You really want to vote for Hidin’ Biden?

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 328
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Only you would willfully give back money to a state sponsor of terrorism
only I would return stolen property as leverage for a landmark deal to reduce violence and prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Anyone who wouldn't do that is an idiot, or wants the tension with Iran to be cranked up for political gain. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
only I would return stolen property as leverage for a landmark deal to reduce violence and prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? Anyone who wouldn't do that is an idiot, or wants the tension with Iran to be cranked up for political gain. 

You obviously think we should lift sanctions on Iran, so that's clearly a retarded position knowing what Iran would purchase with the money.

You probably think we should let felons own guns and vote too.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You obviously think we should lift sanctions on Iran, so that's clearly a retarded position knowing what Iran would purchase with the money.\\
I think that the sanctions are there in order to motivate them to negotiate. which they did. They made a deal which allowed the US to inspect their facilities to guarantee they weren't making nuclear weapons. If you aren't going to negotiate, then the sanctions serve no purpose. All they are doing is ensuring that Iran will stay pissed off and hostile to america forever. 

You probably think we should let felons own guns and vote too.
own guns? no. vote, of course they should. They are US citizens. Stealing someone's right to vote is not ok. 
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
They made a deal which allowed the US to inspect their facilities to guarantee they weren't making nuclear weapons.
Citation please
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You probably think we should let felons own guns and vote too.
💀💀
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Since the elimination of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, much of the world has rightfully held its collective breath in fearful anticipation of what might be to come.
Iran is indeed a dangerous terrorist state that not only has a powerful standing army, air force, navy and advanced weapons systems — including ballistic missiles and a growing space program — but also controls multiple proxy terrorist organizations responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Included on that list of victims are thousands of American military personnel and contractors.
These were facts that former President Obama knew when he deliberately chose a policy of appeasement and cash payoffs instead of strength and accountability as the way to deal with Iran.

President Trump spelled this out in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he addressed the nation while seeking to dial down the imminent threat Iran may pose to our nation, the Middle East and the world.
Said the president in part, “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. ... Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”

As we have seen and heard, some — especially Democrats, their allies in the media and Obama supporters — chose to challenge or quibble with Trump’s statement. That said, I spoke with a former senior intelligence official who said that much of the $1.8 billion cash payoff from the Obama administration was used explicitly to fund terrorism as an additional “screw you” from the leaders of Iran — including Soleimani —  to the United States. The rest of the money, my source believes, ended up in the bank accounts of corrupt Iranian leaders and terrorists.

The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged.
We paid in cash, but not U.S. currency. Wary of using U.S. bills for a variety of reasons involving concealment, the Obama White House had the money converted to untraceable Euros, Swiss francs, and other foreign currencies. More troubling than those initial denials and deceptions was the fact that $400 million of that all-cash payment was used to pay a ransom to the government of Iran for the release of four American prisoners, in violation of standing U.S. policy.

In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.
While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom.

Former Congressman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, condemned the deal: “Sending the world’s leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn’t just terrible policy. It’s incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans.”
Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) seconded Royce’s warning: “Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. ... The White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.”

Said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.” What many Americans don’t realize is that the Obama White House took the ransom money from something called the “Judgment Fund,” which is administered by the Treasury. That little-known account is entirely paid for by American taxpayers and was set up in such a way that Obama could bypass congressional approval to pay the cash to Iran. Those who continually praise and defend Obama often describe him as “brilliant.” There is no doubt the former president is an intelligent person, certainly bright enough to realize — and admit, at least to himself — that the cash he turned over to the murderous regime leading Iran to ruin was not used for altruistic purposes.

Any honest assessment would conclude that at least part of that secretive, massive payment was used to finance terrorist attacks against Americans, our allies and innocent civilians. Trump is correct on that point.For that reason, Obama should apologize for the thousands wounded and killed in terrorist attacks since Iran took possession of that tainted cash. That is his debt to pay.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
What is really sad is that the USA military industrial complex stood to make a fortune selling arms to Israel to counter the terrorists that were funded by Obama.

