Fear makes you stupid

[powder]

I pay very little attention to what comes out of the mouths of the various narcissistic megalomaniacs trying to become Emperor (or President, or whatever). If you know someone is lying, and trying to manipulate and dupe people, who cares what they say? Nonetheless, even just based on the things I've accidentally heard coming from Trump, I am baffled that anyone--especially anyone who claims to value freedom--is dumb enough to support the guy. Aside from being openly authoritarian, mentally unstable and glaringly narcissistic, he has also contradicted himself over and over again, spouting socialist bullshit when it suits him, and pretending to be conservative when it suits him. As a result, if you actually think you know what he believes and advocates, you're an idiot. If you think you know what he would do if given power, you're an even bigger idiot. And if you think he wants to get a hold of the reins of power in order to leave people alone, you're a colossal moron.

Of course, Bernie, Hillary, and the rest of the clowns in the circus are just as power-happy and creepy. What's amazing--and discouraging--is how many people who I thought understood the game are now enthusiastically playing the very game that legitimizes their own enslavement. Fear makes people stupid. Stop being afraid.  

LARKEN ROSE

 

[Koroviev]

What's really sad about this is how people don't even realize how much they are being brainwashed by the mainstream media to have as strong feelings as this. The media has a huge bias against Donald Trump. That's all there is to it. The evidence is clear. The media gets HUGE advertising revenue from the political machines. The political machines are addicted to power thus they buy all of the candidates. Donald Trump is a threat to the political machines AND is not giving the mainstream media advertising revenue AND is a threat to the entire main stream media propaganda machine. Thus both of those groups (i.e. EVERYTHING everyone sees on TV and EVERYTHING that influences most of the loud mouth's on the internet) have to do everything they can to warp the population's opinions. Yes Trump has some policies I disagree with but it's no different from what anyone else is really saying. It's just that no one else is threatening the establishment. 

 

Donald Trump is a huge step toward showing people how corrupt and evil the political system and the mainstream media really is.

[Guest Gee]

 

 

Hi Powder, I attempted to up vote you but because I support Trump I'm too dumb to select the correct button.

[powder]

Hi Powder, I attempted to up vote you but because I support Trump I'm dumb to select the correct button.

that's funny Graham.  I am interested to understand however, what does it mean to 'support Trump'?  

[Matthew Ed Moran]

So are you fearful that fear will make people stupid, or are you indifferent about that, too?

[luxfelix]

Related-ish: Has anyone read any recent studies about how fear affects one's capacity for decision-making; also, studies that suggest why some people function better under pressure?

[Guest Gee]

that's funny Graham.  I am interested to understand however, what does it mean to 'support Trump'?  

 

I believe I understand what he advocates for and I agree on nearly all counts.

[powder]

So are you fearful that fear will make people stupid, or are you indifferent about that, too?

not afraid, just curious.  I know that Stefan is being accused of 'supporting' Trump.  I don't know what he thinks about the whole thing actually, except that it is somehow important.  I don't understand what 'support' means, political action or participation in the process in some way, voting,...  I had a hunch this post from Larken would get the ball rolling.  

 

I believe I understand what he advocates for and I agree on nearly all counts.

Do you think that even if you believe you know what he advocates what his intentions might be?  Or his willingness, or even ability to act on his positions?  So 'support' means agreement for you?  How does that translate into behavior?  

[powder]

What's really sad about this is how people don't even realize how much they are being brainwashed by the mainstream media to have as strong feelings as this. The media has a huge bias against Donald Trump. That's all there is to it. The evidence is clear. The media gets HUGE advertising revenue from the political machines. The political machines are addicted to power thus they buy all of the candidates. Donald Trump is a threat to the political machines AND is not giving the mainstream media advertising revenue AND is a threat to the entire main stream media propaganda machine. Thus both of those groups (i.e. EVERYTHING everyone sees on TV and EVERYTHING that influences most of the loud mouth's on the internet) have to do everything they can to warp the population's opinions. Yes Trump has some policies I disagree with but it's no different from what anyone else is really saying. It's just that no one else is threatening the establishment. 

 

Donald Trump is a huge step toward showing people how corrupt and evil the political system and the mainstream media really is.

I thought that Trump was a hugh source of viewership for media outlets and that having him on their programs and running stories about him increased viewership significantly.  Is there evidence that left leaning media sources have been hurt by him and have lost viewership and following?  

