Trump: "All freedoms flow from national security"

[juleswin]

oh, wow. I'm so hurt by your opinion.

Also, I guess you would ban about 3 in every 10 members, according to the poll of favorite presidential candidates, and lose all those people when Trump could possibly drop in week or so. You sound like a levelheaded decision maker.

Many people, myself included, do not prefer just Trump over others, I actually prefer Rand, Cruz, and Trump over others.

Its even worse than that, cos that's even half of what I'll love to do the the Trump fanboys. Its one thing if the whole reason for this website is promote some irrelevant hobby, but its called liberty tree and if 9/10 people just happen to all of a sudden support authoritarian candidates, the mandate should still stay the same. Leave and start your own Donaldtrumpforum. This is liberty tree and the emphasis being on liberty.

Speaking of SJW type activities, you guys are the ones who go into areas where you are not welcomed and push your authoritarian ideas on said group. Just the same way feminist SJW types are trying to do in gaming. Funny how the people calling other SJW are ones who act very similar to SJW. Projection much?

[HankRicther12]

SJW should definitely win the most overused phrase of 2015. Its a go-to-insult to fling at anyone who disagrees with them. If it was left to me, I will ban every single one of you Trump donkeys. Its one thing to support a liberty type candidate like Gary Johnson and such over Rand but its a whole new thing to support an authoritarian type just because of his ridiculous immigration stance.

It likely does get abused, but I generally will only say it after someone calls me that other overused word "racist". Some people just don't want to have any conversations about the realities of race, culture, and the impact of mass immigration so they just call you racist to avoid debating you, so yeah, that to me is an SJW.

What is so ridiculous about Trump's immigration stance and who appointed you the judge and jury as far what is liberty or authoritarian?

[jj-]

Its even worse than that, cos that's even half of what I'll love to do the the Trump fanboys.

Wow, what a tough guy. Imagining yourself doing tough things surely compensates.

Speaking of SJW type activities [...] calling other SJW are ones who act very similar to SJW. Projection much?

Don't know, I'm not all that informed about SWJs but I will say you do seem very sensitive.

[juleswin]

Wow, what a tough guy. Imagining yourself doing tough things surely compensates.



Don't know, I'm not all that informed about SWJs but I will say you do seem very sensitive.

I am a tough guy alright. Also, I wouldn't call it sensitive, rather something like anger that people who should know better are falling for the fraud and making it even that a much harder prospect of electing the most liberty minded candidate since Ron Paul. So yea, I am angry that you people are pushing this man and essentially putting my future in danger all because of his clownish immigration policy.

[jj-]

So yea, I am angry that you people are pushing this man and essentially putting my future in danger all because of his clownish immigration policy.

Oh, yeah, we are the main factors and the cause of your bleak future. You think our posts moved Rand's polling 10% or 20%? This is one of the most hilarious scapegoating I've seen.

[Smitty]

I disagree with people vehemently every single day without identifying them as a hater. ..

You should have tried to keep that up today.

Instead. you've identified yourself as someone who will resort to SJW rhetoric when it suits your view.

Bad sign,.....very bad sign.

You'll need to be very careful about making amends for the next year or so to keep from outing yourself.

[Smitty]

You're welcome.

[RJB]

This thread is bull$#@!. This is not about calling Gunny, Juleswin, or other members with good names a SJW, OPP, NWA or whatever.

This is about Donald Trump's statement.

The question that should be asked: Is our current National Security Apparatus currently so big that it is a threat to our liberty and should be scaled back, is it just right, or do we need more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in?

[Anti Federalist]

The thread is about Trump's statement.

No $#@!, this!

Who, exactly, other than the local, state and federal security apparatus, is liable to throw a grenade in your window tonight and blow your child's face off?

Or kick in your door?

Or shoot your dog?

Are the "jihadists" gonna strap you down and take your blood at a roadside checkpoint?

Are the "illegals" going to seize every worldly asset you own, based on just their say so?

[GunnyFreedom]

You should have tried to keep that up today.

Instead. you've identified yourself as someone who will resort to SJW rhetoric when it suits your view.

Bad sign,.....very bad sign.

You'll need to be very careful about making amends for the next year or so to keep from outing yourself.

