What If "Mr. Republican" Was Advising Trump Today? [Archive]

View Full Version : What If "Mr. Republican" Was Advising Trump Today?

Brian4Liberty

04-23-2017, 02:43 PM

What If "Mr. Republican" Was Advising Trump Today? (http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/what-if-mr-republican-was-advising-trump-today)
By Liberty Report Staff - 4/22/2017

Senator Robert Taft from Ohio served from 1939 until his death in 1953. He was known as "Mr. Republican" and was a powerful voice against the militaristic foreign policy that took over America (and that is sadly still with us today).

What words would Taft have for our current president?

Let's start with Taft's opposition to the war in Korea:

“My conclusion, therefore, is that in the case of Korea, where a war was already under way, we had no right to send troops to a nation, with whom we had no treaty, to defend it against attack by another nation, no matter how unprincipled that aggression might be, unless the whole matter was submitted to Congress and a declaration of war or some other direct authority obtained.”

“I have never felt that we should send American soldiers to the Continent of Asia, which, of course, included China proper and Indo-China, simply because we are so outnumbered in fighting a land war on the Continent of Asia that it would bring about complete exhaustion even if we were able to win.”

Taft could not have been more correct.

In fact, Taft's campaign manager was modern-day billionaire Warren Buffett's father --- Howard Buffet.

Howard Buffett also warned:

“Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home.

Senator Taft said that a permanent war footing would be all-consuming at home:

The truth is that no nation can be constantly prepared to undertake a full-scale war at any moment and still hope to maintain any other purposes in which people are interested and for which nations are founded.

How true, especially today as military propaganda is literally everywhere one turns.

Echoing Howard Buffet, Senator Taft concurred that this must lead to tyranny at home.

In the first place, it requires a complete surrender of liberty and turning over to the central government of power to control in detail the lives of the people and all their activities.

Remember, this was the 1950's!

Taft would be saddened (but not surprised) that by 2017, Americans would live in a total surveillance state.

Heroic individuals like Edward Snowden, and organizations like Wikileaks continue to spill the beans on the electronic prison that has be erected.

As the federal government seeks to punish those who tell the truth to American citizens, Taft had this to say:

Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.

If he were around today, Senator Taft would surely be advising Trump to reverse course while he still can.

Would Trump even listen?
...
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/what-if-mr-republican-was-advising-trump-today

Galileo Galilei

04-24-2017, 07:35 AM

charrob

04-24-2017, 08:44 PM

H. R. McMaster is anti-war:

Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam Paperback – May 8, 1998
by H. R. McMaster (Author)
https://www.amazon.com/Dereliction-Duty-Johnson-McNamara-Vietnam/dp/0060929081

This is the best book ever written on Vietnam, and by some weird coincidence 20 years later, he is advising Trump.

Kennedy was the last anti-war president to stand up to the military-industrial complex. The MIC wants to turn Trump into a weak one-tern Jimmy Carter-style president that gets replaced by a warmonger.

No no no no no. McMaster is not antiwar. He may have been during Vietnam, but he sure isn't today. In fact if you ask me, he seems to be the worst one of the lot of Trump's 'advisors'.

It was McMaster that wrote the NSC's "White House Report" stating Assad was behind the recent sarin gas attack in Idlib Syria, despite that report giving no proof whatsoever that Assad was behind the attack. That report was not a report signed off by the 17 intelligence agencies (or any of the intelligence agencies for that matter) which is the usual process that should occur prior to a president bombing another country based on intelligence. The DNI did not sign off on McMaster's White House Report. Also sources from within the White House told the MSM that it was McMaster that was pushing hardest against Bannon to get Trump to attack Syria (Bannon was the one arguing against those strikes).

Additionally, McMaster was in all kinds of trouble for actual war crimes against the Geneva Conventions when he was in Iraq in 2005:

US Army Investigator Accuses National Security Adviser McMaster of War Crimes in Iraq (https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/foreign-policy/us-army-investigator-accuses-national-security-adviser-mcmaster-war-crimes-iraq/)

Former commander in charge of US Army Military Police in Iraq says President Trump’s new National Security Adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, ‘ordered’ criminal abuse of hundreds of Iraqi detainees in 2005

“Detainees were abused at Tal Afar under orders and command and control of H.R. McMaster,” said Col. Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior U.S. Military Police officer who served as 18th Airborne Corps Provost Marshal and Chief of Police of the Multinational Coalition Forces in Iraq in 2005.

