"Libertarians for Trump"

[younglibertarian]

You are a new member so plz just read Bryan's stickied post

I fully recognize the rule. I'm just wondering if something like that "could" be applicable.

[Ender]

I fully recognize the rule. I'm just wondering if something like that "could" be applicable.

Not on a Liberty forum.

[younglibertarian]

Ok then, I believe I misunderstood.

[nikcers]

I fully recognize the rule. I'm just wondering if something like that "could" be applicable.

we are observing the democrat and republican nominations we have no dog in this fight. so, yeah no pro is allowed this forums is discussions not to sell anti liberty candidates to liberty people.

[Bryan]

So you are saying:

1. If Trump wins and implements a policy from Ron or Rand's presidential platform it will be breaking forum guidelines if we discuss or support such a policy.

2. If Trump proposes a policy that is anti-liberty we will be restricted from criticizing it and organizing against it.

If that becomes the policy, which I do not believe it will, it would mean the death of RPF as a useful tool for advancing liberty which I assume is your intention.

No, this would certainly not be the case. Regardless of whoever wins the president, we would want to:
- Discuss all policy matters that are getting attention, work out what is the best course of action.
- Push for the best course of action.
- Hold the president accountable for their campaign promises that we liked.
- Work to stop potential agenda items that we don't like.

None of this has anything to do with supporting or not supporting a candidate, and we'd still have done with any pro-liberty candidate. If anything, we would want to hold our own to an even higher standard so they do not harm our message. I hope this helps clear things up.

[Bryan]

I think what people need to start understanding is that this is a forum and no set group of people deserves to have their opinions censored.
I know that we have been talking about the "site mission" and all this stuff is well and good, but I present a question.

Can a forum full of independent thinkers and different opinions have 1 specific mission?

This post can be moved to the Site Mission thread if needed but I think it is relevant here as well.

The only opinions that we'll censor are ones based on group hate-- (ex: racism, sexism, etc). We can debate these with non-supporting people who sign up here, but as a base, these it not acceptable within our camp, per the guidelines.

We also do not allow people to promote candidates we do not support. Consider if a Bernie supporter came here and started a "Donate to Bernie" thread and similar, it would technically be off-topic to derail that thread but it would lower the value of the site to allow it, it goes against our Mission to help raise money for Bernie. We of course have no reason to back down on a fair debate of Bernie's policies.

That said, there does have to be some balance within the thread volume of what is going on as others have suggested.

That being said, I am a new member so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Being a new member has no bearing on you providing value or not, so this isn't an issue. Logic and good ideas are what is taken well which can come from anyone. Thanks for contributing.

I understand that this is the general consensus. I agree with it. Regardless the fact is that there is still lots of discussion over Donald Trumps campaign, and many people have disagreements. Is simply saying someones opinion goes against the site mission and trying to make the posts disappear really solve the debate?

I would like us all to rally around a liberty minded candidate. I support McAfee myself. Yet it is clear there is far more interest in criticizing Trump's campaign then actually supporting any other campaign.

I mean, it is pretty easy to see where the focus/center of debate is on this site.

The GOP / Dem's are dominating the news cycle, for many it's of value to keep up with what is going on which can build talking points to use elsewhere.

I agree that we'd do good to rally around liberty minded candidates, but it's a personal choice and not something as a site we can force. It is also a personal choice as to what forums show up in your newsfeed, members can exclude the GOP/Dem forum from showing up. See the "Exclude forums from "New Posts"" here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/profile.php?do=editoptions

The best we can do a try to rally people as we can.

[kahless]

No, this would certainly not be the case. Regardless of whoever wins the president, we would want to:
- Discuss all policy matters that are getting attention, work out what is the best course of action.
- Push for the best course of action.
- Hold the president accountable for their campaign promises that we liked.
- Work to stop potential agenda items that we don't like.

None of this has anything to do with supporting or not supporting a candidate, and we'd still have done with any pro-liberty candidate. If anything, we would want to hold our own to an even higher standard so they do not harm our message. I hope this helps clear things up.

Thanks for clearing that up Bryan. I think it eliminates the confusion some are having here concerning the guidelines which recently a few individuals are misusing to silence discussion about Trump in some threads.