[Koroviev]

Anyone else notice how the republican party is doing to Trump exactly what they were admonishing him for doing only 6 months ago? They needed him to pledge his allegience to them no matter what happened so that the party would stand a chance at beating Hildabeast and now once he finally gave into their wishes are doing everything they can to make sure he doesnt get the nomination. I mean seriously if this election doesnt prove that government and democracy does not work I dont know what will.

 

Btw just listened to the latest show on Trump and the RNC, another good one well worth the listen!

[powder]

Anyone else notice how the republican party is doing to Trump exactly what they were admonishing him for doing only 6 months ago? They needed him to pledge his allegience to them no matter what happened so that the party would stand a chance at beating Hildabeast and now once he finally gave into their wishes are doing everything they can to make sure he doesnt get the nomination. I mean seriously if this election doesnt prove that government and democracy does not work I dont know what will.

 

Btw just listened to the latest show on Trump and the RNC, another good one well worth the listen!

Democracy is an immoral principle.  Why is it important to show that government and democracy don't work?  Doesn't work for who?  It works real good for those benefiting in various ways.  Besides, there is plenty of examples to demonstrate that the system is corrupt that have not seemed to change people's desire to put their favorite king on the throne. 

[Koroviev]

I thought that Trump was a hugh source of viewership for media outlets and that having him on their programs and running stories about him increased viewership significantly.  Is there evidence that left leaning media sources have been hurt by him and have lost viewership and following?  

 

 you completely missed my point here.

 

 

Democracy is an immoral principle.  Why is it important to show that government and democracy don't work?  Doesn't work for who?  It works real good for those benefiting in various ways.  Besides, there is plenty of examples to demonstrate that the system is corrupt that have not seemed to change people's desire to put their favorite king on the throne. 

 

Umm the general population who still think we live in a democracy and all of the people who think that a democracy is the best system and all the people who think we need a government to tell us what to do and all the people who think the government has their best interests at heart. I'm pretty sure there's at least a few people in that camp otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Obviously no one is going to snap their fingers and turn everything into a free society therefore we need to take baby steps and educate people. You cannot educate people who are brainwashed by the government controlled media thus if you can begin to show how corrupt the government and the mainstream media is, in real time with indisputable evidence you can, theoretically, take steps into the right direction. Yes a Donald Trump presidency probably would not end well, especially now that the government controlled media have riled people up into believing that he is the reincarnation of Hitler (assuming they don't change their tones here shortly) but the ONLY other options are felons who are completely controlled by the political machines and thus the media which Donald Trump is not. If the media and the political machine were not threatened by Trump and putting out negative PROPAGANDA against him everyone, especially conservatives, would love him. Just like they will shortly with Ted Cruz (Felon and not a US national) just like all of the liberals will switch over to loving Hillary. People do not realize how much they are influenced by the media and the political machines. People don't realize how much the media and the political machines make their decisions for them. People don't realize the candidates are owned by special interests. Donald Trump sheds light on all of that.

[Guest Gee]

Do you think that even if you believe you know what he advocates what his intentions might be?  Or his willingness, or even ability to act on his positions?  So 'support' means agreement for you?  How does that translate into behavior?  

 

Yes, I think that I know what his intentions might be. 

 

I donate to FDR because of the value I have received in the past and because I believe I know what the FDR team advocates and what their intentions might be.

 

Support can mean whatever you wish it to. I agree, I advocate, I financially support (buying books, I am English so I am told not to donate on his donation page as I am not a US citizen, I've checked), I admire, I find fascinating, etc.

 

MAGA.

[flazak]

Trump is the only politician in the race here. I am sure there are many true politicians like Trump around but they can never make it this far. Trump is the exception because he can afford it and he is so far up his own arse he will actually try to become president, at no point can anyone manipulate him, he is his own man. He is a loose cannon.

 

He is therefore the only person up there speaking his mind and talking sense and that appeals to people and is why I am in here, because I like it when things make sense. All the media and politicians have done for 50 years is talk in riddles, Trump actually makes sense.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Yes, I think that I know what his intentions might be. 

 

I donate to FDR because of the value I have received in the past and because I believe I know what the FDR team advocates and what their intentions might be.

 

Support can mean whatever you wish it to. I agree, I advocate, I financially support (buying books, I am English so I am told not to donate on his donation page as I am not a US citizen, I've checked), I admire, I find fascinating, etc.

 

MAGA.

 

This is another time when asking "compared to what?" might be helpful. Since there are only a finite number of organizations or people to support, it might makes sense to support someone or something compared to the alternatives even if you have incomplete information.

