PDA

View Full Version : Campaign Evaluation: Donald Trump (POTUS)




Bryan
03-10-2016, 06:54 PM
NOTE: This is the official evaluation thread on this candidate. Previously developed points in other threads can be posted here. Assistance in aggregating points for each section is appreciated. Non-constructive posts may be deleted.

This thread is intended to be a collection point of the strong pros and cons of any potential liberty candidate / campaign that is being discussed / promoted on the forum. You are welcome to post both positive and not-so-positive attributes about the candidate as they related to their position on supporting liberty as well as issues relating to their campaign. The most important information may be aggregated in this top post for easy reference.

Candidate Name: Donald Trump
Office Sought: President of the United States
Website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com
Social Media:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump
https://www.instagram.com/realdonaldtrump

Candidate Profile: On the Issues
Civil Liberties: F
Constitutional Issues: F
Economic Issues: C
Foreign Policy: F
Social Issues: C
Overall Issues Rating: F


Race Profile: Competition & Demographics
Incumbent:Barack Obama
Other Primary Candidates: Ted Cruz, John Kasich
Non-Incumbent Candidates from Other Parties: Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, John McAfee, Bernie Sanders
Relevant poll numbers:
Overall Race Profile Rating: B

Miscellaneous Pros/Cons
Key strong points:

Unknown points for further research:

Possible weak points: character

Possible deal breakers:

The applied analysis goes well beyond a simple libertarian “purity test” as we understand the potential value of supporting an imperfect candidate who can still be of value to our Mission. We understand the positive changes that Trump can bring and have considered these elements with great care. We have also looked into the down sides as well and evaluated them along with the risks and unknowns. From this we are able to make a fully informed evaluation that considers all elements.

The conclusion of our analysis shows there are reasons why the Trump campaign should not be supported at any level. The site's final determination is a result of some of Trump's extreme positions against liberty, his current power and influence, his predatory alpha-style tactics and his drive to get his way, which in total, is a potentially dangerous combination with the office of the presidency.

Of course, it is impossible to predict what Trump's behavior and actions will be once in the White House, and speculation of any specific wrong-doing would be fruitless, but the concerns are enough for us to withhold any support for Trump as some form of “defense candidate”, supporting the lessor of two evils or hoping for some side benefit from him winning the presidency.

It is understood that some people may not share this concern and still see value in supporting Trump in some capacity, this is understood. While we can amicably agree on differences we do not want to be responsible for supporting what may prove to be a very bad outcome that was reasonably perceivable up front.


Overall Rating: Non-Supporting

cajuncocoa
03-10-2016, 08:11 PM
Trump on torture: "We have to beat the savages"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politics/donald-trump-torture/

Trump supports NSA data collection
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261673-trump-sides-with-rubio-over-cruz-in-nsa-surveillance

Trump opposes drug legalization: changed his views altogether on marijuana legalization
http://national.suntimes.com/national-world-news/7/72/2578540/donald-trump-dramatic-marijuana-drug-policy-flip-flop

What does Donald Trump believe about Iran and Israel? Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions.
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm (Quotes on Foreign Policy)

Trump: "Ban all Muslim travel to U.S."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/donald-trump-muslim-ban-immigration/

Donald Trump's pledge: 'We're gonna be saying Merry Christmas' (Does he think he can control how people greet each other??)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/donald-trump-iowa-rally/

Trump: "I Don't Forgive People Who Let Me Down"
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=62822

phill4paul
03-10-2016, 08:45 PM
Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
Abridging freedom of speech, or of the press...

Trump: “One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said. “So when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.” (Protected by what? :rolleyes:)
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/27/donald_trump_vows_to_curb_press_freedom_through_li bel_laws.html
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Trump: Donald Trump on Monday suggested he would "strongly consider" shutting down mosques in the U.S. as part of the response to the terror attacks in Paris.
"Well, I would hate to do it but it's something you're going to have to strongly consider," Trump said...
Trump said, Under the old regime we had tremendous surveillance going around and in the mosques in New York City." (anti-establishment. :rolleyes:)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/donald-trump-paris-attacks-close-mosques/index.html

2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Trump: ‘I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,’ he said. ‘With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record.’”
'The America we deserve" by Donald Trump. http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=america+we+deserve&tag=mh0b-20&index=aps&hvadid=3482014702&hvqmt=p&hvbmt=bp&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_2jo3fik6fh_p

4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Trump: "Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything. "
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/trump-eminent-domain/

William Tell
03-10-2016, 09:33 PM
- Real estate magnate Donald Trump gave at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation while his daughter Ivanka Trump donated between $5,001 and $10,000, the Hill reported. Trump also donated to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign - http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/abc-news-...IlJIQrKuGvt.99 (http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/abc-news-star-gave-50000-to-clinton-foundation/#RVUuLIlJIQrKuGvt.99)

- Trump has given $541,650 to federal Democratic candidates and fundraising committees going back to 1990, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. He's handed out money to Democratic statewide candidates as well. In 2009, for instance, Trump cut a $25,000 check to former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe for his unsuccessful 2009 Virginia gubernatorial bid. But as Republicans and Tea Party activists nationwide were working to take back the House and Senate in 2010, Trump was also handing out checks to top Democratic incumbents: $4,800 to Reid, $2,000 to Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and more than $8,000 total to New York's two senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Over the last two decades, Trump gave money to a number of high-profile Democrats and liberal icons, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden. The biggest recipient of Trump's largesse? The scandal-plagued Rangel, who has taken $24,750 from Trump since the 1990 election cycle. - http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/trump.democrats/

- Donald Trump predicted Wednesday night that Hillary Clinton will take one more shot at winning the White House in 2016, and declined to rule out the possibility of throwing his support behind the former presidential candidate. “Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman,” Trump said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. “I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York, she lives in New York, and I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really like them both a lot.”

Praising the secretary of state for being a hard worker and for having done a “good job” since joining the Obama administration, Trump said he expects Clinton to run for office again.
“I think assuming she is healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she runs after the next four years, I would imagine,” he said. - http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz3e5yzzwUv (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74636.html#ixzz3e5yzzwUv)

- Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts.Apr 29, 2011 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...-work-for-him/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/)

- TRUMPED: The Donald, The Widow and Eminent Domain:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmM4ZBoppNQ

- The (Liberal) Trump Tapes: Vol. 1:

https://youtu.be/rcUCLwWCihE

cajuncocoa
03-10-2016, 11:10 PM
Ron Paul articles on Donald Trump, originally posted by @phill4paul (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=10850)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491616-Ron-Paul-Calls-Trump-%93In-some-places-Worse-Than-the-Establishment-quot


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491611-Ron-Paul-Donald-Trump-quot-a-dangerous-person-quot


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491701-Ron-Paul-On-Trump-Endorsement-I-Was-The-Only-Candidate-Who-Didn-t-Kiss-His-Ring


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491615-Ron-Paul-quot-scared-to-death-quot-of-a-Trump-Presidency

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491608-Ron-Paul-%93I-think-Trump-is-an-authoritarian-%94

cajuncocoa
03-10-2016, 11:31 PM
On the day of the Kentucky caucus (March 5) a full month after Rand had suspended his campaign, these tweets were completely unnecessary:

706149793697902592


706150457396170753

cajuncocoa
03-10-2016, 11:53 PM
I just saw this post in another thread (posted by nikcers, originally posted by AntiFederalist)

Trump threatened to jump in the 2012 race as an Independent if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination

http://www.today.com/id/45551313/ns/today-books/t/trump-huntsman-paul-are-joke-candidates/#.VuJcsvBOKK3

Brian4Liberty
03-11-2016, 12:06 AM
Pros:

- At least pays lip-service to US-centric government and helping the average American.
- Opposes globalist trade agreements (NAFTA, TPP).
- Supports US sovereignty.
- Calling out the media for bias and lies.
- Supposedly anti-establishment (or better described as new establishment after hostile take-over, but a change in management nonetheless).
- Neoconservatives hate him (enemy of my enemy scenario) and possibly less aggressive internationally than neoconservatives.

Cons:

- No apparent respect for Constitutional limits on power.
- No apparent respect for rule of law, domestic or international treaty.
- Supports big brother security state.
- Supports torture.
- Supports targeting and killing innocent civilians.
- Wants to execute whistle-blowers.
- Would force Apple to do his bidding,
- No apparent desire for smaller government or less spending.
- Wants to cut deals with Democrats and avoid "gridlock".
- Hanging out with Christie and Giuliani.

Anti Federalist
03-11-2016, 02:55 AM
I just saw this post in another thread (posted by nikcers, originally posted by AntiFederalist)

Trump threatened to jump in the 2012 race as an Independent if Ron Paul won the GOP nomination

http://www.today.com/id/45551313/ns/today-books/t/trump-huntsman-paul-are-joke-candidates/#.VuJcsvBOKK3

Nicely done.

dannno
03-11-2016, 04:46 AM
I heard he called for 30k troops in Syria in the debate this evening.

/Deal breaker

phill4paul
03-11-2016, 06:42 AM
I heard he called for 30k troops in Syria in the debate this evening.

/Deal breaker

Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]


Moderator Hugh Hewitt asked, "Mr. Trump, more troops?"

Trump replied, "We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them, we have to get rid of it and then we have to come back hereand rebuild our country, which is falling apart."

Hewitt asked, "How many?"

"I would listen to the generals but I'm hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-calls-for-20000-30000-troops-to-fight-isis/article/2001505

Suzanimal
03-11-2016, 07:46 AM
Pros: Not Hillary Clinton
Cons: Donald Trump

klamath
03-11-2016, 08:22 AM
On foreign wars..

O'reilly : Libya- um, the libyan action is being explained as a humanitarian issue

"I support stopping that kind of slaughter, but the problem is where do you stop..."

Iraq:
"To the victor go the spoils"
"as sure as you are sitting there Iran is going to come in and take over the oil (in Iraq), you stay and you take the oil"

"I am the most militaristic person that you will find."


https://youtu.be/i6G4AAI77kI?t=1344

cajuncocoa
03-11-2016, 10:24 AM
Trump doesn't support your privacy!


Trump wants supporters to "Boycott Apple" unless Apple agrees to build a custom backdoor for the FBI to unlock the password-protected iPhone connected to the San Bernardino shooter, a move that Apple argues would threaten the security and privacy of its users.[91 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#cite_note-91)] Trump himself still uses his iPhone to send out tweets.[92 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#cite_note-92)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

cajuncocoa
03-11-2016, 10:28 AM
Trump doesn't support the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press....



Trump has said that if elected he would loosen defamation laws so that when journalists write "purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money." The Associated Press reported that this proposal is at odds with "widely held conceptions of constitutional law." The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other First Amendment advocates condemned Trump's proposal.[79 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#cite_note-79)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

My comment: I agree that it's annoying when the media puts a negative spin on things (or when they ignore a candidate altogether -- ahem) but I think what Trump is advocating above would cause more harm than good. The media would stop reporting things that we need to know out of fear they will be sued. Not a good move, in my opinion.

cajuncocoa
03-11-2016, 10:31 AM
More First Amendment issues:

On the subject of Internet Security....Trump said in a December 2015 rally, "We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people." In the December Republican debate, Donald Trump said that the internet should be shut off to countries that have a majority of their territory controlled by terrorist organizations.[111 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#cite_note-111)][112 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump#cite_note-112)]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

William Tell
03-11-2016, 10:45 AM
From a purely objective analysis, we cannot find any overlap between Trump's worldview, positions (or lack thereof) and the Mission Statement of this site.


Mission Statement





Foreword:
Finding a core set of principles one can apply throughout one's life to achieve social harmony is a thought process that has been performed by philosophers throughout history. It is also a thought process that is applied here. The quest for core principles to build a society on has shown that the ideals of liberty and justice, coupled with free and honest markets, are a blueprint that allow for humanity to thrive. An approximate definition of these ideals is as follows:

Liberty: You should be free to lead your life in a manner of your choosing, so long as it does not prevent others from equally doing the same.
Justice: People should be held accountable for crimes they commit.
Free and honest markets: Individuals can exchange in trade without restriction and should be honest in their dealings.

While ideals are important, the application of them is equally as important which must be secured by society and governmental bodies, which must be supported by wise individuals. These realities necessitate additional ideals and principles.

Developing and applying specific details with these ideals is an endeavor full of complexities and disagreements. While there will never be universal agreement on all issues, one should embrace functional discourse to resolving differences -- which is truly the point of civil advancement. One should consider this as an important element within the human experience as we develop knowledge and wisdom throughout our lifetime on this planet that we all share.

We remain confident that with the development of the ideals of liberty and justice, with free and honest markets, we will realize a wonderful planet where all can flourish.


Mission:
This site is dedicated to facilitating discussion and initiatives that aim to advance society in a civil manner for the betterment of all. We seek to:
...Secure individual liberty
...Seek justice
...Promote honest and free markets

To support these pillars we aim to:
...Develop excellence within society and governmental bodies
...Build up local communities
...Strengthen families
...Foster individual excellence

We do so for ourselves and our posterity.


