Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump

[EBounding]

745967990236143616

[cajuncocoa]

745967990236143616
Neocons coming around. Sure glad The Donald is anti-establishment.

[CaptUSA]

In before the Trumpsters start to rationalize this by telling us what's really in Rummy's head.

[fcreature]

Before posting this did you check to make sure if someones twitter account is an authorized source of information for the Trump supporters?

[twomp]

I guess the neo-cons don't hate him that much...

[William Tell]

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump
Donald Rumsfeld, recieving the "defender of the constitution award" at CPAC, gets booed by the Ron/Rand Paul supporters that are leaving in protest to the person awarded.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My9LE7J5gu0

[chudrockz]

In before the Trumpsters start to rationalize this by telling us what's really in Rummy's head.

Rumsfeld has had a change of heart!! He's no longer a warmongering xenophobic sociopath, now he's a peace-loving freedom warrior! /s

[Jamesiv1]

//

[cajuncocoa]

Rumsfeld has had a change of heart!! He's no longer a warmongering xenophobic sociopath, now he's a peace-loving freedom warrior! /s
^^ This. Am I right?

[Jan2017]

Donald Rumsfeld, recieving the "defender of the constitution award" at CPAC, gets booed by the Ron/Rand Paul supporters that are leaving in protest to the person awarded.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My9LE7J5gu0

Rumsfeld now on the VP short list I guess.

[TheCount]

This is evidence that Trump is not really a neocon because the neocons only endorse Trump in order to discourage people from voting for him. When they endorse other people it's because they're actually neocons.

[openfire]

Thread title should be changed to:

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump, calling him a "known unknown."

^Because that's what he actually said.

Now, if Trump was such an insider as the Hillary shills claim, why would someone as connected as Rumsfeld consider him an "unknown"?

Furthermore, in his statement he made it clear that he is only voting for Trump, because Hillary is "unacceptable". Would you expect the former secretary of defense in the Bush administration to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton? Obviously not.

Carry on.

[twomp]

Thread title should be changed to:

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump, calling him a "known unknown."

^Because that's what he actually said.

Now, if Trump was such an insider as the Hillary shills claim, why would someone as connected as Rumsfeld consider him an "unknown"?

Furthermore, in his statement he made it clear that he is only voting for Trump, because Hillary is "unacceptable". Would you expect the former secretary of defense in the Bush administration to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton? Obviously not.

Carry on.

Calling him an "unknown" while endorsing him is like a priest preaching about love and peace then molesting a boy after service. Carry on though because forget about what he does and lets focus on what he says.

[nikcers]

Thread title should be changed to:

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump, calling him a "known unknown."

^Because that's what he actually said.

Now, if Trump was such an insider as the Hillary shills claim, why would someone as connected as Rumsfeld consider him an "unknown"?

Furthermore, in his statement he made it clear that he is only voting for Trump, because Hillary is "unacceptable". Would you expect the former secretary of defense in the Bush administration to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton? Obviously not.

Carry on.
:D

[William Tell]

Thread title should be changed to:

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump, calling him a "known unknown."

^Because that's what he actually said.

Now, if Trump was such an insider as the Hillary shills claim, why would someone as connected as Rumsfeld consider him an "unknown"?

Furthermore, in his statement he made it clear that he is only voting for Trump, because Hillary is "unacceptable". Would you expect the former secretary of defense in the Bush administration to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton? Obviously not.

Carry on.

Hope you and Rumsfeld have fun with Cheney supporting your candidate together.:)

[openfire]

Hope you and Rumsfeld have fun with Cheney supporting your candidate together.:)

Rumsfeld and Cheney were both in the Bush admin. They must say they will vote Republican. Trump is the Republican nominee. This is no different than Rand endorsing Trump. Which he will.

Wake me up when Bill Kristol endorses Trump.

[nikcers]

Rumsfeld and Cheney were both in the Bush admin. They must say they will vote Republican. Trump is the Republican nominee. This is no different than Rand endorsing Trump. Which he will.

Wake me up when Bill Kristol endorses Trump.

Rumsfield and Cheney are elected party members and signed a pledge to endorse the nominee of the party?

[The Rebel Poet]

In before the Trumpsters start to rationalize this by telling us what's really in Rummy's head.


Thread title should be changed to:

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump, calling him a "known unknown."

