by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The Free States RMB

WA Delegate: None.

Founder: The Conservative of The Gipper

Last WA Update:

Board Activity History Admin Rank

Largest Furniture Restoration Industry: 380th Largest Basket Weaving Sector: 761st Least Corrupt Governments: 880th+8
Largest Agricultural Sector: 976th Most Pro-Market: 1,226th Most Extensive Civil Rights: 1,392nd Highest Crime Rates: 1,585th Most Politically Free: 1,786th Fattest Citizens: 1,911th Largest Mining Sector: 1,960th Lowest Overall Tax Burden: 2,041st
World Factbook Entry

Welcome to The Free States! We're the region that stands for liberty and capitalism.


No results.

Embassies: Free States and Right to Life.

Tags: Anti-Communist, Anti-Fascist, Capitalist, Conservative, Generalite, Independent, Libertarian, Minuscule, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Forums, and Password.

The Free States is home to a single nation.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Developed in The Free States

The World Census compiles a "Human Development Index" by measuring citizens' average life expectancy, education, and income.

As a region, The Free States is ranked 6,500th in the world for Most Developed.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Republic of Region HolderAnarchy“Do Not Telegram This Puppet”

Regional Happenings

More...

The Free States Regional Message Board

Beasttamerian representative

Hello! I am Beasttamer from Rossferry! I am here to help you get set up!

What's this now?

I'm inclined now to post the Founder's assessment of the Republican and Democratic candidates in the 2016 Presidential General election. I will lead with the conclusion for those that don't feel inclined to read my massive wall of text. I wanted to get this on the record now.

"It is my conclusion that Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of big business benefiting from big government, and the little people being left behind. While Donald Trump is the big businessman that benefited from eminent domain and government regulation himself, and can't consistently condemn that advantage. He also seems quick to instinctually call for big government reactions and slow to admit his first instinct was flawed. Both candidates seem to trust the integrity and facility of big government to wield power in society than they do everyday Americans. I cannot vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and this region will not endorse either, but will instead condemn both. "

I posted my previous assessment that neither party can afford to win the 2016 General election because either candidate as President will cripple their by forcing them to defend one unpopular President. I concluded that if you believe passionately in the platform of either party, the best odds to see sections of it implemented is to lose the 2016 Presidential race.

I steered clear of giving any judgment on the 2016 race because at the time I thought two liberty supporting readers/members might be able to look at the race and justify voting differently. I thought the best way to argue that there was no reason to lower oneself to voting for Donald Trump was to show that this election isn't the most important election of our lifetime. It isn't as consequential as the 2008 election, or I'd argue even 2012. I go into that more in the above-linked-post.

I think following the Trump-tape revelation and the general collapse of the Trump campaign it is more important to go into that judgment of the two campaigns. First, I'll look to Hillary Clinton.

It is impossible, I feel, for a liberty-loving American to feel any warmth in their heart at the idea of Hillary Clinton as our President. What is undeniable is that Hillary Clinton was able to dramatically increase her net worth during a period that she was supposedly working as a public servant. While we don't look down at someone for success, it is clear the way she obtained this wealth was accepting money from companies and individuals only giving it to her in the hopes she would look more friendly on them as Secretary of State or as the most likely figure to be President after Obama. The top 1% of 1% have lined up behind Hillary Clinton as their preferred candidate, which again by itself is not something we would condemn, but when contrasted with her rhetoric on the trail it is clear there are two faces of Hillary Clinton. This all goes to highlight what has gone wrong with the far-left's view of the government's role in the economy. The people who hate the top 1% of 1% can rally behind the same policy proposals that the people who hate the elites the most also support. Complicated and voluminous regulation of the economy aimed at hurting companies that operate in certain industries or disadvantaging big corporations have actually lead to false barriers of entry. The businesses that operate in that environment are less likely to see competition and more likely to form market structures of huge corporations. The federal government has adopted various contradicting and impossible goals and tactics in the economy, and its influence on the scale is corrupting the market and hurting the common man in America.

Hillary's rhetoric about the National Rifle Association and gun owners in America should alarm everyone. Like Obama before her, she claims she doesn't want to restrict the right of everyday Americans from owning firearms, but when some shooting occurs by someone who had previously been an everyday American we see her imply it could be prevented. This implies she's using these events for political gain, which we do not believe, or she wants to do more than her public face claims about the second amendment.

You can run down the issues that Hillary speaks about on the campaign trail, and you will come to the conclusion that Hillary is not someone supporting liberty or working toward it. She believes in Government more than she believes in the individual and the people.

On to Donald Trump. As a lifelong Republican, it breaks my heart to give this analysis of our Presidential nominee. I cannot justify his positions. From restricting trade and starting trade wars with Mexico and China that will raise the prices of the goods that the working poor and middle class spend most of their income on, to calling himself the "king of debt" when calling for deficit spending in order to spur the economy. When Donald Trump talks about the economy, he sounds like a liberal Democrat, with the exception that he supports tax cuts across the board. Cutting taxes while increasing spending is not reducing the role of government in the economy however, it is just delaying the payment for the increased role.

Donald Trump has failed to give a consistent message within the same campaign on important issues like eminent domain, healthcare, abortion. He's failed to live up to the dream outsider businessman/woman candidate of the right / libertarians, who can use his or her own experiences from a business career to talk about the nonsensical role that the federal government has taken in the economy. To draw from experience about how high tax rates and regulation stifle the ability of everyday Americans with an innovative solution to a problem to take their solution to the people who need it. Instead Trump seems to argue not with the role the government in the economy but that it is managed inefficiently. It isn't that we should interfere less, but rather that we should interfere more effectively or 'smarter'. Trump seems to champion big government almost as much as she does.

Then the issue of his emotional restraint is equally concerning. Having watched Trump in numerous presidential debates, and seeing him in interviews and on social media, it is hard to trust the man can curtail his instinctual anger. Donald Trump has also made numerous comments that draw serious questions about his views on masculinity and race. I'm not going to go into them, or allege that they mean he is racist or sexist. All I want to say is that it is concerning that there is more room to ask that question from his speeches and comments than any previous candidate, whether you believe they can be explained away or not.

It is my conclusion that Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of big business benefiting from big government, and the little people being left behind. While Donald Trump is the big businessman that benefited from eminent domain and government regulation himself, and can't consistently condemn that advantage. He also seems quick to instinctually call for big government reactions and slow to admit his first instinct was flawed. Both candidates seem to trust the integrity and facility of big government to wield power in society than they do everyday Americans. I cannot vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, and this region will not endorse either, but will instead condemn both.

Founder and WA Delegate of The Free States,
The Gipper

Forum View

Advertisement