Liberty In Depth: Importance & Core Principles
Anyone concerned about their well-being and the society they live in will eventually find their way to deriving viewpoints on matters of political policy. In doing so, individuals will normally identify with positions that are in their personal best interests, resolve a perceived injustice or align to views that are similar to ones espoused by a favored political leader.

In arriving at positions there are two critical mistakes that many people often make in that they fail to apply core principles to derive their positions and they don't drill down to the root cause of issues. As a result, people fail to undercover the best position to achieve their desired end result. This mistake is unfortunately understandable since most media outlets don't focus on root causes or matters of much substance. Instead, the media often sensationalizes issues on superficial levels using appeals that cater to emotions rather than reason. Compounding the problem, individuals don't always spend time critically analyzing issues themselves since there always seems to be too much to do in ones personal life. Unfortunately, the combination of all this on a wide scale is often a recipe for disaster.

A prime example of an overlooked root cause is the proclaimed health care crisis in the United States where many people are rightfully concerned over the exorbitant cost of health care. The root cause that many seem to be overlooking however is that the high costs are a direct result of too much government involvement and over regulation in the health care market. The over regulation of forcing the use of arbitrary standards and criteria has seriously restricted peoples ability to conduct business in the health care industry which has led to less competition and skyrocketing health care costs. In a free society, individuals would have the ability to operate health care practices, educational institutions and insurance companies on their own terms as long as they aren't being dishonest. Those in need could then choose what services are right for them even if the offering doesn't meet today's arbitrary standards. In a free society, high prices would draw in competition for more cost effective solutions which would lower the costs of health care overall. In the case of the proclaimed U.S. health care crisis the failure to drill down to the root cause of exorbitant costs has prompted the "solution" of more governmental involvement which will only drive overall costs higher while lowering the standard of care due to bureaucratic overhead and restricted choices that everyone is forced into.

Taxes are another hot issue in which many people argue that they are a necessity and that each person needs to "pay their fair share." Common tax structures often argued include a flat tax, a "fair tax" and a sales tax, to name a few. While many people will genuinely support a taxation system that makes sense to them to fund what they see of value the application of core principles of jurisdiction and what it really means to live in a free society often get lost in the shuffle. Few ask questions like "How can one be free if they have no viable choice in paying some arbitrary tax?"

Core liberty principles:
• Groups of individuals can self-organize and impose rules upon themselves, but should not force the same on others.
• You have the right to own property which you can voluntarily give or trade with others as you see fit.
• The fruits of your labor are yours alone, unless you agree otherwise.
• You should not initiate aggression against other people.
• You should not steal or destroy others property.
• You have the right to defend your life, freedom and property.

If this all seems like common sense then you may very well have a pro-liberty political mindset from which you can derive ideologically consistent positions on many issues by logically applying the core principles. Unfortunately it can take some time to do this since you must study the issues, filter out logical fallacies and exercise your brain by doing a great deal of critical thinking, something that no one else can do for you. Others can help you achieve truly principled consistency, members on this site will often be happy to engage you in conversation, but you must lead your own way.

Alas, there is certainly no universal agreement on all issues, this is OK. Resolving differences is truly the point of civic engagement which one should embrace as an important element within the human experience as we develop knowledge and wisdom throughout our lifetime on this planet that we all share. In short, one should think, be thoughtful and avoid seeking a "solution" that only addresses a superficial symptom of an unseen root cause issue. As one shifts their thinking to the application of the principles of liberty one will realize that it can lead to a wonderful planet where all can flourish. The message of liberty truly brings us together.

As you develop a pro-liberty philosophical foundation you will also have a choice to make in regards to your views: do nothing or try to make a difference in the world. The core of the community on this website have decided they want to make a difference in a meaningful way, we hope you join us on this journey.

phill4paul
03-11-2016, 04:07 PM
Trump on whistle-blowers that expose illegal government action....


“I think Snowden is a terrible threat, I think he’s a terrible traitor, and you know what we used to do in the good old days when we were a strong country — you know what we used to do to traitors, right?” Trump said, Politico reported.

“Well, you killed them, Donald,” said fill-in host, Eric Bolling.

Mr. Trump’s response: Well, he is damaging America.

“This guy is really doing damage to this country, and he’s also making us look like dopes,” he said, Politico reported. “We can’t allow this guy to go out there and give out all our secrets and also embarrass us at every level. We should get him back and get him back now.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/

cajuncocoa
03-12-2016, 08:50 AM
From another thread...needs to be here:


https://youtu.be/NJ9Dpm64Wo8?t=1085

From last night's Hannity interview.

Trump sincerely feels that police are too restrained today, "wasnt like this 15, 20 years ago".

"They dont even wanna touch 'em... lose their pensions their jobs".

How often are police held accountable for killing someone, let alone hurting someone?

I couldnt tell you if they were worse 15, 20 years ago, but the police as a group are incredibly violent today and the (federal) militarization takes the issue to another level.

What world is Trump living in?

He's actually encouraging or endorsing police brutality...

Based on his previous statements, in the context of running for office, he probably isn't saying how he really feels...

http://i.imgur.com/ICsX0Fz.jpg

klamath
03-12-2016, 09:04 AM
Wanted the Iraqis to pay for the US destabilizing the middle east.


Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims
Mr. Trump said that the United States should "take" $1.5 trillion worth of oil from Iraq to pay for the cost of the war and give $1 million to each of the families that lost someone in the effort-- sparking applause from the thousands gathered for the American Conservative Union's 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
Source: 2013 Conservative Political Action Conf. in Washington Times , Mar 15, 2013

klamath
03-12-2016, 09:05 AM
For preemptive war.


Use force to stop North Korean nuke development
[In a Trump presidency], North Korea would suddenly discover that its worthless promises of civilized behavior would cut no ice. I would let Pyongyang know in no uncertain terms that it can either get out of the nuclear arms race or expect a rebuke similar to the one Ronald Reagan delivered to Ghadhafi in 1986. I don’t think anybody is going to accuse me of tiptoeing through the issues or tap-dancing around them either. Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.274 , Jul 2, 2000

klamath
03-12-2016, 09:13 AM
Uses government to stop other people from developing their property.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-farm-near-his-scottish-golf-resort-1450275439

klamath
03-12-2016, 09:17 AM
Wants troops stationed all over the world.

At the same time, we must not get involved in a long-festering conflict for humanitarian reasons. If that’s our standard, we should have troops stationed all over Africa, and much of Asia as well.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.141-42 , Jul 2, 2000

klamath
03-12-2016, 09:20 AM
Wanted to full on invade Syria.


If Obama had attacked Syria, we wouldn't have refugees now
Somehow, [President Obama] just doesn't have courage. There is something missing from our president. Had he crossed the line and really gone in with force, done something to Assad--if he had gone in with tremendous force, you wouldn't have millions of people displaced all over the world. Source: 2015 Republican two-tiered primary debate on CNN , Sep 16, 2015

cajuncocoa
03-12-2016, 03:39 PM
Donald Trump on Edward Snowden: Kill the ‘traitor’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/)

Warlord
03-13-2016, 02:33 PM
WOw cajun, Trump is worse than i thought. Ron Paul is right again

William Tell
03-13-2016, 02:52 PM
Donald Trump on Edward Snowden: Kill the ‘traitor’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/)
Deal Breaker
Civil Liberties: [Rating F-]

staerker
03-13-2016, 05:26 PM
Donald Trump on Edward Snowden: Kill the ‘traitor’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/2/donald-trump-edward-snowden-kill-traitor/)

Edward Snowden embodies everything I believe this site should stand for (exposing government corruption with a non-aggressive educational movement.) Trump wants to kill him.

He has also expressed hostility toward other free speech issues. Trump doesn't simply oppose this site's mission, but he opposes the existence of this site altogether.

twomp
03-13-2016, 06:04 PM
Trump’s rationale is the following: since the protests broke out, he was forced to cancel his speech, his supporters couldn’t gather therefore his (and his supporter’s) rights were violated. That maybe true. Sure, the protesters prevented Trump from giving his speech and, certainly, violence is never a good way to advocate your message. However, for Trump to complain– his free speech rights are now being violated — is a bit ironic to say the least. Over the last several weeks, it has been Mr. Trump dealing blow after blow to the First Amendment. Here are some prime examples:

On February 17, Trump sent a cease and desist letter threatening legal action against his opponent Ted Cruz over his television ads. Trump wanted them pulled for being false. Only thing is that Cruz was actually just replaying old television clips of something Donald Trump himself actually said. “Mr. Trump’s threatened lawsuit against Senator Cruz is ridiculous, absurd, laughable. Senator Cruz’s speech is First Amendment protected as his opinion based upon the very tape contained in the advertisement,” well-known First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams told LawNewz.com at the time. (Abrams is also the father of LawNewz.com’s founder)

Then there is this… On February 26, Trump told a crowd of excited supporters at a Texas rally that he is going to “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” In other words, he wants to amend laws (which he actually can’t do as president) to make it harder for journalists (or really any bloggers) to publish anything negative about him. He apparently forgot about the landmark Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, which based its ruling on the premise that our country has a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

Oh, and let’s not forget February 29 when things turned violent against a Time Magazine photographer who was manhandled by secret service agents at a Trump rally at Radford University in Virginia. The incident occurred, according to The Guardian, just as Trump wrapped up a speech once again taking aim at the press and free speech. “We want honesty so we’re going to get the laws changed so that the press has to be honest and if they’re not honest, if they say things that are wrong, they can be sued and they’re going to have to correct it and maybe pay penalties and maybe face something. Do you like that idea?” he told to an excited crowd. Penalties and ‘face something’ more?

http://lawnewz.com/politics/following-violent-protests-donald-trump-is-now-huge-free-speech-advocate/

twomp
03-13-2016, 06:07 PM
Technically, it is illegal to protest inside of Trump rallies


He has said, however, that he is "going to start pressing charges" against protesters as a way to intimidate them into thinking twice about demonstrating at his rallies.

Based on the change to H.R. 347 in 2012, he may have grounds to press for trespassing charges against any protester who walked into the rally knowing it was a restricted area, according to the ACLU.

http://mashable.com/2016/03/13/trump-rally-protesting/#Cv0IfTIjqkqw

seapilot
03-14-2016, 11:07 AM
Consensus is DT sucks on advocating for liberty. He has shown one thing though which would help liberty in the future. Its his approach to those that want to throw him under the bus or he threatens their power.

He puts all his opposition on the defensive all the time. They are constantly defending themselves thus he looks like the winner. Even when he is wrong he wont admit it and will double down and attack his opposition. When a group is always trying to defend itself, it is always behind. This is the strategy of the socialists, to always put the opposition on the defensive. It has worked really well on most issues. No team/organization/ideology/group ever wins much by always having to defend itself.

The libertarian rarely goes on the offensive and normally is on the defensive by its very nature. If there was someway to turn it around pro-liberty candidates would be noticed and winning a lot more.

LibertyEagle
03-14-2016, 11:46 AM
Pros:

- At least pays lip-service to US-centric government and helping the average American.
- Calling out the media for bias and lies.
- Supposedly anti-establishment (or better described as new establishment after hostile take-over, but a change in management nonetheless).
- Neoconservatives hate him (enemy of my enemy scenario) and possibly less aggressive internationally than neoconservatives.

Cons:

- No apparent respect for Constitutional limits on power.
- No apparent respect for rule of law, domestic or international treaty.
- Supports big brother security state.
- Supports torture.
- Supports targeting and killing innocent civilians.
- Wants to execute whistle-blowers.
- Would force Apple to do his bidding,
- No apparent desire for smaller government or less spending.
- Wants to cut deals with Democrats and avoid "gridlock".

You left off the most important Pros, in my opinion:
He is the only candidate against the TPP and the only candidate who has not only called out the horrible trade deals, from NAFTA on, but will also at least attempt to do something about them. I would prefer to get out of them completely, and their associated ruling bodies that sit above our own Congress, but renegotiating them is better than the crap we have now.

He is the candidate who raised the issue about the illegal alien invasion of our country and the stupidity of not only not kicking them out, but giving them birthright citizenship, free education, free healthcare and welfare.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
03-14-2016, 12:19 PM
- Mr. Trump is the only candidate to have defended the Constitution from Usurper Barry's prima facie illegitimate Presidency. If he follows through, he could reverse every anti-American, anti-liberty action of the Obama Presidency without the cooperation of Congress..

CPUd
03-14-2016, 01:05 PM
- Mr. Trump is the only candidate to have defended the Constitution from Usurper Barry's prima facie illegitimate Presidency. If he follows through, he could reverse every anti-American, anti-liberty action of the Obama Presidency without the cooperation of Congress..

you need to be more specific. How did he defend the Constitution, and which Obama actions are anti-American, anti-liberty that Trump would hypothetically reverse without the cooperation of the Congress?

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
03-14-2016, 01:07 PM
I really don't.

CPUd
03-14-2016, 01:07 PM
You left off the most important Pros, in my opinion:
He is the only candidate against the TPP and the only candidate who has not only called out the horrible trade deals, from NAFTA on, but will also at least attempt to do something about them. I would prefer to get out of them completely, and their associated ruling bodies that sit above our own Congress, but renegotiating them is better than the crap we have now.

He is the candidate who raised the issue about the illegal alien invasion of our country and the stupidity of not only not kicking them out, but giving them birthright citizenship, free education, free healthcare and welfare.