^Because that's what he actually said.

Now, if Trump was such an insider as the Hillary shills claim, why would someone as connected as Rumsfeld consider him an "unknown"?

Furthermore, in his statement he made it clear that he is only voting for Trump, because Hillary is "unacceptable". Would you expect the former secretary of defense in the Bush administration to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton? Obviously not.

Carry on.

Damn CaptUSA nailed this dead perfect! I repped, but you really deserve double points.

[TheTexan]

I have a lot of respect for Donald Rumsfeld.

This endorsement means a lot to me.

[William Tell]

Rumsfeld and Cheney were both in the Bush admin. They must say they will vote Republican. No, if that was the case Colin Powell would not have backed Obama twice.



Wake me up when Bill Kristol endorses Trump. I highly recommend waking up.

[The Rebel Poet]

I have a lot of respect for Donald Rumsfeld.

This endorsement means a lot to me.
Dafuq?

[openfire]

No, if that was the case Colin Powell would not have backed Obama twice.


Memo: Over 93% of blacks voted for Obama. (Powell is black)

[William Tell]

Memo: Over 93% of blacks voted for Obama. (Powell is black)

Bush isn't publicly backing Trump, and yet you say Darth Cheney had to?

[CPUd]

745694231096922112

[The Rebel Poet]

Memo: Over 93% of blacks voted for Obama. (Powell is black)
So only white Bush admin officials are required to fake endorse their frenemy The Trumptard?

[openfire]

Bush isn't publicly backing Trump, and yet you say Darth Cheney had to?

Correct, because in case you missed it, his brother Jeb was smacked down by Trump in quite the humiliating fashion.

[CPUd]

Heavyweight breaks ranks with GOP, endorsing Clinton

By Jessie Hellmann

Richard Armitage, who held top national security positions in the administrations of former Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, said he would vote for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton over her likely Republican rival, Donald Trump.

"If Donald Trump is the nominee, I would vote for Hillary Clinton," Armitage, who served as a deputy secretary of State under Bush and as an assistant secretary of Defense under Reagan, told Politico on Thursday.

"He doesn't appear to be a Republican. He doesn't appear to want to learn about the issues. So I'm going to vote for Mrs. Clinton."

Clinton hit Trump earlier this month on national security, saying his ideas would put America in greater danger and inspire more terrorist attacks.

"A ban on Muslims would not have stopped this attack," Clinton added on Wednesday, referring to the mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. over the weekend.

"Neither would a wall. I don't know how one builds a wall to keep the internet out," she said. "Not one of Donald Trump's reckless ideas would have saved a single life in Orlando."



http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283750-armitage-breaks-ranks-with-gop-endorses-clinton

[openfire]

In before the Trumpsters start to rationalize this by telling us what's really in Rummy's head.

Much the same way I imagine that the members with the "stand with Rand" icons under their usernames will be rationalizing when Rand endorses Trump.

The schadenfreude will be palpable. ;)

[William Tell]

Correct, because in case you missed it, his brother Jeb was smacked down by Trump in quite the humiliating fashion.

So everyone in the Bush administration has to back Trump, except the ones who don't have to.

[openfire]

So everyone in the Bush administration has to back Trump, except the ones who don't have to.

With few exceptions, prominent members of Republican administrations say they support the Red team (unless you're black and a black man is running, or your brother was humiliated by the nominee), yes.

[openfire]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283750-armitage-breaks-ranks-with-gop-endorses-clinton

^ Of course, some are more honest about who they are really voting for.

[nikcers]

^ Of course, some are more honest about who they are really voting for.

Have you ever watched the movie 23?

[openfire]

Have you ever watched the movie 23?

Are you suggesting that when Rand endorses Trump, that he will actually vote for Trump?

[nikcers]

Are you suggesting that when Rand endorses Trump, that he will actually vote for Trump?

Nah, I just think its a really good movie if you haven't seen it, you should. Cognitive bias is a bitch, my friend.

[openfire]

Nah, I just think its a really good movie if you haven't seen it, you should. Cognitive bias is a bitch, my friend.

I'll remember that when Rand endorses Trump, hope you will too - Because I predict that many of the arguments made in this thread will magically not apply. That's some cognitive bias right there.

[openfire]

I already have the thread title in mind:

Champion of Liberty Rand Paul endorses Trump

Heads will explode. :)

[CPUd]

Real Rand supporters already know Rand will endorse the nominee.

