Lew and Tom on the Trump phenomenon

[BGfree]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/tom-woods-proven-right-again/

As Tom notes, in the American establishment there is no dissent. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all agree on issues from war to empire, from welfare to banksterism. Anyone who threatens this ruling class is, of course, demonized and–they hope–silenced. And now, right on schedule, we’re starting to hear that Trump’s supporters are racists, sexists, antisemites, etc. Ross Perot got the same treatment, as did Pat Buchanan, and for the same reason. But I have a feeling that this time, it’s not going to work. Most Americans are tired of the reign of PC terror, which grows more evil and idiotic by the day. And–trigger warning–Trump has given them safe spaces from all the micro-aggressions.

[r3volution 3.0]

So, according to these two idiots, Trump's some kind of rebel against the establishment for violating certain conventions of speech (Wow, that's totally going to save the country! The debt will vanish! The wars will end! We'll return to sound money! All we gotta do is keep insulting Mexicans and women!), while Rand's a sell-out deserving of constant criticism because he only wants to carry out 98% of his father's program, such trifling things as the largest spending cut in history, the largest tax cut in history, and preserving the Bill of Rights. Fuck you Tom, Fuck you Lew. Go play in traffic.

[jj-]

while Rand's a sell-out deserving of constant criticism because he only wants to carry out 98% of his father's program, such trifling things as the largest spending cut in history, the largest tax cut in history, and preserving the Bill of Rights.

Did they mention Rand? At least half of what you're claiming they said I don't think they did.

[hells_unicorn]

So, according to these two idiots, Trump's some kind of rebel against the establishment for violating certain conventions of speech (Wow, that's totally going to save the country! The debt will vanish! The wars will end! We'll return to sound money! All we gotta do is keep insulting Mexicans and women!), while Rand's a sell-out deserving of constant criticism because he only wants to carry out 98% of his father's program, such trifling things as the largest spending cut in history, the largest tax cut in history, and preserving the Bill of Rights. Fuck you Tom, Fuck you Lew. Go play in traffic.

I lost interest in both Tom and Lew a few years ago. In spite of their positive points, they are so fanatical that they cancel out most of them. Someone needs to sit these two clowns down and explain to them the fact that it's not only about being right, but also doing right.

[jj-]

When one is trashing Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods, how big can the libertarian tent be? You people are demanding such uniformity in thought and opinion that, ironically, resemble the most hardcore of authoritarians.

[BGfree]

I lost interest in both Tom and Lew a few years ago. In spite of their positive points, they are so fanatical that they cancel out most of them. Someone needs to sit these two clowns down and explain to them the fact that it's not only about being right, but also doing right.

What has Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods done that isn't right?

[Chieppa1]

So, according to these two idiots, Trump's some kind of rebel against the establishment for violating certain conventions of speech (Wow, that's totally going to save the country! The debt will vanish! The wars will end! We'll return to sound money! All we gotta do is keep insulting Mexicans and women!), while Rand's a sell-out deserving of constant criticism because he only wants to carry out 98% of his father's program, such trifling things as the largest spending cut in history, the largest tax cut in history, and preserving the Bill of Rights. Fuck you Tom, Fuck you Lew. Go play in traffic.

Yes, Tom Woods is a clown because he thinks watching the political circus implode is fun. Come on dude. Some people just don't give a shit about the political process after Dr. Paul. I'm almost there myself. Just following Rand march until 2016. After that, I doubt I'll vote again any time soon.

Tom Woods is one of the nicest people I have ever met.

I guess Scott Horton is also an idiot for not getting on board with Rand?

If only all of them just went full Jack Hunter...

[SilentBull]

When one is trashing Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods, how big can the libertarian tent be? You people are demanding such uniformity in thought and opinion that, ironically, are resembling the most hardcore of authoritarians.

Hmm. Are you saying the same thing about Lew and Tom when they trash Rand and praise Trump?

[jj-]

Hmm. Are you saying the same thing about Lew and Tom when they trash Rand and praise Trump?

I listened to the episode yesterday. I don't recall one mention of Rand. Did they even mention him?

[SilentBull]

I listened to the episode yesterday. I don't recall one mention of Rand. Did they even mention him? If not, your post is based on falsehoods.

I'm not talking about that one episode, and you know that.

[Sola_Fide]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/tom-woods-proven-right-again/

As Tom notes, in the American establishment there is no dissent. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all agree on issues from war to empire, from welfare to banksterism. Anyone who threatens this ruling class is, of course, demonized and–they hope–silenced. And now, right on schedule, we’re starting to hear that Trump’s supporters are racists, sexists, antisemites, etc. Ross Perot got the same treatment, as did Pat Buchanan, and for the same reason. But I have a feeling that this time, it’s not going to work. Most Americans are tired of the reign of PC terror, which grows more evil and idiotic by the day. And–trigger warning–Trump has given them safe spaces from all the micro-aggressions.


Trump has none of the qualities of Buchanan, and I don't even like Buchanan.

[jj-]

I'm not talking about that one episode, and you know that.

No, I don't. I don't follow everything Tom Woods says or does. This is the first time I've heard him in a very long time. This thread is about yesterday's episode. I don't recall one mention of Rand.

Why is the tone of your post like a person crying?

[Sola_Fide]

Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are being babies. They are intentionally ignoring Rand and taking their juvenile anger out on him because he's not pure.

