Trump: "All freedoms flow from national security"

[Anti Federalist]

The reason conservatives support a strong and well-funded military is because they know that all freedoms flow from national security.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 90-91 , Dec 5, 2011

[Christopher A. Brown]

The reason conservatives support a strong and well-funded military is because they know that all freedoms flow from national security.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 90-91 , Dec 5, 2011

Economic rewards from pillaged resources have also created part of the world that hates us.

All that really has little to do with freedom. Under the conditions resulting for conquest, maybe, but will we make that perpetual?

Stupid people use violence that destroys resources and makes enemies. Smart people are so valuable to the rest of the world they are all about cooperating with you.

But Trump might be the lessor of evils today.

[Jan2017]

The reason conservatives support a strong and well-funded military is because they know that all freedoms flow from national security.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 90-91 , Dec 5, 2011

Same as right out of Rudy Giuliani's playbook as well . . . paraphrased as "Freedom is about authority."


Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/08/15/freedom-is-about-authority

[Ender]

Trump's an I.D.10.T.

[Anti Federalist]

Same as right out of Rudy Giuliani's playbook as well . . . paraphrased as "Freedom is about authority."


Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

http://reason.com/blog/2007/08/15/freedom-is-about-authority

Yup, I thought that exact same thing when I saw it.

[Occam's Banana]

All freedoms flow from National Security, hallowed be Thy name
Thy tryanny come, Thy will be done, in 'Merica as it was in Orwell
Give us this day our daily surveillance, and forgive us our thought-crimes
As we snitch on those who thought-crime against Thee
And lead us not into liberty, but deliver us from scary "terrorists"
For Thine is the State, and the power, and the panopticon, for ever and ever, amen

[TaftFan]

"Flow"

What, is freedom now a liquid?

[Dr.3D]

National Security is just a code name for government security.

[AuH20]

We get it. You loathe Trump. Too bad no one is the room will get within a stone's throw to the presidency. At best, the system breaks down.

[RJB]

"Flow"

What, is freedom now a liquid?

A liquid to be dammed (or damned) at their whim.

[Sola_Fide]

Well, at least we know that he has no idea where rights come from.

[jj-]

We get it. You loathe Trump. Too bad no one is the room will get within a stone's throw to the presidency. At best, the system breaks down.

Nothing posted is news to me. I criticized Trump's attempt to use eminent domain when it was news. It's funny that posting all these articles is just about a waste of time, because people don't support Trump because they expect a perfect candidate, but to disrupt the establishment and to at least get a centrist after having a hardcore Marxist leftist, and they don't trust the Republicans to deliver. Unfortunately they don't trust Rand either because they're at a point they don't trust any Republican politician in office, period. They don't follow the news like we do to know that some are different.

[AuH20]

I'm pretty certain he's stating that the exercise of freedom is predicated upon physical security. So if you have a rampaging army terrorizing your streets, you're probably not going to maximize your freedom.

[AuH20]

Nothing posted is news to me. I criticized Trump's attempt to use eminent domain when it was news. It's funny that posting all these articles is just about a waste of time, because people don't support Trump because they expect a perfect candidate, but to disrupt the establishment and to at least get a centrist after having a hardcore Marxist leftist, and they don't trust the Republicans to deliver. Unfortunately they don't trust Rand either because they're at a point they don't trust any Republican politician in office, period. They don't follow the news like we do to know that some are different.

Number one, it's highly unlikely Trump gets the presidency since these things are decided behind the scenes. Though there is a chance he could wrangle away the Republican primary, based off pure charisma. Number two, voting for someone does not mean that you necessarily endorse them. Thirdly, voting is deciding things after the fact, which ties into point #1. So this nonsense that you or I are abetting evil is complete nonsense, when the entire process is inherently unfair and evil to begin with.

[dude58677]

All freedoms flow from National Security, hallowed be Thy name
Thy tryanny come, Thy will be done, in 'Merica as it was in Orwell
Give us this day our daily surveillance, and forgive us our thought-crimes
As we snitch on those who thought-crime against Thee
And lead us not into liberty, but deliver us from scary "terrorists"
For Thine is the State, and the power, and the panopticon, for ever and ever, amen

ROFLMAO!

[Sola_Fide]

All freedoms flow from National Security, hallowed be Thy name
Thy tryanny come, Thy will be done, in 'Merica as it was in Orwell
Give us this day our daily surveillance, and forgive us our thought-crimes
As we snitch on those who thought-crime against Thee
And lead us not into liberty, but deliver us from scary "terrorists"
For Thine is the State, and the power, and the panopticon, for ever and ever, amen

That was great. +rep

[Anti Federalist]

We get it. You loathe Trump. Too bad no one is the room will get within a stone's throw to the presidency. At best, the system breaks down.

Loathe is a strong word.

I see a lot of people getting starry - eyed because Trump shouted some bellicose words at people.

I think it is misplaced affection, just like those that thought the same thing about Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders on the left, just because they may say the right thing, usually for the wrong reason, does not mean they are worthy of political support.

And the thing is: I happen to agree with Trump on trade issues, as those who know me, know.

But in the end I think he is just another NYC authoritarian, pressed from the same mold as Doomberg and Ghouliani, who I do loathe.

[EBounding]

I think what Trump is doing is funny, but overall it's not helpful. I don't want him anywhere near the presidency. He's just as dangerous as any of the other candidates.

[Henry Rogue]

I'm pretty certain he's stating that the exercise of freedom is predicated upon physical security. So if you have a rampaging army terrorizing your streets, you're probably not going to maximize your freedom.
Especially when it's your own country's government's army.

[GunnyFreedom]

Loathe is a strong word.

I see a lot of people getting starry - eyed because Trump shouted some bellicose words at people.

I think it is misplaced affection, just like those that thought the same thing about Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders on the left, just because they may say the right thing, usually for the wrong reason, does not mean they are worthy of political support.

And the thing is: I happen to agree with Trump on trade issues, as those who know me, know.

But in the end I think he is just another NYC authoritarian, pressed from the same mold as Doomberg and Ghouliani, who I do loathe.

This. I don't really GAF about Trump, but seeing people whom I have formerly thought of as being principled glomming on to this clown, that bothers me.

[timosman]

This. I don't really GAF about Trump, but seeing people whom I have formerly thought of as being principled glomming on to this clown, that bothers me.

When this clown goes down, and he will, everything he was throwing out will be discredited as well. Anybody mentioning how biased the media is will be likened to him and declared insane instantly. Everything he talks about becomes a taboo subject. A brilliant way to quash dissent.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm pretty certain he's stating that the exercise of freedom is predicated upon physical security. So if you have a rampaging army terrorizing your streets, you're probably not going to maximize your freedom.

The following "predicates" for the exercise of "freedom" were brought to you by the American "security" state (whence "all freedoms flow" :rolleyes:) ...

http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Boston-lockdown1.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/f9/bf9bbb93-0482-5460-9461-65aa521bda48/51721d6ceb70b.preview-620.jpg

https://foodforthethinkers.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-martial-law-3.jpg

[Origanalist]

When this clown goes down, and he will, everything he was throwing out will be discredited as well. Anybody mentioning how biased the media is will be likened to him and declared insane instantly. Everything he talks about becomes a taboo subject. A brilliant way to quash dissent.

I agree totally.

[cindy25]

is this much different from Tom Cotton, Joni Earnest, Lindsey Graham, Peter King, even Walker and Rubio? Rand can't beat Trump on either immigration or Israel or national security (among the sheep who vote in Iowa) find other issues: forced National service (could Trump be goaded into supporting it?) copyright reform/internet privacy (Rand led the the fight against SOPA) Rand is smarter, a better debater but he needs to be more aggressive.
but keep Trump in the debates, keep it on the issues, and stop being thin skinned (Rand won't go on O'Reilly because its a tough interview)

[cajuncocoa]

We get it. You loathe Trump. Too bad no one is the room will get within a stone's throw to the presidency. At best, the system breaks down.
And we get it...you love him.

What you don't get is we loathe the idea of him....freedom from national security? What part of that sounds like liberty to you?

[PaulConventionWV]

Wow. Fuck that guy.

[David Sadler]

The reason conservatives support a strong and well-funded military is because they know that all freedoms flow from national security.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 90-91 , Dec 5, 2011

Is this intended to imply that Trump is advocating a militarized police state?