Trump does not seem to know much about the TPP, he is obsessed with China though:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRTl230M4X8

phill4paul
03-14-2016, 01:18 PM
So at what point does the information on this thread get translated into an up or down vote for Trump?

William Tell
03-14-2016, 01:21 PM
I really don't.

Because you can't name one instance of Trump defending the Constitution?

seapilot
03-14-2016, 06:20 PM
He is asked if the constitution is a living document or set in stone and he says it is set in stone and one of the best documents ever made. Then he says it allows for deals (between Senate house president parties?) . That is the thing about Trump, he is never crystal clear on what he really means.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pWFv8aTM40

invisible
03-14-2016, 06:22 PM
So at what point does the information on this thread get translated into an up or down vote for Trump?

Thread winner. Interesting that only one shill has bothered to take place in this productive objective discussion here, while they have clogged up an entire section with spam threads. Given this thread of objective analysis, the best course of action and next step seem rather obvious. At this point, it is entirely reasonable to ask that a rating please be issued and followed up on.

"you must spread some reputation around..."

invisible
03-14-2016, 06:25 PM
He is asked if the constitution is a living document or set in stone and he says it is set in stone and one of the best documents ever made. Then he says it allows for deals (between Senate house president parties?) . That is the thing about Trump, he is never crystal clear on what he really means.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pWFv8aTM40

Interesting. Given his claim here that it is "set in stone" and "one of the best documents ever made", then perhaps a better measure would be to examine all of his various policy proposals mentioned earlier in the thread, and see just how many of them actually adhere to the Constitution.

seapilot
03-14-2016, 06:42 PM
Interesting. Given his claim here that it is "set in stone" and "one of the best documents ever made", then perhaps a better measure would be to examine all of his various policy proposals mentioned earlier in the thread, and see just how many of them actually adhere to the Constitution.

I would bet money he has never even read it all in its entirety let alone try to understand its principals lie in limiting government powers. At least he seems to get that it is set in stone, a living document is what socialists like to see it as. Now he needs an adviser like Judge Nap to explain what he can and cant do because the constitution is set in stone.

CPUd
03-14-2016, 09:56 PM
Interesting. Given his claim here that it is "set in stone" and "one of the best documents ever made", then perhaps a better measure would be to examine all of his various policy proposals mentioned earlier in the thread, and see just how many of them actually adhere to the Constitution.

A couple here:

1A: "shut down parts of the internet"
6A: death penalty to cop kilers via executive order

LibertyEagle
03-14-2016, 10:00 PM
So at what point does the information on this thread get translated into an up or down vote for Trump?

And what's that supposed to result in? Group think?

There are no perfect candidates running and this go round has proven to me that we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting one of our own elected President. Some here, can't wait for the country to fall, period. Others, for some reason believe that if it does fall, they will be afforded the opportunity to rebuild it from the ashes. That the very same people who intentionally brought this country down don't have other plans; such as taking us into world government. Others still won't vote for anyone that they don't deem perfect; even Rand Paul wasn't worthy enough for them. And then there are those here for the sole purpose of trying to convince those they can, not to vote; even when Rand was in the race. These people apparently believe that they are accomplishing something by not voting. When the reality is that they are placing a vote without going to the polls.

I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders. I totally agree with him. If there was a better candidate, I would be voting for him/her. But, there is not. So, my vote for Trump will be my Hail Mary. I do not think our country has much time left. Some of you are happy about that, but you will not be when it comes down to it. Because all of this is the culmination of a plan that has been executing for years and years. And time is about up.

invisible
03-14-2016, 10:28 PM
And what's that supposed to result in? Group think?

There are no perfect candidates running and this go round has proven to me that we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting one of our own elected President. Some here, can't wait for the country to fall, period. Others, for some reason believe that if it does fall, they will be afforded the opportunity to rebuild it from the ashes. That the very same people who intentionally brought this country down don't have other plans; such as taking us into world government. Others still won't vote for anyone that they don't deem perfect; even Rand Paul wasn't worthy enough for them. And then there are those here for the sole purpose of trying to convince those they can, not to vote; even when Rand was in the race. These people apparently believe that they are accomplishing something by not voting. When the reality is that they are placing a vote without going to the polls.

I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders. I totally agree with him. If there was a better candidate, I would be voting for him/her. But, there is not. So, my vote for Trump will be my Hail Mary. I do not think our country has much time left. Some of you are happy about that, but you will not be when it comes down to it. Because all of this is the culmination of a plan that has been executing for years and years. And time is about up.

It isn't about group think. If you're choosing one out of an entirely bad field, that's your thing - no one has to agree with you, or disagree. One important thing is that you have made your choice based on objective reasoning, rather than an emotional appeal. The other important thing is that even though you are choosing to vote for an authoritarian ghoul-endorsed candidate, you aren't running around RPF actively and constantly shilling for him, clogging up an entire forum section with useless spam threads, and using his candidacy to distract and divide people. Those are big differences between your behavior, and that of others - you've conducted yourself rationally as a gentlewoman (I do believe you're female, IIRC - I apologize if I'm wrong on that), and that's why I +repped you for your earlier post in this thread.

cajuncocoa
03-14-2016, 10:34 PM
And what's that supposed to result in? Group think?


Uh, no. Not group think. Read Bryan's OP. He asked for evaluation, and his post explains why. You can vote for whoever you want, but this board is not yet the Donald Trump Forum. This thread makes clear that Trump is not a liberty candidate, unless the one point you made overrides all of the other points made on the first page. Those of us who signed up for Liberty Forest, Ron Paul Forums, or Rand Paul Forum have the expectations of supporting liberty candidates, not 80%+ shilling for authoritarian Donald Trump, but that's what it's become recently.

LibertyEagle
03-15-2016, 02:28 AM
Uh, no. Not group think. Read Bryan's OP. He asked for evaluation, and his post explains why. You can vote for whoever you want, but this board is not yet the Donald Trump Forum. This thread makes clear that Trump is not a liberty candidate, unless the one point you made overrides all of the other points made on the first page. Those of us who signed up for Liberty Forest, Ron Paul Forums, or Rand Paul Forum have the expectations of supporting liberty candidates, not 80%+ shilling for authoritarian Donald Trump, but that's what it's become recently.

And that is why I chose to quote Phil's post and not Bryan's.

Todd
03-15-2016, 05:45 AM
And what's that supposed to result in? Group think?

There are no perfect candidates running and this go round has proven to me that we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting one of our own elected President. Some here, can't wait for the country to fall, period. Others, for some reason believe that if it does fall, they will be afforded the opportunity to rebuild it from the ashes. That the very same people who intentionally brought this country down don't have other plans; such as taking us into world government. Others still won't vote for anyone that they don't deem perfect; even Rand Paul wasn't worthy enough for them. And then there are those here for the sole purpose of trying to convince those they can, not to vote; even when Rand was in the race. These people apparently believe that they are accomplishing something by not voting. When the reality is that they are placing a vote without going to the polls.

I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders. I totally agree with him. If there was a better candidate, I would be voting for him/her. But, there is not. So, my vote for Trump will be my Hail Mary. I do not think our country has much time left. Some of you are happy about that, but you will not be when it comes down to it. Because all of this is the culmination of a plan that has been executing for years and years. And time is about up.

Some of us don't want the Country to collapse. Some of us believe a Trump presidency will be the collapse. To be fair...all of the remaining candidates have no real solutions for solving the most salient issues that are leading to the collapse. I do not think it's honest to suggest that once this November election rolls around that those of us who choose not to vote or vote for a third party candidate aren't accomplishing anything. The endeavors some of us have engaged in the years leading up to the election have far more weight than 1 vote on 1 day in November. I wish people understood how insignificant that is compared to all the other opportunities one has to make political changes.

cajuncocoa
03-15-2016, 06:24 AM
And that is why I chose to quote Phil's post and not Bryan's.
OK, fair enough. To me, phill's post just seemed to be saying he thought it was time to make the decision that Bryan called for in the OP, so it seemed consistent with Bryan's request/intent.

phill4paul
03-15-2016, 06:40 AM
OK, fair enough. To me, phill's post just seemed to be saying he thought it was time to make the decision that Bryan called for in the OP, so it seemed consistent with Bryan's request/intent.

That's exactly what I meant. I don't much get point until waiting after primaries to make the call. God forbid it get strung out until after November if Trump gets the nomination.

klamath
03-15-2016, 08:33 AM
Doesn't believe in local control of western land and doesn't want anymore private ownership. Believes in federal control of the land. This backed by long personal history against private property rights locks this in as his true stand on the issue.


“That’s not good, because you want to keep the land great, and you don’t know what the state’s going to do with it. Are they going to sell it if they get into a little bit of trouble? I don’t think it should be sold. This is magnificent land and we have to be great stewards of this land. The hunters and the fisherman (sic) and all the different people who use this land.” -Trump

klamath
03-15-2016, 08:39 AM
That's exactly what I meant. I don't much get point until waiting after primaries to make the call. God forbid it get strung out until after November if Trump gets the nomination. Yeaw pretty much this. Does us lot of good to wait until after the first Tuesday of Nov to make a decision. In the mean time Trump is locking up the nomination while this platform is being used as the trump organization central.

klamath
03-15-2016, 10:31 AM
Donald Trump thinks Tiananmen Square should have been put down.



An interview that Trump gave to Playboy in 1990 has just come to my attention. If I’m the last to know about it, forgive me. Trump was asked about Gorbachev — who was nearing the end of his time in power. Trump said, “Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough hand.” His interviewer asked, “You mean firm hand as in China?” Trump answered, “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world –”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ananmen-square

Bryan
03-15-2016, 12:22 PM
I can help drive the process but the least that I am unilaterally assigning grades the better.
There are two things that I see of value at this point:
1. Aggregate all the comments into the different sections:
Civil Liberties: [Rating TBD]
Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]
Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]
Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]
Social Issues: [Rating TBD]

List the points in a pro and con list for each.

2. Assign grades on each point, it would be idea to hear from both supporters and those who opposes. You can help the process by getting some supporters to provide their grading in none post.

In doing this we can set the stage for further analysis.
One note, we should focus on data that is somewhat recent, statements / viewpoints made 15 years ago may have changed.

Thank you everyone, this is all very useful.

invisible
03-15-2016, 02:07 PM
I can help drive the process but the least that I am unilaterally assigning grades the better.
There are two things that I see of value at this point:
1. Aggregate all the comments into the different sections:
Civil Liberties: [Rating TBD]
Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]
Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]
Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]
Social Issues: [Rating TBD]

List the points in a pro and con list for each.

2. Assign grades on each point, it would be idea to hear from both supporters and those who opposes. You can help the process by getting some supporters to provide their grading in none post.

In doing this we can set the stage for further analysis.
One note, we should focus on data that is somewhat recent, statements / viewpoints made 15 years ago may have changed.

Thank you everyone, this is all very useful.


Is this what you're asking for?
Going by what has been posted in this thread, here's what I come up with. Note that some things fall into more than one category. Also note that "social issues" can be a very subjective category - some issues can be a pro for some people, and a con for others. IMO, statements made 15 years ago are important because being consistent is important, flip flops should be noted in some way.


Civil Liberties
as per post #2
torture - con (also post #68 and #70)
NSA data collection - con
drug legalization - con*
muslim travel - con

as per post #14
wants to force Apple into backdooring phones - con (better source needed)

as per posts #3 and #15
freedom of the press - con

as per post #16
internet censorship - con

as per posts #18 and #25
Snowden - con

as per posts #3, #18, #64
eminent domain / property rights - con

as per post #54
thinks China's handling of protests was not harsh enough - con

as per post #77
supports mandatory e-verify - con

as per post #80
would consider gun ban for people on no-fly list - con

---

Constitutional Issues
as per post #2
torture - con (also posts #68 and #70)
NSA data collection - con
drug legalization - con*
muslim travel - con

as per post #3
freedom of the press - con
freedom of religion - con
2nd Amendment - con
eminent domain - con (also post #18 and #64)

as per post #14
wants to force Apple into backdooring phones - con (better source needed)

as per posts #15 and #3
freedom of the press - con

as per post #16
internet censorship - con (better source needed)

as per posts #18 and #25
Snowden - con

as per post #23
US forces worldwide - con

as per post #54
thinks China's handling of protests was not harsh enough - con

as per post #44
called for death penalty for cop killers, via EO - con

as per post #80
would consider gun ban for people on no-fly list - con

---

Economic Issues

as per post #32
opposed to TPP - pro (source needed)

as per posts #3, #18, and #64
supports eminent domain to advance specific business interests - con

as per post #56
supported bank bailouts - con

as per post #56
supported auto company bailouts - con

as per post #56
in favor of single-payer healthcare - con

as per post #56
refused to take a position on federal funding of planned parenthood, tried to play both sides of the issue - con

as per post #71
tax proposals are self-serving and add $11.74 trillion to the federal deficit - con