During his conversation with Scott Horton, managing director of the Libertarian Institute and host of the Scott Horton Show, Claudio elaborated on his recent interview with Univision News, where he first publicly revealed his accusations against Gen. McMaster. Claudio explained how in his capacity as chief of all Military Police in Iraq he was ordered by Gen. J.R. Vines to investigate complaints regarding the treatment of detainees made against the U.S. Army command fighting in Tal Afar in northwestern Iraq in 2005, led by President Trump’s current National Security Adviser, then-U.S. Army Col., H.R. McMaster.

Claudio and his team reported back to Gen. Vines, providing information and recommendations to the commanding general, dedicating a portion of their report to details of then-U.S. Army Col. McMaster’s violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Detainee Operations Standard Operating Procedures found at Tal Afar.

Presently, Claudio is the Technical Compliance Adviser (TCA), selected by the Department of Justice and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to oversee reform of their police forces, a position he has held since June 2014.

The Investigation Begins

Col. Claudio was stationed in Iraq from March 16, 2005 through late January 2006. He was tasked to ensure that all detainee operations were being conducted in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and Standard Operating Procedures in compliance with U.S. laws and military regulations.

Claudio told Horton that the number of admissions and releases of detainees from the small detention facility in Tal Afar didn’t seem to add up. It appeared the admitted number of detainees exceeded the maximum capacity. Claudio and his investigative team traveled to Tal Afar to investigate further, where they discovered detainees were held in conditions that were both shocking and illegal. Detainees were being deprived of food and water for days while bound together with plastic handcuffs. Hundreds were also being held without shelter. All of this was in violation of military law, according to Col. Claudio.

Claudio and his investigative team were given very specific orders by Vines. “If this guy is doing anything wrong, you need to report back,” Claudio was told. “And if he gets out of hand, just bring him back with you.”

Claudio did not mince words about his orders. “They were pretty simple. And remember, we just had gotten out of…the scandal of Abu Ghraib.”

The Abu Gharib prisoner abuse scandal of 2004 was a prime recruiting tool for Iraqi insurgents and other militant groups taking up arms against U.S. forces there. Claudio said that another similar scandal breaking so close to the significant Abu Gharib torture revelations “would have been devastating for our national security and it would be devastating for the Army, and to our nation as a whole.”

The Investigation in Tal Afar: “My God, what is this?”

Claudio’s interactions with McMaster were brief. “It was a very short conversation. He basically didn’t want me there. And he says, ‘Get on with your duty and get out of here.’”

But Claudio responded, “Not so fast. I’m here, I have orders, and if you are in fact violating the standards of how to take care of detainees, you’re going back with me. Period.”

In a detention camp designed to hold 250 detainees, Col. McMaster held over 900 people in brutal conditions, left outdoors without food, water, or shelter from the sun in their own feces and urine.

Claudio told Horton, “As I was approaching the area where the detainees were, I already knew something was really wrong.”

“There was about three to four hundred of them outside…As soon as I got outside of the vehicle, I mean, you could smell the urine and defecation in the atmosphere. It was like, ‘my God, what is this?’”

Alongside one of his medics, Claudio inspected the conditions of the hundreds of detainees before finding even more detainees kept in similarly poor circumstances in other tents being used as temporary detention facilities.

Through interviews with detainees and interpreters, Claudio and his team were told that detainees “had been beaten with sticks in order to take them to the latrine.”

Gerardo Reyes, in the story he first broke for Univision, reported that Claudio’s allegations were confirmed by another military officer who participated in the investigation, although he asked to remain anonymous.

“They weren’t only tied by the hands to each other, when they took them to the latrines they beat them with a stick,” the second source told Univision.

According to the commander of that operation, McMaster had ordered the “good detainee behavior program,” which meant that unless a detainee gave actionable intelligence to be used by the U.S. military, they were to be held indefinitely. Therefore, ironically, the so-called “good detainee behavior program” was in effect an indefinite program in violation of the law. Detainees were supposed to be released after fourteen days at the facility, either transferred to other authorities or set free, but McMaster was holding men for months in horrendous conditions.

According to Col. Claudio, there is no question that then-Col. McMaster himself gave the orders for the treatment of detainees at Tal Afar. “He knew because the orders of the ‘good behavior program’ were instituted by him,” Claudio told Horton.

About 120 detainees were released soon after Claudio’s team began restructuring the facility and taking care of the detainees’ basic needs, with hundreds more following over the next week.

Col. Claudio was unable to find Col. McMaster after he and his team surveyed the facilities. When pressed by Horton as to whether or not he would have arrested McMaster if he had been found, Claudio responded, “I would have asked him nicely to come with me. Because it never happened, I’m not going to speculate, but I’m pretty sure I would have done that.”

