Alex Jones endorses Trump

[juleswin]

That's all there is to it. I think he'll come around if/when Rand wins something. The Jones hate on this thread has more to do with the personality cult surrounding the Pauls displayed by many supporters here, than liberty. Those supporters are only "pro-liberty" if it looks like, talks like, or behaves exactly like the Pauls---genteel, dryly rational, professorial. If progress towards the cause comes in any other form, like a brassy sounding talk show host, or a blue collar sounding, confident business leader, they call it "the enemy."

I have a feeling that your segment of the population feel more at home when someone is irrational, talks without thinking, is bombastic and can insult people who are not white male. Somehow you people think that gives him credibility and authenticity. But I will say it again, look for the substance not style. Lastly, I trust Rand Paul because I think he has credibility i.e. he has a history that tells me that he would do what he says. Trump on the other hand was saying just this last election cycle where we nominated Romney that the republican party is too extreme.

Just think about this for a moment, how can I trust a man who thinks that the republican cycle that nominated Romney is too extreme, who is very close to the Clintons, who is anti second amendment, pro universal healthcare, supports eminent domain laws to bring about small govt? the is akin to a man who finds God only after being sent to prison. A candidate whose only evidence of "conservative" values can only be found on the campaign speeches is a man I can never trust to be president even if his/her last name is Paul.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'd like to hear how donald trump is libertarian. Is it his eminent domain stance? His support of single payer health care? His stance against guns only a few years ago? His hawkish foreign policy? His complete vagueness on all the questions he gets? I support rand not because he's a paul (he is definitely not his father) but because he's the only candidate supporting liberty and sensible foreign policy.

Trump is not libertarian, but his candidacy (as I said) represents progress towards the cause of liberty by scuttling the elite's kingmaker system that has prevented alternative candidates from getting the Presidential nomination of a major party for at least 36 years. Liberty candidates cannot get into the White House until that elite-controlled, approved insider puppets system is disrupted. In Star Wars terms, we have to disable the tractor beam, to escape the Death Star. Voters are leaning towards Trump not because his views are vague, but because his resolve is convincing, and not controlled by mega-donors.

The GOP rank and file and public is frustrated with campaigns that have had the right positions for decades, but then caved or utterly failed to enact them once elected. The anti-establishment trend that Trump rode to first place with is thematically pro-liberty, as it confronts the statist/PC mainstream, shows resolve or backbone against it under pressure, and prioritizes cultural or domestic issues over war issues. This outsider dynamic can serve as a battering ram to knock down the establishment-dominated primary racket, and once knocked down will bring more liberty candidates into office over the long term.

[Kade]

Probably trying to avoid being scooped up in the first round of purges.

[Peace&Freedom]

I have a feeling that your segment of the population feel more at home when someone is irrational, talks without thinking, is bombastic and can insult people who are not white male. Somehow you people think that gives him credibility and authenticity. But I will say it again, look for the substance not style. Lastly, I trust Rand Paul because I think he has credibility i.e. he has a history that tells me that he would do what he says. Trump on the other hand was saying just this last election cycle where we nominated Romney that the republican party is too extreme.

I'm suggesting the movement can be inclusive of more voting bloc or personality types representing it. I'm not expressing a preference for irrational over rational types, or vice versa. E.g., would it kill people here if a Paul supporter (with the same set of liberty positions) who was overtly evangelical became the next national liberty candidate? That could sure help in places like Iowa and SC. Or what if we fielded another hotshot tycoon type, only one who had our views (like Peter Thiel)? Or what if it was a low-key, articulate, rational pro-liberty guy, but was a 9-11 truther (like Paul Craig Roberts)? How many here would ever consider the LP or CP candidate, if Rand suspends his campaign?

Sadly, not many, from what I've observed here. I have no problem with people being Paul-centric, myself included. But to be blind to other dynamics that help the liberty movement, just because they don't come in the same shape or package as the Pauls, is foolish.