It's a sick world, the elites in DC.

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
What is really sad is that the USA military industrial complex stood to make a fortune selling arms to Israel to counter the terrorists that were funded by Obama.

It's a sick world, the elites in DC.
Irán doesn’t have the balls to go to war with us. We’d capture Tehran in a matter of a month
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,037
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Under 8 years of Obama, Israel averaged 19 deaths yearly due to Iran backed terrorism. 36 deaths in 2015.

(oh 2015 was such a shitshow looking back now)

In 2019 there were 9 Israeli deaths due to Iranian terrorism.

Who woulda thought sanctions worked?


ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Radical Islamic Terrorism was a big issue 2016. Its non-existent now and hasn’t been for 3 years. You never hear the media talk about how ISIS is gone, no terror attacks in the US, just like Trump said. Travel ban worked to perfection. Crickets from the media.

Trump passed cruelty against animals act. Zero from the media. Trump passed right to try. Zero from the media. Any sane individual can deduce from that, that the media is garbage 
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
Irán doesn’t have the balls to go to war with us. We’d capture Tehran in a matter of a month
The US captured bagdad pretty quick too. that's not going so well.

HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Under 8 years of Obama, Israel averaged 19 deaths yearly due to Iran backed terrorism. 36 deaths in 2015.

(oh 2015 was such a shitshow looking back now)

In 2019 there were 9 Israeli deaths due to Iranian terrorism.

Who woulda thought sanctions worked?
where are you pulling these numbers from. Also this seems to be directly contrary to your previous point. You said the Iran deal increased violence. but those numbers prove violence went down after the deal. Why are you disproving your own point?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,747
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The US captured bagdad pretty quick too. that's not going so well.
It’s not me that trusts the Iranians, it’s you. You’re the one giving them money to “stop” their nuclear testing. You’re willing to trust the Iranians. I’m not. You’re willing to defend Qasim Soleimani, I’m not. Keep in mind everything was going fine until Hussein decided to fuck stuff up leading to ISIS. The Iran Deal was a disgrace. You’re naive for trusting the Iranians
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Hidin' Biden's campaign says a meeting between Burisma board adviser Vadym Pozharskyi and Biden was never on Biden's official calendar. Sure. I'll wager the meeting between Bill Clinton and Oba'a  AG Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac [to discuss their grandchildren, you'll recall]  was never on either's official calendar either, but it happened, anyway. Unfortunately, "official calendars" have a number of synonyms, but "diary" isn't one of them. The Biden campaign could have issued a number of different denials, like a flat-out denial that they never met, but, curiously, role out a denial that has lots of wiggle room for a cover-up.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
where are you pulling these numbers from.
For an alleged history buff, you do an amazingly lackluster job of research. Buff, according to whom? Your sock puppet?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
The US captured bagdad pretty quick too. that's not going so well.
What? Were you expecting Iraq to be made state #53, following D.C. and Puerto Rico? "Going... well" kind of depends on the objective of taking Baghdad in the first place, yeah? Wow, we'll get to the Oba'a 57 states pretty quick, huh? Not by anything he did, mind you. Did he do anything? At all? Yeah, he kept his promise to buy the kids a dog.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Intelligence_06
So you want to run a fair, complete comparison of accomplishments, in the time-frame Trump has accomplished them; in literally 44 months. No, Biden doesn't get to use his 47 YEARS.
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Who can take someone like that seriously?
Anyone who cannot take a joke. Why are you queued in that line?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons
Curious that the verbiage of the Iran Deal did not stipulate that, and, in fact, allowed it to occur.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,323
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
You really want to vote for Hidin’ Biden?
 