The Investigation Disappears

Claudio and his team reported back to Gen. Vines, providing information and recommendations and dedicating a portion of the report to detailing the violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Detainee Operations Standard Operating Procedures.

Apparently, the report was not investigated further. Claudio would not be involved again until he saw McMaster’s name on the list to be promoted to brigadier general in July 2008. Claudio then contacted the Inspector General of the Department of the Army. He resubmitted his report, and the Inspector General’s office conducted follow up interviews with Claudio and other eyewitnesses, including a U.S. Army Sergeant named John Savo. “I write and I tell him the story I’m telling you today. They did contact me. They contacted other eyewitnesses to that,” Claudio told Horton.

To the best of Claudio’s knowledge, nothing ever became of the Inspector General’s investigation.

Col. McMaster was promoted to brigadier general in August 2009, by his friend, Gen. David Petraeus.

President Donald Trump appointed Gen. McMaster as his National Security Advisor in February 2017.

klamath

04-24-2017, 09:03 PM

Galileo Galilei

04-24-2017, 10:59 PM

Still playing that line. Trump IS the warmonger. Once again he supported preemptive strikes against NK 17 $#@!ing years ago. He also supported the Libyan and Iraq wars at the time. Why did Trump donate to Graham? Graham was NOT a helpful politician to buy off for business.

You are the type who would commit a false-flag. You need a false-flag you satisfy your need for a war for you to be opposed to. Sorry. Under President Trump, there will be no wars, no false-flags, and nothing for you to complain about.

Galileo Galilei

04-24-2017, 11:02 PM

No no no no no. McMaster is not antiwar. He may have been during Vietnam, but he sure isn't today. In fact if you ask me, he seems to be the worst one of the lot of Trump's 'advisors'.

It was McMaster that wrote the NSC's "White House Report" stating Assad was behind the recent sarin gas attack in Idlib Syria, despite that report giving no proof whatsoever that Assad was behind the attack. That report was not a report signed off by the 17 intelligence agencies (or any of the intelligence agencies for that matter) which is the usual process that should occur prior to a president bombing another country based on intelligence. The DNI did not sign off on McMaster's White House Report. Also sources from within the White House told the MSM that it was McMaster that was pushing hardest against Bannon to get Trump to attack Syria (Bannon was the one arguing against those strikes).

Additionally, McMaster was in all kinds of trouble for actual war crimes against the Geneva Conventions when he was in Iraq in 2005:

McMaster is anti-war. You are pro-war. You want a war to complain about. McMaster does not.

There will be no war under Trump, nor war propaganda, nor false-flag type event to start a war. If you really want a Trump war, I suggest you join the CIA.

charrob

04-24-2017, 11:12 PM

McMaster is anti-war. You are pro-war. You want a war to complain about. McMaster does not.

There will be no war under Trump, nor war propaganda, nor false-flag type event to start a war. If you really want a Trump war, I suggest you join the CIA.

:rolleyes:

Ender

04-24-2017, 11:24 PM

Occam's Banana

04-25-2017, 02:32 AM

You are the type who would commit a false-flag. You need a false-flag you satisfy your need for a war for you to be opposed to. Sorry. Under President Trump, there will be no wars, no false-flags, and nothing for you to complain about.

McMaster is anti-war. You are pro-war. You want a war to complain about. McMaster does not.

There will be no war under Trump, nor war propaganda, nor false-flag type event to start a war. If you really want a Trump war, I suggest you join the CIA.

http://i.imgur.com/5eQSowL.png

osan

04-25-2017, 03:10 AM

In fact, Taft's campaign manager was modern-day billionaire Warren Buffett's father --- Howard Buffet.

Seems in this case the fruit fell from the tree, rolled all the way down the mountain and into a fetid bog.

osan

04-25-2017, 03:41 AM

Still playing that line. Trump IS the warmonger.

You go too far, perhaps. We all fuck up. I do so daily, or so it seems sometimes. My point is that you may be correct, or not. Unless you have a direct line into the man's innermost thoughts, calling him "warmonger" speaks to an intention that may not be present. That, of course, may prove irrelevant in terms of the outcomes, but the distinction is still important to recognize, just as it is to avoid certain sorts of presumptions on the part of others. Doing so keeps us closer to precision in our communications, even if our accuracy is off - I trust you understand the difference between the two.

One of the reasons we as a species tends to get into so much trouble is that we have become endlessly careless in the use of our words, which are the single most important possessions we have after our lives and our health. Words matter and part of my mission in life is to annoy the living crap out of everyone until the message sinks in. Casual construction leads to casual thought and it's all downhill from there.

Once again he supported preemptive strikes against NK 17 fucking years ago.

