kahless
Member

He is a master troll and continues to troll the media. This week he went so far to admit that he is trolling the media but they continue to play right into his hands.

http://www.wjcl.com/article/us-to-hit-russia-with-new-sanctions-for-aiding-syrias-assad/19824332

France convinced Trump to stay in Syria, says Macron http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5619045/France-convinced-Trump-stay-Syria-says-Macron.html 985594653075439616

Do you not understand how government works or are you completely delusional? Why do you oppose Rand working with Trump to get aspects of Rand's legislation passed? Some of Rand/Ron proposed policies made it into legislation that was either promoted by Trump or crossed his desk. Health care competition across state lines is an example of that. Yet because Trump is President you want me to oppose Trump to the benefit of the Neocons and the far left having a greater voice rather than Rand Paul. That is retarded or shows what your true intentions are here and whom you really do or do not support.

I defend Trump or a candidate when they pass legislation I support and knock them when they do not. You however support a party or candidate 100% regardless whether their opposition proposes legislation that provides greater liberty. The news media and their respective political think tanks has trained people like you well in that respect.

You and some here gave Hillary policies a free pass and her supporters a free pass. Then instead of attacking Trump on policies you went after people simply agreeing with specific Trump policies including polices that Rand/Ron campaigned on such as health care competition across state lines. The bias in favor of Hillary was obvious and what sounds like the Nazi like National Socialism you subscribe to from your post above.

I was pretty clear on my beliefs that I am against that and proves you see things that are not in my posts.

A more accurate reply would have been, "I have to face it, I have a knee jerk reaction to believe people cover for Trump here no matter what the circumstances." No one here covers for Trump rather it is more like trying to figure out which words out of his mouth are the truth, holding him true to policy and policy aligned with the beliefs here.

You mean the small group of persons that actively promoted a rabid abortionist, statist and Neocon scum Hillary as a better option and disparaged the reputations of anyone that disagreed with that view? This rather than point out the failures of the two party system and take an objective view of the candidates flaws, their statist policies, their less statist policies and possible alternative liberty solutions? Rather than directly attacking people seeking a little bit of liberty in this life time no matter how small within the system that we are subjected to? Those immoral scumbags?

Does the article list their RPF account handles?

Your belief of giving cover to drug dealers selling poisoned Heroin that results in their customers deaths as well as selling to little kids is immoral. In a Voluntaryist society these people would still be considered immoral scumbags and to be violating the non-aggression principle for knowingly doing so. Pointing that out does not make one a statist.

Did the drug dealers knowingly sell poisoned Heroin that resulted in the deaths of some of their customers and/or were they giving drugs to little kids? I am against the death penalty but would not shed a tear for the dealers. If that is giving Trump cover then I am fine with that.

More problematic to do here these days but I do the same just to hear all sides of the equation. I was thinking that very thing as I wrote the quote you replied to. IDK, perhaps greater mass casualties and extended suffering with gas and.or used as propaganda tool to magnify and/or call attention to genocide? That is a stretch to compare the magnitude of civilian casualties in Syria. The first article you posted the youths opened fire, rolled burning tires and fire bombs toward troops across the border. Have not had time to look at all the details yet but if someone is shooting at you, well then...

That seemed to be the most logical belief from the start. It just did not make sense but then again if you think more about it there has been a history of world leaders making the mistake of believing the US is a paper tiger and that they would not act against violation of treaties, agreements or upon committing genocide. In this case you also have a history of President saying he would pull out of Syria, a cold war history that has never been taken this far, Trump's base and polls showing no one wanted this. With that maybe Russia and Assad believed the US would not act and worst case believed it would be a test of US resolve or an act of defiance. We did not really know the truth either way in advance and are told now we should trust classified intelligence based on an agencies with a poor track record. This is exactly why there should have been a debate in Congress so we could contact our representatives in advance for or against Congressional authorization based on what should have been presented.

Not fake intelligence, but rather not vet intelligence that works in his favor.