[CaptUSA]

Trump is not libertarian, but his candidacy (as I said) represents progress towards the cause of liberty by scuttling the elite's kingmaker system that has prevented alternative candidates from getting the Presidential nomination of a major party for at least 36 years. Liberty candidates cannot get into the White House until that elite-controlled, approved insider puppets system is disrupted. In Star Wars terms, we have to disable the tractor beam, to escape the Death Star. Voters are leaning towards Trump not because his views are vague, but because his resolve is convincing, and not controlled by mega-donors.

The level of delusion you seem to be suffering from is disconcerting. You should really see a doctor.

There is nothing representing "progress towards the cause" in Trump's candidacy. If anything, it is the exact opposite! The kingmakers are using a dancing clown to prevent the masses from being drawn to the liberty movement during a time of their discontent. Seriously, dude. When this is all said and done and you look back on this, you are going to see how foolish you were to believe this.

[Peace&Freedom]

The level of delusion you seem to be suffering from is disconcerting. You should really see a doctor.

There is nothing representing "progress towards the cause" in Trump's candidacy. If anything, it is the exact opposite! The kingmakers are using a dancing clown to prevent the masses from being drawn to the liberty movement during a time of their discontent. Seriously, dude. When this is all said and done and you look back on this, you are going to see how foolish you were to believe this.

Seriously, you seem to be the one so caught up in invective, as to not be looking at reality. The elite already know how to rig the primary process to contain and defeat the Pauls, while installing their approved puppet as the nominee, as they demonstrated in 2008 and 2012. And they were already doing the same to Rand in the 2016 cycle, apart from Trump, via the tried and true methods---limiting media mentions of Rand, giving him the least debate time, subtly suppressing his poll numbers, etc. But Trump has totally defeated their attempt to get traction for this year's approved puppets, namely Bush, Rubio and Walker. So the outsider trend truly is busting up the kingmaker racket. If I'm 'deluded,' I'm not the only one:

"The Kingmakers have picked our last bunch of losers. And there’s one loser after another because they were more interested in maintaining their flow of money from the big donors and their cooperation with the Democrats—their bipartisanship—and that’s not my goal. Trump is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers, because everybody else will fall in line. The Kingmakers have so much money behind them." --Phyllis Schafly

[CaptUSA]

Seriously, you seem to be the one so caught up in invective, as to not be looking at reality. The elite already know how to rig the primary process to contain and defeat the Pauls, while installing their approved puppet as the nominee, as they demonstrated in 2008 and 2012. Trump has totally defeated their attempt to get traction for this year's approved puppets, namely Bush, Rubio and Walker. So the outsider trend truly is busting up the kingmaker racket. If I'm 'deluded,' I'm not the only one:

I think you conveniently missed Hillary. And yes, it is possible for the 91 year old Schafly to be delusional. Trump was part of the kingmakers' club well before he started running for President.

[Peace&Freedom]

I think you conveniently missed Hillary. And yes, it is possible for the 91 year old Schafly to be delusional. Trump was part of the kingmakers' club well before he started running for President.

And you conveniently left out Sanders, who is certainly not the approved pick of the establishment on the Democratic side, but is nonetheless giving Hillary fits and undermining her credibility as a candidate in a year where her primary process was supposed to be a cakewalk. The outsider dynamic is a real factor that is independent of Trump et al, that you keep evading.

[CaptUSA]

And you conveniently left out Sanders, who is certainly not the approved pick of the establishment on the Democratic side, but is nonetheless giving Hillary fits and undermining her credibility as a candidate in a year where her primary process was supposed to be a catwalk. The outsider dynamic is a real factor that is independent of Trump et al, that you keep evading.

Sanders, like Trump, is only allowed to exist to prevent the anti-establishment from coalescing. Ron Paul got too close for comfort last time around. The Tea Party and OWS needed to be consumed and defeated. The "outsider" dynamic has been co-opted by the establishment pretty damned effectively.