[erowe1]

Thanks for clearing that up Bryan. I think it eliminates the confusion some are having here concerning the guidelines which recently a few individuals are misusing to silence discussion about Trump in some threads.

I haven't seen anyone do that. Even in this thread when you brought up the subject, you had to misrepresent someone to make it appear like they were doing that.

[LibertyEagle]

But (OP) please, Libertarians for Trump just sounds so wrong to me.
While Trump may have some valid Libertarian ideas, they have a lot of
totalitarian company in there judging by the things he talks about.

The concept of "Libertarians for Trump" is yet another oxymoron and it
won't help the LP get through the next election cycle with an apparent
"lower LP turnout" and depending on state rules; this "support" may
even make ballot access even more difficult for the LP in the future!
(I’ve seen the battle to get on an LP ballot in IL for committeemen, but
|I’ll will be voting for Trump in November – Sorry LP, not this time.)

Take it up with Walter Block. He is who came up with the name and whose article by the same name was posted by the OP.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/...tarians-trump/

[LibertyEagle]

I haven't seen anyone do that. Even in this thread when you brought up the subject, you had to misrepresent someone to make it appear like they were doing that.

No, he did not.

[goldwater's ghost]

The correct title for this would be PALEOCONS FOR TRUMP. The America First, build a wall, general xenaphobia coupled with a military withdrawal from world affairs, and an aggressive love of trade wars speaks to the heart of paleocon philosophy. Its true there is some overlap with libertarian thinking especially military matters but its wrong to say that libertarians should enamored of this guy. Hell Cruz has some overlap with libertarians. Ending the federal war on marijuana, ending the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce, Department of Housing and Urban Development, etc

[Bossobass]

Then does that make you a Cruz supporter as well?

"I strongly support auditing the Fed. Indeed, I was an original co-sponsor of Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill. Unfortunately, it was clear early on that yesterday’s vote wasn’t going to succeed (it fell 7 votes short). And, at the same time that the vote was scheduled, I had longstanding commitments to be in New Hampshire — for a Second Amendment rally, and a 1500- person State of the Union town hall. If my vote would have made a difference in it passing, I would have cancelled my campaign events to be there. Because the vote was not going to succeed, I honored my commitments to be with the men and women of New Hampshire. As President, I look forward to signing Audit the Fed legislation into law." - Ted Cruz

Cruz, the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

He stood by Rand until it was time to vote.

Trump tweeted that he thinks the Fed should be audited.

Trump chided Cruz in his tweet for missing a Senate vote on an "Audit the Fed" bill in January. The bill failed 53-44.

From a Zerohedge article:

When a leading nominee for President gets something exactly right, we should applaud them for it.* In this case, Donald Trump’s call to audit the Federal Reserve is dead on correct.* Most Americans don’t realize this, but the Federal Reserve has far more power over the economy than anyone else does – including Barack Obama.*

Other people's opinions may and do vary but that is no deterrent to me in my agreement with the various articles that mirror the Zerohedge article and that the MSM, AND this forum completely ignores.

[fcreature]

Cruz, the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.

He stood by Rand until it was time to vote.




From a Zerohedge article:



Other people's opinions may and do vary but that is no deterrent to me in my agreement with the various articles that mirror the Zerohedge article and that the MSM, AND this forum completely ignores.

Just curious, did Trump show any support for auditing the fed prior to Ted Cruz skipping the vote?

[Bossobass]

That is a point to consider. This is a Trump/GOP sub forum. Should pro-trump talk be allowed here? Maybe just limit it on other sections of the forum?

The Mods have asked for no promotion of current candidates- members may discuss but please do NOT promote.

Those who do promote are breaking the forum rules.

Unfortunately, when called on it or shown opposing views, then the opposition to Trump promotion are called SJWs, communists, Cruz lovers, etc. and are flamed as the evil ones.

You are a new member so plz just read Bryan's stickied post

I fully recognize the rule. I'm just wondering if something like that "could" be applicable.

Not on a Liberty forum.

we are observing the democrat and republican nominations we have no dog in this fight. so, yeah no pro is allowed this forums is discussions not to sell anti liberty candidates to liberty people.

Just what the hell are you libertarians afraid of?