You're just like that clown Christopher Brown. Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before his greatness he calls an "agent." Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before your greatness is a "Social Justice Warrior." Both of you use those terms as weaponized speech because you both know that infiltration agents and social justice warriors are anathema around here. You have no connection or correlation with truth, you are just trying to use words to wound. That is the dead opposite of principle. Using bull$#@! rhetoric and sophistic tactics, you have far more in common with SJW's than any 10 of me.

This used to be a movement of actual Constitutionalist and libertarian principle. Now it's utterly infected by psychopaths like a bad flea infestation.

[Ender]

You're just like that clown Christopher Brown. Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before his greatness he calls an "agent." Anybody who doesn't fall on their knees before your greatness is a "Social Justice Warrior." Both of you use those terms as weaponized speech because you both know that infiltration agents and social justice warriors are anathema around here. You have no connection or correlation with truth, you are just trying to use words to wound. That is the dead opposite of principle. Using bull$#@! rhetoric and sophistic tactics, you have far more in common with SJW's than any 10 of me.

This used to be a movement of actual Constitutionalist and libertarian principle. Now it's utterly infected by psychopaths like a bad flea infestation.

Agree 1000%

[jj-]

What is so ridiculous about Trump's immigration stance

I see, this got no response. Maybe jules didn't think it through?

[Smitty]

I've never heard of Christopher Brown,.....but knock yaself out trying to draw a comparison.

Maybe he's as correct as I am. Hell,...I don't know.

[HankRicther12]

This thread is bull$#@!. This is not about calling Gunny, Juleswin, or other members with good names a SJW, OPP, NWA or whatever.

This is about Donald Trump's statement.

The question that should be asked: Is our current National Security Apparatus currently so big that it is a threat to our liberty and should be scaled back, is it just right, or do we need more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in?

Actually, I would like to know where you get all that from Trumps statement? He made no mention of any of those things. I believe we need a military for defense and a border and a strict immigration policy, It doesn't mean I believe we should have "more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in", you are just making a deceptive statement.

[RJB]

Actually, I would like to know where you get all that from Trumps statement? He made no mention of any of those things. I believe we need a military for defense and a border and a strict immigration policy, It doesn't mean I believe we should have "more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in", you are just making a deceptive statement.

I agree with the border. Our country's freedom is guaranteed to those who live here. Letting a horde of people who vote against basic freedoms (2nd amendment, etc.) is against out interest. Letting people in with links to terrorists groups while having our young men literally getting their balls blown off in Iraq makes no sense. I do get that.

However, our freedoms come from God. If you're an atheist, they come from nature, not by government decree. I am free because I was born that way and keep myself free.

I don't think my statement was deceptive. Trump is a man who has made many conflicting statements over the years. He used the force of government to try to force an old woman from her home to build a casino. He has no principles and he calls for military strength. I don't trust that.


I trust the man in your avatar a whole lot more than trump. Pat is consistent. Trump is not.

[GunnyFreedom]

Actually, I would like to know where you get all that from Trumps statement? He made no mention of any of those things. I believe we need a military for defense and a border and a strict immigration policy, It doesn't mean I believe we should have "more wiretapping, more police with heavier equipment and troops in more countries than the 130+ plus they are already in", you are just making a deceptive statement.

If you don't think Trump is a neocon, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are deluding yourself.

[jj-]

If you don't think Trump is a neocon, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are deluding yourself.

Oh God, another person who hasn't learned the meaning of neocon even after 8 years in the forum.

[cajuncocoa]

Oh God, another person who hasn't learned the meaning of neocon even after 8 years in the forum.

Enlighten us.

[AuH20]

If you don't think Trump is a neocon, then you either haven't been paying attention, or you are deluding yourself.

Trump is a raving neocon.

http://www.rense.com/general54/bushs.htm

2004

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Billionaire Donald Trump, America's toughest employer, would like to fire the Bush Administration for its decision to invade Iraq, according to an interview in the August edition "Esquire," due to be released on Friday.

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country?," said the host of NBC's "The Apprentice," whose hallmark line is "You're fired."

"C'mon. Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have," Trump said in excerpts of the interview released in advance to Reuters.

"The Apprentice" was one of NBC's biggest hits last season, making the real estate mogul a well-known entity to TV viewing audiences.

"What was the purpose of the whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and no legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!," Trump said.