---

Foreign Policy
as per post #2
Iran sanctions / closer ties to Israel - con
muslim travel - con

as per posts #10-11 and #24
30,000 ground troops in Syria - con

as per post #13
argues war in Libya is a humanitarian mission - con
want to take Iraq's natural resources - con (also post #20)
"I am the most militaristic person that you will find." - con

as per post #20
preemptive war - con

as per post #23
US forces worldwide - con

as per post #59
named president of CFR as foreign policy adviser cabinet pick - con

---

Social Issues
as per post #2
drug legalization - con
muslim travel - con

as per post #32
tough immigration policy (source needed) - pro, but some may consider this a con

as per post #56
refused to take an actual position on abortion, tried to play both sides of the issue - con

as per post #56
in favor of single-payer healthcare - con

as per post #56
refused to take a position on federal funding of planned parenthood, tried to play both sides of the issue - con

as per post #80
would consider gun ban for people on no-fly list - con

---

Misc
as per post #4, #67
donated to bad candidates - con*

as per post #5
opposed by Ron Paul - con

as per post #6
attacked Rand Paul in Senate primary - con

as per post #7
opposed Ron Paul by threatening indie run in 2012 - con* (flip flop based on numerous current debate statements)

as per post #56
endorsement by and takes advice from the ghoul - con
endorsement by christie - con
endorsement by LePage - pro (some may see this as a con)
opposed by Amash - con




Notes:
Flip flops are denoted by *
Pros and cons listed in post #8 are not supported by any listed specific policy stances, supporting articles or quotes needed.
Pros listed in post #32 need supporting sources, but I included them because they are well-known specific stances with many sources (indisputable, clear stances from many remarks and statements).
Source below for cop killer death penalty via EO, as per post #44:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?492150-Should-Ron-Rand-forums-be-used-as-a-platform-to-promote-and-organize-for-Trump/page7 (post #182)
Source needed for federal land control quote, as per post #52
Post #59 does not include direct quotes or policy proposals and stances.
Post #56 stances on various bailouts were given at the time they were current (2008-9) (Has he been asked about bailouts more recently?)
Post #56 stance on abortion is a quote from 1999 (anything more recent on the issue, or where an actual stance is given?)
Posts #93, #94, #95, #96, #97, #98 have not been supported with any sort of source.
There are statements given that appear to make immigration positions a flip-flop, although I have not tried to account for or note this in ratings - see 2012 and 2015 articles here:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/27/trump-hammers-romneys-crazy-immigration-suggestion/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/24/donald-trump-on-amnesty-if-somebodys-been-outstanding-we-try-and-work-something-out-video/
I have seen comments to the effect that this candidate supports an assault weapons ban, but have not seen an actual source providing an actual statement or policy position on this issue.
More recent stances on Economic and Social Issues are needed for better accuracy in rating determination.
I will edit this post as additional information and sources are provided, or as per the direction of Bryan and mods.


Conclusions, based on info provided in this thread so far:
Civil Liberties - F (12 con, 0 pro)
Constitutional Issues - F (16 con, 0 pro)
Economic Issues - F (6 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy)
Foreign Policy - F (9 con, 0 pro)
Social Issues - F (6 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy, and some may consider the pro to be a con)
Misc - F (7 con, 1 pro) (pro may be seen as a con by some)

invisible
03-15-2016, 02:26 PM
Endorsement from the ghoul, and looking to him for advice quote - con
Endorsement from christy - con
Endorsement from LePage - pro, but some may see as a con
Naming CFR president as foreign policy cabinet adviser pick - con
Opposed by Amash - con

Those things should certainly count for something.

con (endorsement and advice from the ghoul)
As per this here with sources cited: (posts #1 and #4)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491556-The-ultimate-Ron-Paul-hating-neoconservative-endorses-trump

Rudy Giuliani ‎‎@RealRudyGiulian
Today I endorse my good friend @realDonaldTrump as the #GOP nominee and future president of the USA.

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is part of Donald Trump’s kitchen cabinet, giving campaign advice to the GOP front-runner, whom he described as a “close personal friend.”

pro (LePage endorsement - some may also see as a con)
con (christie endorsement)
As per this here with source cited: (post #1)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490900-Maine-Gov-Paul-LePage-endorses-Trump-for-president

Washington (CNN) Maine Gov. Paul LePage endorsed Donald Trump for president Friday, lending the GOP front-runner the backing of another northeastern governor on the same day Chris Christie offered his support.

con (CFR president as Foreign Policy adviser)
3/3/16 debate, as per this thread here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491241-March-3rd-Republican-debate-on-Fox-News-9-pm-ET/page3

And here's a few more:

con - supported auto company bailouts
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/conservative-donald-trump-supported-auto-bailouts-in-2008/

Although Donald Trump is trying to re-invent himself as a conservative for a possible bid for president in 2012, reminders of his prior support for Democrats and big government polices keep adding up. The latest: The Donald supported the auto bailout in 2008. “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent,” Trump told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto nearly three years ago. “You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” Faced with crushing debts caused by poor management and high labor costs, GM and Chrysler requested federal assistance to keep the firms afloat, and were granted a $25 billion loan in the fall of 2008. President George Bush then secured more than $17 billion for the companies. This occurred months before the birth of the Tea Party, but conservatives were outraged. Not Trump. A longtime advocate of sweetheart deals between corporation and state, the real-estate developer went all in for the deal. “[Y]ou have to try and save the companies,” Trump said in a separate 2008 Fox News interview. “And I think you can easily save the companies."

con - supported bank bailouts
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/04/20/naturally_trump_supported_the_banking_and_auto_bai louts.html

Back on September 30, 2008, Donald Trump was asked by CNN's Kiran Chetry what he thought of the plan to bail out failing banks. What he told her: "Well, I think it would be better if it passed. I'm not sure that it's going to work. A lot of people are not -- you know, it is trial and error. This is very complicated. This is more complicated than sending rockets to the moon. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot."

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-donald-trump-praised-the-stimulus-package-on-fox-n

President Obama held his first prime-time press briefing — designed to build support for the economic stimulus package that was his top priority upon taking office — on Feb. 9, 2009. Later that same night, real estate mogul Donald Trump took to the airwaves to sing the plan’s — and the president’s — praises. “I thought he did a terrific job,” Trump told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. “This is a strong guy knows what he wants, and this is what we need.” “First of all, I thought he did a great job tonight,” said Trump. “I thought he was strong and smart, and it looks like we have somebody that knows what he is doing finally in office, and he did inherit a tremendous problem. He really stepped into a mess, Greta.”

con - refused to take a real position on abortion, tried to play both sides of the issue
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/09/trump-1999-mtp-interview-on-late-term-abortions-old-news/

RUSSERT: Partial-birth abortion — the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?
TRUMP: Well, look. I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it, I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I hear people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice. And again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in different parts of the country, and I was raised in New York, grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion.
RUSSERT: But you would not ban it.
TRUMP: No.
RUSSERT: Or ban partial-birth abortion.
TRUMP: No, I would — I would — I am pro-choice in every respect, as far as it goes. I just hate it.


con - in favor of single-payer healthcare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/08/07/no-donald-trump-single-payer-health-care-doesnt-work-incredibly-well-in-canada-scotland/

Last night in Cleveland, the 17 declared Republican presidential candidates participated in the first official debates of the 2016 election season. Health care policy was a bone of contention. “How can you run for the Republican nomination and be for single-payer health care?” asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry of Trump. When Fox anchor Bret Baier later asked Trump to defend his position, Trump responded: “As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland.”

https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-healthcare-obamacare-mccain/2015/07/17/id/657674/

"But I’m quite liberal and getting much more liberal on healthcare and other things. I really say: What’s the purpose of a country if you’re not going to have defensive and healthcare?" he told King. "If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. "So I’m very liberal when it comes to healthcare. I believe in universal healthcare. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better."

con - refused to take a position on funding planned parenthood, tried to play both sides of the issue
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/trump-open-to-idea-of-continuing-taxpayer-funding-of-planned-parenthood/

During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stated that he was open to the idea of continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars.
“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”
Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”


con - opposed by Amash
http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/17/the-last-honest-man-in-congres/1

Amash: Donald Trump is the byproduct of a political establishment that has completely ignored Americans. I don't think he's ever talked about the Constitution, but he doesn't have to. He just has to be against Washington and people at home say to themselves, "Well, Washington's not standing up for us and this guy will."

Amash: I think he could be very dangerous as a president, but Americans at home want someone who's going to stick it to Washington, D.C., and he'll certainly do that. He'll create a lot of havoc in the process—and probably violate a lot of rights in the process, based on what I've heard from him—but unfortunately the political establishment here hasn't been paying attention to people at home, and conservatives haven't been able to knock the establishment off its pedestal. Whereas Donald Trump has been able to.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/17/the-last-honest-man-in-congres/3

Amash: I have a lot of concerns about Donald Trump. I do not want Hillary Clinton to win. I think she would be the worst president of my lifetime. I think she's much worse than Barack Obama, and President Obama has been a pretty awful president in many ways. I was hopeful that he would actually take steps with respect to civil liberties and wars that would actually reflect what he said were his views. He presented himself as a guy who was going to stop some of the things that were happening under the Bush administration, and he hasn't really taken the steps necessary.

I will do what it takes to make sure that Clinton is not our next president, but, yeah, I'm not going to say who I would vote for on Election Day if Trump were the Republican nominee. I've always been a proud Republican, and I have voted for Republican nominees I didn't always agree with on a whole bunch of issues. But I think we can do better.

Bryan
03-15-2016, 07:18 PM
Excellent work, that’s right in-line with that we’re after.


On the “statements made 15 years ago” issue, I think it may fall in the same category as some other points that could be considered as “2nd Tier Issues” – in that they can be worth mentioning but don’t hold the same weight as direct viewpoints on policies.
Items I would consider as 2nd Tier include:

Very old statements
Endorsements. Candidates can’t control them and they will accept most all of them. Still, it could reflect who he would put into a leadership positions.
Campaign donations to other candidates. It’s hard to know all the motives of why someone would donate. Again, it’s an issue but a minor one.



I will try to get some Trump supporters to weigh in.

BTW, if anyone is so motivated, we can create the most impactful statement but making this aggregation post completely self-contained. For example, for economic issues:



Economic Issues

Trump is on-target with the following positions:
Trump is against the TPP and he has called out the horrible trade deals the USA makes, from NAFTA on. Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/09/exclusive-donald-trump-obamas-trans-pacific-free-trade-deal-insanity/

Trump should not be supported due to the following positions:
Trump supports the taking of private property thought the use of eminent domain. "Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything. " Source: http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/trump-eminent-domain/


BTW, I would address 2nd issues as: “The following issues provide concern and should be considered:” – or similar.

Also, taking position points right from the campaign website is the best source.


Thanks!!

phill4paul
03-16-2016, 07:17 PM
I will try to get some Trump supporters to weigh in.



I've asked every one I came across spewing bullshit to come here and defend Trump.

It's time to shit or get off the pot.

My time here is about done unless action is taken.

Suzanimal
03-16-2016, 07:56 PM
Donald Trump’s Plan to Preserve Social Security by Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Doesn’t Even Come Close to Adding Up

Donald Trump has staked out a position as the GOP primary’s most ardent defender of Social Security. He has promised not to change the benefit in any way, and insisted that he will both defend the program, which is on track to insolvency, from any cuts or changes and reduce annual deficits and the national debt at the same time.

Trump repeated this pledge at last night’s GOP debate, saying that he “will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is; to make this country rich again; to bring back our jobs; to get rid of deficits; to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse, which is rampant in this country, rampant, totally rampant.”

As is so often the case when Trump talks policy, his response makes clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about.

Let’s start with “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is one of Trump’s favorite talking point solutions for covering budget gaps. It’s not a bad idea, exactly, but getting rid of all improper payments in the Social Security system—assuming this could even be done, which is exceedingly unlikely if you otherwise leave Social Security in its current form—would only net about $3 billion in savings annually.

That might sound like a lot, but relative to the overall size of the program, it’s not. As the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) points out, that only represents about 0.4 percent of the program’s $900 billion a year in benefit payments. To put Social Security on the track to solvency, you’d need to come up with savings on the order of $150 billion every year.

To her credit, debate moderator Dana Bash followed up with Trump by pointing this out. Trump’s response was to claim that he’s not just talking about waste, fraud, and abuse in Social Security. And then he changed the subject to suggest—well, it’s not clearly exactly what, but something to do with cutting back on foreign military involvement.

Because they don't cover most of the subjects. We're the policemen of the world. We take care of the entire world. We're going to have a stronger military, much stronger. Our military is depleted. But we take care of Germany, we take care of Saudi Arabia, we take care of Japan, we take care of South Korea. We take -- every time this maniac from North Korea does anything, we immediately send our ships. We get virtually nothing.

We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, on the border between North and South Korea. We have so many places. Saudi Arabia was making a billion dollars a day, and we were getting virtually nothing to protect them. We are going to be in a different world. We're going to negotiate real deals now, and we're going to bring the wealth back to our country. We owe $19 trillion. We're going to bring wealth back to our country.

The most generous reading here is that Trump wants to save money by reducing the U.S. global military presence. And you could save money—perhaps a lot—by cutting back on the Defense Department’s global footprint through base closures and troop reductions.

But it’s hard to square this with Trump’s repeated declarations on the campaign trail that he would make a big effort to increase America’s military strength and power.