Is a man not allowed to make innocent errors of opinion? Criminy man, if I were held to the fire for every wrong opinion I held 40 years ago, there'd be nothing left of me but fly-ash.

Now, compare with Obama, a man who held idiotic notions long ago and has remained as welded to them through to this day as a jihadist remains to his favorite goat.

I am not defending Trump per sé, but pointing out that your basis for criticism fails. Doubtlessly, there are plenty of valid bases for such derogation. My suggestion is we stick to those and leave the less-than-valid ones on the cutting room floor where they belong.

Your choice, of course.

He also supported the Libyan and Iraq wars at the time. Why did Trump donate to Graham? Graham was NOT a helpful politician to buy off for business.

Lindsey Graham? Blech... that is pretty rank I admit, but who can say why? It is pretty easy to make wrong decisions of this sort these days. People tend to be complicated creatures and there is so much BS in this world that it becomes nigh impossible to tell what the right moves are. Besides, you assume Graham was not helpful for Trump's business interests, but that raises the question of how you know this to have been the case. There could be latent reason very relevant to his interests, and they may well be worthy of labeling as "evil", but unless you can articulate the specifics, I would again have to suggest you are assuming facts not in evidence.

If we stick to what we know, we can say (assuming your speak correctly, as I have no clue) that Trump supported this or that. What we cannot readily say, because you have failed to support the assertions with verifiable facts, is WHY. Assumptions are tricky things. Just look at the whole "global warming" stupidity; it is based on assumptions that carry with them broad potential margins between them and the truth. We could go into astrophysics and find even better examples of just how dangerous assumptions can be in terms of leading us astray from truth.

My recommendation is to refrain from mixing reporting with editorializing. It is the worst of jujus.

CPUd

04-25-2017, 04:08 AM

You go too far, perhaps. We all fuck up. I do so daily, or so it seems sometimes. My point is that you may be correct, or not. Unless you have a direct line into the man's innermost thoughts, calling him "warmonger" speaks to an intention that may not be present. That, of course, may prove irrelevant in terms of the outcomes, but the distinction is still important to recognize, just as it is to avoid certain sorts of presumptions on the part of others. Doing so keeps us closer to precision in our communications, even if our accuracy is off - I trust you understand the difference between the two.

One of the reasons we as a species tends to get into so much trouble is that we have become endlessly careless in the use of our words, which are the single most important possessions we have after our lives and our health. Words matter and part of my mission in life is to annoy the living crap out of everyone until the message sinks in. Casual construction leads to casual thought and it's all downhill from there.

Have you heard or read an interview from this guy in the last few decades? Dude goes stream of consciousness whenever someone puts a recorder in front of him and starts asking questions:

...
AP: What's making that switch been like for you?

TRUMP: You have to love people. And if you love people, such a big responsibility. (unintelligible) You can take any single thing, including even taxes. I mean we're going to be doing major tax reform. Here's part of your story, it's going to be a big (unintelligible). Everybody's saying, "Oh, he's delaying." I'm not delaying anything. I'll tell you the other thing is (unintelligible). I used to get great press. I get the worst press. I get such dishonest reporting with the media. That's another thing that really has — I've never had anything like it before. It happened during the primaries, and I said, you know, when I won, I said, "Well the one thing good is now I'll get good press." And it got worse. (unintelligible) So that was one thing that a little bit of a surprise to me. I thought the press would become better, and it actually, in my opinion, got more nasty.

___

AP: But in terms of tax reform, how are you going to roll that out next week?

TRUMP: Well I'm going to roll (out) probably on Wednesday, around Wednesday of next week, we're putting out a massive tax reform — business and for people — we want to do both. We've been working on it (unintelligible). Secretary Mnuchin is a very talented person, very smart. Very successful (unintelligible). ... We're going to be putting that out on Wednesday or shortly thereafter. Let me leave a little room just in case (unintelligible). ... And that's a big story, because a lot of people think I'm going to put it out much later.

AP: Do you have any details on that in terms of rates?

TRUMP: Only in terms that it will be a massive tax cut. It will be bigger, I believe, than any tax cut ever. Maybe the biggest tax cut we've ever had. ...

___

AP: Obviously, that's going to come in a week where you're going to be running up against the deadline for keeping the government open. If you get a bill on your desk that does not include funding for the wall, will you sign it?

TRUMP: I don't know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you've been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it's funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I've always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it's a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they're 73 percent down. ... That's a tremendous achievement. ... Look at this, in 100 days, that down to the lowest in 17 years and it's going lower. Now, people aren't coming because they know they're not going to get through, and there isn't crime. You know the migration up to the border is horrible for women, you know that? (Unintelligible.) Now, much of that's stopped because they can't get through.