Trump also proclaims he would be "tougher" on terrorism.

"Bin Laden would have been caught long ago. Tell me, how is it possible that we can't find a guy who's six-foot-six and supposedly needs a dialysis machine? Can you explain that one to me? We have all our energies focused on one place, where they shouldn't be focused," he said.

Bigtime.

[jj-]

Enlighten us.

I'm surprised you can't characterize a neocon.

Watch the video of Kirsten Powers accusing Krauthammer of being a neocon to his face. She knows enough of the philosophy to make an accurate accusation. Also you can read about what Bill Kristol wrote about Trump in this thread for context, and this was way before the McCain statement.

There are many philosophies that are bad, neoconservatism is just one of them.

[GunnyFreedom]

Trump is a raving neocon.

http://www.rense.com/general54/bushs.htm

2004



Bigtime.

Right, Trump wouldn't have tried to build a democracy, he would have stolen their oil and then reduced the nation to a glass parkinglot. How as that any less of a neocon doctrine? If anything it makes him more of a neocon than Bush.

[donnay]

This should go here:

[GunnyFreedom]

Positions of power and influence.
Not conservatives, not dedicated to limited Constitutional government
Comes from the far left, Trotskyite communism.
Agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, political or violent
Want to redraw the map of the middle East, and are willing to use force to do it.
Believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
Believe that the ends justify the means.
Do not express opposition to the welfare state.
Endorse American Empire
Believe in Lying to enhance the health of the State.
Believe in a powerful centralized federal government.
Society should be run by the wealthy and the elite.
Oppose neutrality in foreign policy
Dislike and despise libertarians and constitutionalists.
Support the erosion of domestic liberty and freedom
Unconditionally support Israel, particularly the Likud political party.

The only one on that list that doesn't apply to Trump is "Does not express opposition to the welfare state."

This list is straight from Ron Paul himself.

[jj-]

^ I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't, quote from your post,

"Comes from the far left, Trotskyite communism."
"Agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, political or violent"

These are not his only differences with neocons.

People shouldn't just use bad words they don't know what they mean to attack others they don't like.

[AuH20]

Right, Trump wouldn't have tried to build a democracy, he would have stolen their oil and then reduced the nation to a glass parkinglot. How as that any less of a neocon doctrine? If anything it makes him more of a neocon than Bush.

Trump would have likely taken on the Saudis and the Neos can't have that. But Iraq?

[David Sadler]

Trump is everything that the Ron Paul movement used to hate.

That isn't true.

People promoting Trump demonstrates that the Ron Paul movement has died on account of people abandoning the principles that brought us together.

That isn't true either.

... last 8 years ... watching superficial thoughtless unprincipled people destroying the Ron Paul movement it should be obvious why it pisses people off.

It's been painful for all of us to watch as the fracturing of the RP coalition took place. The coalition never was a monolithic Libertarian movement. Many in the RP coalition did not identify as Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party. They were independent. They do not join groups to be part of a herd. Many merely want to be free of globalism and be individuals in a sovereign nation that maximizes individual liberty and prosperity. A sovereign nation has borders and regulates trade and immigration to manage the needs of the nation in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity for its citizens.

Once Ron folded up the POTUS campaign, the coalition members who did not have the time and/or desire to engage in group politics watched in sad resignation as the coalition did what groups usually do - fracture - as the power struggles began to see who was going to control the group. The group became politicized and dominated by people who declared themselves to be the ideological leaders of the group only to watch the coalition dissolve around them and wonder why. They even attempted to take control of this liberty forum and enact rules and limit tactics, strategy and candidates that were 'acceptable' coming into this election.

Rand came along and naturally many hoped he would be like Ron but were doubtful after Rand's behavior near the end of Ron's campaign. Time has shown that Rand is not Ron and holds several principles and policies that conflict with some of those that made Ron such a magnet for his campaign.

Rand has potential though and many of us would like to see him ascend to POTUS eventually, so the question many of us are asking is, how can we incrementally move towards more liberty and prosperity now at the same time that we elevate Rand to national office.

Many on the forum dislike Trump. But quite a few see him as the best option at the moment to win the POTUS and move the nation incrementally towards more liberty and prosperity. This is why, I have advocated that the forum members consider a TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket. Explore it. Talk it up. Trump is 70? He would be 75 at the end of his first term as POTUS? PAUL 2020 running as an experienced and successful VP sounds like a very reasonable possibility.