He told Ukraine if they didn’t fire their prosecutor, son-of-a-bitch, he wouldn’t release $1B in aid.
He said he’s running for Senate.
He told you if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t black.
He said unlike the Hispanic community, the black community is not diverse.
He said Trump’s China and Europe travel bans were xenophobic.
“I will beat Joe Biden.” [The media tried to excuse this by claiming he said [“I will be Joe Biden.” But that’s worse. Who is he now if he’s not Joe Biden?]
He said Trump’s travel bans were a good idea.
He said he has hairy legs. [tmi]
He likes kids running their hands up and down his legs. [TMI!]
He wants to sniff your hair. [TTTMMMIII!!!]
Joe said you should not vote for him.
He applauded the Harris administration.
He said he’s running for the senate. [A second time.]
“I pledge allegiance to United States America, one nation, indivis… under God… for real…”
“Two million… twenty… two hundred thousand…”
He said that when one person sneezes, it travels throughout the aircraft, and, “that’s me.” [What is he? A snot cloud? He said it, not me.]
He said if you do everything right, there’s a 30% chance you’re still wrong. [Is that like truth over facts?]
“Stand up, Chuck, let ‘em see you.” [said to Chuck Graham, who is in a wheelchair]
Have you been to a 7-11 lately? Just asking because Joe told you who you would encounter.
“Am I doing this again? My memory is not as good as Chief Justice Roberts.” [Even Oba’a poked him for that one.]
 
Okay, go register your vote for this fool.

 AND:
He said   "all men women are go, by, you know created,  created by  the thing, you know the thing".


But what's "the thing" that Sleepy is talking about"?  "The thing"  is questioned here >>.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2lTIh536jY

 And the explanation for creation of "thing" is explained comprehensively  in the short 6 min video here>>> The thing that made the things for which there is no known maker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVbnciQYMiM&t=150s
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,700
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
How the Democrats manipulate the youth

Step 1. Promise free education
Step 2. Have no plan for it
Step 3. Lie
Step 4. Censor anything anti Democrat
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Vader
That's about right. Funny thing, I don't see a constitutional basis for federal control of education. But then, I don't see the constitutional justification for a lot of things Congress does instead f what they are specifically mandated to do. There's only 17 of them [Article I, section 8], but they do damn little with any of them. Rs are also at fault in this realm.
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@MisterChris
eh, not really policy-wise. Especially if you consider yourself even remotely libertarian

How is Trump more libertarian? Not  disagreeing  - just curious of your reasons.
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Danielle
Although Trump is a buffoon and certainly not anywhere NEAR what I think the country truly needs, he is at least better than Biden from the libertarian standpoint: 

- The Biden Plan. Almost identical to the Green New Deal. 

"The Democratic nominee seeks not just mass use of electric cars, as California’s governor mandated last week, but further changes across the economy, government and society: Electrified public and freight transportation, power plants running without greenhouse-gas emissions, and the placement of climate concerns at the center of social policies and diplomacy."
Government mandated products? No thanks.

Biden’s commitment to raising the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 to $15 an hour is one of the least talked-about plans at stake in the 2020 election.
"Biden supports the College for All Act, which Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal introduced in 2017."
- Increasing the scope of Obamacare

There's more.

On the other hand:
45 months into office, Trump’s body count is remarkably low. And in at least once instance, his bad-boy bravado gave way to remarkable restraint.
In June 2019, Reuters reported that Trump “aborted a military strike to retaliate for Iran’s downing of an unmanned U.S. drone because it could have killed 150 people.” Presidents aren’t supposed to weigh considerations such as proportionality. Think Hillary Clinton would have?
From the start of his quest for the Oval Office, Trump roared that as a killer of job- and wealth-creation, regulation can be as lethal as taxation.
And in power, he’s backed up his rhetoric with an imperfect, but nonetheless strong, assault on red tape. His administration has proposed a “new rule under the National Environmental Policy Act to completely overhaul the dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created … massive obstructions,” gutted the Obama administration’s expensive and unnecessary “Clean Power Plan,” and established “much needed regulatory certainty and predictability for American farmers, landowners and businesses” regarding whether “water on their land may or may not fall under federal regulations.”

Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@MisterChris
AOC has a more libertarian position on drugs than any other member of Congress. Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro have more libertarian positions on immigration than Rand Paul, Justin Amash or Thomas Massie. Ilhan Omar referred to Obama's foreign policy as "mass murder with a pretty face." 

Why is it that opposing Obamacare and loving guns gets you a bunch of libertarian love, while being the foremost critics of police brutality, border enforcement or imperialism doesn't amount to much in credibility in libertarian spaces?

Of course Biden is not as progressive as the aforementioned people so I'm not necessarily disagreeing Trump is more libertarian than him, although I could make that argument if I wanted to. Regarding the "Green New Deal," Biden can't pass anything - Congress has to - and just because a president supports something doesn't mean it will get done, even if you have all branches of government on your side. Just ask Obama what it was like getting the ACA passed and the ACA is infinitely more popular than the GND. 

But anyway while I agree the GND or Biden's similar plan isn't very libertarian, neither is Trump's economic populism. Neither are Trump's anti capitalistic trade wars. Trump like Biden said he would consider backing a $15 minimum wage. And sure Biden wants to tax businesses more, but Trump wants to control them. Remember when he gave Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer, a bunch of taxpayer money to get them to move their  manufacturing plant in southeastern Wisconsin to create jobs that never materialized? He's done plenty of shit like that. 

Trump has also praised authoritarian regimes. His exponential spending has increased our debt and deficit. He increased the breadth of government by adding 2 million federal jobs to the payroll and public sector. He dog whistles to white supremacists, plays to nativism by increasing Islamophobia and has asked his supporters to attack protesters among other dismissals of first amendment protections (the constant attacks on the media being questionable as well). 

Trump hates all checks and balances that weaken his power. He dismisses those that challenge his authority. He thinks executive agencies are his own personal fiefdoms  there to protect and defend his agenda rather than safeguard against public corruption. So eh. I'm sure if I did a point by point analysis I would draw the same conclusion about Trump being more libertarian than Biden... I just think that no libertarian should support Trump over Biden. 

In theory Trump might sound more libertarian, but in actuality government has grown in size, scope and spending since he took office while our civil liberties have arguably decreased, and Trump loves the expansion and utility of state/government power like sending in the Feds or backing police 100% of the time. It's just such a weird correlation when I think about Trump and liberty lovers. It don't make no sense. 
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Danielle
AOC has a more libertarian position on drugs than any other member of Congress. Bernie Sanders and Julian Castro have more libertarian positions on immigration than Rand Paul, Justin Amash or Thomas Massie. Ilhan Omar referred to Obama's foreign policy as "mass murder with a pretty face." 
Yup, there are definitely progressive positions that appeal to the libertarian spectrum

Why is it that opposing Obamacare and loving guns gets you a bunch of libertarian love, while being the foremost critics of police brutality, border enforcement or imperialism doesn't amount to much in credibility in libertarian spaces?

I'd say mostly because while those things are on the "take care of" list, they do not pose as much importance to American libertarian voters as the policies that directly affect their lives the most.

Of course Biden is not as progressive as the aforementioned people so I'm not necessarily disagreeing Trump is more libertarian than him, although I could make that argument if I wanted to. Regarding the "Green New Deal," Biden can't pass anything - Congress has to - and just because a president supports something doesn't mean it will get done, even if you have all branches of government on your side. Just ask Obama what it was like getting the ACA passed and the ACA is infinitely more popular than the GND. 

True, but I'll still elect for the guy who if by some chance did get his way, it wouldn't go against just about every value I have.

In theory Trump might sound more libertarian, but in actuality government has grown in size, scope and spending since he took office while our civil liberties have arguably decreased, and Trump loves the expansion and utility of state/government power like sending in the Feds or backing police 100% of the time. It's just such a weird correlation when I think about Trump and liberty lovers. It don't make no sense. 

You basically went through a laundry list of my problems with trump except a couple things. I think protectionist trade policy has its place, but the way he goes about his economic doctrine rubs me the wrong way. 
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@MisterChris
True, but I'll still elect for the guy who if by some chance did get his way, it wouldn't go against just about every value I have.