It's funny how they are always seeking non-political solutions to issues while fawning over Trump's political circus.

[r3volution 3.0]

Did they mention Rand?

They've both been attacking Rand for years.


What has Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods done that isn't right?

Attacking Rand and pumping Trump.


I guess Scott Horton is also an idiot for not getting on board with Rand?

Yup, and a jackass to boot (Tom at least is well mannered).

Anyone describing himself as a libertarian who is actively trying to undermine Rand is either criminally stupid or a liar - take your pick.

If they were just not supporting Rand, ignoring him, that'd be one thing; but going out of your way to attack him is quite another.


Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are being babies. They are intentionally ignoring Rand and taking their juvenile anger out on him because he's not pure.

It's funny how they are always seeking non-political solutions to issues while fawning over Trump's political circus.

Well said

[SilentBull]

No, I don't. I don't follow everything Tom Woods says or does. This is the first time I've heard him in a very long time. This thread is about yesterday's episode. I don't recall one mention of Rand.

Why is the tone of your post like a person crying?

Please find a Trump forum somewhere. You complain about the "libertarian tent" yet you obviously are not a Rand supporter or you wouldn't be here posting pro Trump bullshit. Your post was so idiotic, and you don't even realize that it applies to you more than anyone.

[Chieppa1]

I'm not talking about that one episode, and you know that.

I listen to every episode of Tom Woods' show. He disagrees with Rand Paul on issues. He does not "bash" him and "support" Trump. He will not be campaigning and ghost writing for Trump. He is in the camp of individuals that came out of the woodwork to be involved in the political process from 2007-12 to support the greatest statesman in this country's history. And then he backed away from the political process afterward. He had explained his positions very clearly. Him and Jesse Benton and the "official campaign" did not get along. Some libertarians do not enjoy discussing politics. They enjoy actually practicing living as free as possible and not worry themselves with poll numbers.

[jj-]

Heads-up to those interested, this post made by rev3 is misleading. He gives the impression that Lew and Tom criticized Rand in the episode mentioned in the OP. I don't recall one mention of Rand, and rev3 later clarified that he was referring to things Lew and Tom said in other occasions, though he posted no links.



So, according to these two idiots, Trump's some kind of rebel against the establishment for violating certain conventions of speech (Wow, that's totally going to save the country! The debt will vanish! The wars will end! We'll return to sound money! All we gotta do is keep insulting Mexicans and women!), while Rand's a sell-out deserving of constant criticism because he only wants to carry out 98% of his father's program, such trifling things as the largest spending cut in history, the largest tax cut in history, and preserving the Bill of Rights. Fuck you Tom, Fuck you Lew. Go play in traffic.

[r3volution 3.0]

^^^Are you denying that Tom and Lew have (repeatedly) attacked Rand in the past?

[William Tell]

Heads-up to those interested, this post made by rev3 is misleading. He gives the impression that Lew and Tom criticized Rand in the episode mentioned in the OP.
No he didn't. His comment was harsh, but I think most of us know what he meant.

[jj-]

I listen to every episode of Tom Woods' show. He disagrees with Rand Paul on issues.

To "logikal" that means he is bashing Rand and loves Trump and should post at TrumpForums.com. Not only ilogikal by the way, there are others with TDS.

[Chieppa1]

They've both been attacking Rand for years.

Attacking Rand and pumping Trump.

Yup, and a jackass to boot (Tom at least is well mannered).

Anyone describing himself as a libertarian who is actively trying to undermine Rand is either criminally stupid or a liar - take your pick.

If they were just not supporting Rand, ignoring him, that'd be one thing; but going out of your way to attack him is quite another.

Actually, everything you said is just your opinion and you don't speak for all libertarians. So please calm the hell down and let people have their own views.

You are acting like Woods is "pumping Trump" because he actually want him to win.

Woods, Rockwell, Horton. All of them are anarchists who do not give a crap about the political process.

[Sola_Fide]

Heads-up to those interested, this post made by rev3 is misleading. He gives the impression that Lew and Tom criticized Rand in the episode mentioned in the OP. I don't recall one mention of Rand, and rev3 later clarified that he was referring to things Lew and Tom said in other occasions.

In their video of the first Republican debate, they both went out of their way to ignore Rand as much as possible and talk about Trump the whole time. It is intentional. They said 2 sentences about him in an hour.

[Chieppa1]

^^^Are you denying that Tom and Lew have (repeatedly) attacked Rand in the past?

Attacked and disagreed with are two different things. Also, maybe they have high standards for Rand since you know, they are personal friends of his father. And you are just an internet poster like the rest of us...

[Chieppa1]

In their video of the first Republican debate, they both went out of their way to ignore Rand as much as possible and talk about Trump the whole time. It is intentional. They said 2 sentences about him in an hour.

Link? Woods usually does not do full hour shows.

[SilentBull]

It's hilarious how these pro-Trump people think Trump is somehow a positive because he's "disrupting" the whole process. In reality, Trump couldn't be more part of the process. He's being used to keep serious candidates away so the establishment can win again. How exactly is this a positive? It's the same thing they did in 2012 when they pumped the other candidates. This is just a different strategy they are using. But they sure are fooling the fools.