(and I think you meant "cakewalk" - at least I hope so.)

[erowe1]

He actually prefers Rand. Just thinks Trump has a better chance.

Why does he prefer Trump over Cruz then?

[juleswin]

Why does he prefer Trump over Cruz then?

The NWO, globalist something something something else CFR...... bankers.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist (with the exception of JFK assassination theories). I really only watched his show for the people he interviewed.

[Peace&Freedom]

Sanders, like Trump, is only allowed to exist to prevent the anti-establishment from coalescing. Ron Paul got too close for comfort last time around. The Tea Party and OWS needed to be consumed and defeated. The "outsider" dynamic has been co-opted by the establishment pretty damned effectively.

(and I think you meant "cakewalk" - at least I hope so.)

Already corrected. Again, Rand was already being neutralized. The outsider trend manifested itself most strongly across three different candidacies, not one (as an establishment plant), plainly indicating the phenomenon is independent of Trump. If the trend was co-opted by the elite, it would have only hurt Rand, but what it has done instead is stall all the establishment candidates, meaning it is not being guided by the elite. But don't just believe me, here's another 'deluded' person:

"The point is, Trump’s popularity is directly related to the way that he is willing to boldly and courageously stand against the Boehner/McConnell, mealy-mouthed, sissified, spineless, jellyfish, pro-amnesty, pro-Obamacare Republican establishment.

Please understand that my mind is still NOT made up about Donald Trump. I still have uncertainties and questions that have yet to be answered. (Perhaps my biggest question is, Will he continue the neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East?) That’s not the point here. The point is, Donald Trump--more than any other Republican candidate--is successfully (so far) mounting a fierce and effective anti-establishment campaign. And you can tell it by the way Boehner and his fellow elitists in the GOP leadership are attacking him.

As far as politics are concerned, more than anything else in this world, it is imperative that the establishment elite in Washington, D.C., are dethroned. Right now, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders are the two men who are most effectively accomplishing that task. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (and to a lesser extent Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina) are also mounting anti-establishment campaigns, but they have not been nearly as effective as Trump." ---Chuck Baldwin

[erowe1]

The NWO, globalist something something something else CFR...... bankers.

Probably all true.

And still less terrible than Trump.

I wouldn't endorse either one. But if AJ's gonna pick one, he couldn't do a worse job than he's doing.

[Anti Federalist]

And this goes right here.


Is it a “Good Idea”?

by eric • January 30, 2016

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/01/3...t-a-good-idea/

The other day, I wrote about ethanol – the corn-sourced alcohol that’s used as a fuel additive in almost all the “gas” sold in the United States. Air quotes used because the “gas” is actually 10 percent ethanol.

Or, more.

I got replies – mostly favorable, a few not.

Some of the nots touted the virtues of ethanol – and I will freely admit there are some.

As I hope the nots would acknowledge ethanol’s downsides.

It’s neither here nor there.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that ethanol is the ideal fuel.

It’s still an irrelevance… morally speaking.

The issue – whether it’s ethanol or Obamacare or some other “program” – is whether the use of violence (threatened or actual) is morally justifiable. Debating the utilitarian merits (and deficits) of whatever it is we’re talking about sidesteps this fundamental point and by doing that, concedes the field. Or at the very least, keeps the matter open for discussion when it ought to be closed.

This – debating the utilitarian pros and cons – is key to the ongoing vitality (and viability) of the Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative puppet show.

There is no debate over the fundamental question. Just a discussion over how much violence will be visited on whom – and to what end. Who will benefit (and even profit)… and who will be compelled to provide those benefits (and profits).

This is why it doesn’t matter which candidate or party wins a given election. It’s the same as having an intermission at an auction – and announcing a new auctioneer for the second half of the auction. It’s why the debates are so tiresome – and why people (even though most probably don’t realize it) are so sick of it all. Everyone knows their lives and property are up on the block – that whether it’s Tweedledee or Tweedledum – they are going to be told what to do, how much they’ll pay and so on. It’s like being in a prison and always having to sleep with one eye open.