“I want to build up the military so nobody messes with us,” he said last year, a promise he’s repeated in some variation many times since. “I would bring it back to where it was at the height because we’re in such trouble.” That doesn’t sound like a plan for savings. It sounds like a plan for a significant increase in military spending. And Trump’s idea that he would do this and create savings at the same time by making better “deals”—a word he waves around like an all-purpose magic wand for political solutions—is just nonsense hand-waving.

Still, let’s assume for a moment that Trump somehow or another finds a way to fund Social Security using military savings. That still leaves the problem of national debt, which Trump says he would reduce. The evidence of his actual plans strongly suggests otherwise.

As Trump says himself, in a figure he manages not to totally mangle, national debt stands around $19 trillion right now. And the rest of Trump’s plans—in particular his proposed tax cuts—would increase national debt by anywhere from $12 to $15 trillion, according to a CRFB estimate.

Trump has no plan whatsoever to offset this massive increase in the debt. Indeed, no such plan would be remotely plausible, politically or economically. As CRFB president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement last night, “no reasonable amount of spending cuts or economic growth could cover” the overall cost of his plans.

None of this appears to matter to Trump, though. He isn't just sloppy with some details. He doesn’t have the slightest clue what he’s talking about.

In defending his refusal to touch Social Security last night, he also said he wanted to do things “that will bring back GDP. I mean, as an example, GDP was zero essentially for the last two quarters.” GDP was not zero for the last two quarters. That’s not how GDP—which stands for Gross Domestic Product and is a measure of a country’s total economic output—works. U.S. GDP is close to $18 trillion. Maybe he meant GDP growth, but even if so, he was still wrong. GDP grew at 1.9 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, and 2.1 percent in the quarter before that.

Trump is just not serious about any of this. At a previous GOP debate, he suggested that he would cut $300 billion in spending from a $78 billion program. His health care plan is mostly a demonstration of how little he or anyone associated with his campaign understands, or even cares to understand, health care policy.

Trump’s plans when it comes to debt and deficits, to taxes and entitlements, to health care and trade, are total fantasy, driven by disregard for even the most basic understanding of policy detail. Every time he insists he has some sort of policy or plan, what he ends up making clear that he has no such thing.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/11/donald-trumps-plan-to-preserve-social-se

cajuncocoa
03-16-2016, 08:07 PM
The most important thing that should be considered, in my opinion, and should put an end to any thought to going forward with a pro-Donald Trump section is the fact that there have been numerous warnings against a Donald Trump presidency by none other than DR. RON PAUL. This being the message board that still bears his name, and still has many of his supporters hanging on out of respect for him (with the intention of continuing his fight for liberty) the decision seems obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.

Bryan
03-16-2016, 10:10 PM
I've asked every one I came across spewing bullshit to come here and defend Trump.
Great, that helps. Thanks!



The most important thing that should be considered, in my opinion, and should put an end to any thought to going forward with a pro-Donald Trump section is the fact that there have been numerous warnings against a Donald Trump presidency by none other than DR. RON PAUL. This being the message board that still bears his name, and still has many of his supporters hanging on out of respect for him (with the intention of continuing his fight for liberty) the decision seems obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.
Dr. Paul bases his warnings off of facts, we are reconstructing those facts here.


So far, only invisible has provided ratings for the base components:


Conclusions, based on info provided in this thread so far:
Civil Liberties - F (10 con, 0 pro)
Constitutional Issues - F (14 con, 0 pro)
Economic Issues - C (1 con, 1 pro) (more specific policy stances and proposals needed for accuracy)
Foreign Policy - F (9 con, 0 pro)
Social Issues - C- or D (2 con, 1 pro) (more needed for accuracy, and some may consider the pro to be a con)
Misc - F (6 con, 1 pro) (pro may be seen as a con by some)


We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


Thanks.

phill4paul
03-16-2016, 10:20 PM
We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


Outstanding!

invisible
03-17-2016, 12:44 AM
I have updated posts #55 and #56 to reflect some additional information. Bryan appears to have made last call here. Does anyone else have additional info, or actual (or better) sources for info provided in this thread that has not been properly or accurately sourced? (please refer to "notes" in post #55) I will attempt to keep post #55 as updated as possible, pending additional information and sources.

I did attempt to be as objective as possible in post #55. However, there are some areas that do require a judgement call that is at least somewhat subjective. For instance, if a area of policy contains 5 cons and 1 pro, with two of the cons being position statements on an issue that was current 8 years ago, and the one pro is a policy that not only may some view as a con, but it also appears to be a flip-flop, then what should the evaluation rating be for that area of policy? There are two such areas where it becomes a bit subjective, and Bryan (and whoever else is part of the decision) will need to make a judgement call. However, this only seems to be the case in two areas, and the remaining areas of policy seem quite clear-cut as to where the candidate actually (and currently) stands on the issues. Remember, the more information, and the better the information, the less subjective the decision can become!

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:03 AM
Donald Trump: ‘Eminent Domain Is Wonderful’




Donald Trump sees a simple reason why so many conservatives disagree with him on eminent domain, the controversial power by which the government seizes private land for development projects: They just don’t understand the issue as well as he does. “I fully understand the conservative approach, but I don’t think it was explained to most conservatives,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier that aired yesterday. “Nobody knows this better than I do, because I’ve built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and you’ll have twelve sites and you’ll get eleven and you’ll have the one holdout, and you end up building around them. I know it better than anybody.” Eminent domain may seem like an obscure issue, but the Club for Growth Action Fund found it important enough to spotlight in an attack ad against Trump.

The ad focused on Trump’s full-throated support for the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, which allowed state and local governments to seize land from one private owner and give it to another private owner to further economic development. Many conservatives saw the decision as expanding the power of elected officials and wealthy developers at the expense of the private landholders who often stand in the way of their ambitions.

In a perfect irony, the state and city spent $78 million to purchase and bulldoze the home of Susette Kelo . . . and then the developer couldn’t finance the project. (The site remains an empty lot today.) As Ilya Somin put it, “Trump did not merely claim that the Kelo v. New London decision was legally correct; he argued that it was ‘good’ to give government the power to forcibly displace homeowners and small businesses and transfer their property to influential developers on the theory that doing so might promote ‘economic development.’”​


In his interview with Baier, Trump didn’t back down one inch; he insisted that the compensated, involuntary transfer of private property by the government was in the public’s best interests. He first used the example of a government seizing land for a road or highway — generally the least controversial and most broadly supported use of eminent domain. But he quickly broadened his argument, insisting that government should always be allowed to take private land for development projects if the promised public benefits are big enough. “If you have a factory, where you have thousands of jobs, you need eminent domain, it’s called economic development,” Trump said.

“Now you’re employing thousands of people and you’re able to build a factory, you’re able to build an Apple computer center, where thousands of people can work. You can do that, or you can say, ‘Let the man have his house.’” Trump added that he thinks “eminent domain is wonderful,” and contended that those who are forced out of their homes often end up better off. “The little guy sometimes gets a lot of money.

Sometimes they’ll get four or five times what their property is worth.” ‘Most of the time, they just want money. It’s very rarely they say, “I love my house, I love my house, it’s the greatest thing ever.”’ Baier pointed out that some homeowners might not want to move out of their homes, even if the promised compensation is significant. Trump argued that homeowners often fight eminent domain not out of principled support for private-property rights, but as a negotiating tactic. “Most of the time, they just want money,” he said. “It’s very rarely they say, ‘I love my house, I love my house, it’s the greatest thing ever.’ Because these people could buy a house now, that’s five times bigger, in a better location.”

Trump has firsthand experience with eminent domain fights. In 1993, he tried to purchase the home of Atlantic City resident Vera Coking to expand his hotel and casino. When she refused to sell, New Jersey attempted to condemn the property and have her evicted. She fought in court and, with the assistance of the Institute for Justice, won.

She made a terrible mistake,” Trump said to Baier. “I was going to expand a hotel, put in thousands of rooms. I had the one house in the way. We would have had, probably, 1,400 employees getting jobs. She was offered four, five, six times what her house was worth. Eventually we couldn’t do it because one court ruled against us.” Trump later said he offered Coking $4 million; her grandson said Trump’s top offer was $1.9 million. Whatever the sum, Coking refused. In July 2014, with Coking now in a San Francisco retirement home, her family sold the property for $530,000. Trump called that amount “peanuts.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425212/donald-trump-eminent-domain-wonderful

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:11 AM
From @r3volution 3.0 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?58077-r3volution-3-0)
INDEX (numbers below issues link to sources)

I. Policy Issues

Pro Socialized Medicine
#1 (https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-healthcare-obamacare-mccain/2015/07/17/id/657674/) . #2 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/08/07/no-donald-trump-single-payer-health-care-doesnt-work-incredibly-well-in-canada-scotland/) . #3 (http://ytcropper.com/cropped/ls55c99805e150c) . #4 (http://thedailybanter.com/2015/06/10-quotes-from-donald-trumps-speech-that-show-hes-totally-ready-to-be-president/#) .

Pro Bank Bailouts
#1 (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/04/20/naturally_trump_supported_the_banking_and_auto_bai louts.html) .

Pro Auto Bailouts
#1 (http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/conservative-donald-trump-supported-auto-bailouts-in-2008/) .

Pro Obama Stimulus
#1 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/that-time-donald-trump-praised-the-stimulus-package-on-fox-n) .

Pro Higher Taxes
#1 (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/time-donald-trump-proposed-57-trillion-wealth-tax) .

Soft On Immigration
#1 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/27/trump-hammers-romneys-crazy-immigration-suggestion/) . #2 (http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/24/donald-trump-on-amnesty-if-somebodys-been-outstanding-we-try-and-work-something-out-video/) . #3 (http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/that-time-donald-trump-had-a-meeting-with-dreamers-and-said?utm_term=.olPa0GnX0#.gsz11KmmKY) .

Pro Abortion (including Partial Birth)
#1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/09/trump-1999-mtp-interview-on-late-term-abortions-old-news/) . #2 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/trump-open-to-idea-of-continuing-taxpayer-funding-of-planned-parenthood/) .

Pro Eminent Domain
#1 (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen) . #2 (https://youtu.be/r8sUWNicMpM?t=242) .

Pro gun Control
#1 (http://downtrend.com/71superb/donald-trump-is-not-just-a-clown-hes-a-liberal-anti-gun-clown) .

Against Returning Federal Land to The States
#1 (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-dont-hand-federal-lands-to-states/) http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480115-Trump-Opposition-Research-Thread&p=5954359&viewfull=1#post5954359

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:16 AM
leaving this here
O'reilly : Libya- um, the libyan action is being explained as a humanitarian issue

"I support stopping that kind of slaughter, but the problem is where do you stop..."

Iraq:
"To the victor go the spoils"
"as sure as you are sitting there Iran is going to come in and take over the oil (in Iraq), you stay and you take the oil"

"I am the most militaristic person that you will find."


https://youtu.be/i6G4AAI77kI?t=1344 (https://youtu.be/i6G4AAI77kI?t=1344)

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:19 AM
Donald Trump to Endorse Harry Reid

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/Trump.jpg



Reality TV star, Donald Trump, who endorsed and contributed money to Harry Reid and Charlie Rangel will travel today to Nevada to endorse a Republican candidate?

Please explain to us why anyone would care.

Please explain to Republican voters in Nevada why they should consider the opinion of a billionaire from New York who endorsed the arch enemy of all Republicans in Nevada, and really the enemy of all Republicans in the US.

Hopefully, media reports of this event will include this delicious irony.



See below for more info on Trump’s political history.




Washington Post (http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb&id=07b36779aa&e=34dc9f26f3): “Trump’s donation history shows Democratic favoritism”

“Billionaire Donald J. Trump, an early presidential favorite among tea party activists, has a highly unusual history of political contributions for a prospective Republican candidate: He has given most of his money to the other side.”

“Recipients include Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell, and Rahm Emanuel (http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb&id=8eb4c0fc57&e=34dc9f26f3), a former aide to President Obama.”

“The Democratic recipients of Trump’s donations make up what looks like a Republican enemies list, including former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and the late liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).”

“The biggest recipient of all has been the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee of New York...”

“He donated $10,400 to Reid (http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb&id=1bd2e2471b&e=34dc9f26f3), including for his 2010 battle with Sharron Angle, the GOP nominee and tea party favorite.”

CNN (http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb&id=0e1bb515fb&e=34dc9f26f3): “Trump has a long history of assisting Democrats”

“Over the last two decades, Trump gave money to a number of high-profile Democrats and liberal icons, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden.”

“The biggest recipient of Trump's largesse? The scandal-plagued Rangel…”
..

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:37 AM
Donald Trump: 'Torture Works'
Donald Trump, the Republican candidate currently leading the pack in South Carolina, told a crowd Wednesday morning that "waterboarding is fine" but "not nearly tough enough."


This was not the first time Trump has advocated in favor of the controversial enhanced interrogation tactic. But at a town hall event in Bluffton, South Carolina, Trump insisted that "torture works."


A Senate Torture report from 2014 said enhanced interrogation tactics did not help to retrieve information from prisoners.


Still, Trump holds strong in his beliefs. "Don't tell me it doesn't work," he said. "Torture works. Okay, folks?"