[powder]

So, it is good to 'support' Trump in the hopes that his campaign will result in the discrediting and downfall of left wing media?  that will bring us one baby step closer to freedom?  

[HollywoodSimon]

My left brain agrees with most of the Larken Rose quote but I still support Donald Trump's candidacy for POTUS. First, I have $100 riding on it. Second, and more importantly, I live in Los Angeles, and I look forward to seeing some extreme butthurt being expressed by the smug, know-it-all, oh-so-informed Jon Stewart/Bill Maher/John Oliver crowd swarming this berg after Trump takes office. I'd especially love to see him carry California in the general election and I think he could actually pull it off.

 

Apart from the proximate cultural spectacle I can expect, Trump has attained substantial political accomplishments without even taking office, including taking down the pope a couple of pegs, serving the pimp hand to Fox News not once but twice, and kicking the Bush political dynasty in the nuts, and will likely soon do the same to the Clintons.

 

Does any of this matter to an anarchist/atheist in the immediate sense? Probably not, but my right brain is curious of the opportunities and possibilities.

 

I'm still not voting, though. Voting is for bitches.

[Koroviev]

So, it is good to 'support' Trump in the hopes that his campaign will result in the discrediting and downfall of left wing media?  that will bring us one baby step closer to freedom?  

 

I never said it was "good" or "bad" but it is a good reason to support him if you are going to support anyone. However, this is still missing the point which is that people don't even realize how brainwashed they are.

[Guest Gee]

So, it is good to 'support' Trump in the hopes that his campaign will result in the discrediting and downfall of left wing media? that will bring us one baby step closer to freedom?

Trump is doing good, it is good to do good for good, thus it is good to support Trump.

 

Also, I tired to up vote you again for the air quote support and 'baby step', but muh brain done gone not workin.

 

Interesting comment though, rational assertiveness, the kind that leads to increasing freedoms, is a skill that needs to relearned by men just as a baby learns to walk (expertly modelled, positively  encouraged).

 

MAGA.

[powder]

I never said it was "good" or "bad" but it is a good reason to support him if you are going to support anyone. However, this is still missing the point which is that people don't even realize how brainwashed they are.

 

Most people are aware that the Vietnam war was a scam, the reasons for the Iraq war were lies, to name a couple, there is no shortage of evidence.  They move on and wait for their next favorite king to step up to the throne.  the only brainwashing that I am concerned about is the one that makes people imagine they need rulers.  

[Torero]

 

I pay very little attention to what comes out of the mouths of the various narcissistic megalomaniacs trying to become Emperor (or President, or whatever). If you know someone is lying, and trying to manipulate and dupe people, who cares what they say? Nonetheless, even just based on the things I've accidentally heard coming from Trump, I am baffled that anyone--especially anyone who claims to value freedom--is dumb enough to support the guy. Aside from being openly authoritarian, mentally unstable and glaringly narcissistic, he has also contradicted himself over and over again, spouting socialist bullshit when it suits him, and pretending to be conservative when it suits him. As a result, if you actually think you know what he believes and advocates, you're an idiot. If you think you know what he would do if given power, you're an even bigger idiot. And if you think he wants to get a hold of the reins of power in order to leave people alone, you're a colossal moron.

Of course, Bernie, Hillary, and the rest of the clowns in the circus are just as power-happy and creepy. What's amazing--and discouraging--is how many people who I thought understood the game are now enthusiastically playing the very game that legitimizes their own enslavement. Fear makes people stupid. Stop being afraid.  

LARKEN ROSE

 

 

Good someone voices some "neo-politically-incorrect" (the pro-Trumpy troll stance seems the policor one here) words.

 

It's beyond me too that people are so blind.

 

8 years ago a "new", "fresh", "different" person was brought forward to become president. The leftists/liberals fell for his "sexy" rockstar-like image and supported the "black" guy en masse. His hallmark was "Change!".

After 8 years we've seen what a "change" that was; a change for the worst with Obamacare, more Middle Eastern imperialism, state debt higher than ever before, fake "attacks" in the US itself, etc. etc.

 

Now, 8 years later, another "new", "fresh", "different" person is brought forward to become president. Now the tables are turned and the rightists/conservatives fall for his "strong" politically incorrect image and support the troll en masse. The hallmark of the guy is "I am different from all the others and finally we will get Change!".