It should be obvious that liberty and the security to live (express) that liberty go hand in hand.

Should we imply from this that Rand and Ron are against a strong military and are, therefore, against national security? Have either of them said such a thing?

[RJB]

It should be obvious that liberty and the security to live (express) that liberty go hand in hand.

Should we imply from this that Rand and Ron are against a strong military and are, therefore, against national security? Have either of them said such a thing?

Many of our founders were against standing armies. This is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. An armed citizenry negates the need for an overpowering police state.

Liberals have lost their way. Instead of trying to disarm tyrants and governments, they want to disarm people.

Conservatives have become suicidal. On one hand they claim the 2nd Amendment is to fight tyranny. On the other hand they arm the machinery of tyranny to the teeth.

With the 2nd Amendment we needn't have mothers and father stationed far from home and family in 130+ plus countries getting scarred physically, mentally and spiritually. They should be at home raising their families, starting businesses, going to college, etc. The "assault rifles" should be well oiled in their closets, otherwise gathering dust.

[Sola_Fide]

Is this intended to imply that Trump is advocating a militarized police state?

It should be obvious that liberty and the security to live (express) that liberty go hand in hand.

Should we imply from this that Rand and Ron are against a strong military and are, therefore, against national security? Have either of them said such a thing?


Where does "security" come from? The military?

[David Sadler]

Many of our founders were against standing armies. This is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. An armed citizenry negates the need for an overpowering police state.

Liberals have lost their way. Instead of trying to disarm tyrants and governments, they want to disarm people.

Conservatives have become suicidal. On one hand they claim the 2nd Amendment is to fight tyranny. On the other hand they arm the machinery of tyranny to the teeth.

With the 2nd Amendment we needn't have mothers and father stationed far from home and family in 130+ plus countries getting scarred physically, mentally and spiritually. They should be at home raising their families, starting businesses, going to college, etc. The "assault rifles" should be well oiled in their closets, otherwise gathering dust.

How do you infer from the OP's Trump quote that Trump is advocating a standing domestic army -- militarized police state?

Are you advocating doing away with our army, air force and navy? Are you advocating doing away with the Pentagon, DoD, National Guard and Coast Guard?

Is Rand advocating these things? Did Ron advocate these things?

[AuH20]

And we get it...you love him.

What you don't get is we loathe the idea of him....freedom from national security? What part of that sounds like liberty to you?

I love Trump? More like I love what Trump can bring to the table, which is two party system chaos. He's extremely vote-worthy for that premise alone. Break the wheel. Vote for Trump, even if he can't win.

[RJB]

How do you infer from the OP's Trump quote that Trump is advocating a standing domestic army -- militarized police state?

Because we pretty much already have it, and he doesn't seem to be espousing the liberty that our founder wrote about. http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/billingsgazette.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/f9/bf9bbb93-0482-5460-9461-65aa521bda48/51721d6ceb70b.preview-620.jpg




Are you advocating doing away with our army, air force and navy? Are you advocating doing away with the Pentagon, DoD, National Guard and Coast Guard? We have a few endless wars going on right now. Troops in 130 + countries. We have other mischief going on in countless other places(drones, covert ops, etc.) I am not advocating doing away with the army etc. However what we are doing now is in no way keeping anyone safe. In fact it's quite insane.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE


Is Rand advocating these things? Did Ron advocate these things?
Ask Rand or Ron, I don't speak for them.

[David Sadler]

Where does "security" come from? The military?

Are you saying that a military is not part of providing for the 'common defense' in today's world?



"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[David Sadler]

Because we pretty much already have it, and he doesn't seem to be espousing the liberty that our founder wrote about.


Trump IS espousing the ability to express and live our liberty and prosperity. He speaks out against open borders, against bad trade deals, against stationing troops overseas, against common core. How is this not speaking in favor of our liberty?




We have a few endless wars going on right now. Troops in 130 + countries. We have other mischief going on in countless other places(drones, covert ops, etc.) I am not advocating doing away with the army etc. However what we are doing now is in no way keeping anyone safe.


Ron advocated bringing the troops home, not eliminating the military, for that very reason. Trump is sounding this theme as well, but in a more subdued tone.

[Ronin Truth]

Reasons to like Trump count: -5. :p

[cajuncocoa]

I love Trump? More like I love what Trump can bring to the table, which is two party system chaos. He's extremely vote-worthy for that premise alone. Break the wheel. Vote for Trump, even if he can't win.That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Someone who says freedom comes from national security is not vote-worthy in my opinion, and he won't have mine.

[David Sadler]

Someone who says freedom comes from national security is not vote-worthy in my opinion, and he won't have mine.


So you're against national security and for national insecurity. What an odd position. Do you think that is an electable position for Rand to take as well?

[Sola_Fide]

Are you saying that a military is not part of providing for the 'common defense' in today's world?

Do you agree or disagree with this quote:


"Government is incapable of doing what it is supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions."

-Ron Paul

[jj-]

I love Trump? More like I love what Trump can bring to the table, which is two party system chaos.

Exactly. That's what most people attacking you don't understand, that wanting disruption doesn't mean you love Trump.

They seem to have a binary mindset:

1. You loathe him
2. You love him

Nothing in between and no other thought is possible. What weirdos.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny can't understand

I'm going to start calling you the 'resident retard.' Every post you've mentioned me the last 2 weeks or so has been themed on me being stupid. Maybe instead of my not understanding, I understand completely and reject your plan as ignorant and self defeating. Or are you too stupid to grasp that?

[Dr.3D]

So folks feel the need to vote for a democrat who is running as a republican because he is disrupting the system. Guess that can happen when there is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[jj-]

Every post you've mentioned me the last 2 weeks or so has been themed on me being stupid.

What about every post you made saying people support Trump and love him just for mentioning positive aspects of him. You're very eager to criticize but are not at all receptive when someone points out that you can't stop lying about others and saying falsehoods about their views.

It's possible for a bad person to have positive aspects. That's what you can't seem to grasp.

[GunnyFreedom]

What about every post you made saying people support Trump and love him just for mentioning positive aspects of him. You're very eager to criticize but are not at all receptive when someone points out that you can't stop lying about others and saying falsehoods about their views.

Calling people stupid is not valid criticism, it is an ad hominem attack. My arguments have been logical and valid.


It's possible for a bad person to have positive aspects. That's what you can't seem to grasp.

Again, have you considered that I grasp it perfectly but simply reject your hypothesis that the promotion of psychopathy is in any way good for electoral politics?

[jj-]

My arguments have been logical and valid.

lol, no, you have proven you haven't grasped the most basic principles of liberty. And not only that, you have a binary mindset that makes only one of two things possible regarding Trump: love him, or hate him. That's not only weird, it's also a dangerous mindset.

[RJB]

More like I love what Trump can bring to the table, which is two party system chaos.

I do like that, as well.

[GunnyFreedom]

you haven't grasped the most basic principles of liberty.

again, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments, and they are bad logic. Your entire post was an ad hominem. As I said earlier, given that the last 2-3 weeks your only words to me have been to call me stupid, maybe I should start calling you the resident retard. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander eh?

[jj-]

Your entire post was an ad hominem.

No, your posts prove that you have a binary mindset as I pointed out.

[GunnyFreedom]

No, your posts prove that you have a binary mindset as I pointed out.

My rejection of your idea that Trump is in any way good for the American electoral process, is evidence of my opinion that Trump is not good for the electoral process. Your speculation that this indicates a binary "love or hate" thought process is just that, speculation. It does not follow and it is by definition an ad hominem. You would know this if you weren't the resident retard.

[jj-]

Your speculation that this indicates a binary "love or hate" thought process is just that, speculation.

It's not speculation, it's based on your posts falsely claiming that posters who pointed out something positive about Trump love or support him, even after they explicitly stated that is false.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not speculation, it's based on your posts falsely claiming that posters who pointed out something positive about Trump love or support him, even after they explicitly stated that is false.

Evidence suggests that posting 10 threads in the space of two weeks supporting a person, is an indication of support for that person. That's called "logic." Logic is in part the process of forming arguments based on premises leading to conclusions through the application of deduction. From the premise that you have posted as many as 10 threads supporting Donald Trump in the span of 2 weeks, the argument that a person posting numerous threads in support of a person means that they support that person, the conclusion being that you support Donald Trump. This is a rational argument that follows logically from the premises. Your response that I am stupid, is not a logical argument, it is a logical fallacy.