In an opinion piece earlier this week (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/15/donald-trump-torture-enhan%20%20ced-interrogation-techniques-editorials-debates/80418458/), Trump further pressed for the use of torture, writing "I cannot imagine knowing that something could have been done to save American lives and then not taking those actions."



http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-torture-works-n520086

presence
03-17-2016, 08:37 AM
I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders. I totally agree with him.

so lets just boil it down

you're not here to support liberty
you're here to support state nationalism and socialism

you want to overturn globalist trade deals for nationalist trade deals, fuck everyone from adam smith to murray rothbard... and their free markets

you want to overturn eons of open borders because we give too many benefits to newcomers in opposition to


Some people and organizations advocate for an extension of the freedom of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between the countries as well as within the countries. This include Libertarian Party of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_the_United_States), the International Society for Individual Liberty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Individual_Liberty)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement

and in solidarity with


The Eastern Bloc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc) claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from fascist elements conspiring to prevent the "will of the people" in building a socialist state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism) in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc_emigration_and_defection) that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall


such liberty
much eagle

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:40 AM
Donald Trump Promises to Bring Back Waterboarding and Worse Torture: 'If It Doesn't Work, They Deserve It Anyway'
Donald Trump (http://www.people.com/people/news/category/0,,personsTax:DonaldTrump,00.html) is doubling down on his promise to reinstate waterboarding (http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-fake-crime-statistics-nj-arabs-cheered-9-11) as an accepted form of interrogation – and taking it one step further by saying he'd approve even worse torture.

"Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would – in a heartbeat," Trump said to cheers during a rally in Columbus, Ohio, Monday night, according to The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/23/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-if-it-doesnt-work-they-deserve-it-anyway/). "And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

Trump added that waterboarding – a controversial interrogation tactic that was banned by the Obama administration and classified by the United Nations as torture – is what's needed to deal with terrorists who "chop off our young people's heads" and "build these iron cages, and they'll put 20 people in them and they drop them in the ocean for 15 minutes and pull them up 15 minutes later."

"It works," Trump repeated of waterboarding. "Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing."


http://www.people.com/article/donald-trump-waterboarding-torture

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:46 AM
Economic Issues - D- or F (5 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy)


Here's something



Donald Trump’s tax plan costs $12 trillion, according to analysis


Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s tax plan would cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate that runs directly counter to the billionaire’s pledge not to increase the deficit with the proposal.


The conservative Tax Foundation (http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan), which has been scoring candidates’ tax proposals throughout the race, found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2 trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the estate tax would add another $238 billion.



In addition, the gains from the cuts would disproportionately benefit ultra-wealthy Americans like Trump (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trumps-tax-plan-great-donald-trump), whose personal income, business earnings and inheritors all stand to gain from a number of its provisions. According to the analysis, the wealthiest 1% of Americans would see their after-tax incomes increase by 21.6% versus just 1.4% for the poorest 10%.



The findings strongly contradict Trump’s campaign rhetoric, where he’s repeatedly boasted about his willingness to raise taxes on well-off Americans like himself in order to help others. On Tuesday, Trump said his plan would “cost me a fortune” at his press conference unveiling it.


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trumps-tax-plan-costs-12-trillion-according-analysis

William Tell
03-17-2016, 09:02 AM
Last night in Cleveland, the 17 declared Republican presidential candidates participated in the first official debates of the 2016 election season. Health care policy was a bone of contention. “How can you run for the Republican nomination and be for single-payer health care?” asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry of Trump. When Fox anchor Bret Baier later asked Trump to defend his position, Trump responded: “As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland.”

...

William Tell
03-17-2016, 09:04 AM
Trump Open To Idea of Continuing Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood

During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stated that he was open to the idea of continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars.

“The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”

When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”

Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”

In other words Trump is open to a status quo many conservatives find unacceptable and immoral; also a typical federal government shell game to skirt around the law. If you give Planned Parenthood money for these so-called “other things,” the abortion provider can shift money from those “other things” to abortion.

Any money given to Planned Parenthood funds abortion. Period.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/trump-open-to-idea-of-continuing-taxpayer-funding-of-planned-parenthood/

invisible
03-17-2016, 10:22 AM
Here's something
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trumps-tax-plan-costs-12-trillion-according-analysis

I got the impression that this was something from 1999 or 2000, I don't think this is a current proposal. I didn't include it for this reason. I did already include some of the stuff you've posted. However, Bryan said that he wants to discount older positions, and try to concentrate on things said in the current campaign. So, I paid less attention to things from 1999-2000, that were undated, or that did not articulate a clear policy proposal or stance on an issue. Referring to my notes in post #55, do you have anything more current or better sourced, for the issues that I mentioned there? It would be great to have something more solid and current on gun control and abortion issues. The waterboarding is a good one, as that is a current well-defined stance on an issue - I'll add it in, but unfortunately it isn't in either of the areas where more or better information is needed.

edit: I see that the waterboarding position is already in there.

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 10:29 AM
So far, only invisible has provided ratings for the base components:



We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


Thanks. @invisible (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=19708) has done a fantastic job grading the information provided here (I can't really improve on what he's already done, but I will continue to look for more information to evaluate.)

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 10:37 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/11/trump-open-to-idea-of-continuing-taxpayer-funding-of-planned-parenthood/
My comment on that Brietbart piece: it's not just a question of whether PP might later shift those funds to abortion. Even if they don't, government has no business paying for mammograms, Pap smears, birth control Pills, etc (I've never been to a PP clinic, so I'm just guessing what these other "good things" are that Trump is speaking of.) If those are the things he's speaking of, they ARE good and necessary procedures (the first two, anyway) but government shouldn't be providing the funding for ANY of that.

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 10:47 AM
How Realistic Is Donald Trump's Immigration Plan? (Answer: It's not)





Donald Trump wears what's become a campaign signature: his "Make America Great Again" hat. Part of making the country great again, Trump says, is implementing his hard-line immigration plan.


Scott Heppell/AP


Donald Trump's immigration plan is — like the candidate — flashy, strident and headline-grabbing. Fox News called it "an early Christmas gift" for immigration hawks. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter pronounced it "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."


But some of those in the trenches of immigration reform say it's unrealistic and unworkable.


Donald Trump could write "Immigration Reform for Dummies." He makes a complex issue simple and sexy.


"I will build a great, great wall on our southern border," Trump has said, "and I will have Mexico pay for that wall, mark my words."


Even people who support tough immigration reform question whether Trump has the right answers. For instance, anyone with an elemental understanding of border security knows how hard it would be to build a continuous wall along 2,000 miles of the Southwest border because of rough terrain and private property rights.


Beto Cardenas is a Laredo native, who served as general counsel to then-Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, during immigration debates.


"When it comes to the idea of border fencing, there is a difference that is needed in one county versus another," Cardenas said. "You cannot say there is one solution that fits all."


Trump's six-page immigration battle plan, released last weekend, contains a host of fixes, though he doesn't mention how much it would cost:


Triple the number of border officers
Stop birthright citizenship (children born in the U.S. but born to immigrants in the U.S. illegally, would no longer be granted citizenship)
Deport people who overstay their visas
Make it harder for asylum seekers and refugees to get into the country
Perhaps Trump's most controversial idea is to round up all 11 million or so immigrants who are in the United States illegally and send them home.


"We will work with 'em," Trump said before adding, "they have to go."


Kerry Talbot, an immigration lawyer who worked for Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., was a key negotiator who helped come up with a bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013 (and failed in the House). She dismissed the idea of deporting everyone in the U.S. illegally.


"That's just not a solution that is workable," Talbot said. "It's not possible to deport 11 million people."


She added, "And so the Senate negotiators realized that, and they understood that, you know, you just have to work with reality and what's possible. And you need to look at people's connections to the U.S., what kind of contributions they're making. And Trump doesn't look at any of that. He just wants to deport everyone."


Immigrant families often have mixed legal status. Take the family of Juan Belman — a 22-year-old university student in Austin. He and his 17-year-old brother were brought here illegally from Mexico as young children, and they identify as Americans. His two other little brothers were born in Texas and are U.S. citizens.


Belman wants to know, in Trump's hypothetical administration, what happens to a family like his?


"I don't see how that's going to work," Belman said, "how that's going to look good for the United States. It kind of breaks my heart that people think this way, that people have this idea of separating us, of deporting us."


Trump does, however, get praise for including some ideas that deserve deeper discussion.


The government has a voluntary program called e-Verify, where employers check an employee's Social Security number to make sure he's legitimate. Trump wants to take e-Verify national and make it mandatory, as a way to eliminate the magnet of jobs.


"I think that a mandatory verification system is an important part of immigration enforcement," said Doris Meissner, a former immigration commissioner under President Clinton. She now works for the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "And I think that's one of the interesting things about his proposal is that he mentions it. But there's just a short sentence. It doesn't tell us anything about how you actually would do it."


Despite their shortcomings, Mark Krikorian says Trump's immigration recommendations are the most thorough of any Republican contender, next to Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who supported the Senate's comprehensive immigration plan.


Krikorian is the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which calls for stricter immigration laws. He is no Trump fan, but gives him credit for bringing immigration to the forefront in this campaign.


"Individually, as a citizen, I would not want this guy to be president," Krikorian said. "I mean, look, he's a bloviating megalomaniac. But he has, in fact, made a significant contribution to the immigration debate. We are now debating policy issues that nobody wanted to or cared to talk about before. So that's all to the good in my opinion."


http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/20/432934599/how-realistic-is-donald-trumps-immigration-plan

invisible
03-17-2016, 10:54 AM
How Realistic Is Donald Trump's Immigration Plan? (Answer: It's not)
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/20/432934599/how-realistic-is-donald-trumps-immigration-plan

I haven't seen the e-verify position before, I'll add that in! Immigration has already been covered - that's an issue that is hard to determine accurately (which has been noted), since it seems to have been flip-flopped on, is an obviously impractical proposal, and some will view it as either a pro or a con, depending on opinion. However, I did mark it as a pro, simply because this is an issue that supporters have argued as being one of the candidate's strengths.

William Tell
03-17-2016, 11:07 AM
I got the impression that this was something from 1999 or 2000, I don't think this is a current proposal.

No, it is a tax plan he released in September of last year according to the Tax Foundation. That's why the article compares it to Rubio's, Rand's, etc. I saw a graph comparison on Twitter a while back not sure if I can find it. The point is Donald Trump getss an F on economic issues.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan




(http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan)

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 11:20 AM
Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at



Sun December 6, 2015

Washington (CNN)Republican presidential contenders have largely called for increases in surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and California. But they also argued Sunday that one U.S. surveillance tool -- the government's no-fly list -- can't be trusted as a tool to bar gun purchases.


Several GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination argued against a Democratic push to bar members of the no-fly list from buying firearms during appearances on Sunday news shows, saying that list is too broad. Just one -- Donald Trump -- said they were willing to consider the move.




"The majority of the people on the no-fly list are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn't belong on the no-fly list. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy once said he was on a no-fly list. There are journalists on the no-fly list," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/2016-election-guns-no-fly-list/

William Tell
03-17-2016, 11:23 AM
One note, we should focus on data that is somewhat recent, statements / viewpoints made 15 years ago may have changed.

Thank you everyone, this is all very useful. How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.


Donald Trump Calls 'Self-Deportation' Idea 'Maniacal'
Billionaire Donald Trump is the latest in a string of Republicans to criticize the party for failing to recognize the increasing diversity of the country.


"Republicans didn't have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians," Trump told Newsmax (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Donald-Trump-Ronald-Kessler/2012/11/26/id/465363).
He told the site that Republicans appeared hostile toward minorities this election cycle.


"The Democrats didn't have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited about it," he said. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind."


Trump also told the site that Romney's suggestion that people "self-deport" gave Hispanics the impression that Republicans do not care about them.


"He had a crazy policy of self-deportation, which was maniacal," Trump said. "It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote. He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country."




http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/donald-trump-slams-romney-deportation-comment/story?id=17814473

invisible
03-17-2016, 11:26 AM
No, it is a tax plan he released in September of last year according to the Tax Foundation. That's why the article compares it to Rubio's, Rand's, etc. I saw a graph comparison on Twitter a while back not sure if I can find it. The point is Donald Trump getss an F on economic issues.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

Ok, added.

klamath
03-17-2016, 11:26 AM
How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/donald-trump-slams-romney-deportation-comment/story?id=17814473

That one really shows the dishonesty of Trump but I am sure Trump supporters will say we can't count anything he says 3 years ago now.

William Tell
03-17-2016, 11:29 AM
That one really shows the dishonesty of Trump but I am sure Trump supporters will say we can't count anything he says 3 years ago now.

Well, that would mean they think it is OK for Trump to totally change his mind for the last year of his presidency. If 3 years isn't considered relevant I don't know what is.

invisible
03-17-2016, 11:31 AM
Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at
More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/2016-election-guns-no-fly-list/

Ok, added.

William Tell
03-17-2016, 11:33 AM
Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at




More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politics/2016-election-guns-no-fly-list/

Wow. I forgot about that. If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is. That puts him in F- territory in a category or two. Constitutional and Civil Liberties come to mind.