 

I am baffled too how just the theoretically intelligent and rational people here on FDR can support that:

- good friend of the Clintons

- statist

- militarist

- inconsistent speecher

- not showing any basis in philosophy

 

It looks like people have not learned anything in the course of 9 years.

 

From a brainwashed sheeple voter population in the US I can understand that.

For my fellow FDR members my standards are slightly higher...

[Koroviev]

Most people are aware that the Vietnam war was a scam, the reasons for the Iraq war were lies, to name a couple, there is no shortage of evidence.  They move on and wait for their next favorite king to step up to the throne.  the only brainwashing that I am concerned about is the one that makes people imagine they need rulers.

Great, so we're in agreement! Why do people think they need rulers? Also, what do you mean by "supporting Trump" anyway?

[Torero]

Mike, feel free to evade any argument:

 

- the narrative of "the new guy", "this time different", "now things will change" = just like the Obama idiocy, propaganda, only now for the other party. I consider Stefan and you and also my fellow members far more intelligent than falling for such cheap candy

- the idea that a president is the guy in charge is ridiculous. They are run by lobbyists; crapitalism. Even if Donald Trump wanted honestly to cut down the state debt, he still wouldn't be able to do it.

- the anarchist philosophy is about:

1 - peaceful negotiation

2 - anti-imperialism

3 - anti-statism

4 - morality

5 - individualism; people are different and should be treated as individuals, not collectivising them against their free will

6 - actions, not words do count (!)

 

Donald Trump:

1 - his business background surely speaks for peaceful negotiation. The presented "plan" to "build a wall at the border with Mexico and let them darn Mexicans pay for it" is a bit far from peaceful negotiation, don't you think?

2 - his talks on "bombing the shit out of those ISIS bastards", more warfare, more militarism, that is so contradictory to anything FDR has stood for in the last 10 years that you cannot seriously support someone who advocates these things

3 - the guy wants to become the president for the establishment conservative party FFS!? Did he ever say "I am going to end state slavery, like the abolitionists ended human slavery"?

4 - where did Donny Trump plead for moral behaviour? Did he propose to end money printing? To end taking loans on the unborn? To stop fighting senseless wars in countries abroad? Did he voice his concerns about circumcision? Did he focus on peaceful parenting? Has he quoted The Bomb in the Brain?

5 - wanting to "keep out those evil muslims, all of them" just because some of them are nasty is completely contradicting any free-thinking anarchist. People are different and should be treated according to their individual merits, not because they share something with others while not having any control over those others or their thoughts/ideas/actions. Even taking those "terrorist attacks" as truth, still compared to the 1.5 billion muslims in the world very very few of them actually are aggressively attacking non-muslims. I am not saying there's no objections to the core of islam; the quran is a book full of aggression, the way women, gays and others are treated is bad, but that doesn't make every muslim a wife-beating gay-slaying monster. Supporting a collectivist makes no sense, if you're true to your anarchist philosophy.

6 - one of Stefans strong points is that he says "Words do not count, actions do". In all the years that Donny Trump was a powerful billionaire, how many times has he used his power actively to try to stop or reduce statism? Which actions has he taken in his already long career that make him so great? Practice what you preach is a good phrase. Now where did Donny conform to what FDR preaches now for over a decade to so many millions of listeners?

 

If FDR would support Rand Paul as much as you do with Donny Trumpy boy it still would be supporting a statist (a politician), but at least based on a bit more (libertarianism) than a few blue eyes deemed credible and a politically-incorrect voice.

 

Now you pull years of strong arguments, well-phrased rants, a show based on principles down the toilet only because that Hillybiatch is worse. She obviously is truly horrible, but believing that Donny is the right man and supporting him so much really does no good to the fine principles collected over the years.

[Torero]

<senseless internet meme 1>

<senseless internet meme 2>

 

Still waiting for the arguments against any arguments or factual corrections we've actually made on the show...

 

 

 

Mike, feel free to evade any argument

 

I rest my case.

 

If you're true to your philosophy, based on principles you shouldn't support any politician/statist. Less one who goes so far against anything you have stood for for so long.

 

Pragmatic arguments (the guy is a better choice than Hilly) may count in 1 show about Donny.

 

Not the full list of videos you made to voice your support for him.

[thebeardslastcall]

Still waiting for the arguments against any arguments or factual corrections we've actually made on the show...

 

Was he suggesting disagreement with the show that needed an argument or to have an error pointed out to back up the statement?

Sounded like he was just using a roundabout way of agreeing with Stephen's position of not voting.