There is no “leave me be” option – and can’t be, so long as the question is even up for consideration. The very best one can hope for is a temporary respite or a slight decrease in the amount demanded or the control asserted. This is the sole and only difference between Team Red and Team Blue, between liberals and conservatives.

Since at least the time of the Whiskey Rebellion (1791), the principle has been enshrined that it’s ok to take other people’s stuff or make them do what you like provided you have the political muscle; the votes or the “leaders” willing to make it so. Not by asking but by telling.

Some 225 years ago, the “Founding Father” of the United States, Toothless George – and his golem, Alexander Hamilton – marched on rural Pennsylvania to teach the veterans of the American Revolution a lesson about what they’d actually fought for.

Or rather, for whom.

It wasn’t for freedom from obnoxious taxation. It was for an exchange of auctioneers. They’d been bled for the cause of replacing the British ruling elite with a homegrown elite.

Washington and Hamilton and the rest rather than George III and the rest. New boss, same as the old boss.

Worse, actually.

Most Americans do not know this – for very good reason – but the fact is taxes on the average person were less oppressive (effectively nonexistent) under the original Team Red (King George and Parliament) than under the original Team Blue (President George and Congress). The Revolution was fought to benefit the colonial ruling class, crony capitalist finance shysters like Hamilton – not ordinary people like the Pennsylvania farmers – who had previously never been threatened with bayonets to hand over money they didn’t have to pay what amounted to federal income taxes on the whiskey they made and bartered among themselves as a medium of exchange.

It must have been a rude wake-up call.

Since that time, at least, the debate has always been: who shall pay… how much shall they pay… and to what end?

Never whether anyone ought to be forced to pay anything.

The latter concept having been abandoned and the former embraced, it is today merely a question of degree. It is why we have a formal federal income tax, state taxes,local taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, motor fuels taxes, sin taxes, taxes on property, taxes on transactions, taxes on meals (and whiskey) as well as Obamacare and all the rest of it. There is no longer any end to it. How could there be? What would be the basis for drawing a line?

Republicans believe in “less government” (so they say) but still demand your money and insist on their right to control your life. Democrats advocate the same, just tweaked a little here and there. Both sides argue interminably over the spoils. Never whether they have any right to the spoils.

Ron Paul tried to put the debate on a moral rather than utilitarian level. If he’d been a younger, more charismatic man he might have been dangerous. Cue the Zapruder film.

Trump, on the other hand, isn’t.

Neither is Hillary or Bernie or Jeb or Ben or Marco.

Fundamentally, they are all in agreement.

Which is why the coming election doesn’t matter.

A year or so from now, we may have a more luxurious White House (it’ll be great, really) but what we absolutely will not have, ever, is a government that leaves us be. Because it’s a contradiction in terms, an impossibility. Government – as Washington himself admitted – is force. Organized, systematized. Expecting it to just sit there and leave us be is like expecting a lion to not eat the sheep just shoved into his cage. It’s what he does.

It’s the nature of the beast.

[Anti Federalist]

///

[Dianne]

Why does he prefer Trump over Cruz then?

Because of Cruz's ties to Goldman Sachs.

[erowe1]

Because of Cruz's ties to Goldman Sachs.

As opposed to Trump's ties to Goldman-Sachs, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, Chevy Chase Bank, Royal Bank of America, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the KKK?

I still don't get it.

I'm guessing there was an exchange of money involved here.

[RonPaulMall]

Already corrected. Again, Rand was already being neutralized. The outsider trend manifested itself most strongly across three different candidacies, not one (as an establishment plant), plainly indicating the phenomenon is independent of Trump. If the trend was co-opted by the elite, it would have only hurt Rand, but what has done instead is stall all the establishment candidates, meaning it is not being guided by the elite. But don't just believe me, here's another 'deluded' person:

Another thing to remember is that there is nothing about Trump's strategy that is particular to Trump himself. A true Liberty Style candidate can utilize the same script Trump is using and ride it to victory themselves (one already has in fact, in the person of Dave Brat). Jones is looking at the big picture here.