AP: It sounds like maybe you're beginning to send a message that if you do get a spending bill that doesn't have border funding in there, you would sign it.

TRUMP: Well, first of all, the wall will cost much less than the numbers I'm seeing. I'm seeing numbers, I mean, this wall is not going to be that expensive.

AP: What do you think the estimate on it would be?

TRUMP: Oh I'm seeing numbers — $24 billion, I think I'll do it for $10 billion or less. That's not a lot of money relative to what we're talking about. If we stop 1 percent of the drugs from coming in — and we'll stop all of it. But if we stop 1 percent of the drugs because we have the wall — they're coming around in certain areas, but if you have a wall, they can't do it because it's a real wall. That's a tremendously good investment, 1 percent. The drugs pouring through on the southern border are unbelievable. We're becoming a drug culture, there's so much. And most of it's coming from the southern border. The wall will stop the drugs.
...

https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

shakey1

04-25-2017, 08:15 AM

Senator Taft said that a permanent war footing would be all-consuming at home:

The truth is that no nation can be constantly prepared to undertake a full-scale war at any moment and still hope to maintain any other purposes in which people are interested and for which nations are founded.

How true, especially today as military propaganda is literally everywhere one turns.

Echoing Howard Buffet, Senator Taft concurred that this must lead to tyranny at home.

In the first place, it requires a complete surrender of liberty and turning over to the central government of power to control in detail the lives of the people and all their activities.

They don't make 'em like they useta.

osan

04-25-2017, 08:29 AM

Have you heard or read an interview from this guy in the last few decades? Dude goes stream of consciousness whenever someone puts a recorder in front of him and starts asking questions:

Well, that's they way he apparently works. If it's not a put-on, then it's a good thing in comparison with what we've had to endure these past decades with all the polished BS issuing from teleprompters and the other evasive crap to which they cleave in the desperate efforts to avoid answering even the most innocuous questions. I greatly prefer this to that which we have been subjected if only because we can at least marginally trust what is being said, regardless of how insane or otherwise objectionable it may prove. This guy gives you something onto which to grab, whereas all the others have exuded naught but semantic grease. Perhaps you will agree that this is better, if only marginally.

To wit:

TRUMP: Oh I'm seeing numbers — $24 billion, I think I'll do it for $10 billion or less. That's not a lot of money relative to what we're talking about. If we stop 1 percent of the drugs from coming in — and we'll stop all of it. But if we stop 1 percent of the drugs because we have the wall — they're coming around in certain areas, but if you have a wall, they can't do it because it's a real wall. That's a tremendously good investment, 1 percent. The drugs pouring through on the southern border are unbelievable. We're becoming a drug culture, there's so much. And most of it's coming from the southern border. The wall will stop the drugs.

This is treasure absolute. Assuming he is seeing "$24B" somewhere other than his own mind and that it is somehow credible, we have a baseline. This is something Obama would NEVER have given... certainly not a honest number. Consider the Obamacare lies of that bastard: keeping your doctor, lower premiums, and so on.

Then Trump gives a $10B figure, another solid and objective tidbit. Maybe it is possible, maybe not. But the real meat comes with his statement that it's "not a lot of money". If it's not, then I strongly suggest he give me 1% of it to subsidize my triggers, if he wants to talk the MBA talk about good investments. Yeah, I can talk the talk too, being a fellow MBA.

There is more gold: he engages in the "if it saves even one life" fallacy of the gun-control contingent with his "1 percent" justification for the wall, which is pure nonsense. So we now have something solid on which to issue complaint. The same was less the case with the more considered words of others such as Clinton whose penchant for bullshittery is absolute and without rest. But here we have the opportunity to correct the man - to offer him the truth of how he has failed in his reason here, and if he rejects it, to scorn him as unwilling or otherwise incapable of seeing the simplest of errors in himself. Either way, we score a small victory and paint him into an ever tighter corner, forcing him in once direction or another where he either finally comes to sense, or lets more of his otherwise true self come to the surface. If he is the devil you and other seem to think, then he must be exposed and these are the ways to do it. Standing on a soapbox in Times Square with a "Fuck Trump" t-shirt, spewing incoherent, hate-driven rant will get you nothing good these days.

Then there is the implicit assertion that it is not a man's fundamental right to possess, use, and distribute harmful illicit drugs. He can be called on that as well, with reason. "The wall will stop the drugs" is more slippery, but still more solid than anything most others would offer us because it is far more positive, whereas those others would say something like "the wall stands to reduce the volume of drugs coming into the country", which is again purely evasive bullshittery because it actually says NOTHING positive; nothing from which they cannot recover down the road when the wall fails, as it likely will.