We do have F-, right?:D

undergroundrr
03-17-2016, 11:33 AM
Well, that would mean they think it is OK for Trump to totally change his mind for the last year of his presidency. If 3 years isn't considered relevant I don't know what is.

Then I would think 7 or 8 years would be the cutoff for flip-flops. For the last 24 years, we've been in an era of two-term presidents.

invisible
03-17-2016, 11:33 AM
How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/donald-trump-slams-romney-deportation-comment/story?id=17814473

As I had noted, that's going to require a subjective judgement call by Bryan. In the interest of being completely objective, I marked immigration down as a pro, but did note the concerns of an apparent flip-flop on the issue.

invisible
03-17-2016, 11:34 AM
Wow. I forgot about that. If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is. That puts him in F- territory in a category or two. Constitutional and Civil Liberties come to mind.

It's also a social issue, so I counted it in that category as well.

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 11:40 AM
Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge
Aug 27, 2015


Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”


If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”


So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”


More: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru


Donald Trump: I Was Joking When I Said I’d Put My Pro-Abortion Sister on the Supreme Court

FEB 15, 2016


Now that pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away, pro-life voters are scrutinizing each of the candidates in terms of how they will handle Supreme Court appointments. And when it comes to businessman Donald Trump, he has faced criticism in some quarters from pro-life voters who point to a past interview he gave about his sister, who is a pro-abortion attorney.

[...]

Now, in a new interview, Trump says pro-life voters shouldn’t take the offhanded praise for his sister seriously and that she is not someone he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court.


SIGN THE PLEDGE: I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President


Here’s the transcript and video of what Trump said:


STEPHANOPOULOS: “Let’s turn to the Supreme Court right now. You also heard Senator Cruz right there say that you can’t be trusted to make a Supreme Court pick, that you would pick liberals on the court. He cited your praise of your sister, saying she would be a phenomenal Supreme Court justice. Your response?”


TRUMP: “Well, look, just so you understand, I said it jokingly. My sister’s a brilliant person, known as a brilliant person, but it’s obviously a conflict. And I said, oh, how about my sister? Kiddingly. My sister, also she — she also happens to have a little bit different views than me, but I said in that in a very joking matter, and it was all lots of fun and everything else. I would say total conflict of interest as far as my sister. Somebody like a Diane Sikes from Wisconsin I think would be very good. There’s some great people out there. But my sister obviously would not be the right person; it’s a conflict of interest for me.”



Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/15/donald-trump-i-was-joking-when-i-said-id-put-my-pro-abortion-sister-on-the-supreme-court/

invisible
03-17-2016, 11:40 AM
Then I would think 7 or 8 years would be the cutoff for flip-flops. For the last 24 years, we've been in an era of two-term presidents.

The apparent immigration flip-flop is within that time frame. I have attempted to note any information that is included, but is older than the current election cycle. I have also excluded information that is older than the current election cycle, except in the cases for where there is apparently no current policy proposal or stance, and information in that particular category is somewhat lacking. If you have additional updated information, I'd be glad to include it. Any additional current information with supporting sources would be most welcome!

invisible
03-17-2016, 11:50 AM
Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge
Aug 27, 2015



More: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru


Donald Trump: I Was Joking When I Said I’d Put My Pro-Abortion Sister on the Supreme Court

FEB 15, 2016
Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/15/donald-trump-i-was-joking-when-i-said-id-put-my-pro-abortion-sister-on-the-supreme-court/

I don't feel that this should be included. Given what you have presented here, it doesn't seem to clearly provide a policy proposal or stance on an issue - it's a "retracted statement", with the claim that it was said as a joke. If Bryan feels it should be factored in, I'd be glad to include it. But in the interest of objectivity, I'm going to leave it out for now.

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:15 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:16 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:17 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:19 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:20 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:23 PM
//

Origanalist
03-17-2016, 05:28 PM
Pro - Wants to end pointless wars in the Middle East

I have to run, but I'll see if I can come up with more when I get back later

When you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 05:37 PM
Pro - Wants to end pointless wars in the Middle East

I have to run, but I'll see if I can come up with more when I get back later
By sending 30,000 troops to Iraq and Syria?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:38 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 05:39 PM
//

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 05:40 PM
Pro - Wants to eliminate cronyism re: government contracts
'Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist' (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/02/donald-trump-crony-capitalist.html)


Luigi Zingales:


Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist: Four years ago, in the first draft of my book “A Capitalism for the People,” I had a section dedicated to how worrisome a Donald J. Trump presidential bid would be for America. I was not prescient. It’s just that having grown up in Italy, I knew how a real estate tycoon — in this case, Silvio Berlusconi — whose career exemplified crony capitalism could become the leader of supposed pro-market forces, and I knew what it meant for the country.


I cut this section after being told that my point was irrelevant: In America, there was no chance that a character like Mr. Trump would ever be seriously considered as a candidate.


Then 2016 happened. ...


Mr. Trump ... is, in short, the essence of that commingling of big business and government that goes under the name of crony capitalism. ...

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 05:42 PM
He obviously doesn't think destroying ISIS would be pointless. He thinks Iraq and Afghanistan are pointless.
You don't explain what you mean by the second sentence, but sending 30,000 American troops to that region to defeat ISIS is not in our best interest.

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 05:44 PM
Pro - Not beholden to Wall Street or special interests
See: Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist (http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/02/donald-trump-crony-capitalist.html)

cajuncocoa
03-17-2016, 05:45 PM
Pro - Defends 2nd amendment
It's already been pointed out that he wants to ban guns for people on the no-fly list. Slippery slope, plus people could be put on the no-fly list by mistake (it's happened before.)

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:43 PM
....

William Tell
03-17-2016, 08:48 PM
...

openfire
03-17-2016, 11:27 PM
//

openfire
03-17-2016, 11:28 PM
//

openfire
03-18-2016, 12:07 AM
//

LibertyEagle
03-18-2016, 04:43 AM
so lets just boil it down

you're not here to support liberty
you're here to support state nationalism and socialism
Not socialism at all. But yes, if you give me the choice between putting my country before some commie one-world globalism, you betcha, I'll choose my own country EVERY time.


you want to overturn globalist trade deals for nationalist trade deals, $#@! everyone from adam smith to murray rothbard... and their free markets
I hate to break it to you, but the trade deals we have now are NOT free trade. It requires more than putting the words "free trade agreement" in the name, you know.

And hell yes, I believe our trade balance/imbalance needs to be watched. When we did, our economy was much better off, and shock of all shocks, American businesses still managed to trade with other countries without having 1000s of pages of federal government dictates and an international ruling body sitting above our own Congress.


you want to overturn eons of open borders because we give too many benefits to newcomers
You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS. Yeah, no "benefits" whatsoever to them, comrade.


in opposition to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
People will still be able to visit. Recognizing borders does nothing to end that.


and in solidarity with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
Yeah right, comrade. :rolleyes:
The proposed wall will be in high traffic areas that are currently being flooded by illegal aliens. If you recall, during the last election, Ron suggested putting the National Guard on the border. Would you also equate that to a DMZ?

I was here to support Ron and then Rand. In case you hadn't noticed, neither is in the race.

Someone is going to be the President. From the less than desirable ones still in the race, I find Trump to be the best. I have already expressed why. That doesn't mean I don't have concerns. Your choice may differ or from the looks of it, you may think yourself high and mighty pious by not voting for anyone at all. However, all you have done is removed yourself from the equation and put your stamp of approval on whomever is chosen for you.

cajuncocoa
03-18-2016, 07:04 AM
you may think yourself high and mighty pious by not voting for anyone at all. However, all you have done is removed yourself from the equation and put your stamp of approval on whomever is chosen for you.Arguing this point is not what this thread is about, but I have to jump in and say I disagree with this reasoning completely. If you want to continue the discussion, I'll be happy to start a thread on it.

presence
03-18-2016, 08:44 AM
Not socialism at all. But yes, if you give me the choice between putting my country before some commie one-world globalism, you betcha, I'll choose my own country EVERY time.

so why do you need that wall if you don't want to continue giving benefits to everyone on this side of it?

that is state socialism

You face three options: globalism, nationalism, and individualism. you choose nationalism because you fear globalism. congratulations you've been trolled, the nationalists are globalists in sheep's clothing.



I hate to break it to you, but the trade deals we have now are NOT free trade. It requires more than putting the words "free trade agreement" in the name, you know.

doubtless. I don't disagree.

but whereas you and trump seem to think we should have nationalized "good trade deals"

austrians, like Ron and myself believe in free markets


And hell yes, I believe our trade balance/imbalance needs to be watched. When we did, our economy was much better off, and shock of all shocks, American businesses still managed to trade with other countries without having 1000s of pages of federal government dictates and an international ruling body sitting above our own Congress.

I'd like a citation from an austrian economist on beneficial state policies which impact "our trade balance". Else just come to terms that you're a state socialist, because national trade deals are state socialism. Its ok... if you stick around long enough we'll convert you to free market austrian economics. here, have some gary north:

https://mises.org/library/tariffs-welfare-state-economics


You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS. Yeah, no "benefits" whatsoever to them, comrade.

but benefits for everyone else... see you set yourself up... you want a socialist state... and you're willing to aggrandize state power and use VIOLENT state border controls to maintain it.

I want life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Fuck entitlements. Fuck prison state machine guns at the border wall between two fictitious "states". If individuals want to defend their personal private property I have no issue with it.



People will still be able to visit. Recognizing borders does nothing to end that.

ihre papiere bitte.... national id cards to come



Yeah right, comrade. :rolleyes:
The proposed wall will be in high traffic areas that are currently being flooded by illegal aliens. If you recall, during the last election, Ron suggested putting the National Guard on the border. Would you also equate that to a DMZ?

that's because Ron knows that "the laws"; however unjust, can be changed with the stroke of a pen, and border walls are inherently difficult, divisive, and costly to take down once they are erected.


I was here to support Ron and then Rand. In case you hadn't noticed, neither is in the race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention

I don't believe in voting for the least shitty option

see this guy:



http://static.messynessychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Screen-shot-2012-12-03-at-3.57.13-PM.jpg

that's me.








Someone is going to be the President. From the less than desirable ones still in the race, I find Trump to be the best. I have already expressed why. That doesn't mean I don't have concerns. Your choice may differ or from the looks of it, you may think yourself high and mighty pious by not voting for anyone at all. However, all you have done is removed yourself from the equation and put your stamp of approval on whomever is chosen for you.

You'll find that Ron always supported electoral politics pragmatically "to get the message out".


Samuel Edward Konkin III (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Edward_Konkin_III) responded:[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention#cite_note-20)



Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad)?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economic) alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected.






I don't believe in binary solutions. I don't believe I have to vote for someone that has "a good chance of winning"; as a matter of fact I find that to be THE problem with modern propagandised elections. I feel ZERO guilt from failing to pick red or blue.


In our almost psychotic fear of communism and other totalitarian philosophies, we tend to adopt some of their methods and thinking. Essentially, communism and fascism are ideas, and unless we have a better idea we will never be able to win the battle for men's minds. The Smith Act, the McCarran Act and all the armies in the world can never insulate or isolate us from the onslaught of totalitarianism. As never before in our history, we need men in this country who are willing to defend their liberty


by espousing the conditions which make up that liberty.



Unless we can create a healthy, free economy, we will continue to have conflicts; and no amount of government, worldwide or otherwise, is going to bring about a lasting peace. If anything, more government will lead to more distress. I want a world where there will be less, not more laws; where there will be more, not less freedom; where people will travel from one country to another with less, not more immigration restrictions; a world where trade is free and not regulated by tariffs and quotas; where a man can walk in the sunlight without fear of the police, and where his ideas are free and not censored; a world where the individual is supreme and the state is subservient, and not the other way around.

https://mises.org/library/peace-through-world-government


Anti-communism was the central root of the decay of the old libertarian right, but it was not the only one. In 1953, a big splash was made by the publication of Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind. Before that, no one on the right regarded himself as a "conservative"; "conservative" was considered a left smear word. Now, suddenly, the right began to glory in the term "conservative," and Kirk began to make speaking appearances, often in a kind of friendly "vital center" tandem with Arthur Schlesinger Jr.


This was to be the beginning of the burgeoning phenomenon of the friendly-though-critical dialogue between the liberal and conservative wings of the Great Patriotic American Consensus. A new, younger generation of rightists, of "conservatives," began to emerge, who thought that the real problem of the modern world was nothing so ideological as the state vs. individual liberty or government intervention vs. the free market; the real problem, they declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism and boorishness.


One of the first dominant thinkers of this new right was Buckley's brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell, who wrote fiery articles in National Review attacking liberty even as an abstract principle (and not just as something to be temporarily sacrificed for the benefit of the anti-communist emergency). The function of the state was to impose and enforce moral and religious principles.
Another repellent political theorist who made his mark in National Review was the late Willmoore Kendall, NR editor for many years. His great thrust was the right and the duty of the majority of the community—as embodied, say, in Congress—to suppress any individual who disturbs that community with radical doctrines. Socrates, opined Kendall, not only should have been killed by the Greek community, whom he offended by his subversive criticisms, but it was their moral duty to kill him.

https://mises.org/library/confessions-right-wing-liberal





no man can serve two masters

staerker
03-18-2016, 09:42 AM
Yeah right, comrade. :rolleyes:
The proposed wall will be in high traffic areas that are currently being flooded by illegal aliens. If you recall, during the last election, Ron suggested putting the National Guard on the border. Would you also equate that to a DMZ?