[nikcers]

Real Rand supporters already know Rand will endorse the nominee.

Rand is a man of his word, unlike self funding Trump.

[openfire]

Real Rand supporters already know Rand will endorse the nominee.

Precisely. And will that make Trump a Libertarian any more than Rumsfeld saying he will vote for Trump make Trump a neocon? No. There are reasons for endorsements, and the reasons are important. Rumsfeld laid out his reasoning for reluctantly supporting Trump thusly: Hillary is a known known and she is unacceptable, while Trump is a known unkown, which, while not ideal, is preferable.

That's not much of an endorsement, IMO.

But since Hillary shills are rejoicing in this news because it apparently "proves" something, I intend to expose their hypocrisy by holding them to that same "high standard" of logic when Rand endorses.

[Mad Raven]

Thread title should be changed to:

Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump, calling him a "known unknown."

^Because that's what he actually said.

Now, if Trump was such an insider as the Hillary shills claim, why would someone as connected as Rumsfeld consider him an "unknown"?

Furthermore, in his statement he made it clear that he is only voting for Trump, because Hillary is "unacceptable". Would you expect the former secretary of defense in the Bush administration to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton? Obviously not.

Carry on.

Quotes AND context? What kind of witchery is this? Begone from here, foul demon! Jesus loves me!

[nikcers]

Precisely. And will that make Trump a Libertarian any more than Rumsfeld saying he will vote for Trump make Trump a neocon? No. There are reasons for endorsements, and the reasons are important. Rumsfeld laid out his reasoning for reluctantly supporting Trump thusly: Hillary is a known known and she is unacceptable, while Trump is a known unkown, which, while not ideal, is preferable.

That's not much of an endorsement, IMO.

But since Hillary shills are rejoicing in this news because it apparently "proves" something, I intend to expose their hypocrisy by holding them to that same "high standard" of logic when Rand endorses.

The only neocon you can make that argument with is Christie, because he signed the same agreement. I guess what I would point out is Rand isn't parading around in his plane with him.

[openfire]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads. ;)

[nikcers]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads. ;)

go hug Chris Christie :D

[openfire]

Quotes AND context? What kind of witchery is this? Begone from here, foul demon! Jesus loves me!

Why, certainly: Rumsfeld says he'll 'clearly' vote for Trump, calls him 'known unknown' (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/06/23/donald-rumsfeld-donald-trump-clinton/86280248/)


Former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he's "clearly going to vote" for Donald Trump for president, calling Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, "unacceptable."

"The way I think of it is this," Rumsfeld said Wednesday night on Fox News Channel's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. "On the Democrats' side, we have a known known. On the Republican side, we have a recent entry, who's a known unknown."

That line, of course, was a play on a famous series of statements uttered at a Pentagon briefing in February 2002 in response to a question about whether there was evidence Iraq had tried to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld said then. "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."

Trump, apparently, falls into the second category, according to Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld, who served as Defense secretary for both Presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford, went on to cite the reasons he found Clinton "unacceptable" for president, including her handling of the Benghazi attack in September 2012 and her use of a private email server to handle government information while serving as secretary of State.

As for Trump, Van Susteren asked Rumsfeld if he was endorsing or just supporting the presumptive GOP nominee, a distinction some Republicans have made in announcing their support of the real estate mogul.

“I don’t know that there’s any difference," but added: "No one asked me for my endorsement."

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads. ;)

Rand signed a pledge that he almost certainly wishes he hadn't.

[openfire]

Rand signed a pledge that he almost certainly wishes he hadn't.

I see the rationalizing has already begun.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I see the rationalizing has already begun.

Rand was very anti-Trump when he was running. When all the other candidates were sucking up to the Donald because they didn't want to alienate his supporters, Rand went on the offensive.

[twomp]

In May:

Trump supporter: I'm voting for him because the MSM told me he's anti-establishment and look, the neocons hate him!!

In June:

Neocons endorse and support Trump.

Trump supporter: The neocons HAVE to support him because he's on Team Red so its okay now.

[CPUd]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads. ;)

You may want to rethink that plan, it's not going to work out well for you.