Trump has given us other related fodder by which to hold him DIRECTLY accountable regarding the Wall. He said not once... not twice... but about ten million times that Mexico was going to pay for it. Where's THAT, Mr. President?

So as we can see, Trump is already a vast improvement over what has been. You may still not like him, but you have to admit that he at least gives positive toeholds in vast abundance for us when compared with the like of the vermin such as Obama and Clinton, who spew nothing but grease-laden diarrhea all over God's pristine Creation. It may not be that much - certainly not enough - but it is a move in the right direction and he should be acknowledged for that, if only to encourage it in others who seek to gain office.

I will say it again: it took us 229 years to get to this state of befouled decay. Heading in another direction is going to take time and probably a lot of it. Anyone not willing to be patient and accept improvements in what at this point must almost certainly be small increments has no sense of strategy and how politics works. I maintain that the hope is all but gone that anything of greatly substantive good is going to happen before hell freezes, much less in our own lifetimes. Therefore, we either have to wait patiently and work in small movements toward the goal, our great grandchildren having to assume that mantle long after we are gone, start shooting now, or give up and lay down. Choice is ours. But if we not going to go quietly and have no stomach for open insurrection, then patience is the only possibility for winning the day... one day.

The lefties, childish jackasses they tend to be, have shown that patience in having not only accepted piecemeal victories, but reveled in them. Why are we so pissy about this reality? It's like we want it all today and pitch tantrums when we don't get it that way. This will gain "us" nothing but eventual defeat and a land even more openly totalitarian than it has already become.

Once again, choice is ours. We have options. If you don't want to shoot and are not ready to step down and open your legs, then you need to shut up, man up, grow up, see the situation for what it is, and work accordingly. Otherwise you are wasting all your life on scratching an itch you can never get to, which prompts me to ask what, exactly, is the point?

We need broad vision, now more than ever. We need eyes that see the pearls hidden in the guano of the pigs making up the population I call "Themme", and in which we all marinate. Those pearls are there and can be capitalized upon if we are smart, diligent, and patient. Otherwise, I strongly recommend everyone develop a nice cocaine habit, cash out, hit Vegas, nice hotel room, plenty of hookers, blow, and booze, and go out in a stylish flash because the fight to regain liberty is definitely not for you.

Open your eyes, and I mean the general "you" and not just you personally, and see more clearly and with greater breadth. Trump is a God-send of sorts precisely because of those characteristics so many find so disagreeable. Trump has handles. Grab 'em and ride. He will either throw us off by mean fair or foul, or will be corralled and either brought to correction or to a fuller bloom of evil. Either way, WE win for once, even if only in thin margin. But it is a deeply valuable victory for those who can see that deeply into things and it could alter the political fabric even more profoundly than the unprecedented recent electoral victory.

Strategy.

Patience.

Vision.

Appreciation proper.

These are the only things we have left beyond the cartridge box that does not ga-RON-tee slavery for our posterity. Choice is ours. Only remaining question is how we will choose to proceed, whether as children or as adults. I prefer the latter. Choice is yours.

osan

04-25-2017, 08:32 AM

Oh and one more thing: for a reputedly master strategist, Trump sure pooched when he promised "the wall". He should have promised to consider a wall. Now he is pretty well constrained to build it, much to the detriment of the nation and its coffers. Furthermore, who is to say the next president will not have it torn down in the wake of Mexican president's impersonation of Reagan's "tear down that wall!".

We are in the hands of madmen, yet we sit meekly as they drive us to the chute in wait of the hammer.

Amazing... AmeriKans. It appears we marinate in the Stupid and Compliant. This is where my hope fails me.

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 09:56 AM

WTF?

I suggest you read your signature line.

Have you read McMaster's book?

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 09:57 AM

http://i.imgur.com/5eQSowL.png

I suggest you read McMasters book if you actually oppose the Vietnam war.

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 09:58 AM

:rolleyes:

Read the book.

klamath

04-25-2017, 09:59 AM

Have you read McMaster's book? watch his actions.

klamath

04-25-2017, 10:00 AM

I suggest you read McMasters book if you actually oppose the Vietnam war.Watch his actions.

klamath

04-25-2017, 10:01 AM

Read the book. Watch his actions, F the book.

Ender

04-25-2017, 10:09 AM

Have you read McMaster's book?

Yes- and I also agree with him telling Trump and his cabinet that Islam is NOT a terrorist entity- that terrorist groups are blowback and not the religion. I do NOT agree with his terrible treatment of ME prisoners or his call for more war.