[jj-]

In their video of the first Republican debate, they both went out of their way to ignore Rand as much as possible and talk about Trump the whole time. It is intentional. They said 2 sentences about him in an hour.

I recall the episode differently. They commented on every intervention by Rand on the debate, and mentioned some things that could've been done better. I think they also said he won his exchange with Christie. I don't know what else you want to qualify your purity test.

[Sola_Fide]

I recall the episode differently. They commented on every intervention by Rand on the debate, and mentioned some things that could've been done better. I think they also said he won his exchange with Christie. I don't know what else you want to qualify your purity test.

Are you seriously saying they are being completely unbiased here? Dude, wake up!

[Chieppa1]

It's hilarious how these pro-Trump people think Trump is somehow a positive because he's "disrupting" the whole process. In reality, Trump couldn't be more part of the process. He's being used to keep serious candidates away so the establishment can win again. How exactly is this a positive? It's the same thing they did in 2012 when they pumped the other candidates. This is just a different strategy they are using. But they sure are fooling the fools.

Again, or they are not fooling the fools and the non-"pro-Trump" people are just enjoying the show. Because, again, they are anarchists who don't give a shit about the political process.

Ironically, Ron Paul ran his campaign to spread liberty, educate and change hearts & minds. So after his campaign, Thomas Woods continues to education, spread liberty and change hearts & minds. Members of Ron Paul's forum denounce Woods for not going full politics like Jack fucking Hunter, and instead actually follow the advise of Ron and spread the message on his own way.

There are much better ways to spread liberty & freedom than get a man elected president.

[jj-]

Are you seriously saying they are being completely unbiased here? Dude, wake up!

No, I'm saying the things you said in your post I quoted are inaccurate, to my memory. Claiming that I'm saying that:


Are you seriously saying they are being completely unbiased here?

is called moving the goalposts, or in this case, more like putting the goalpost on an airplane to send it to another continent.

[Sola_Fide]

is called moving the goalposts, or in this case, more like putting the goalpost on an airplane to sending it to another continent.


What does Trump do to the goalposts? Send them to the moon?

[Chieppa1]

Are you seriously saying they are being completely unbiased here? Dude, wake up!

Tom Woods is a shill for the establishment that only became personal friends of the Paul family just to eventually gain a big enough audience to have a daily podcast and ruin Ron Paul's son's changes of being president. Clearly.

Or he is just tired of talking about Rand Paul.

[r3volution 3.0]

Actually, everything you said is just your opinion and you don't speak for all libertarians.

It's not my opinion that they've been attacking Rand and praising Trump - it's a fact.

And unless the definition of the word libertarian changed while I was sleeping, this is not consistent with being a libertarian.

...which means they either aren't libertarians, or they're very stupid ones who don't see the inconsistency (it's more the latter than the former in this case).


You are acting like Woods is "pumping Trump" because he actually want him to win.

Woods, Rockwell, Horton. All of them are anarchists who do not give a crap about the political process.

Let me see if I follow.

These are anarcho-capitalists who, opposing the existence of the state, have no interest in politics.

That's why they comment on politics, to praise a fascist demagogue and attack the candidate closest to their own views.

...makes sense

[Sola_Fide]

is called moving the goalposts, or in this case, more like putting the goalpost on an airplane to sending it to another continent.


What does Trump do to the goalposts? Send them to the moon??

[SilentBull]

Some think Trump is taking the whole freaking system down when in reality, the system is using Trump to keep itself alive. The establishment is so afraid of Trump that they give him 24/7 coverage. What kind of an idiot do you have to be to fall for this?

[specsaregood]

The author of the racist newletters and the neo-confederate like Donald Trump, consider me unsurprised.

[Chieppa1]

It's not my opinion that they've been attacking Rand and praising Trump - it's a fact.

And unless the definition of the word libertarian changed while I was sleeping, this is not consistent with being a libertarian.

...which means they either aren't libertarians, or they're very stupid ones who don't see the inconsistency (it's more the latter than the former in this case).



Let me see if I follow.

These are anarcho-capitalists who, opposing the existence of the state, have no interest in politics.

That's why they comment on politics, to praise a fascist demagogue and attack the candidate closest to their own views.

...makes sense

Yes. They are "praising" Donald Trump's views and policy ideas. Sure. Or like I said, they are discussing the circus. Because you know, Woods has a daily podcast show to put out and maybe needs a topic to discuss. Between his development of a home school curriculum, Liberty Classroom, write books, make speeches, raise 5 kids, and create another podcast that focuses on debunking Paul Krugman. But he doesn't have episodes praising Rand so he must be an idiot and unworthy of being called a libertarian.

Did you just state that attacking Rand Paul disqualifies you from being a libertarian? All a libertarian is is someone that is against coercion & believes in the NAP. Unless I am mistaken and missed a meeting...

[Chieppa1]

The author of the racist newletters and the neo-confederate like Donald Trump, consider me unsurprised.

Never liked Rockwell. However, I'm pretty sure Rockwell praised Jeffrey Tucker's great write ups on the fascism of Donald Trump.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes. They are "praising" Donald Trump's views and policy ideas. Sure. Or like I said, they are discussing the circus.

They're not discussing it, they're in favor of it, for whatever hare-brained reason ("shaking things up" derp derp derp).

I'll post the video evidence, if you like.