[jj-]

Evidence suggests that posting 10 threads in the space of two weeks supporting a person, is an indication of support for that person.

Yet there is not one instance of me "singing the praises" about Trump, which you said I do. As I mentioned, the most positive I recall saying about him is that he is energetic, hardly "singing the praises". And this is not just me, you exaggerated and made false and over the top claims on this issue about other posters as well.

[jj-]

Also, my last few threads about Trump weren't even with the main purpose of pointing out something about him, but mostly to have a little fun after noticing some posters go nuts with every mention of Trump.

[GunnyFreedom]

Also, my last few threads about Trump weren't even about pointing out something about him, but mostly to have a little fun after noticing some posters go nuts with every mention of Trump.

Having fun at the expense/pain of others is evidence of sociopathy. You may want to seek therapy for that condition.

[David Sadler]

Are you saying that a military is not part of providing for the 'common defense' in today's world?



"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."





Do you agree or disagree with this quote:


"Government is incapable of doing what it is supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions."
-Ron Paul



Are you saying that a military is not part of providing for the 'common defense' in today's world?

Are you saying that Ron took the position and that Rand is now taking the position of national insecurity by eliminating our army, air force, navy, national guard and coast guard?

[jj-]

Having fun at the expense/pain of others is evidence of sociopathy. You may want to seek therapy for that condition.

It's constructive mockery. It might train them to not overreact so easily. Only in your black and white world such mild fun can be construced as psychopathy.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's constructive mockery. It might train them to not overreact so easily. Only in your black and white world such mild fun can be construced as psychopathy.
Because mocking Ron Paul supporters and calling them stupid with the intent of causing them pain is 'constructive.' Why can't you just admit that the mere fact that someone disagrees with you doesn't make them stupid? Overweening ego and an inability to admit when one is wrong is also a sign of sociopathy.

[hells_unicorn]

The reason conservatives support a strong and well-funded military is because they know that all freedoms flow from national security.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 90-91 , Dec 5, 2011

Historically, the most vocal supporter of a strong and well-funded military was Julius Caesar, and when his strong and well-funded military marched into Rome, his freedoms flowed in excess and for the time he enjoyed them immensely. Everybody else in Rome, on the other hand, had a different experience.

[Sola_Fide]

Are you saying that a military is not part of providing for the 'common defense' in today's world?

Are you saying that Ron took the position and that Rand is now taking the position of national insecurity by eliminating our army, air force, navy, national guard and coast guard?

Yes, I'm saying that. Standing armies are anathema to freedom. The American military is the engine for global nation building and terror around the world. It's evil, not good. It will be used and is being used to tyrannize Americans.

[Anti Federalist]

Are you saying that a military is not part of providing for the 'common defense' in today's world?

Are you saying that Ron took the position and that Rand is now taking the position of national insecurity by eliminating our army, air force, navy, national guard and coast guard?

It is the national security state and its apparatuses, that is the primary cause of loss of freedom in AmeriKa.

I have zero, zero, worry that uluating jihadists are reading my email, monitoring my phone calls, tracking my movements, setting up road blocks, running check points or going to SWAT me at oh dark thirty and kill my dogs, terrorize my family and drag me off to prison.

[Smitty]

Well,...the libertarians have no candidate in the upcoming presidential election, so I'll vote for someone whom isn't afraid to build a relationship with Putin and improve the deals that America has been getting with foreign trade.

It also doesn't bother me that Trump makes the media and his opponents afraid to challenge him.

Or,...the RNC can send us yet another advocate for Israel and multiculturalism and the group of people who support Trump will stay home and we'll get Hillary.

Republicans quit voting for RNC approved shitheads a few years ago.

The RNC doesn't care, however, because Hillary is on the neocon team just like the RNC is.

[RJB]

I have zero, zero, worry that uluating jihadists are reading my email, monitoring my phone calls, tracking my movements, setting up road blocks, running check points or going to SWAT me at oh dark thirty and kill my dogs, terrorize my family and drag me off to prison.

This is what it comes down to. His source for freedom is our current source for tyranny.

I will keep my right to bear arms.

YOU (Trump, MIC, Police state, etc.) leave me alone! I don't need you!

[HankRicther12]

The reason conservatives support a strong and well-funded military is because they know that all freedoms flow from national security.

Source: Time to Get Tough, by Donald Trump, p. 90-91 , Dec 5, 2011


That statement could be true or false depending on how you are interpreting it. I imagine you are looking at that from the standpoint of our current interventionist FP and the govt spying and what not here at home - which certainly does not give us freedom.

However, to suggest you can have freedom without being able to forcefully defend it from people who would take it from you is false, so if Trump is saying we need a national defense and a border, then I agree with him completely.


Loathe is a strong word.

I see a lot of people getting starry - eyed because Trump shouted some bellicose words at people.

I think it is misplaced affection, just like those that thought the same thing about Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders on the left, just because they may say the right thing, usually for the wrong reason, does not mean they are worthy of political support.

And the thing is: I happen to agree with Trump on trade issues, as those who know me, know.

But in the end I think he is just another NYC authoritarian, pressed from the same mold as Doomberg and Ghouliani, who I do loathe.

I would say you are making more of people's "starry-eyes" than what is really there, I am fully aware of who Trump is, I don't like him, I don't think he'd be a good President, I don't think he shares my views, I do however like that he is breaking the mold and not backing down, I am so sick of seeing people say something that is factual but then when a few tweeters say that they are offended the person rolls right over.


When this clown goes down, and he will, everything he was throwing out will be discredited as well. Anybody mentioning how biased the media is will be likened to him and declared insane instantly. Everything he talks about becomes a taboo subject. A brilliant way to quash dissent.

So....in other words, exactly how it was before he came along. What have we lost?


Do you agree or disagree with this quote:

Seems everyone is inserting things into that comment that aren't there. You can have a military without having standing armies, you can have a navy and air force and not send them all over the world. These arguments are kind of akin to the liberals stance against guns, as tho the guns themselves are responsible for the violence. A military can be used for defense or aggression, it is up to the people of that society.


Exactly. That's what most people attacking you don't understand, that wanting disruption doesn't mean you love Trump.

They seem to have a binary mindset:

1. You loathe him
2. You love him

Nothing in between and no other thought is possible. What weirdos.

I agree, my eyes are wide open about the man, I don't how anyone else is any better.


Yes, I'm saying that. Standing armies are anathema to freedom. The American military is the engine for global nation building and terror around the world. It's evil, not good. It will be used and is being used to tyrannize Americans.

Again, I don't see many here advocating standing armies, I certainly don't, but FTR most the damage the military does is not done by ground troops.



I love Trump? More like I love what Trump can bring to the table, which is two party system chaos. He's extremely vote-worthy for that premise alone. Break the wheel. Vote for Trump, even if he can't win.

Amen to that, any break from the usual would be a start, it would at least signal that Americans have broken out of this Dem/Rep trance (and yes people, I know Trump is running as a Rep, but he's definitely not a team player)

[cajuncocoa]

Someone who says freedom comes from national security is not vote-worthy in my opinion, and he won't have mine.
So you're against national security and for national insecurity. What an odd position. Do you think that is an electable position for Rand to take as well?

I think you should go back and read exactly what I said -- what you responded to -- again.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well,...the libertarians have no candidate in the upcoming presidential election, so I'll vote for someone whom isn't afraid to build a relationship with Putin and improve the deals that America has been getting with foreign trade.

It also doesn't bother me that Trump makes the media and his opponents afraid to challenge him.

Or,...the RNC can send us yet another advocate for Israel and multiculturalism and the group of people who support Trump will stay home and we'll get Hillary.

Republicans quit voting for RNC approved shitheads a few years ago.

The RNC doesn't care, however, because Hillary is on the neocon team just like the RNC is.
So why, exactly, are you hanging out on a series of forums designed explicitly and exclusively for the election of Rand Paul if you have no interest in electing Rand Paul?

[Smitty]

This forum isn't about Rand Paul. This is the 2016 Presidential election forum.

Also, when I joined this forum in 2007 it was all about Ron Paul.