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 10:11 AM

watch his actions.

His actions are right out of the book. You have to read the book. Trump is winding down the military-industrial complex and US interventions, while at the same time, not getting labeled as a weak Jimmy Carter-style one-term president who just gets replaced by a 12-year warmonger. Kennedy was our last good president before Trump.

Kennedy preserved to option of strategic withdrawal in Vietnam without being labeled as weak. LBJ did not. Trump is doing what Kennedy did.

Read the book and stop sounding ignorant.

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 10:16 AM

Yes- and I also agree with him telling Trump and his cabinet that Islam is NOT a terrorist entity- that terrorist groups are blowback and not the religion. I do NOT agree with his terrible treatment of ME prisoners or his call for more war.

OK, that is good you read it. Trump is doing demand-side reduction of the military-industrial complex, not supply-side reduction. Most people do not realize this, including the people in the military-industrial complex. That is why Trump's strategy is working so well.

Ender

04-25-2017, 10:17 AM

OK, that is good you read it. Trump is doing demand-side reduction of the military-industrial complex, not supply-side reduction. Most people do not realize this, including the people in the military-industrial complex. That is why Trump's strategy is working so well.

WE must live on different planets, 'cuz that's not what I see at all. ;)

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 10:34 AM

WE must live on different planets, 'cuz that's not what I see at all. ;)

Trump has eliminated to two main sources for demand: war propaganda demonizing an enemy, and domestic false-flag terror events.

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 10:46 AM

WE must live on different planets, 'cuz that's not what I see at all. ;)

Remember the war drums in 2013 to invade Syria after the false-flag gas attack? There are no war drums for Syria now.

Occam's Banana

04-25-2017, 11:14 AM

I suggest you read McMasters book if you actually oppose the Vietnam war.

LOL. What about if I oppose the Franco-Prussian War?

:rolleyes:

klamath

04-25-2017, 11:19 AM

His actions are right out of the book. You have to read the book. Trump is winding down the military-industrial complex and US interventions, while at the same time, not getting labeled as a weak Jimmy Carter-style one-term president who just gets replaced by a 12-year warmonger. Kennedy was our last good president before Trump.

Kennedy preserved to option of strategic withdrawal in Vietnam without being labeled as weak. LBJ did not. Trump is doing what Kennedy did.

Read the book and stop sounding ignorant.Really? I suppose if we went into a global thermal nuclear war you would call it a strategic withdrawal. NOTHING trump has done has drawn down war. The threatening posture in NK will driven them to push even harder to try and equalize strategic force. Dropping a wmd on the stan has alienated even more people and generated even more terror bound people.
I know exactly who Mcmasters is. I served in Iraq at the same time. He is an outstanding tactical officer but he has had zero effect on Trumps strategic world action in the reduction of war posturing.

Ender

04-25-2017, 11:20 AM

Remember the war drums in 2013 to invade Syria after the false-flag gas attack? There are no war drums for Syria now.

Uh.... yeah, there are.......

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510052-New-Syria-Sanctions-Gas-Attack-Claims-Still-Unproven&p=6458320#post6458320

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 08:39 PM

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 08:39 PM

Really? I suppose if we went into a global thermal nuclear war you would call it a strategic withdrawal. NOTHING trump has done has drawn down war. The threatening posture in NK will driven them to push even harder to try and equalize strategic force. Dropping a wmd on the stan has alienated even more people and generated even more terror bound people.
I know exactly who Mcmasters is. I served in Iraq at the same time. He is an outstanding tactical officer but he has had zero effect on Trumps strategic world action in the reduction of war posturing.

McMaster is the Puppet Master pulling the strings.

Galileo Galilei

04-25-2017, 08:40 PM

LOL. What about if I oppose the Franco-Prussian War?

:rolleyes:

If you were France and opposed it,..... good luck!

Ender

04-26-2017, 07:57 AM

This is media propaganda, not Trump propaganda. Without trump propaganda, there will be nowhere near public demand for a war.

RON PAUL IS MEDIA PROPAGANDA.....????!!!!

Exactly what forum are you on, dude?

Occam's Banana

04-26-2017, 10:22 AM

If you were France and opposed it,..... good luck! I'm not France. Answer the question.

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 10:29 AM

I'm not France. Answer the question.

I stand with Emile Zola, I opposed the Franco-Prussian war. I also opposed the aggression of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 10:32 AM

RON PAUL IS MEDIA PROPAGANDA.....????!!!!

Exactly what forum are you on, dude?