 

Perhaps the problem with his post is he's using the fear of feeling or being called an idiot to backup his suggestion of action instead of making an actual argument towards the position of not voting? Or maybe more so that he's calling people idiots without pointing out and backing up why their behavior is idiotic with arguments to support the claim. I can see why that would garner down votes.

 

Also a bit odd that he'd call 'support' stupid, while also not even having a definition of 'support', without which it's a blanket insult towards anything that might be perceived as support in some way. Calling people stupid doesn't make them smarter. Is it ironic that he says people make a bad decision because they're 'scared stupid' so his strategy is to 'scare them smart' with insults?

[Koroviev]

OOOOHHHHH, that's the argument:

1. mainstream media, which is owned by the political machines, spreads lies and negative propaganda against Trump

2. Stef, Mike, others correct those lies knowing that people are going to vote. Those same people who are going to vote are being influenced by the lies and negative propaganda. Stef, Mike, and others also know they can't snap their fingers and turn the world into a free society (or they're really holding out on us)

3. Thus Stef, Mike, and others love Donald Trump, think he can do no wrong, want to have his babies, and want the whole world to vote Donald Trump to be king of the universe.

 

You're right that is shameful and the best course of action is definitely to let the lies and propaganda go unchallenged because then Rand Paul will magically get elected and we'll live happily ever after in Libertopia!!! Glad I'm not a scared colossal moron anymore 

[HollywoodSimon]

Torero, for me, it's not about the literal meaning of Trump's words or the presence or absence of a philosophical basis to them. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with his ideas. It's about of the effects the presentment of these ideas has on people.

 

By "support" I mean that I recommend people who intend to vote, generally after I argue against voting at all, to cast their vote for Trump. I make arguments in favor of a Trump presidency or some of his controversial ideas, even the ones with which I disagree. I usually do this because people around me make hysterical noises over Trump's latest "outrage" because CNN recently gave them some visual trash in exchange for their attention. For example, someone recently told me they don't like Trump because he's a "bully". I argued that the people Trump is "bullying" are thieves and murderers, and that he would do well to direct his sympathy elsewhere.

 

Some of the points you brought up may benefit from a comparative view. No anarchist has a shot at the presidency this year (and if he wanted one he'd have to at least talk like a statist). For instance, Donald Trump is probably the least militarist of any of the candidates remaining. The other day he brought up the idea of getting the US out of NATO, which is like drawing a sacred cow to the altar of sacrifice.

 

I think that I could even celebrate a Trump victory in November a little, though I doubt it will lead to me getting a nationwide concealed carry license. Like I said, I've put $100 on him winning (which I won't lose unless Sanders wins) and I'm going to enjoy the faux victim posturing from a lot of the people who don't want to see it happen.

[Torero]

Torero, for me, it's not about the literal meaning of Trump's words or the presence or absence of a philosophical basis to them. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with his ideas. It's about of the effects the presentment of these ideas has on people.

 

By "support" I mean that I recommend people who intend to vote, generally after I argue against voting at all, to cast their vote for Trump. I make arguments in favor of a Trump presidency or some of his controversial ideas, even the ones with which I disagree. I usually do this because people around me make hysterical noises over Trump's latest "outrage" because CNN recently gave them some visual trash in exchange for their attention. For example, someone recently told me they don't like Trump because he's a "bully". I argued that the people Trump is "bullying" are thieves and murderers, and that he would do well to direct his sympathy elsewhere.

 

So you are reasoning on the basis of pragmatism. You argue against voting, but if people vote, then for Trump.

 

In the rigged system in the US there are only two options; either Hillary (Bernie won't make it) or Trump.

 

That is if you take the system as an honest contest. I highly doubt that, but let's say it is.

 

Some of the points you brought up may benefit from a comparative view. No anarchist has a shot at the presidency this year (and if he wanted one he'd have to at least talk like a statist). For instance, Donald Trump is probably the least militarist of any of the candidates remaining.

 

Ehhh, just 45 seconds and no third party leftist media review, no, the man speaking himself (and getting a lot of applause):

 

 

The other day he brought up the idea of getting the US out of NATO, which is like drawing a sacred cow to the altar of sacrifice.

 

Haven't we heard that before? Remember 8-9 years ago? Barry O. saying "first thing I will do is closing down Guantanamo Bay"...

 

 

2007 (!?)...

 

Politicians are professional liars. Don't we know that by now? How can you take anything such a psychopath says seriously?