[donnay]

As opposed to Trump's ties to Goldman-Sachs, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, Chevy Chase Bank, Royal Bank of America, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the KKK?

I still don't get it.

I'm guessing there was an exchange of money involved here.

Can you document any of these claims?

[erowe1]

Can you document any of these claims?

Yes. Every one of them. I wasn't aware any of them were unknown.

The banks are all ones he owes money to.

There are tons of pictures, donations, and quotes on record of his love relationship with the Clintons.

And his dad was arrested at a KKK event. He also has retweeted utter lies from white nationalist sources.

[jllundqu]

He actually prefers Rand. Just thinks Trump has a better chance.

So he is a coward and has no principle or integrity.... got it.

[jllundqu]

Probably trying to avoid being scooped up in the first round of purges.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kade again.

That $#@! made me spit my coffee on the keyboard.... I'm billing you!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kade again.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Zero proof here that Jones is supporting Trump. He had him on in an interview recently, I remember that, but I don't remember him endorsing Trump.

He's definitely talked Trump up, but I believe he has maintained that Rand is his #1 candidate.

[donnay]

Yes. Every one of them. I wasn't aware any of them were unknown.

The banks are all ones he owes money to.

There are tons of pictures, donations, and quotes on record of his love relationship with the Clintons.

And his dad was arrested at a KKK event. He also has retweeted utter lies from white nationalist sources.

Your words are not the same as documenting the claims.

Have you ever borrowed money from a bank--mortgage, car loan--etc...?

During Ron Paul's Presidential runs many of the same tactics were use on him. They called him a racist with the alleged newsletters. Anyone who is worth their salt knows that is simply untrue--but it was said, nevertheless to smear a good man.

[limequat]

The way the controlled opposition is getting doxed this cycle makes me think Rand is doing better than we thought.

AJ is a honey pot. Partake at your own risk.

[ARealConservative]

That's all there is to it. I think he'll come around if/when Rand wins something. The Jones hate on this thread has more to do with the personality cult surrounding the Pauls displayed by many supporters here, than liberty. Those supporters are only "pro-liberty" if it looks like, talks like, or behaves exactly like the Pauls---genteel, dryly rational, professorial. If progress towards the cause comes in any other form, like a brassy sounding talk show host, or a blue collar sounding, confident business leader, they call it "the enemy."

Trump is burning to the ground all the gains Ron Paul tried to make in the GOP. he is an enemy of this movement.

[dannno]

Probably all true.

And still less terrible than Trump.

I wouldn't endorse either one. But if AJ's gonna pick one, he couldn't do a worse job than he's doing.

Actually I would say Cruz is more establishment than Trump. I refuse to support either one, I have no idea what Trump's actual motivations are and the fact that he isn't very liberty friendly just turns me off completely - but I do know Cruz' motivations, he is a slimy, CFR, NWO Goldman Sachs scoundrel on a mission to destroy any vestiges of liberty. I'm actually very disappointing that Ted Cruz is even on Jones' "short list" more than I am about Trump.

The Truth About Ted Cruz
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...About-Ted-Cruz

[TER]

Trump is burning to the ground all the gains Ron Paul tried to make in the GOP. he is an enemy of this movement.

Trump is just demonstrating the critical thinking skills of a large portion of the American populace. Same way Mussolini did with the uneducated masses who supported him.

[specsaregood]

Your words are not the same as documenting the claims.

Have you ever borrowed money from a bank--mortgage, car loan--etc...?

During Ron Paul's Presidential runs many of the same tactics were use on him. They called him a racist with the alleged newsletters. Anyone who is worth their salt knows that is simply untrue--but it was said, nevertheless to smear a good man.

Agreed, just wait until Trumps supporters find out about his half-black love child. That should clear up any racist claims.