Uhh... if Trump got his way he would be a full blown dictator. He doesn't believe in term limits for himself and has "joked" about extending them or not accepting the election results if he loses. He hates checks and balances and the separation of powers. He has literally praised authoritarian governments, their leaders and how they are run... 

Like I said Trump has expanded the size, scope and spending of government more than any other president so how is that different than Biden doing the same if he got his way? Trump invests in defense vs. green infrastructure  but that's still government spending; it's still government interference in the market and manipulation of the economy and where we invest tax dollars.



I think protectionist trade policy has its place
If government regulation can provide a better outcome than the market or laissez faire principles here,  why stop at trade protectionism - why not apply that to everything else? 

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,299
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
Trump want's to be a dictator.

Thank goodness for the second amendment hey?
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@Danielle
Uhh... if Trump got his way he would be a full blown dictator. He doesn't believe in term limits for himself and has "joked" about extending them or not accepting the election results if he loses. He hates checks and balances and the separation of powers. He has literally praised authoritarian governments, their leaders and how they are run... 

Uh huh. 

Like I said Trump has expanded the size, scope and spending of government more than any other president so how is that different than Biden doing the same if he got his way? Trump invests in defense vs. green infrastructure  but that's still government spending; it's still government interference in the market and manipulation of the economy and where we invest tax dollars.

How is it different? Well, one spends billions more than the year before, one spends trillions.

One forces businesses to comply, one incentivizes them. 

If government regulation can provide a better outcome than the market or laissez faire principles here,  why stop at trade protectionism - why not apply that to everything else? 

Uh, no. Free markets are great and ideal, but only if other countries comply and don't extort the policy (the US has been tariffed and had intellectual property stolen to oblivion and hasn't cared until recently). In that sense, trade protectionist diplomacy is a good way to create the ideal market space between those countries and the US. 

Don't get confused. It's a private market. Not sure where you're getting "congratulations, the government isn't useless, therefore communism!" from. 
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@MisterChris
How is it different? Well, one spends billions more than the year before, one spends trillions.
Which one spends "billions" more than the year before? You literally just made that up lol. Trump and the 116th Congress have kicked off more than $2.3 trillion in new spending since the start of 2019 alone. Congress increased the money they appropriated by a ton and passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which enabled nearly $300 billion in additional spending on top of mandated and perpetually ignored discretionary budget caps - and it wasn't all for coronavirus either (not that we give government spending a pass when it's in response to emergencies). So clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

Again I will ask you what difference does it make if they're both spending trillions more? You can't defend Trump's spending because the fact that he increased the size, scope and spend of government beyond his "socialist"  predecessor Obama, but is somehow considered "more libertarian" than his Democratic rivals is laughably indefensible.


Don't get confused. It's a private market. Not sure where you're getting "congratulations, the government isn't useless, therefore communism!" from. 

Once you start regulating it's arguably not a private market. But I did not say communism was justified,  so let me clarify since you just presented a straw man in response to my question. What I asked was if government regulation can provide a better outcome than the market or laissez faire principles here,  why stop at trade protectionism - why not apply that to everything else? (I should have said anything else.)

This was a rhetorical question about the efficacy of libertarianism. You  said "Free markets are great and ideal, but only if other countries comply and don't extort the policy" which means you think it's okay to override libertarian principles (specifically the NAP) and capitalism, and for the U.S. government to ignore citizen's right to free trade because someone else, like the Chinese government, may be violating their rights too (btw not all libertarians believe in intellectual property but I digress).

That is the antithesis of libertarianism lol. That's like saying yeah guns are great and all, but since so many people abuse them now we can take them away from everyone or regulate them into oblivion in response to OTHER people messing up. That's funny. "China doesn't play fair, therefore, we can now dictate the parameters of your trade and force you to buy more expensive goods through tariffs." Gee thanks.