Because you know, Woods has a daily podcast show to put out and maybe needs a topic to discuss. Between his development of a home school curriculum, Liberty Classroom, write books, make speeches, raise 5 kids, and create another podcast that focuses on debunking Paul Krugman. But he doesn't have episodes praising Rand so he must be an idiot and unworthy of being called a libertarian.

It's not the lack of episodes praising Rand that's the problem.

It's the presence of episodes attacking Rand (while praising Trump).


Did you just state that attacking Rand Paul disqualifies you from being a libertarian?

I don't doubt their libertarianism, I doubt their intelligence.

A libertarian who attacks Rand for being insufficiently pure is a bit thick.

A libertarian who attacks Rand for being insufficiently pure, while simultaneously praising fascist demagogue Donald Trump, is a pure moron.

[Chieppa1]

They're not discussing it, they're in favor of it, for whatever hare-brained reason ("shaking things up" derp derp derp).

I'll post the video evidence, if you like.



It's not the lack of episodes praising Rand that's the problem.

It's the presence of episodes attacking Rand (while praising Trump).



I don't doubt their libertarianism, I doubt their intelligence.

A libertarian who attacks Rand for being insufficiently pure is a bit thick.

A libertarian who attacks Rand for being insufficiently pure, while simultaneously praising fascist demagogue Donald Trump, is a pure moron.

They enjoy it for the same reason they enjoyed Perot and Buchanan. It does shake things up and makes people freak out.

They enjoy it because they know, even though some here will not admit it, it doesn't matter who the president is.

And I'm sure both of them think TPTB won't let Rand get anywhere close to the White House.

[SilentBull]

Why is the tone of your post like a person crying?

That's your weak mind playing tricks on you, just like how Trump, to you, looks like more of a positive for the liberty movement than Rand.

[erowe1]

I don't get this. Trump has zero positives. Trump's supporters really are some of the most vile scum, as we've seen on this website. And they're wrong. He's not going to go anywhere in the election.

[BGfree]

Trump's supporters really are some of the most vile scum.

What characteristics do the people you refer to a "vile scum" possess?

[RonPaulMall]

It's hilarious how these pro-Trump people think Trump is somehow a positive because he's "disrupting" the whole process. In reality, Trump couldn't be more part of the process. He's being used to keep serious candidates away so the establishment can win again. How exactly is this a positive? It's the same thing they did in 2012 when they pumped the other candidates. This is just a different strategy they are using. But they sure are fooling the fools.

Is there anything you don't attribute to a conspiracy theory? Trump is not an intentional creation of the establishment. He is their creation in the sense that his rebellion against their standard operating procedure of screaming "that's racist" and then having the Republican grovel and beg and take back everything he said is what set the Trump Train in to motion. But it was not an intentional creation. Trump is their worst nightmare. He's owning their preferred candidate Jeb, he's completely undermining the immigration system that is at the core of their new world order, and he's so inflamed the electorate that it looks like Hillary won't even survive the primaries now, let alone win the General Election.

[erowe1]

What characteristics do the people you refer to a "vile scum" possess?

They're dumb as rocks.
They're racists.
They support Donald Trump for President.

[r3volution 3.0]

They enjoy it for the same reason they enjoyed Perot and Buchanan. It does shake things up and makes people freak out.

They enjoy it because they know, even though some here will not admit it, it doesn't matter who the president is.

And I'm sure both of them think TPTB won't let Rand get anywhere close to the White House.

If (as it appears from their comments), they genuinely believe that Trump's candidacy will advance the cause ("shake things up" derp derp derp) further than Rand's, then they are idiots. If (as you're suggesting), they're in it just for shits and giggles, and they don't really care about the outcome, then libertarians needs to be made aware of this, so as not to mistake their clowning-around for serious analysis. Either way, there's something deeply wrong with what they're doing.

[Krugminator2]

They enjoy it because they know, even though some here will not admit it, it doesn't matter who the president is.



It matters tremendously who the President is. Carter's response to stagflation was to raise taxes to control inflation and combine it with loose monetary policy so the economy didn't get worse. His prescription was the exact opposite of what was needed to be done. Reagan's cutting marginal rates combined with extreme measures to get inflation under control made the world a much better place for the next 15 years. Reagan was the right person for the economy in the early 80's. You are only living for a limited time so if someone can influence policy it not only makes the world a better place in the short term, it provides an example of success for future generations.

I am not a fan of Tom, Lew, or Scott Horton. All three of them are anti-state. I think that is why they like Trump. Trump is someone messes up the gears. But being anti-government is not the same as being pro-liberty.

And I would add, they are actively trying to undermine Rand Paul. I do not consider anyone an ally who is trying to undermine Rand's campaign. You don't have to actively support Rand, but anyone who thinks Rand is "ruining the brand" is an idiot and an enemy of liberty.

[Chieppa1]

Okay, I just relistened to the episode and I just can't stand Rockwell's voice.

I admit Woods sounded a bit ignorant of the theory of Trump as Hilary's Trojan Horse. But I would not be surprised if he an episode on it with another guest.

He did say multiple times that Trump would be a terrible president. And also that Trump is part of the establishment.

[jj-]

That's your weak mind playing tricks on you, just like how Trump, to you, looks like more of a positive for the liberty movement than Rand.

Where did I say he is a positive for the liberty movement? I do not think he is.