Any other questions?

[GunnyFreedom]

This forum isn't about Rand Paul. This is the 2016 Presidential election forum.

Also, when I joined this forum in 2007 it was all about Ron Paul.

Any other questions?

I see Rand Paul's photo at the top of the forums. If you hate Rand Paul, then you shouldn't be here. There are plenty of other forums on this domain that are not dedicated to electing Rand Paul. If you are incapable of limiting yourself to the Ron Paul forums, then this group may suit your interests better:

http://www.topix.com/forum/who/donald-trump

[Smitty]

So you've self appointed yourself to control the message on here, eh?

Maybe you'd feel more at home on one of the sites controlled by SJW's. They may even make you a moderator there.

[jj-]

If you hate Rand Paul, then you shouldn't be here.

I'm curious about how you got that he hates Rand Paul from what he posted?

[Smitty]

I'm curious about how you got that he hates Rand Paul from what he posted?

Rule #1: All SJW's lie.

[jj-]

Gunny just keeps adding name after name to the list of posters he lies about, then he complains other people don't apologize for who knows what they did.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm curious about how you got that he hates Rand Paul from what he posted?
He himself said that there is nobody for a libertarian to vote for. Therefore he does not support Rand Paul. Nevertheless he is posting on Rand Paul Forums. Why would someone who does not support Rand Paul be posting in Rand Paul forums? Why would someone go on to Rand Paul Forums to promote a different candidate unless he explicitly wanted Rand Paul to lose?

[Smitty]

I say what I want to say.

I don't owe you an explanation for it.

[jj-]

He himself said that there is nobody for a libertarian to vote for. Therefore he does not support Rand Paul. Nevertheless he is posting on Rand Paul Forums. Why would someone who does not support Rand Paul be posting in Rand Paul forums? Why would someone go on to Rand Paul Forums to promote a different candidate unless he explicitly wanted Rand Paul to lose?

The question I asked is how you got that he hates Rand Paul.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny just keeps adding name after name to the list of posters he lies about, then he complains other people don't apologize for who knows what they did.
I'm the one telling the truth. Funny, you didn't blink an eye when he called me a social justice warrior. It's not a lie when you don't like it but truth when you do like it. I am one of the few people left on these forums who still retains my principles intact. You hate me because I will not become an unprincipled scumbag.

[Smitty]

If you're not a SJW, stop behaving like one.

[jj-]

You hate me

lol, no, I don't. Let me teach you something: Smitty disagreeing with Rand doesn't mean he hates Rand. I disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you. Not worth the energy!

[GunnyFreedom]

The question I asked is how you got that he hates Rand Paul.

And I answered you. You may not like the answer, on account of the fact that it is logical and well-reasoned, given that you work from emotionalism and superficial nonsense, nevertheless I answered you, despite your horrible attitude and your history of lying about my positions, motivations, and state of mind, and your history of calling me stupid.

If if you are not here to support Rand Paul, then you do not belong in Rand Paul's forums. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[GunnyFreedom]

If you're not a SJW, stop behaving like one.
Point to one thing I've ever said in the 8 years I've been on this forum that is even remotely similar to a social justice warrior. :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

lol, no, I don't. Let me teach you something: Smitty disagreeing with Rand doesn't mean he hates Rand. I disagreeing with you doesn't mean I hate you. Not worth the energy!
You are not bright enough and too irrational to 'teach' anything. If someone is going onto Rand Paul Forums to oppose Rand Paul and promote another candidate it's because they to not want that person elected. You clearly cannot grasp that concept. Perhaps the next time you go to call me stupid you should look in a mirror first.

[jj-]

You are not bright enough and too irrational to 'teach' anything. If someone is going onto Rand Paul Forums to oppose Rand Paul and promote another candidate it's because they to not want that person elected. You clearly cannot grasp that concept. Perhaps the next time you go to call me stupid you should look in a mirror first.

Yeah, not the topic of what I asked you about.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, not the topic of what I asked you about.

You can't handle subtlety either, apparently. Again, you should probably think twice before calling anybody you disagree with 'stupid.' It's kinda like Chris Burke calling James Wood a moron because he doesn't like the same flavor of Popsicle.

[jj-]

You can't handle subtlety either, apparently. Again, you should probably think twice before calling anybody you disagree with 'stupid.' It's kinda like Chris Burke calling James Wood a moron because he doesn't like the same flavor of Popsicle.

Who knew a few mentions of the word 'Trump' could get Gunny screaming like a baby.

[Smitty]

Point to one thing I've ever said in the 8 years I've been on this forum that is even remotely similar to a social justice warrior. :rolleyes:

Calling those who disagree with you a "hater" is a classic strategy of the SJW's.

[GunnyFreedom]

Calling those who disagree with you a "hater" is a classic strategy of the SJW's.
I disagree with people vehemently every single day without identifying them as a hater. You, on the other hand, have come into Rand Paul's forums, declared that he does not have your support, and promoted a different candidate. If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...

[GunnyFreedom]

Who knew a few mentions of the word 'Trump' could get Gunny screaming like a baby.
Trump is everything that the Ron Paul movement used to hate. People promoting Trump demonstrates that the Ron Paul movement has died on account of people abandoning the principles that brought us together. For those of us who have dedicated the last 8 years of our lives, in blood sweat and tears, watching superficial thoughtless unprincipled people destroying the Ron Paul movement it should be obvious why it pisses people off.

[Dr.3D]

Don't let em bother ya Gunny, those pumpkins show up every four years and then go dormant for another four years.

[jj-]

Trump is everything that the Ron Paul movement used to hate. People promoting Trump demonstrates that the Ron Paul movement has died on account of people abandoning the principles that brought us together. For those of us who have dedicated the last 8 years of our lives, in blood sweat and tears, watching superficial thoughtless unprincipled people destroying the Ron Paul movement it should be obvious why it pisses people off.

If you're going to scream at people who say positive things about others, Trump included, you're going to lose a lot of people, who might have adopted your position later if you just kept civility. I'm not the only one involved here, you have randomly and falsely attacked more people, with just about no provocation.

[RJB]

Don't let em bother ya Gunny, those pumpkins show up every four years and then go dormant for another four years.

Agreed. We know your caliber.

[juleswin]

SJW should definitely win the most overused phrase of 2015. Its a go-to-insult to fling at anyone who disagrees with them. If it was left to me, I will ban every single one of you Trump donkeys. Its one thing to support a liberty type candidate like Gary Johnson and such over Rand but its a whole new thing to support an authoritarian type just because of his ridiculous immigration stance.

[jj-]

SJW should definitely win the most overused phrase of 2015. Its a go-to-insult to fling at anyone who disagrees with them. If it was left to me, I will ban every single one of you Trump donkeys. Its one thing to support a liberty type candidate like Gary Johnson and such over Rand but its a whole new thing to support an authoritarian type just because of his ridiculous immigration stance.

oh, wow. I'm so hurt by your opinion.

Also, I guess you would ban about 3 in every 10 members, according to the poll of favorite presidential candidates, and lose all those people when Trump could possibly drop in week or so. You sound like a levelheaded decision maker.

Many people, myself included, do not prefer just Trump over others, I actually prefer Rand, Cruz, and Trump over others.

[juleswin]

oh, wow. I'm so hurt by your opinion.

Also, I guess you would ban about 3 in every 10 members, according to the poll of favorite presidential candidates, and lose all those people when Trump could possibly drop in week or so. You sound like a levelheaded decision maker.

Many people, myself included, do not prefer just Trump over others, I actually prefer Rand, Cruz, and Trump over others.

Its even worse than that, cos that's even half of what I'll love to do the the Trump fanboys. Its one thing if the whole reason for this website is promote some irrelevant hobby, but its called liberty tree and if 9/10 people just happen to all of a sudden support authoritarian candidates, the mandate should still stay the same. Leave and start your own Donaldtrumpforum. This is liberty tree and the emphasis being on liberty.

Speaking of SJW type activities, you guys are the ones who go into areas where you are not welcomed and push your authoritarian ideas on said group. Just the same way feminist SJW types are trying to do in gaming. Funny how the people calling other SJW are ones who act very similar to SJW. Projection much?