No, Ron Paul talks about the media. He talks about the media propaganda. But the war propaganda to what extent that it exists, is coming from the mass media, not from Trump. Trump and McMaster oppose foreign interventions.

Basically, the military-industrial complex is SOL. That's why they all backed Clinton in the general, and Christie/Bush/Rubio/Kasich (and in some cases Cruz) in the GOP primaries.

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 10:36 AM

Uh.... yeah, there are.......

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510052-New-Syria-Sanctions-Gas-Attack-Claims-Still-Unproven&p=6458320#post6458320

Just to clarify, I am aware that the gas attacks were not done by Assad. They were orchestrated by the NWO (western intelligence, probably British, French or Israeli) to challenge Trump and put him on the spot. Then they handed the bogus "evidence" over the US military, which is then handed onto Trump himself. Trump really has no way to disprove it at this point as early as it is in his presidency.

Occam's Banana

04-26-2017, 10:54 AM

I stand with Emile Zola, I opposed the Franco-Prussian war. I also opposed the aggression of Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.

That's nice, but it still doesn't answer the question.

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 10:58 AM

That's nice, but it still doesn't answer the question.

Yes it does answer the question. You asked if I supported the Franco-Prussian war. Actually, I would have supported France's defense of their territory, but not the lies and bad strategy the French military peddled to their own people.

What question do you actually want me to answer?

Ender

04-26-2017, 11:10 AM

No, Ron Paul talks about the media. He talks about the media propaganda. But the war propaganda to what extent that it exists, is coming from the mass media, not from Trump. Trump and McMaster oppose foreign interventions.

Basically, the military-industrial complex is SOL. That's why they all backed Clinton in the general, and Christie/Bush/Rubio/Kasich (and in some cases Cruz) in the GOP primaries.

So, what was the reasoning for the bombing of Syria BEFORE the gas attack? Or the MOAB on Afghanistan?

RJ Liberty

04-26-2017, 11:12 AM

Trump and McMaster oppose foreign interventions.

Then why did Trump say he would "Bomb the shit out of ISIS" during his campaign, and then drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever? And why are we still in a dozen Middle-eastern countries, when the President has the power to withdraw troops?

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 11:45 AM

So, what was the reasoning for the bombing of Syria BEFORE the gas attack? Or the MOAB on Afghanistan?

I already explained it. The gas attack was a false-flag orchestrated by the NWO to test Trump. The NWO wants either:

1) a new war

or

2) to make Trump look weak, like Jimmy Carter.

All the NWO got was a lousy air raid.

The bombings before the gas attack were already going on under Obama, Trump & McMaster are still evaluating the policy & strategy behind it.

As for the MOAB, that was already approved by Obama, the general just did it now.

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 11:46 AM

Then why did Trump say he would "Bomb the $#@! out of ISIS" during his campaign, and then drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever? And why are we still in a dozen Middle-eastern countries, when the President has the power to withdraw troops?

Good rhetoric to get elected. Remember, the ignorant masses have been feed war propaganda for the past 50 years. A few bombing aids are not much by historical standards.

Occam's Banana

04-26-2017, 11:47 AM

Yes it does answer the question.

No it doesn't.

You asked if I supported the Franco-Prussian war.

No I didn't.

What question do you actually want me to answer?

The one I asked.

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 02:25 PM

LOL. What about if I oppose the Franco-Prussian War?

:rolleyes:

Would you oppose the French defending themselves from the German invasion?

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 02:25 PM

No it doesn't.

No I didn't.

The one I asked.

I don't know what you your actual question is. Please re-phrase it.

Occam's Banana

04-26-2017, 04:35 PM

I don't know what you your actual question is. Please re-phrase it.

In reply to post #9, you told me to read McMaster's book if I oppose the Vietnam war.

In reply to that, I asked, "What if I oppose the Franco-Prussian war?"

Galileo Galilei

04-26-2017, 05:45 PM

In reply to post #9, you told me to read McMaster's book if I oppose the Vietnam war.

In reply to that, I asked, "What if I oppose the Franco-Prussian war?"

Read McMaster's book if you oppose any war.

Occam's Banana

04-27-2017, 12:54 AM

Read McMaster's book if you oppose any war.

You are still not answering the question.

Galileo Galilei

04-27-2017, 08:35 AM

You are still not answering the question.

I don't know what your question is, but it seems as if you oppose good faith opposition to the military-industrial complex. Stopping their evil deeds is not made easier by your actions.

Occam's Banana

04-27-2017, 08:49 AM

I don't know what your question is, but it seems as if you oppose good faith opposition to the military-industrial complex. Stopping their evil deeds is not made easier by your actions.

What actions? Asking questions that don't get answered?