[r3volution 3.0]

Where did I say he is a positive for the liberty movement? I do not think he is.

....which is why I spend all my time promoting him.

:rolleyes:

[SilentBull]

Where did I say he is a positive for the liberty movement? I do not think he is.

Your actions say that. I know you like to focus more on words, which is why you've been hyptonized by Trump, but actions do speak louder.

[SilentBull]

Is there anything you don't attribute to a conspiracy theory? Trump is not an intentional creation of the establishment. He is their creation in the sense that his rebellion against their standard operating procedure of screaming "that's racist" and then having the Republican grovel and beg and take back everything he said is what set the Trump Train in to motion. But it was not an intentional creation. Trump is their worst nightmare. He's owning their preferred candidate Jeb, he's completely undermining the immigration system that is at the core of their new world order, and he's so inflamed the electorate that it looks like Hillary won't even survive the primaries now, let alone win the General Election.

I'm no conspiracy theorist. I never said they created him. I said they are using him as a distraction.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

It's hilarious how these pro-Trump people think Trump is somehow a positive because he's "disrupting" the whole process. In reality, Trump couldn't be more part of the process. He's being used to keep serious candidates away so the establishment can win again.

Who are all these "serious candidates" you're speaking of? Canada Ted? Babyface Rubio, the born natural Cuban? Ben "never elected to anything" Carson? Carly "failure at business and politics" Fiorina? Lindsey Graham?

[rg17]

Some think Trump is taking the whole freaking system down when in reality, the system is using Trump to keep itself alive. The establishment is so afraid of Trump that they give him 24/7 coverage. What kind of an idiot do you have to be to fall for this?

Exactly!

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The author of the racist newletters and the neo-confederate like Donald Trump, consider me unsurprised.

Where has James B. Powell made a statement on Trump? Was he on this radio show?

When have Rockwell or Woods ever argued for the reestablishment of the CSA?

[SilentBull]

Who are all these "serious candidates" you're speaking of? Canada Ted? Babyface Rubio, the born natural Cuban? Ben "never elected to anything" Carson? Carly "failure at business and politics" Fiorina? Lindsey Graham?
There's just one actually.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

There's just one actually.

Then you shouldn't have used the plural. You should be more clear in your language.

I'll assume "the one" you're talking about Rand.

The RNC already had 14 other stooges set up to drown out Rand Paul and ensure that Jeb Bush could win multiple states with only 12-15%. (Canada Ted's backstabbing fuckery in particular cut Rand's poll numbers in half before he even started.) Their "drown out" strategy for Rand was already in place for several months before Trump came along.

It is extremely poor discernment on your part if you honestly think Trump is just another RNC stooge here like Rubio or Perry. The RNC doesn't want someone relentlessly clowning on Jeb and the Bush family's many many failures and shortcomings like Trump is. The RNC doesn't want Trump or anyone else polling 5x Jeb in New Hampshire. This is not something the RNC wargamed for. There's a reason why the RNC is now trying the same "loyalty oath" tactics on Trump -- in three states now -- that they have tried on Ron Paul before. They are getting desperate.

[GunnyFreedom]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/tom-woods-proven-right-again/

As Tom notes, in the American establishment there is no dissent. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all agree on issues from war to empire, from welfare to banksterism. Anyone who threatens this ruling class is, of course, demonized and–they hope–silenced. And now, right on schedule, we’re starting to hear that Trump’s supporters are racists, sexists, antisemites, etc. Ross Perot got the same treatment, as did Pat Buchanan, and for the same reason. But I have a feeling that this time, it’s not going to work. Most Americans are tired of the reign of PC terror, which grows more evil and idiotic by the day. And–trigger warning–Trump has given them safe spaces from all the micro-aggressions.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/rpf/2015_09SEP/DTChangeHalf.png

[r3volution 3.0]

It is extremely poor discernment on your part if you honestly think Trump is just another RNC stooge here like Rubio or Perry. The RNC doesn't want someone relentlessly clowning on Jeb and the Bush family's many many failures and shortcomings like Trump is. The RNC doesn't want Trump or anyone else polling 5x Jeb in New Hampshire. This is not something the RNC wargamed for. There's a reason why the RNC is now trying the same "loyalty oath" tactics on Trump -- in three states now -- that they have tried on Ron Paul before. They are getting desperate.

And yet FOX (media arm of the RNC) is doing everything possible to promote Trump, including "attacking" him.

Either they're really bad at politics (they aren't) or they want Trump to succeed (at least up to a certain point).

It looks like he's the anointed "anti-Jeb," the ringer.

Make it the Trump and Jeb show until it's too late for anyone else (i.e. Rand), and then obliterate Trump and hand it to Jeb.

As for that obliterating, it could be done in a week. They've chosen not to do it thus far.

[SilentBull]

Then you shouldn't have used the plural. You should be more clear in your language.

I'll assume "the one" you're talking about Rand.

The RNC already had 14 other stooges set up to drown out Rand Paul and ensure that Jeb Bush could win multiple states with only 12-15%. (Canada Ted's backstabbing fuckery in particular cut Rand's poll numbers in half before he even started.) Their "drown out" strategy for Rand was already in place for several months before Trump came along.