[HankRicther12]

SJW should definitely win the most overused phrase of 2015. Its a go-to-insult to fling at anyone who disagrees with them. If it was left to me, I will ban every single one of you Trump donkeys. Its one thing to support a liberty type candidate like Gary Johnson and such over Rand but its a whole new thing to support an authoritarian type just because of his ridiculous immigration stance.

It likely does get abused, but I generally will only say it after someone calls me that other overused word "racist". Some people just don't want to have any conversations about the realities of race, culture, and the impact of mass immigration so they just call you racist to avoid debating you, so yeah, that to me is an SJW.

What is so ridiculous about Trump's immigration stance and who appointed you the judge and jury as far what is liberty or authoritarian?

[jj-]

Its even worse than that, cos that's even half of what I'll love to do the the Trump fanboys.

Wow, what a tough guy. Imagining yourself doing tough things surely compensates.


Speaking of SJW type activities [...] calling other SJW are ones who act very similar to SJW. Projection much?

Don't know, I'm not all that informed about SWJs but I will say you do seem very sensitive.

[juleswin]

Wow, what a tough guy. Imagining yourself doing tough things surely compensates.



Don't know, I'm not all that informed about SWJs but I will say you do seem very sensitive.

I am a tough guy alright. Also, I wouldn't call it sensitive, rather something like anger that people who should know better are falling for the fraud and making it even that a much harder prospect of electing the most liberty minded candidate since Ron Paul. So yea, I am angry that you people are pushing this man and essentially putting my future in danger all because of his clownish immigration policy.

[jj-]

So yea, I am angry that you people are pushing this man and essentially putting my future in danger all because of his clownish immigration policy.

Oh, yeah, we are the main factors and the cause of your bleak future. You think our posts moved Rand's polling 10% or 20%? This is one of the most hilarious scapegoating I've seen.

[Smitty]

I disagree with people vehemently every single day without identifying them as a hater. ..

You should have tried to keep that up today.

Instead. you've identified yourself as someone who will resort to SJW rhetoric when it suits your view.

Bad sign,.....very bad sign.

You'll need to be very careful about making amends for the next year or so to keep from outing yourself.

[Smitty]

You're welcome.

[RJB]

This thread is bullshit. This is not about calling Gunny, Juleswin, or other members with good names a SJW, OPP, NWA or whatever.

This is about Donald Trump's statement.

The question that should be asked: Is our current National Security Apparatus currently so big that it is a threat to our liberty and should be scaled back, is it just right, or do we need more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in?

[Anti Federalist]

The thread is about Trump's statement.

No shit, this!

Who, exactly, other than the local, state and federal security apparatus, is liable to throw a grenade in your window tonight and blow your child's face off?

Or kick in your door?

Or shoot your dog?

Are the "jihadists" gonna strap you down and take your blood at a roadside checkpoint?

Are the "illegals" going to seize every worldly asset you own, based on just their say so?

[GunnyFreedom]

You should have tried to keep that up today.

Instead. you've identified yourself as someone who will resort to SJW rhetoric when it suits your view.

Bad sign,.....very bad sign.

You'll need to be very careful about making amends for the next year or so to keep from outing yourself.

You're just like that clown Christopher Brown. Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before his greatness he calls an "agent." Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before your greatness is a "Social Justice Warrior." Both of you use those terms as weaponized speech because you both know that infiltration agents and social justice warriors are anathema around here. You have no connection or correlation with truth, you are just trying to use words to wound. That is the dead opposite of principle. Using bullshit rhetoric and sophistic tactics, you have far more in common with SJW's than any 10 of me.

This used to be a movement of actual Constitutionalist and libertarian principle. Now it's utterly infected by psychopaths like a bad flea infestation.

[Ender]

You're just like that clown Christopher Brown. Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before his greatness he calls an "agent." Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before your greatness is a "Social Justice Warrior." Both of you use those terms as weaponized speech because you both know that infiltration agents and social justice warriors are anathema around here. You have no connection or correlation with truth, you are just trying to use words to wound. That is the dead opposite of principle. Using bullshit rhetoric and sophistic tactics, you have far more in common with SJW's than any 10 of me.

This used to be a movement of actual Constitutionalist and libertarian principle. Now it's utterly infected by psychopaths like a bad flea infestation.

Agree 1000%

[jj-]

What is so ridiculous about Trump's immigration stance

I see, this got no response. Maybe jules didn't think it through?

[Smitty]

I've never heard of Christopher Brown,.....but knock yaself out trying to draw a comparison.

Maybe he's as correct as I am. Hell,...I don't know.

[HankRicther12]

This thread is bullshit. This is not about calling Gunny, Juleswin, or other members with good names a SJW, OPP, NWA or whatever.

This is about Donald Trump's statement.

The question that should be asked: Is our current National Security Apparatus currently so big that it is a threat to our liberty and should be scaled back, is it just right, or do we need more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in?

Actually, I would like to know where you get all that from Trumps statement? He made no mention of any of those things. I believe we need a military for defense and a border and a strict immigration policy, It doesn't mean I believe we should have "more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in", you are just making a deceptive statement.

[RJB]

Actually, I would like to know where you get all that from Trumps statement? He made no mention of any of those things. I believe we need a military for defense and a border and a strict immigration policy, It doesn't mean I believe we should have "more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in", you are just making a deceptive statement.

I agree with the border. Our country's freedom is guaranteed to those who live here. Letting a horde of people who vote against basic freedoms (2nd amendment, etc.) is against out interest. Letting people in with links to terrorists groups while having our young men literally getting their balls blown off in Iraq makes no sense. I do get that.

However, our freedoms come from God. If you're an atheist, they come from nature, not by government decree. I am free because I was born that way and keep myself free.

I don't think my statement was deceptive. Trump is a man who has made many conflicting statements over the years. He used the force of government to try to force an old woman from her home to build a casino. He has no principles and he calls for military strength. I don't trust that.


I trust the man in your avatar a whole lot more than trump. Pat is consistent. Trump is not.

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually, I would like to know where you get all that from Trumps statement? He made no mention of any of those things. I believe we need a military for defense and a border and a strict immigration policy, It doesn't mean I believe we should have "more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in", you are just making a deceptive statement.

If you don't think Trump is a neocon, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are deluding yourself.

[jj-]

If you don't think Trump is a neocon, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are deluding yourself.

Oh God, another person who hasn't learned the meaning of neocon even after 8 years in the forum.

[cajuncocoa]

Oh God, another person who hasn't learned the meaning of neocon even after 8 years in the forum.
Enlighten us.

[AuH20]

If you don't think Trump is a neocon, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are deluding yourself.

Trump is a raving neocon.

http://www.rense.com/general54/bushs.htm

2004


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Billionaire Donald Trump, America's toughest employer, would like to fire the Bush Administration for its decision to invade Iraq, according to an interview in the August edition "Esquire," due to be released on Friday.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country?," said the host of NBC's "The Apprentice," whose hallmark line is "You're fired."

"C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have," Trump said in excerpts of the interview released in advance to Reuters.

"The Apprentice" was one of NBC's biggest hits last season, making the real estate mogul a well-known entity to TV viewing audiences.

"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!," Trump said.

Trump also proclaims he would be "tougher" on terrorism.

"Bin Laden would have been caught long ago. Tell me, how is it possible that we can't find a guy who's six-foot-six and supposedly needs a dialysis machine? Can you explain that one to me? We have all our energies focused on one place, where they shouldn't be focused," he said.

Bigtime.

[jj-]

Enlighten us.

I'm surprised you can't characterize a neocon.

Watch the video of Kirsten Powers accusing Krauthammer of being a neocon to his face. She knows enough of the philosophy to make an accurate accusation. Also you can read about what Bill Kristol wrote about Trump in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477160-Donald-Trump-Has-The-Right-Enemies) for context, and this was way before the McCain statement.

There are many philosophies that are bad, neoconservatism is just one of them.

[GunnyFreedom]

Trump is a raving neocon.

http://www.rense.com/general54/bushs.htm

2004



Bigtime.

Right, Trump wouldn't have tried to build a democracy, he would have stolen their oil and then reduced the nation to a glass parkinglot. How as that any less of a neocon doctrine? If anything it makes him more of a neocon than Bush.