 

I think that I could even celebrate a Trump victory in November a little, though I doubt it will lead to me getting a nationwide concealed carry license. Like I said, I've put $100 on him winning (which I won't lose unless Sanders wins) and I'm going to enjoy the faux victim posturing from a lot of the people who don't want to see it happen.

 

The thing is:

- if you're a philosopher

- who runs a successful philosophy show, full of good arguments, based on first principles

- you make the case against voting (just like you, just like myself)

- you have literally hundreds of thousands of hours of material presenting arguments on freedom, anti-statism, principles, philosophy, moral reasoning, truth, peaceful negotiation, peaceful parenting, anti-imperialism/militarism and much more

- you drop the "don't vote" point yet switch to a "vote for the lesser of two evils"

- and that lesser evil is still contradicting the principles, points, arguments and all the things you've been saying with a straight face for ten years+

 

Then you are not true to principles yourself. You have made the case for pragmatism while at the same time that pragmatism goes against the philosophy (the principles).

 

People can downvote me to pieces, it doesn't take away my arguments against active support (and not in 1 video, no hours of them) for a person who is everything you said you object to based on reason and evidence?

 

If I would make a show on vegetarianism, hundreds of thousands of hours of arguments, rants, talks, interviews, etc. etc. and I start to support a person who is not a vegetarian but says he eats less meat than the other candidate, do you take my vegetarian standpoint very seriously?

 

What is wrong with just sticking to the principle-true "don't vote story"? Why do you want people to choose the slave owner who says he's going to whip his slaves just once every day and not once every hour? And when that slave owner in other videos actually says he is going to whip every two hours...?

[powder]

Great, so we're in agreement! Why do people think they need rulers? Also, what do you mean by "supporting Trump" anyway?

I am an anarchist, that is what I keep asking, what does it mean for you, in behavioral terms, to 'support' Trump.  

[Guest Gee]

I rest my case.

You can only defeat dank memes with danker memes. It's dangerous, take this.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

8 years ago a "new", "fresh", "different" person was brought forward to become president. The leftists/liberals fell for his "sexy" rockstar-like image and supported the "black" guy en masse. His hallmark was "Change!".

After 8 years we've seen what a "change" that was; a change for the worst with Obamacare, more Middle Eastern imperialism, state debt higher than ever before, fake "attacks" in the US itself, etc. etc.

 

Now, 8 years later, another "new", "fresh", "different" person is brought forward to become president. Now the tables are turned and the rightists/conservatives fall for his "strong" politically incorrect image and support the troll en masse. The hallmark of the guy is "I am different from all the others and finally we will get Change!".

 

 

 

Leftist media called Barack Obama different. Therefore Donald Trump is the same as Barack Obama. 

[shirgall]

[Koroviev]

I am an anarchist, that is what I keep asking, what does it mean for you, in behavioral terms, to 'support' Trump.  

 

Ah, I'm sorry can you show me where you asked me that? I see you'd asked Graham but I try not to speak for other people.

 

Personally I see support to mean two things in this context. The first use of support is to vote for Trump, and the second is to push back against lies spread against him. I am not going to vote for him, or anyone else, but I do think that if you are going to vote for anyone it should be Trump for the reasons I stated above and the many more reasons that have been stated through the various videos Stef and Mike have released. Thus I would fall into the second definition of pushing back against the lies that are put out there to sway the opinions of all of the many other people who will be voting.

[AncapFTW]

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGc7yCZQ8CE

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The video Mike provided is extremely helpful towards elaborating Stefan's and Mike's opinions on the matter. Toward the end of the call Mike eve​n admitted that he could see a Donald Trump presidency going really poorly. Stefan's position was stated in multiple ways very clearly, and can be summarized as following: if you put a gun to his head, he will chose Donald Trump for president.

 

The thing is there are literally arguments upon facts that Stefan had been repeatedly making throughout the entire call as to why he holds this position. At the very beginning of the call, he explains his definition of support. It was something to the likes of putting a full fledged effort behind Donald Trump's run for presidency. He differentiated his ends from this approach and referenced his long-standing position towards voting and says he still 110% agrees with it. He said towards the end of the call he is covering Donald Trump in large part because of market demands.

 

I can understand why Mike would be baffled how someone could listen to the show and not be aware of this, even when he provides the links! When people just starting running their mouth in no less than one million different directions, quite frankly it's usually not because they are rationally comprehending and refuting said arguments.