It is extremely poor discernment on your part if you honestly think Trump is just another RNC stooge here like Rubio or Perry. The RNC doesn't want someone relentlessly clowning on Jeb and the Bush family's many many failures and shortcomings like Trump is. The RNC doesn't want Trump or anyone else polling 5x Jeb in New Hampshire. This is not something the RNC wargamed for. There's a reason why the RNC is now trying the same "loyalty oath" tactics on Trump -- in three states now -- that they have tried on Ron Paul before. They are getting desperate.

So because he's an enemy of the RNC he's your friend? He's also an enemy of liberty.

[jj-]

And yet FOX (media arm of the RNC) is doing everything possible to promote Trump, including "attacking" him.

No, they didn't believe having Trump calling her a bimbo and attributing her questions to menstruation wouldn't have toppled Trump.

They didn't believe Trump calling McCain not a war hero wouldn't have toppled Trump.

In those two instances they tried as hard as possible to eliminate Trump, they thought they succeeded, but they failed.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

And yet FOX (media arm of the RNC) is doing everything possible to promote Trump, including "attacking" him.


The media launched the same kind of attacks on Rand Paul this year, calling him misogynist, etc. Were those all fake too? Does the media secretly support Rand Paul? You have no discernment either. You are clueless.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

So because he's an enemy of the RNC he's your friend?

I said no such thing. I was simply pointing how ridiculously faulty your analysis of the situation is and was. That you have no response (other than to put words in my mouth) is a concession on your part that your argument was asinine, worthless, and wrong. I will accept your admission of cluelessness graciously.

[jj-]

You are clueless.

Stating the obvious here, there is no shortage of posts that made that evident. But maybe it'll wake him up? lol, probably not.

[r3volution 3.0]

No, they didn't believe having Trump calling her a bimbo and attributing her questions to menstruation wouldn't have toppled Trump.

They didn't believe Trump calling McCain not a war hero wouldn't have toppled Trump.

In those two instances they tried as hard as possible to eliminate Trump, they thought they succeeded, but they failed.

They've contrived a series of opportunities for Trump to portray himself as "anti-establishment," in order to neutralize any genuinely anti-establishment movement.

[SilentBull]

I said no such thing. I was simply pointing how ridiculously faulty your analysis of the situation is and was. That you have no response (other than to put words in my mouth) is a concession on your part that your argument was asinine, worthless, and wrong. I will accept your admission of cluelessness graciously.

You're the one who is clueless if you think the fact that a few people at the RNC hating on Trump means anything. Why do you think the TV networks are giving Trump 24/7 coverage? Why do you think the TV networks have chosen NOT to bring up Trump's support for Obamacare? Is it because they hate him?

Let me help you with the answer. They want voters to focus on Trump until the last minute, at which point, they will actually take Trump down, allowing Bush to win the nomination. Just like in 2012 when Romney was the last man standing. Don't be a fool.

[jj-]

Why do you think the TV networks have chosen NOT to bring up Trump's support for Obamacare?

What? They brought up single payer in the last debate. What planet are you on?

[SilentBull]

What? They brought up single payer in the last debate. What planet are you on?

So what? What percentage of the 24/7 coverage is that? How much of that 24/7 coverage is actually damaging to Trump?

[r3volution 3.0]

The media launched the same kind of attacks on Rand Paul this year, calling him misogynist, etc. Were those all fake too? Does the media secretly support Rand Paul? You have no discernment either. You are clueless.

There's no parallel at all, either in the kind of coverage or the amount.

[jj-]

So what? What percentage of the 24/7 coverage is that? How much of that 24/7 coverage is actually damaging to Trump?

The single moment of highest ratings in the whole electoral season so far?

[SilentBull]

The media launched the same kind of attacks on Rand Paul this year, calling him misogynist, etc. Were those all fake too? Does the media secretly support Rand Paul? You have no discernment either. You are clueless.

Actually when the media really hates a candidate, they ignore him. They don't give him 24/7 coverage and air his conferences live. And if they do cover the candidate, it's to talk about things that would actually hurt him with voters.

[jj-]

There's no parallel at all, either in the kind of coverage or the amount.

Yeah, it was obviously a lot more damaging to say "you call women fat pigs". So it was different but in a way that proves you wrong.

[SilentBull]

The single moment of highest ratings in the whole electoral season so far?

You want to compare 1 question from the debate with people turning on their TV and seeing Trump's face every minute of the day?

[r3volution 3.0]

So what? What percentage of the 24/7 coverage is that?

Since the debate, I've seen exactly one (1) mention of it on FOX, about 15 seconds on Special Report a couple weeks ago (and I watch a lot of FOX).

They spend the other 99.9% of their time fear-mongering over immigration, and then air a clip of Trump for the guests to "comment" on.

:rolleyes:

...it really couldn't be more obvious.

[jj-]

You want to compare 1 question from the debate with people turning on their TV and seeing Trump's face every minute of the day?

It didn't stick. They would've wasted their time. If you don't believe me, tell Rand to mention it again at the debate. I bet Trump's post debate numbers won't go down because of that. Get a clue.

[kahless]

They've contrived a series of opportunities for Trump to portray himself as "anti-establishment," in order to neutralize any genuinely anti-establishment movement.

Foxnews is going to do another hit piece on Trump tonight with Kelly having Ramos on. This does not help Trump. Other than getting more airtime they are treating him like they did Ron.