[donnay]

This should go here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8&app=desktop

[GunnyFreedom]

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

Positions of power and influence.
Not conservatives, not dedicated to limited Constitutional government
Comes from the far left, Trotskyite communism.
Agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, political or violent
Want to redraw the map of the middle East, and are willing to use force to do it.
Believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
Believe that the ends justify the means.
Do not express opposition to the welfare state.
Endorse American Empire
Believe in Lying to enhance the health of the State.
Believe in a powerful centralized federal government.
Society should be run by the wealthy and the elite.
Oppose neutrality in foreign policy
Dislike and despise libertarians and constitutionalists.
Support the erosion of domestic liberty and freedom
Unconditionally support Israel, particularly the Likud political party.

The only one on that list that doesn't apply to Trump is "Does not express opposition to the welfare state."

This list is straight from Ron Paul himself.

[jj-]

^ I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't, quote from your post,

"Comes from the far left, Trotskyite communism."
"Agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, political or violent"

These are not his only differences with neocons.

People shouldn't just use bad words they don't know what they mean to attack others they don't like.

[AuH20]

Right, Trump wouldn't have tried to build a democracy, he would have stolen their oil and then reduced the nation to a glass parkinglot. How as that any less of a neocon doctrine? If anything it makes him more of a neocon than Bush.

Trump would have likely taken on the Saudis and the Neos can't have that. But Iraq?

[David Sadler]

Trump is everything that the Ron Paul movement used to hate.

That isn't true.


People promoting Trump demonstrates that the Ron Paul movement has died on account of people abandoning the principles that brought us together.

That isn't true either.


... last 8 years ... watching superficial thoughtless unprincipled people destroying the Ron Paul movement it should be obvious why it pisses people off.

It's been painful for all of us to watch as the fracturing of the RP coalition took place. The coalition never was a monolithic Libertarian movement. Many in the RP coalition did not identify as Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party. They were independent. They do not join groups to be part of a herd. Many merely want to be free of globalism and be individuals in a sovereign nation that maximizes individual liberty and prosperity. A sovereign nation has borders and regulates trade and immigration to manage the needs of the nation in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity for its citizens.

Once Ron folded up the POTUS campaign, the coalition members who did not have the time and/or desire to engage in group politics watched in sad resignation as the coalition did what groups usually do - fracture - as the power struggles began to see who was going to control the group. The group became politicized and dominated by people who declared themselves to be the ideological leaders of the group only to watch the coalition dissolve around them and wonder why. They even attempted to take control of this liberty forum and enact rules and limit tactics, strategy and candidates that were 'acceptable' coming into this election.

Rand came along and naturally many hoped he would be like Ron but were doubtful after Rand's behavior near the end of Ron's campaign. Time has shown that Rand is not Ron and holds several principles and policies that conflict with some of those that made Ron such a magnet for his campaign.

Rand has potential though and many of us would like to see him ascend to POTUS eventually, so the question many of us are asking is, how can we incrementally move towards more liberty and prosperity now at the same time that we elevate Rand to national office.

Many on the forum dislike Trump. But quite a few see him as the best option at the moment to win the POTUS and move the nation incrementally towards more liberty and prosperity. This is why, I have advocated that the forum members consider a TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket. Explore it. Talk it up. Trump is 70? He would be 75 at the end of his first term as POTUS? PAUL 2020 running as an experienced and successful VP sounds like a very reasonable possibility.

That your reaction to this proposal can be predicted is a measure of at least some of the reasons why the RP coalition has fractured.

The GOP has fractured.
The RP coalition has fractured.
The Dems are fracturing.

There's a HUGE opportunity here to form a new coalition of the disenfranchised who still believe the globalists need to be defeated so we can move towards more liberty and prosperity. Trump and Sanders appear to attracting these disenchanted and disenfranchised in their respective parties. Looking past the primaries, many see this as the seed of the new coalition that might be able to put the TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket in charge until 2020.

Something to think about.

[jj-]

Good post, David. Requiring everyone to agree with one's pet peeves and dislikes is a bad way to try to form a coalition.

[GunnyFreedom]

^ I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't, quote from your post,

"Comes from the far left, Trotskyite communism."

Trump was a registered Democrat until 2009. He helped fund the Pelosi Reid majorities, is best buddies with Michael Bloomberg. Financed Terry Mcauliffe's victory. Donated to Hillary's 2008 campaign. Has given more than $100k to the Clinton foundation when Hillary was no longer in a position to help him. His political positions over the last 20 years have been a leftist litany.


"Agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, political or violent"

He is constantly agitating for hope and change.


These are not his only differences with neocons.

These are not different from neocons.


People shouldn't just use bad words they don't know what they mean to attack others they don't like.

You should not be calling people stupid when you are in fact the ignorant one.

[GunnyFreedom]

That isn't true.



That isn't true either.

You are wrong.


It's been painful for all of us to watch as the fracturing of the RP coalition took place. The coalition never was a monolithic Libertarian movement. Many in the RP coalition did not identify as Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party. They were independent. They do not join groups to be part of a herd. Many merely want to be free of globalism and be individuals in a sovereign nation that maximizes individual liberty and prosperity. A sovereign nation has borders and regulates trade and immigration to manage the needs of the nation in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity for its citizens.

Once Ron folded up the POTUS campaign, the coalition members who did not have the time and/or desire to engage in group politics watched in sad resignation as the coalition did what groups usually do - fracture - as the power struggles began to see who was going to control the group. The group became politicized and dominated by people who declared themselves to be the ideological leaders of the group only to watch the coalition dissolve around them and wonder why. They even attempted to take control of this liberty forum and enact rules and limit tactics, strategy and candidates that were 'acceptable' coming into this election.

Rand came along and naturally many hoped he would be like Ron but were doubtful after Rand's behavior near the end of Ron's campaign. Time has shown that Rand is not Ron and holds several principles and policies that conflict with some of those that made Ron such a magnet for his campaign.

Rand has potential though and many of us would like to see him ascend to POTUS eventually, so the question many of us are asking is, how can we incrementally move towards more liberty and prosperity now at the same time that we elevate Rand to national office.

Many on the forum dislike Trump. But quite a few see him as the best option at the moment to win the POTUS and move the nation incrementally towards more liberty and prosperity. This is why, I have advocated that the forum members consider a TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket. Explore it. Talk it up. Trump is 70? He would be 75 at the end of his first term as POTUS? PAUL 2020 running as an experienced and successful VP sounds like a very reasonable possibility.

That your reaction to this proposal can be predicted is a measure of at least some of the reasons why the RP coalition has fractured.

The GOP has fractured.
The RP coalition has fractured.
The Dems are fracturing.

There's a HUGE opportunity here to form a new coalition of the disenfranchised who still believe the globalists need to be defeated so we can move towards more liberty and prosperity. Trump and Sanders appear to attracting these disenchanted and disenfranchised in their respective parties. Looking past the primaries, many see this as the seed of the new coalition that might be able to put the TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket in charge until 2020.

Something to think about.

I am a Constitutionalist. I am unwilling to abandon every principle I have shed blood sweat and tears over the last 8 years for. I will die before I join any coalition that involves neocon liberal progressive Trump.

[Smitty]

I am a Constitutionalist. I am unwilling to abandon every principle I have shed blood sweat and tears over the last 8 years for. I will die before I join any coalition that involves neocon liberal progressive Trump.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXeIxtI--uc

[Anti Federalist]

I am a Constitutionalist. I am unwilling to abandon every principle I have shed blood sweat and tears over the last 8 years for. I will die before I join any coalition that involves neocon liberal progressive Trump.

Well, hopefully we won't have to die, but I'm with Gunny here.

Not going to drink of that vat of Kool-Aid, sorry.

[Sola_Fide]

That isn't true.



That isn't true either.



It's been painful for all of us to watch as the fracturing of the RP coalition took place. The coalition never was a monolithic Libertarian movement. Many in the RP coalition did not identify as Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party. They were independent. They do not join groups to be part of a herd. Many merely want to be free of globalism and be individuals in a sovereign nation that maximizes individual liberty and prosperity. A sovereign nation has borders and regulates trade and immigration to manage the needs of the nation in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity for its citizens.

Once Ron folded up the POTUS campaign, the coalition members who did not have the time and/or desire to engage in group politics watched in sad resignation as the coalition did what groups usually do - fracture - as the power struggles began to see who was going to control the group. The group became politicized and dominated by people who declared themselves to be the ideological leaders of the group only to watch the coalition dissolve around them and wonder why. They even attempted to take control of this liberty forum and enact rules and limit tactics, strategy and candidates that were 'acceptable' coming into this election.