[Krugminator2]

FWIW, Rumsfeld was probably the least terrible of all the people in the Bush Administration. Even Pat Buchanan had somewhat of soft spot for him. I think he was in an impossible situation with the people around him.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4198

[Antischism]

FWIW, Rumsfeld was probably the least terrible of all the people in the Bush Administration. Even Pat Buchanan had somewhat of soft spot for him. I think he was in an impossible situation with the people around him.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4198

What about Dick Cheney?

[Krugminator2]

What about Dick Cheney?

Cheney is the worst of the worst imo.

And upon further inspection Rumsfeld is pretty terrible too. I just remember all the really hardcore neocons hated Rumsfeld.

[RandallFan]

All the rhetorical alpha males & serious mid-carders in the Bush Admins endorsed Trump.

Cheney stood up to racist Colin Powell.

[hells_unicorn]

Since there are some individuals posting on this thread who are a bit slow on recognizing divergent opinions beyond a binary level (irony, they name is this "with us or against us" nonsense front and center on RPF), I'm going to state before hand that I am not voting in this election cycle and I am not a Trump supporter. My views on this are dispassionate with regard to who wins this election, which has been relegated all but to a joke. However, on the topic of using logic to deal with political realities, I do admit a degree of passion.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are both political animals, not ideologues. There is this myth of Dick Cheney being some sort of diabolical Senator Palpatine character that magically controlled all the Neo-cons from his tiny little state of Wyoming before being selected to be Dubya's VP. There is a spectrum under which most people in the GOP fall, and while both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney display Neo-con viewpoints on matters of foreign policy, there are nuances that separate both of them from core ideologues like Bill Krystol who have a conniption whenever somebody flies off the reservation of foreign policy. Cheney is closer to being a solid Neo-con, where Rumsfeld kinda falls into the quasi school. People seem to forget that 90% of the country supported Dubya's foreign policy for a fair length of time and the theories of 9/11 being some kind of conspiracy didn't gain any traction until well after things began going south in Iraq.

I find the woes of some of the individuals posting on this thread a bit hypocritical, for on one hand they are making these snarky remarks about Trump supporters twisting the laws of logic in rationalizing a handful of Neo-cons endorsing Trump (Rand Paul and Pat Buchanan are not Neo-cons, and both either have or are going to endorse Trump), while on the other they are warping reality itself by positing this grand Neo-con conspiracy that has infected every aspect of political discourse except for a tiny conclave that frequents this forum, almost like a little splinter cult.

I'm getting increasingly tired to coming onto the presidential forum and seeing the same 4 or 5 people constantly putting up useless threads in order to bull-bait the other side. It was obnoxious when guys like AuH20 were doing it months back, and it's actually even worse now. The Liberty movement, if it hasn't already, is about to go the way of The New Atheist movement and become a parody of itself, and it's extremely hard to stomach.

[nikcers]

Rand was very anti-Trump when he was running. When all the other candidates were sucking up to the Donald because they didn't want to alienate his supporters, Rand went on the offensive.

Rand's still not sucking up, because fuck you thats why, and thats why Rand is the only one who gets my vote- everyone else told me the emperor was wearing clothes.


Paul's 'premise' on immigrants differs from Trump's (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/elections/kentucky/2016/06/24/rand-paul-defends-immigrants-who-come-us-legally/86329170/) June 24, 2016
Paul – who tussled with Trump in debates before dropping out of the presidential race following the Iowa caucuses – on Friday defended immigrants who come to the United States legally.
"My philosophy is we should look at immigrants as people who come here seeking freedom and prosperity," he said.
Asked about Trumps's treatment of the judge, Paul said, "My premise for getting into this race was a different premise. That there wasn't enough sort of rural white voters for the Republican Party to get bigger. I thought we had to get more diverse."

[enhanced_deficit]

Rumsfeld is right hand man of SWC Bush, Trumpster should say thanks but no thanks.


Trump lashes out at George W. Bush and Obama
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../trump-lashes-out-at-george-w-bush-and-obama/
CNN
Apr 16, 2011 - "George Bush gave us Barack Obama. If it weren't for George Bush, we wouldn't have Barack Obama," Trump said on Friday. "

[nikcers]

Donald Rumsfeld reported 2 Trillion dollars were missing from the federal defense budget on 9/10/2001. ($8000 for every american citizen) The next day the pentagon accounting office was incinerated, and many people researching the missing money were killed. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4iopx4)

Wheres the money Don?