Berlin Wall: 96.3 mi
Korean Wall: 149 mi
Trump Wall: 1000 mi


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bApzgA8J2lU

LibertyEagle
03-18-2016, 09:42 AM
so why do you need that wall if you don't want to continue giving benefits to everyone on this side of it?

that is state socialism
Nope. No prize for you. I would prefer if citizens didn't receive benefits, either. However, even Ron said he wouldn't end everything for citizens overnight; including Social Security, which citizens paid in to.

Illegal aliens are a different matter altogether. They earned and deserve zip.


You face three options: globalism, nationalism, and individualism. you choose nationalism because you fear globalism. congratulations you've been trolled, the nationalists are globalists in sheep's clothing.
Comrade, your love of world communism is showing. Careful now.


doubtless. I don't disagree.

but whereas you and trump seem to think we should have nationalized "good trade deals"
This just shows you haven't read much of what I have written; even in this thread. I said quite clearly, that I would prefer if all of the incorrectly named free trade deals were ripped to shreds, and that includes the ruling bodies above our own Congress. But, if that isn't going to happen, yes, I would much prefer the horrible trade deals, were at minimum, renegotiated. Because right now, they are helping to turn our country into a 3rd world nation.


austrians, like Ron and myself believe in free markets
lol. No, Ron, free markets. You, world communism.




I'd like a citation from an austrian economist on beneficial state policies which impact "our trade balance". Else just come to terms that you're a state socialist, because national trade deals are state socialism.
You are the one who appears to want to keep the trade deals we are now in. Not I. ;)


Its ok... if you stick around long enough we'll convert you to free market austrian economics.
Let's see, I've been here since '07; you, since '11. lol


here, have some gary north:

https://mises.org/library/tariffs-welfare-state-economics

but benefits for everyone else... see you set yourself up... you want a socialist state... and you're willing to aggrandize state power and use VIOLENT state border controls to maintain it.

I want life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. $#@! entitlements. $#@! prison state machine guns at the border wall between two fictitious "states". If individuals want to defend their personal private property I have no issue with it.
So, it's bad to have a border wall in illegal alien high traffic areas, but it's ok for Ron Paul to suggest putting the National Guard on the border? ok, gotcha. lol


ihre papiere bitte.... national id cards to come
Actually, that is going to come before we blink our eyes, if the illegal alien invasion of our country is not curtailed. Neither of us wants that. You, however, prefer, to hand-wring and wait for it to come. I don't.


that's because Ron knows that "the laws"; however unjust, can be changed with the stroke of a pen, and border walls are inherently difficult, divisive, and costly to take down once they are erected.
So, here you are giving your high-five to a militarized border. How very "libertarian" of you. lol


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention

I don't believe in voting for the least $#@!ty option
Yes, I understand. You prefer sitting on the sidelines and letting others decide for you. Great choice there, Sparky.

<incessant Presence blather snipped>


no man can serve two masters
True and you have chosen to serve the master that others will choose for you, while you whine on the sidelines.

LibertyEagle
03-18-2016, 09:48 AM
Arguing this point is not what this thread is about, but I have to jump in and say I disagree with this reasoning completely. If you want to continue the discussion, I'll be happy to start a thread on it.

I would imagine that Bryan will split all of this out soon. But no, we've all been through this a million times. No reason to do it one million and one. We are not going to change each other.

presence
03-18-2016, 11:07 AM
Nope. No prize for you. I would prefer if citizens didn't receive benefits, either. However, even Ron said he wouldn't end everything for citizens overnight; including Social Security, which citizens paid in to.

so if you paid in and have a number you get pay back out. why do we need a wall for that?



Illegal aliens are a different matter altogether. They earned and deserve zip.
and it should be on the books they didn't "pay in" , so again... no need for a wall.



Comrade, your love of world communism is showing. Careful now.
please I'm an anarchist eating the prison food I'm fed and willing to deal civilly with the voluntarist minarchists as the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel



This just shows you haven't read much of what I have written; even in this thread. I said quite clearly, that I would prefer if all of the incorrectly named free trade deals were ripped to shreds, and that includes the ruling bodies above our own Congress. But, if that isn't going to happen, yes, I would much prefer the horrible trade deals, were at minimum, renegotiated. Because right now, they are helping to turn our country into a 3rd world nation.

I don't believe bodies politic should stand between consenting adults in trade, I agree we should rip up our trade deals. I'm not interested in supporting or advocating statist "repeal and replace" solutions to statist imposed problems.





lol. No, Ron, free markets. You, world communism.

You want government goons to steal from me to build and enforce walls, I say no... therefore I'm a commie.

seems legit






You are the one who appears to want to keep the trade deals we are now in. Not I. ;)

you seem to miss my call for ZERO TRADE DEALS. Free trade means INDIVIDUALS making deals with WILLING PARTIES without government interference.





Let's see, I've been here since '07; you, since '11. lol

I guess that means you began your liberty activism and Ron Paul promotion when you joined this site, that's enchanting LE. I've been actively protesting statism by various means since before I was legally an adult.



So, it's bad to have a border wall in illegal alien high traffic areas, but it's ok for Ron Paul to suggest putting the National Guard on the border? ok, gotcha. lol

I don't support either. Its much easier to march troops back out than it is to tear walls down, so I suspect its a matter of political calculus for Ron.





Actually, that is going to come before we blink our eyes, if the illegal alien invasion of our country is not curtailed. Neither of us wants that. You, however, prefer, to hand-wring and wait for it to come. I don't.

I prefer to stop handing out free cheese, declaring contraband, and fomenting wars.

You reactively assume all of that is impossible and want more state impositions on freedom as solutions to deal with the terror of state imposed problems.

brilliant. Diocletian.





So, here you are giving your high-five to a militarized border. How very "libertarian" of you. lol

I'm here for no border. I'm here for natural unalienable rights.


True and you have chosen to serve the master that others will choose for you, while you whine on the sidelines.

free your mind the rest will follow

phill4paul
03-18-2016, 11:43 PM
03-16-2016, 10:10 PM
We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


I consider this thread closed. Both sides have made their case. The time for debating is past. Now is the time for Bryan to make the call.

phill4paul
03-19-2016, 12:19 AM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4648669/old-timer-countdown-o.gif

Danke
03-19-2016, 12:22 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDr2NJPv8kE&ebc=ANyPxKoEOiKT57NkAuNsVj0cNKTnO2Qaf2STukKpG4cEmL SsUaDirkdsYPHvqBjjXV-D6xA6fnqQ4GoBC-T678-M7JuWp-cc-A

phill4paul
03-19-2016, 12:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDr2NJPv8kE&ebc=ANyPxKoEOiKT57NkAuNsVj0cNKTnO2Qaf2STukKpG4cEmL SsUaDirkdsYPHvqBjjXV-D6xA6fnqQ4GoBC-T678-M7JuWp-cc-A

Too late breaking. Deadline is over.

Bryan
03-19-2016, 01:45 AM
Here is the site policies resulting from this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?492307-Site-policies-on-Trump-support

Bryan
03-19-2016, 01:46 AM
Too late breaking. Deadline is over.

Evaluations can always change, however in cases like these adding new good points is of little value, what has to happen is to prove that negatives were misplaced.

The Gold Standard
03-21-2016, 09:37 AM
on (also post #18 and #64)
tough immigration policy (source needed) - pro, but some may consider this a con

Isn't his immigration policy to send the SS to root out the illegals send them over the border, and bring them right back with voting rights in hand? Even the skinheads here should hate that policy.

undergroundrr
03-21-2016, 09:47 AM
Isn't his immigration policy to send the SS to root out the illegals send them over the border, and bring them right back with voting rights in hand? Even the skinheads here should hate that policy.

Yes, trump has offered the most expensive and disruptive amnesty proposal yet.

ChristianAnarchist
07-04-2016, 02:30 PM
Trump - zero

Ron Paul - The Gold Standard in candidates...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

phill4paul
07-04-2016, 02:33 PM
Trump - zero

Ron Paul - The Gold Standard in candidates...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKh9Ko3mw4

+rep.

William Tell
07-05-2016, 02:19 PM
What a waste of time, there is more Trump support on this site now than before we wasted all our time compiling this info. Pointless and depressing.

LibertyEagle
07-05-2016, 02:21 PM
What a waste of time, there is more Trump support on this site now than before we wasted all our time compiling this info. Pointless and depressing.

Yet, Johnson remains a "liberty candidate", after he came out in support of Hillary's innocence and for the Trans Pacific Partnership. lolol. Amazing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHBw1RcLY4

Origanalist
07-05-2016, 02:39 PM
Yet, Johnson remains a "liberty candidate", after he came out in support of Hillary's innocence and for the Trans Pacific Partnership. lolol. Amazing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHBw1RcLY4

Not in my opinion. Some would give their support just to elevate awareness of the party but I see no value to that with those two heading the ticket.

jllundqu
07-13-2016, 01:07 PM
Love the new sub-banner of "None of the Above!"

:cool:

AuH20
08-23-2016, 07:52 PM
I don't have many major contentions with the grades, with the exception being the foreign policy grade. I honestly think it's pretty ridiculous. 'C 'or 'B-' I could see, but F?

How does someone receive an F who wants to diminish the increasingly burdensome NATO commitment, cease nation building and ultimately restore friendly relations with a major nuclear power in Russia? The only real pox on Trump is his position on Iran. If Trump is an F, I don't think you can even fairly grade the other Republicans, since they are foreign policy extremists.

For example, look at the American Conservative's grading scale on FP issues. Trump received a collective 'C' grade, which is probably accurate. Notice that noted neoconservative Marco Rubio received Fs across the board:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hawishness-scorecard-revised4-554x380.jpg

Petar
08-23-2016, 07:54 PM
Love the new sub-banner of "None of the Above!"

:cool:

"None of the above" can't actually get elected President...

jmdrake
08-23-2016, 09:17 PM
I don't have many major contentions with the grades, with the exception being the foreign policy grade. I honestly think it's pretty ridiculous. 'C 'or 'B-' I could see, but F?

How does someone receive an F who wants to diminish the increasingly burdensome NATO commitment, cease nation building and ultimately restore friendly relations with a major nuclear power in Russia? The only real pox on Trump is his position on Iran. If Trump is an F, I don't think you can even fairly grade the other Republicans, since they are foreign policy extremists.

For example, look at the American Conservative's grading scale on FP issues. Trump received a collective 'C' grade, which is probably accurate. Notice that noted neoconservative Marco Rubio received Fs across the board:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hawishness-scorecard-revised4-554x380.jpg

LOL. Bernie freaking Sanders got a B and a higher grade than any GOP candidate including Trump.

jmdrake
08-23-2016, 09:20 PM
Yet, Johnson remains a "liberty candidate", after he came out in support of Hillary's innocence and for the Trans Pacific Partnership. lolol. Amazing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrHBw1RcLY4

And now Donald Trump has endorsed Obama's immigration efforts as "tremendous." LOL

Zap!
09-03-2016, 12:44 PM
I don't have many major contentions with the grades, with the exception being the foreign policy grade. I honestly think it's pretty ridiculous. 'C 'or 'B-' I could see, but F?

How does someone receive an F who wants to diminish the increasingly burdensome NATO commitment, cease nation building and ultimately restore friendly relations with a major nuclear power in Russia? The only real pox on Trump is his position on Iran. If Trump is an F, I don't think you can even fairly grade the other Republicans, since they are foreign policy extremists.

For example, look at the American Conservative's grading scale on FP issues. Trump received a collective 'C' grade, which is probably accurate. Notice that noted neoconservative Marco Rubio received Fs across the board:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/hawishness-scorecard-revised4-554x380.jpg


That's wrong. Trump and Carson should both get an "A" on the Iraq war. They opposed it. Hillary supported it, so she should at the very least get a "D". Cruz also said we should leave Assad alone, so he should get an "A" or "B".

William Tell
04-01-2017, 09:16 PM
Well.............

phill4paul
04-01-2017, 11:06 PM
Well.............

......


I heard he called for 30k troops in Syria in the debate this evening.

/Deal breaker

phill4paul
04-01-2017, 11:10 PM
Hat tip to cajun. When I think of those we have lost over Donald FUCKING Trump I just gotta SMDH.

ChristianAnarchist
04-02-2017, 06:16 AM
Hat tip to cajun. When I think of those we have lost over Donald $#@!ING Trump I just gotta SMDH.

It's a damn shame for sure! It hurts to see the liberty idea grasping for breath in this age of free idea exchange. When they stop us from being able to exchange ideas over the interwebs I really don't know how liberty will prevail. I had such high hopes for the intewebs being the tool that would open people's eyes but it seems that is simply not whats happening. The wheelers and the dealers are taking control of what should be our tool...

merkelstan
04-02-2017, 06:35 AM
http://i.imgur.com/sBvC6A1.png