The only reason he is getting more airtime than Ron did is because he has a history of delivering ratings and celebrity status.

[SilentBull]

Foxnews is going to do another hit piece on Trump tonight with Kelly having Ramos on. This does not help Trump. Other than getting more airtime they are treating him like they did Ron.

The only reason he is getting more airtime than Ron did is because he has a history of delivering ratings and celebrity status.

You think the Ramos incident will hurt Trump with Republicans?? Absolutely not! This is getting Republicans even more riled up.

[heavenlyboy34]

Okay, I just relistened to the episode and I just can't stand Rockwell's voice.

I admit Woods sounded a bit ignorant of the theory of Trump as Hilary's Trojan Horse. But I would not be surprised if he an episode on it with another guest.

He did say multiple times that Trump would be a terrible president. And also that Trump is part of the establishment.
Why? He has one of the least annoying voices in media. Soft fundamental and slow, mellow overtones. :cool:

[r3volution 3.0]

Foxnews is going to do another hit piece on Trump tonight with Kelly having Ramos on.

LOL, that's not a hitpiece bud.

After spending the evening on how all Mexicans are criminals, they bring on a Mexican Democrat to criticize Trump...

Yea, boy, that's gonna hurt.

:rolleyes:

I'd kill for FOX to do such "hitpieces" on Rand.

[kahless]

You think the Ramos incident will hurt Trump with Republicans?? Absolutely not! This is getting Republicans even more riled up.

I meant that as it is not intended to help Trump. So far it has backfired on them and it remains to be seen at what point they can damage him with these hit pieces.

[Rad]

Correction: Scott Horton doesn't like any of them, including Trump. Please don't link him to neoconfederates who love Trump for his political incorrectness and entertainment value. Scott Horton is a non-interventionist and Rand isn't. Everyone has issues that are make or break (I would think?). There is no reason to waste time to hate on a tiny fragment of the Ron Paul movement while ignoring the large pro-Israel Republican primary voter. Why should they vote for Rand instead of other pro-Israel candidates? That is what I think opposition research should focus on, not Trump, or people who have little sway beyond a niche.

Woods, Rockwell, and Hunter are the albatrosses that Maddow will use to beat Rand with if he starts threatening the establishment by rising in the polls. Then they will have some libertarians come on saying we aren't like that we aren't racist.

[LibertyEagle]

They're dumb as rocks.
They're racists.
They support Donald Trump for President.

In other words, they don't believe in the unfettered illegal alien invasion of our country, like erowe does. :D

[Sola_Fide]

In other words, they don't believe in the unfettered illegal alien invasion of our country, like erowe does. :D

I believe in unfettered immigration also. That is what people who love freedom believe. People who value the free market also believe in a free market in labor.

I believe that Kentucky should not put police around it's borders and keep out people from Ohio. Why? Because people are free and the market should be free.

[LibertyEagle]

I believe in unfettered immigration also. That is what people who love freedom believe. People who value the free market also believe in a free market in labor.

I believe that Kentucky should not put police around it's borders and keep out people from Ohio. Why? Because people are free.
No, because they both are in the same country and under the same general principles. ie. the Constitution

People who love freedom realize that not all people in the world want to live under the same set of principles. So, nations are created. Each nation can live under their own set of principles. No need for a one-size-fits-all.

To not recognize these truths is complete naivete and is the agenda of the one-worlders.

[erowe1]

People who love freedom realize that not all people in the world want to live under the same set of principles.

Not all people in the USA believe in the same principles. Do you propose deporting the ones who don't?


So, nations are created.

Where did you get this ridiculous view of history?

[H. E. Panqui]

...i'll be watching for the loud, angry 'rand paul purists' around here to slip up and criticize 'libertarian purists'...;)

[Rad]

...i'll be watching for the loud, angry 'rand paul purists' around here to slip up and criticize 'libertarian purists'...;)What do you plan to do?

[BGfree]

Some of the theories being presented here are getting pretty outrageous. Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell aren't advocates for Trump. They're just enjoying watching the RNC's futile efforts to push their agenda while Trump throws a series of monkey wrenches in the machine.

None of the people involved in the GOP's management are creative enough to come up with the wild schemes that some people on here are outlining.

[heavenlyboy34]

Not all people in the USA believe in the same principles. Do you propose deporting the ones who don't?



Where did you get this ridiculous view of history?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to erowe1 again.
:( Sorry, brother.

[Zack]

I listen to his podcast often, and the critical stuff people are saying in this thread about Tom Woods :confused: ...just seems to come from nowhere... :confused:

[HVACTech]

:( Sorry, brother.

classic HB and erowe1..

inventing new ways to bash the Constitution and patting each other on the back for it.

[H. E. Panqui]

rad asks: What do you plan to do?

;)

..why, i will thoroughly expose their republicrat hypocrisy and publicly shame them...(that's about all we do here on the world wide internet political forums, isn't it?)

...btw, tom woods in not enough of an absolute rand paul purist...he doesn't cheer like a 14 year-old girl at a beatles concert..he must be destroyed!!