That your reaction to this proposal can be predicted is a measure of at least some of the reasons why the RP coalition has fractured.

The GOP has fractured.
The RP coalition has fractured.
The Dems are fracturing.

There's a HUGE opportunity here to form a new coalition of the disenfranchised who still believe the globalists need to be defeated so we can move towards more liberty and prosperity. Trump and Sanders appear to attracting these disenchanted and disenfranchised in their respective parties. Looking past the primaries, many see this as the seed of the new coalition that might be able to put the TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket in charge until 2020.

Something to think about.

[jj-]

Good post, David. Requiring everyone to agree with one's pet peeves and dislikes is a bad way to try to form a coalition.

[GunnyFreedom]

^ I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't, quote from your post,

"Comes from the far left, Trotskyite communism."

Trump was a registered Democrat until 2009. He helped fund the Pelosi Reid majorities, is best buddies with Michael Bloomberg. Financed Terry Mcauliffe's victory. Donated to Hillary's 2008 campaign. Has given more than $100k to the Clinton foundation when Hillary was no longer in a position to help him. His political positions over the last 20 years have been a leftist litany.

"Agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, political or violent"

He is constantly agitating for hope and change.

These are not his only differences with neocons.

These are not different from neocons.

People shouldn't just use bad words they don't know what they mean to attack others they don't like.

You should not be calling people stupid when you are in fact the ignorant one.

[GunnyFreedom]

That isn't true.



That isn't true either.

You are wrong.

It's been painful for all of us to watch as the fracturing of the RP coalition took place. The coalition never was a monolithic Libertarian movement. Many in the RP coalition did not identify as Libertarian, Republican, Democrat or any other party. They were independent. They do not join groups to be part of a herd. Many merely want to be free of globalism and be individuals in a sovereign nation that maximizes individual liberty and prosperity. A sovereign nation has borders and regulates trade and immigration to manage the needs of the nation in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity for its citizens.

Once Ron folded up the POTUS campaign, the coalition members who did not have the time and/or desire to engage in group politics watched in sad resignation as the coalition did what groups usually do - fracture - as the power struggles began to see who was going to control the group. The group became politicized and dominated by people who declared themselves to be the ideological leaders of the group only to watch the coalition dissolve around them and wonder why. They even attempted to take control of this liberty forum and enact rules and limit tactics, strategy and candidates that were 'acceptable' coming into this election.

Rand came along and naturally many hoped he would be like Ron but were doubtful after Rand's behavior near the end of Ron's campaign. Time has shown that Rand is not Ron and holds several principles and policies that conflict with some of those that made Ron such a magnet for his campaign.

Rand has potential though and many of us would like to see him ascend to POTUS eventually, so the question many of us are asking is, how can we incrementally move towards more liberty and prosperity now at the same time that we elevate Rand to national office.

Many on the forum dislike Trump. But quite a few see him as the best option at the moment to win the POTUS and move the nation incrementally towards more liberty and prosperity. This is why, I have advocated that the forum members consider a TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket. Explore it. Talk it up. Trump is 70? He would be 75 at the end of his first term as POTUS? PAUL 2020 running as an experienced and successful VP sounds like a very reasonable possibility.

That your reaction to this proposal can be predicted is a measure of at least some of the reasons why the RP coalition has fractured.

The GOP has fractured.
The RP coalition has fractured.
The Dems are fracturing.

There's a HUGE opportunity here to form a new coalition of the disenfranchised who still believe the globalists need to be defeated so we can move towards more liberty and prosperity. Trump and Sanders appear to attracting these disenchanted and disenfranchised in their respective parties. Looking past the primaries, many see this as the seed of the new coalition that might be able to put the TRUMP - PAUL 2016 ticket in charge until 2020.

Something to think about.

I am a Constitutionalist. I am unwilling to abandon every principle I have shed blood sweat and tears over the last 8 years for. I will die before I join any coalition that involves neocon liberal progressive Trump.

[Smitty]

I am a Constitutionalist. I am unwilling to abandon every principle I have shed blood sweat and tears over the last 8 years for. I will die before I join any coalition that involves neocon liberal progressive Trump.