 90% approval rate among republicans. Paul got like 3% if that. And yeah plenty of people went from the Ron Paul re love ution straight to blood and soil fascism which shows how serious they were about libertarianisn in the first place (not very).

Luck,

Ron Paul may have had a big impact on you but he was utterly meaningless in the Republican party. He made absolutely zero difference

What amount of support for RP? When he ran for POTUS in 1988 he got .5% of the vote, he got 10% of the primary votes in 2012 and 5.6% in 2008.

Ross Perot was a much better example of success of the non-interventionist right, though he wasn't really that right-wing.

It's not really an important argument though. Very little of the mainstream is anti-war whether that's Democratic or Republican. In the mainstream though, the right is definitely more pro-war.

I honesty don’t know whether he just completely made this up or has me confused with someone. I would love to see where I argued this.

The claim that you're making is still that there is no anti-interventionist element to the right. I'm citing Ron Paul as evidence that there is and you are disagreeing. Ok. Whether Ron Paul has "made a difference" I suppose is relevant to the discussion. But it isn't a requirement that he make a difference for my argument that such a part of the Right exists. My contention though is that the populism that he ran on helped to lay the groundwork for the fake-populism that Trump used. So I think you can argue that his infuence has been felt. That it's been perverted by the ruling class is expected as that's what happens to movements--that same as you'll see anything real on the left perverted and co-opted.

They seem to be taking a much more measured approach. I don’t think any of their articles have suggested punishing anyone except Acosta.

Maybe they have had an epiphany and decided not to be judgmental moving forward?

Historically for sure. But currently that seems to he changing. When Trump "attacks" NATO you're seeing establishment types--both Democrats and GOP defending and with everything Russia it is having the effect of pushing the democratic party in a pro-war direction.
Intercept piece on the subject
You can expect similar numbers about Russia being an "enemy".

Insofar as Ron Paul is "right-wing" he's a racist xenophobe and a fool. Populism and opposition to the ruling class is basically the definition of being left. RP doesn't oppose the ruling class though. He wants government to get off the back of the ruling class. And then when the ruling class wants war, he's dumbfounded and blames the politicians that do the bidding of the ruling class.

Yes you're right to attack Ron Paul. The argument still is about whether there is an anti-interventionist sect of the right in America.

Partisans on both sides are definitely idiotic and care more about winning than about things like murdering hundreds of thousands of people or increasing the risk of nuclear annihilation. The DemE laughed their asses off when Mitt Romney said Russia was a threat and now they essentially are beating the war drums. As Trump went from talking about Fire and Fury in NK to being bffs with them, the Dems flipped just as quickly.

The crucial difference between the left and the right here though, and a really fundamental difference, is that the right worships power and likes violence for the sole sake of demonstrating power and dominance. Bernie Sanders is anti-war because he doesn't want to kill a lot of people. That's a much more reliable kind of anti-war than an anti-interventionist. What happens if Ron Paul comes to the conclusion that a war is +$EV for the US? What does RP do when Blackwater and Halliburton want to wage their own private war?

I'm sure there's a pro socialism sect of "the right" in America. People are dumb and inconsistent. It muddies up the issue without benefit except maybe that you can still call yourself right while arguing nothing but left wing talking points in every thread. I think things would be far easier if you just came over to the light side. I don't think you'd have to change many if any of your positions tbh.

I'm not here to try to defend Ron Paul in any sort of way. My argument involved his supporters more than him or whatever specific votes he may or may not have made or whether or not he beats his wife--so the Halliburton stuff I'll just have to set aside.*
But as to the above, why do you think that? Do you think libertarians are included in that? Or are they more aligned with the left in your view?
*However I don't see a reason to think that his alleged opposition to intervention is built on less solid moral ground than Sanders--who after all ended up backing Clinton.

True libertarians (to the tiny extent that they exist) are allies of the left imo. The astroturfed, Koch bros, reason magazine, youtube "libertarians" are tools of the right. Legal weed and low taxes don't make you libertarian. A real libertarian should support high taxes on the rich in order to provide restitution for millennia of theft.

Take a real genuine ACist and not someone who went AC -> Trump, someone who is absolutely not racist, someone who really wants open borders, legalization of drugs, pardoning people convicted for drugs, is opposed to things like stop and frisk, etc. I think the biggest difference between an anarcho-socialist and an anarcho-capitalist is their view of human nature. ACists think that people are generally competitive and selfish and anarchists think that people are generally cooperative.

And probably ACists themselves are generally less cooperative and more selfish. Property is obviously theft in the same way as taxation is and the defense of property by the right-libertarians as if it were some kind of divine right as opposed to part of a social contract really betrays a lack of principles. Ostensibly their libertarianism is about what is fair for everyone and freedom from coercion for everyone, but it tends to boil down to "what is best for me" which is why at some extremes ACists justify things like slavery and pedophilia. Left-anarchists never have a problem with those arguments. They never have a problem saying of course we won't allow slavery or pedophilia.

ACists though are much more in a fantasy land than the already Utopian left-anarchists. The failure to recognize private tyranny and the symbiosis of private power and government is absurd.

Anyway, I think I've digressed a bit. Do I think these libertarians worship power and violence? Yeah, to some degree for sure. For very little reason, and planning to serve no one but themselves, these kinds of libertarians are quite often obsessed with using weapons to defend their property. It's not the same thing as bootlicking neo-cons, but it is a right-wing deviation from the anti-authoritarianism of the left-libertarians.

That's not right. Backing Clinton was a strategic decision of Sanders for accomplishing what thought was the best outcome based on his moral positions. It doesn't signify that Bernie approves of everything HRC has done or might do, just that she was better than Trump.

Can we kindly stop with the derail?

You think anyone is gonna pop in with a pro child rape take?

We have to get back on track harping about Bill Clinton.

HillBill. Don't forget Hillary!

LOL, no. But debating the merits of Bush v. Clinton or the Iraq war and the basis for it seems very far afield from Epstein/Acosta and so on.

LOL at claiming Trump and Paul are somehow aligned. Trump has literally taken every position possible, including a hiring eastern european minors to give hand jobs to old fat dudes in boca.

Reports are that Epstein paid $100K to one potential witness and $250K to another potential witness after last year's Miami Herald articles came out. Not a shocker.

Was one of them Bill Clinton?

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/s...88349009092611

Trump speaking about Epstein. Says that he did throw him out from Mar al lago, that he is not fan, and that we should fine out everyone who went to "that island".

The claim is that there is an anti-interventionist part of the right that Paul cultivated and that Trump tried to campaign to.