Rand came along and naturally many hoped he would be like Ron but were doubtful after Rand's behavior near the end of Ron's campaign. Time has shown that Rand is not Ron and holds several principles and policies that conflict with some of those that made Ron such a magnet for his campaign.

Rand has potential though and many of us would like to see him ascend to POTUS eventually, so the question many of us are asking is, how can we incrementally move towards more liberty and prosperity now at the same time that we elevate Rand to national office.

Many on the forum dislike Trump. But quite a few see him as the best option at the moment to win the POTUS and move the nation incrementally towards more liberty and prosperity. This is why, I have advocated that the forum members consider a TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket. Explore it. Talk it up. Trump is 70? He would be 75 at the end of his first term as POTUS? PAUL 2020 running as an experienced and successful VP sounds like a very reasonable possibility.

That your reaction to this proposal can be predicted is a measure of at least some of the reasons why the RP coalition has fractured.

The GOP has fractured.
The RP coalition has fractured.
The Dems are fracturing.

There's a HUGE opportunity here to form a new coalition of the disenfranchised who still believe the globalists need to be defeated so we can move towards more liberty and prosperity. Trump and Sanders appear to attracting these disenchanted and disenfranchised in their respective parties. Looking past the primaries, many see this as the seed of the new coalition that might be able to put the TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket in charge until 2020.

Something to think about.


Haha....that is the worst political prediction I've read on this website. It's literally nuts, and has no chance of happening.

[nikcers]

[/URL]Donald Trump tweeted a campaign ad featuring Nazi uniforms on an American flag


[URL="https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/621043655151853568"] (https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/621043655151853568)http://www.motherjones.com/files/ascreen_shot_2015-07-14_at_2.53.28_pm.jpg

[David Sadler]

Haha....that is the worst political prediction I've read on this website. It's literally nuts, and has no chance of happening.

Read it again. It's not a prediction. It's a proposal.

Ron Paul was cost many votes by the propaganda impression created by the GOP/Dem Parties and the MSM that he was unelectable; the mass of the rank and file believed as they were conditioned to believe that he was a clown on the outer fringes of Wackoville. Don is no Ron, but in many ways he is better equipped to get some things done if elected to the office. And those 'things' could help reverse the agenda of the globalist crowd.

Regularly, smart management reviews the status of any campaign and reassesses the plan and its goals. Many now question if those in the liberty movement who are more inclined to fundamentalist ideology even have a plan.

One imagines a leather helmeted, goggle wearing world war one pilot riding his burning plane all the way down to its abrupt encounter with the unmovable Earth; refusing to use the chute strapped to his back to bailout and live to fight another day. Why does the pilot not bailout? Why is there no Plan B for the liberty movement to move liberty, prosperity and Rand forward?

[HankRicther12]

However, our freedoms come from God. If you're an atheist, they come from nature, not by government decree. I am free because I was born that way and keep myself free.

I don't think my statement was deceptive. Trump is a man who has made many conflicting statements over the years. He used the force of government to try to force an old woman from her home to build a casino. He has no principles and he calls for military strength. I don't trust that.

I trust the man in your avatar a whole lot more than trump. Pat is consistent. Trump is not.

I didn't say my rights come from the military and neither did Trump, but saying we have natural rights is a nice ideal, however the reality of life is that others don't care about that ideal and if you can't forcefully defend yourself, you will lose your freedoms. Also, I've said numerous times I am not in love with Trump, I don't trust Trump, I don't see him as any kind of savior, I only feel it is great that he is speaking the unspeakable and not backing down like every other chickenshit out there.

For how many years now most of the nation, not just Republicans, but even libertarians, anarchist whatever, have lived under this notion that we must somehow get the whacko leftists to like us and be our friend, so people grovel and play nice, and this just emboldens them all the more. Anyone here who thinks Rand's sucking up to minorities was going to get him even 1% more of their votes than he would have otherwise is a fool. He shredded any dignity he may have had and the left still hates him.


I am a Constitutionalist. I am unwilling to abandon every principle I have shed blood sweat and tears over the last 8 years for. I will die before I join any coalition that involves neocon liberal progressive Trump.

Do tell how you've shed blood for anything? You're a Marine, part of the military that the NeoCons use as a plaything and you're actually going to lecture others? Too funny.

[AuH20]

[/URL]Donald Trump tweeted a campaign ad featuring Nazi uniforms on an American flag


[URL="https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/621043655151853568"] (https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/621043655151853568)http://www.motherjones.com/files/ascreen_shot_2015-07-14_at_2.53.28_pm.jpg

Maybe he is telling us something.

http://www.simhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/the-rise-of-the-fourth-reich-jim-marrs-book-review.jpg

[juleswin]

It likely does get abused, but I generally will only say it after someone calls me that other overused word "racist". Some people just don't want to have any conversations about the realities of race, culture, and the impact of mass immigration so they just call you racist to avoid debating you, so yeah, that to me is an SJW.

What is so ridiculous about Trump's immigration stance and who appointed you the judge and jury as far what is liberty or authoritarian?

Sorry to have missed your question. By ridiculous immigration policy, I am talking about the belief that he can build a fence on US/Mexican border and force Mexico to pay for it.

Also, if he wants to be serious, he would first work on cutting off welfare for illegals and one of the biggest things he can do to stem the flow of immigrants is something Rand has already proposed and that is ending birth right citizenship for non citizens. This is something most Americans even liberals would support, it is more rational and more doable that his physical fence idea and the plan to make Mexico pay for it.

[MaxPower]

I find Trump amusing, and enjoy watching the success of his candidacy demonstrate what an utter farce the US national political scene is, but I wouldn't consider supporting him for one moment, and no one else from our movement should either.

[David Sadler]

I find Trump amusing, and enjoy watching the success of his candidacy demonstrate what an utter farce the US national political scene is, but I wouldn't consider supporting him for one moment, and no one else from our movement should either.

'Our' movement?

[David Sadler]

[/URL]Donald Trump tweeted a campaign ad featuring Nazi uniforms on an American flag



[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/07/14/donald-trump-tweets-image-of-nazi-soldiers-inside-the-u-s-flag-then-deletes-tweet (https://twitter.com/MotherJones/status/621043655151853568)

What's the point that people who dislike Trump are trying to make with this image? Are people implying that Trump himself created this image? Are they implying that he or his campaign intentionally selected an image of German soldiers to include in the montage even if they created it? Did Trump tweet it or someone in his campaign? Was it an original tweet or a retweet?

This looks like the disinfo campaign that was waged against Ron Paul. Principles?

Looking at the possibilities for the back-story of this image, what's more nefarious, a mistake or an intentional attempt to manipulate the minds of people and demonize Trump in a disinfo campaign?

[Sola_Fide]

Read it again. It's not a prediction. It's a proposal.

Ron Paul was cost many votes by the propaganda impression created by the GOP/Dem Parties and the MSM that he was unelectable; the mass of the rank and file believed as they were conditioned to believe that he was a clown on the outer fringes of Wackoville. Don is no Ron, but in many ways he is better equipped to get some things done if elected to the office. And those 'things' could help reverse the agenda of the globalist crowd.

Regularly, smart management reviews the status of any campaign and reassesses the plan and its goals. Many now question if those in the liberty movement who are more inclined to fundamentalist ideology even have a plan.

One imagines a leather helmeted, goggle wearing world war one pilot riding his burning plane all the way down to its abrupt encounter with the unmovable Earth; refusing to use the chute strapped to his back to bailout and live to fight another day. Why does the pilot not bailout? Why is there no Plan B for the liberty movement to move liberty, prosperity and Rand forward?

If it's a proposal, it's nuts. You think Donald Trump cares or even understands what liberty is? He is a corporatist.

It's amusing to me to see people like you jump on whatever bandwagon the media tells you to jump on.

[HankRicther12]

Sorry to have missed your question. By ridiculous immigration policy, I am talking about the belief that he can build a fence on US/Mexican border and force Mexico to pay for it.