We do not see the intelligence he is seeing. How do we know it is fake news? This is why there should have been a debate, Congressional authorization and the facts presented to the general public before taking action.

The conspiracy fraud clown calling the orange clown a fraud. Thats rich.

I agree and to demonstrate being in that position with the power to do something: - Provided intelligence shows Syria disregarding chemical weapons treaties and using it to genocide civilians. This after a history of use of chemical weapons. - Lack of action sends a signal to all other countries the US is paper tiger. Emboldens every tin pot dictator in the world including North Korea making foreign policy problematic going forward. - Lack of action against chemical weapons facilities will enable Assad to continue it's horrific use against civilians despite he is winning the war. - Enormous internal pressure from the deep state and Neocons to obstruct a pull out.

Cute? The Russian/Syrian propaganda you are posting is demonstrably false. Someone had to add some balance to the posting of only Russian and Syrian propaganda. btw - those videos do not show what you think they show.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/37956060/the-latest-pentagon-russian-trolls-spreading-lies-on-syria

I am more disappointed that none of my quotes made your signature than this blatant lie. :(

Maybe. The possibility exists that to appease the pro-war establishment, foreign policy going forward will be tough talk, limited strikes but then a pull out to appeal to his base. A balance between the two. It could have been far worse with Iraq like occupations under an HRC Presidency and going forward. Aside from having Rand as President this was still sadly the better option on foreign policy so far compared to the rest of the Neocon cheerleaders. We shall see.

With the elites limiting elections to two of their preferred options with one saying they will give us a few extra crumbs off their table, don't expect that to change any time soon.

In bold was the possibility I was predicting but of course the same usual characters here cannot predict rationally when it comes to Trump.

Since you always bring this up now I am curious about who said, "Trump is Ron Paul on steroids"? I bet that thread was entertaining. :eek:

Trump bombed Syria yet you two assholes are bringing up Presidential polls from 2015 and are trying to rewrite history as if Rand won them. If Rand won them then he would have eventually gone on to win the nomination and we would not be discussing Syria intervention. Maybe if you two and the GOP Neocons did not focus on the retarded #nevertrump strategy that pissed off the average voters to the point it backfired in Trump's favor the outcome may have been different.

I did not disagree with what Rand was saying specifically about Trump. Rather said that he should stick to promoting his policies rather than attack Trump since everyone that does gets destroyed. He like the others did not have the personality to pull it off and would risk appearing as the establishment attacking the anti-establishment candidate Trump in an anti-establishment cycle. I believed he should have separated himself from the pack as the real anti-establishment candidate.

On this action specifically I agree with you. However pointing out it is not at the level of long term intervention of the Clintons and Bushes yet historically. It maybe his strategy to look tough on pulling out, hopefully. It was what Gorka indicated while angry yelling in favor of the attack on FNC a little while ago saying it is not going to be an intervention. It is however a huge risk that could obviously be disasterous. Remember Hillary Clinton campaigned on a no fly zone in Syria. Trump campaigned on getting along with Russia and getting out of Syria. We all knew Trump is not believable but at the time the risk for war with Russia appeared to be less than with the unknown quantity rather than Hillary. There were no viable 3rd party options that I have historically voted for anyway for since the early 80s. After 8 years of Obama and given with what we knew about the two candidates no one should be apologizing here for voting for the slightly lower risk and no viable 3rd party options. Hitler was good to dogs and I like dogs. Does that make one a supporter of everything Hitler does?

We post Paul polls with each cycle. Why would it be any different for 2016? Answer: Instructions given to you from the #nevertrump Neocon think tanks which can be pegged to the day in 2015 you and GunnyFreedom started that tactic.

Right??? LOL. If you were right then Hillary would have won by a landslide, there would not have been Trump tax cuts, immigration and health care reform legislative changes. You irrational anti-Trump clowns here painted Trump as worse than Bernie Sanders domestically and Bush/Hillary on foreign policy. The later still remains to be seen.