[Rad]

Lemme try, they are neoconfederate closet white nationalist who are challenging a man that is almost like the reincarnation of Jesus/Buddha, Rand Paul! They should be blacklisted by every self respecting Libertarian. Rand Paul isn't just a libertarian. He is libertarianism. What he does is libertarianism in practice! What he says is its doctrine. These neoconfederate shrills who are obviously supporters of radical Islam, and who are critical of the greatest and the most humane democracy of all time which is our indispensable dear ally Israel should be boycotted and hounded like the dogs they are in social media!

[Jingles]

All they are discussing is Trump, calm down. (Although they didn't mention Rand opposed Iraq as well... But I think Rand vs. Ron drama is really touchy in those circles that are close to Ron... But that is a whole completely different topic).

My dislike of Trump comes from more of the view that Rand is supposed to be what he has obtained the spotlight for (the anti-establishment guy). His name, his fame, his money, has completely overshadowed our efforts. I like that he is basically just saying whatever he wants, but I hate that I know he will not be what I want in office. He is establishment in a non-establishment guy. So he overshadows a real candidate who will create real change. Sucks, because he has that comedian ability to just turn around any attack/insult/whatever into a joke or turn it out to be a benefit. I have absolutely no solution to this other than we need basically like a libertarian comedian or something to run against him (brainstorming).

I don't think fighting Trump in terms of "look how serious I am about real things" will work. WE have this horrid population that thrives on pure entertainment over substance (and reality frankly) when it comes to politics. We have to fight fire with fire if we hope to win, sadly. This campaign needs to get dirty, angry, and whatever things we don't want to do if we want to combat a tv personality. You don't beat a comedian by telling him how "inappropriate" his jokes are. You beat him by telling better ones.

[Chieppa1]

Tom had another episode on the debate on Wednesday with Lew.

This time, Tom gives Rand props for some of his answers on drugs and war. Of course old ass Lew has to drop "but" on everything. He is just a whining douchebag who wants to talk about politics & elections but doesn't want to acknowledge when someone actually "plays the game" correctly. He can't understands that Rand is playing to the crowd in front of him, not the Mises Institute.

Just my two cents.

[sylcfh]

None of them support Trump, especially his protectionist trade policy.

Rand supporters are thin skinned wimps these days. That's why he's being ignored. He needs to come out swinging instead of this wishy-washy nonsense.

[r3volution 3.0]

None of them support Trump, especially his protectionist trade policy.

Rand supporters are thin skinned wimps these days. That's why he's being ignored. He needs to come out swinging instead of this wishy-washy nonsense.

Like the largest tax cut in American history ($300 billion, eliminates payroll tax), and the largest spending cut in American history ($500 billion, eliminates whole departments)?

Yea, that's some weak pussy shit, huh?

He should, like, talk about building a wall on the border or sumptin, and insult media people, duh Alpha pwns duh noobz brah!

:rolleyes:

[sylcfh]

Like the largest tax cut in American history ($300 billion, eliminates payroll tax), and the largest spending cut in American history ($500 billion, eliminates whole departments)?

Yea, that's some weak pussy shit, huh?

He should, like, talk about building a wall on the border or sumptin, and insult media people, duh Alpha pwns duh noobz brah!

:rolleyes:





Yeah, it is. It's a load of fluff. Congress will shut down anyone who attempts major spending cuts. Besides, the FED will continue to print money regardless of tax rates. It's simply a choice between a stealth tax (inflation) or getting robbed every April.

Rand Paul is more interested in playing politics than spreading liberty. Ron was as radical as possible, and that didn't work. Neither is Rand's strategy.

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah, it is. It's a load of fluff. Congress will shut down anyone who attempts major spending cuts. Besides, the FED will continue to print money regardless of tax rates. It's simply a choice between a stealth tax (inflation) or getting robbed every April.

Rand Paul is more interested in playing politics than spreading liberty. Ron was as radical as possible, and that didn't work. Neither is Rand's strategy.

Huh? Ron was as radical as possible, that didn't work. Rand is not as radical as possible, that isn't working. So, what is going to work? Tripling Federal police forces and building walls that are going to be used to keep Americans in? Yeah, that's really tough.

[sylcfh]

Huh? Ron was as radical as possible, that didn't work. Rand is not as radical as possible, that isn't working. So, what is going to work? Tripling Federal police forces and building walls that are going to be used to keep Americans in? Yeah, that's really tough.




Clearly the best strategies magic unicorns and giving the straw man a brain. :rolleyes:

No one in this thread is arguing that Trump is anything more than a circus act.


Those who run the media and the political parties have no principles. They don't care if you play their game or give them the finger. They will not allow the message of liberty to be spread using their networks.

[nikcers]

Trump is a pathological liar that is trying to portray himself as someone with Asperger like symptoms. I wonder how long can he really continue this dualism and systematically offend people to get media attention and then take it back a day later as if he didn't mean it. He has mastered the art of convincing people what he wants them to believe almost religiously.

[awake]

Telling people to quit voting is completly in sync with libertarians who vote for liberty. If "stop voting" libertarians convince enough people to abstain, some day maybe voter turn out will actually represent what it should be: those who dont want government anymore and prefer liberty. A 30 % voter turn out would mean 70% want liberty instead of idiots in charge...As for Rand, he is using the platform of the elections to do as his dad did: spread the idea of liberty. President or not, the idea wins more over. Donald Trump's popularity is downright depressing...Libertarian voters will never out vote this tendancy to place bad people in high places. Don' t hate the players, simply dont play the game.