Also, if he wants to be serious, he would first work on cutting off welfare for illegals and one of the biggest things he can do to stem the flow of immigrants is something Rand has already proposed and that is ending birth right citizenship for non citizens. This is something most Americans even liberals would support, it is more rational and more doable that his physical fence idea and the plan to make Mexico pay for it.

Well, no pun intended I'm a bit on the fence about the fence thing, mainly because I'm sure it will become another debacle where it will end up costing 10 times what they said it would and all kinds of fraud will emerge, but as for getting Mexico to pay for it that wouldn't be hard to do. I believe we give Mexico Foreign Aid so just cut that off and that's a start.

I'm pretty sure Trump would agree with ending the welfare, birthright citizenship, etc, has he suggested he wouldn't do that? I'll say it again, it's not like I'm salivating over Trump or anything, I just like that he's saying the things he's saying, that's all.

[Jan2017]

. . . I'm a bit on the fence about the fence thing, mainly because I'm sure it will become another debacle where it will end up costing 10 times what they said it would and all kinds of fraud will emerge, but as for getting Mexico to pay for it that wouldn't be hard to do. . . .

What ??? . . . no pun intended . . . that's a great line.

I'll add that Trump has got people seriously talking about immigration . . .
Realize, as Rand has said - the policy is already there.

In 2013, 28% of immigration out of the 41 million new Americans -to USA - were from one country - Mehhico.
India #2 at 5% and China #3 at 5% - Guatemala and Dominicans were in the top ten, (and Cuba immigrant/refugees as well)
all of course are also single digit percentages.
So this is not a problem with the other Central American nations or Latinos and not a racial thing.

It is one nation, and if Trump remarks about charging Mexico $100,000 a head seems crass . . . so what imo. I agree with Trump,
hate his pro-choice though.

[juleswin]

Well, no pun intended I'm a bit on the fence about the fence thing, mainly because I'm sure it will become another debacle where it will end up costing 10 times what they said it would and all kinds of fraud will emerge, but as for getting Mexico to pay for it that wouldn't be hard to do. I believe we give Mexico Foreign Aid so just cut that off and that's a start.

Btw, that is not making Mexico pay for it when you are still paying for it with US tax payers money, he can suggest seizing Mexican govt assets in the US and use it to pay for it. Also, you do know foreign aid are like bribes for XXX foreign govts to do favors for the US? remove the foreign aid and Mexico may stop cooperating with the DEA to fight the drug war or start buying its military hardware and systems from another country. Remove them and the string they are attached to are cut off. Not quite sure what the strings are but there are string attached to every penny sent south of the border, they are not charity.


I'm pretty sure Trump would agree with ending the welfare, birthright citizenship, etc, has he suggested he wouldn't do that? I'll say it again, it's not like I'm salivating over Trump or anything, I just like that he's saying the things he's saying, that's all.

That's where we differ, Trump has zero credibility with me and I have yet to see anything from him that would give him any credibility in my book. But since his whole stick is immigration, one would think that he would be well versed on the topic and be able to articulate sensible policies that would help stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Ending birth right citizenship is something most of the world has and he can use the fact that most Social democratic European countries liberal love so much have this policy to sell it to liberals. Enact this one policy and would see a noticeable dip in welfare spending especially among the border states.

Trump has been very chummy with liberals and I see his campaign as a way to damage the republican brand amongst independents and fence sitter so no matter who is nominated at the end, they would not be able to win the general. He is not a conservative, he is not an American first guy, he is just a self promoter who cares nothing about this country. That is why it turns my stomach that they are people on this site of all places promoting the man.

[kcchiefs6465]

Read it again. It's not a prediction. It's a proposal.

Ron Paul was cost many votes by the propaganda impression created by the GOP/Dem Parties and the MSM that he was unelectable; the mass of the rank and file believed as they were conditioned to believe that he was a clown on the outer fringes of Wackoville. Don is no Ron, but in many ways he is better equipped to get some things done if elected to the office. And those 'things' could help reverse the agenda of the globalist crowd.

Regularly, smart management reviews the status of any campaign and reassesses the plan and its goals. Many now question if those in the liberty movement who are more inclined to fundamentalist ideology even have a plan.

One imagines a leather helmeted, goggle wearing world war one pilot riding his burning plane all the way down to its abrupt encounter with the unmovable Earth; refusing to use the chute strapped to his back to bailout and live to fight another day. Why does the pilot not bailout? Why is there no Plan B for the liberty movement to move liberty, prosperity and Rand forward?
That Donald Trump is even mentioned proves my point that this is one big carnival.

Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump... I don't think it would be more evidently a circus if they were throwing pies.

[Occam's Banana]

Trump has been very chummy with liberals and I see his campaign as a way to damage the republican brand amongst independents and fence sitter so no matter who is nominated at the end, they would not be able to win the general. He is not a conservative, he is not an American first guy, he is just a self promoter who cares nothing about this country. That is why it turns my stomach that they are people on this site of all places promoting the man. You just don't understand, jules. Trump is "playing chess, not checkers" ...

[heavenlyboy34]

That Donald Trump is even mentioned proves my point that this is one big carnival.

Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump... I don't think it would be more evidently a circus if they were throwing pies.

"Politics is showbiz for The Ugly".

[anaconda]

Very "Hitler" of the Donald.

[HankRicther12]

Btw, that is not making Mexico pay for it when you are still paying for it with US tax payers money, he can suggest seizing Mexican govt assets in the US and use it to pay for it. Also, you do know foreign aid are like bribes for XXX foreign govts to do favors for the US? remove the foreign aid and Mexico may stop cooperating with the DEA to fight the drug war or start buying its military hardware and systems from another country. Remove them and the string they are attached to are cut off. Not quite sure what the strings are but there are string attached to every penny sent south of the border, they are not charity.



That's where we differ, Trump has zero credibility with me and I have yet to see anything from him that would give him any credibility in my book. But since his whole stick is immigration, one would think that he would be well versed on the topic and be able to articulate sensible policies that would help stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Ending birth right citizenship is something most of the world has and he can use the fact that most Social democratic European countries liberal love so much have this policy to sell it to liberals. Enact this one policy and would see a noticeable dip in welfare spending especially among the border states.

Trump has been very chummy with liberals and I see his campaign as a way to damage the republican brand amongst independents and fence sitter so no matter who is nominated at the end, they would not be able to win the general. He is not a conservative, he is not an American first guy, he is just a self promoter who cares nothing about this country. That is why it turns my stomach that they are people on this site of all places promoting the man.

I realize it's not technically making Mexico pay for it, but if you're asking me would I rather that money go towards a fence or have it continue to be given to them for bribe money?

I also feel like so many you are buying into the MSM narrative about what it takes to win the independents, or even blue Democrats. Despite what TV wants you to think many of the people who vote Dem are not these rabid Cultural Marxists who revolve their existence around gays, abortion, and race. They are just blue collar joes who have bought into the nonsense that Dems care about the little guy, it's BS, but nevertheless the Dems have been successful at pushing that image. I would say any Rep would have much more success appealing to the working class as opposed to this ridiculous strategy of groveling to the left trying to get them to be your friend - a strategy that has failed over and over.

Immigration is a big concern for the working class, Republicans are idiots to ignore this. I also don't see anyone here necessarily promoting Trump, we are just discussing him. Again, you seem to buy into the MSM narrative that he is somehow hurting something, I'll bet you Ted Cruz is going to latch onto the immigration thing and you'll see what happens.

[anaconda]

Don't forget our freedoms granted by the IRS.

[Jan2017]

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/randtakesdowntrump001a_zpsazhsvawf.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/randtakesdowntrump001a_zpsazhsvawf.jpg.html)

Trump doesn't seem to hang out with any Founding Fathers much . . .

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/rand_signershall001b_zps87oyxo8m.jpg (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/rand_signershall001b_zps87oyxo8m.jpg.html)

.

[EBounding]

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-6DrK0dmCjjk%2FVaiEAm6KGXI%2FAAAAAAAAMak%2FSfQ2Id6_ CII%2Fs400%2FTrump-Wall.jpg

[KingNothing]

I'm pretty certain he's stating that the exercise of freedom is predicated upon physical security. So if you have a rampaging army terrorizing your streets, you're probably not going to maximize your freedom.

Agreed, and I don't see how that statement is in any way controversial.

Now, how much money we spend on national security, and the ridiculous manner in which we put that money to use is an entirely different issue.