You're new, so:

1) Read the RULES.
2) Do NOT promote anything that the rules, as WE interpret them, forbid.
3) Free Speech is a huge NOT on a liberty forum.
4) Observe ONLY… no likes or dislikes will be tolerated.
5) Feel free to visit the local supermarket daily and dredge any Never Trump articles you see in the Inquirer and post them here with impunity (or, whine like a stuck pig if opposed).
6) When the Redcoats kick your door in, remember, the King sets the rules. You have no say, rebel.

Gotcha. Sounds as boring as it reads, and good luck with that sort of "Liberty".

[acptulsa]

Just what the hell are you libertarians afraid of?

You're new, so:

1) Read the RULES.
2) Do NOT promote anything that the rules, as WE interpret them, forbid.
3) Free Speech is a huge NOT on a liberty forum.
4) Observe ONLY… no likes or dislikes will be tolerated.
5) Feel free to visit the local supermarket daily and dredge any Never Trump articles you see in the Inquirer and post them here with impunity (or, whine like a stuck pig if opposed).
6) When the Redcoats kick your door in, remember, the King sets the rules. You have no say, rebel.

Gotcha. Sounds as boring as it reads, and good luck with that sort of "Liberty".

Yeah, because God knows the whole reason this forum was set up in the first place and maintained all this time was just so some psychotic authoritarian could send in a paid army of shills, knock all of our business off the first page of every subforum and the New Posts board too, and disrupt all our discussions by hijacking each thread.

Gee, why wouldn't we all approve of that wholeheartedly? Let's just rename it breitbartjr.com!

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, because God knows the whole reason this forum was set up in the first place and maintained all this time was just so some psychotic authoritarian could send in a paid army of shills, knock all of our business off the first page of every subforum and the New Posts board too, and disrupt all our discussions by hijacking each thread.

Gee, why wouldn't we all approve of that wholeheartedly? Let's just rename it breitbartjr.com!

Paid army of shills?

You do realize that the vast preponderance of threads started about Trump have been started by people who say they hate Trump. Right? Are those the "shills" in your mind?

[acptulsa]

Paid army of shills?

You do realize that the vast preponderance of threads started about Trump have been started by people who say they hate Trump. Right? Are those the "shills" in your mind?

Some of them probably are, of course.

[Bossobass]

Yeah, because God knows the whole reason this forum was set up in the first place and maintained all this time was just so some psychotic authoritarian could send in a paid army of shills, knock all of our business off the first page of every subforum and the New Posts board too, and disrupt all our discussions by hijacking each thread.

Gee, why wouldn't we all approve of that wholeheartedly? Let's just rename it breitbartjr.com!

Yeah, with the whole "Gee…" horse manure…

Let's see… "I want to first audit, then end the FED!" (crowd goes wild): Ron Paul, in opening numerous speeches, as the popular video title said; Like A BOSS!

Gee, you're right… it does sound kinda authoritarian.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, with the whole "Gee…" horse manure…

Let's see… "I want to first audit, then end the FED!" (crowd goes wild): Ron Paul, in opening numerous speeches, as the popular video title said; Like A BOSS!

Gee, you're right… it does sound kinda authoritarian.

Repealing the law that threatens to throw us in jail if we trade using something besides the FRN sounds authoritarian to you?

Gee, if repealing laws sounds authoritarian to you, I guess nothing sounds more authoritarian to you than anarchy...

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Just what the hell are you libertarians afraid of?

You're new, so:

1) Read the RULES.
2) Do NOT promote anything that the rules, as WE interpret them, forbid.
3) Free Speech is a huge NOT on a liberty forum.
4) Observe ONLY… no likes or dislikes will be tolerated.
5) Feel free to visit the local supermarket daily and dredge any Never Trump articles you see in the Inquirer and post them here with impunity (or, whine like a stuck pig if opposed).
6) When the Redcoats kick your door in, remember, the King sets the rules. You have no say, rebel.

Gotcha. Sounds as boring as it reads, and good luck with that sort of "Liberty".

I thought they spoke for themselves, and didn't need refuting

[undergroundrr]

I have to conclude that trumpies are the kind of people who would apparently be just fine if somebody camped out on their yards and business premises with Hillary signs. They have no idea how accepting Bryan is being.

[Chieppa1]

I will not be joining "Libertarians for Trump". Might join "Libertarians for Billy Kristol & his treasonous horde being uncomfortable".

[LibertyEagle]

I have to conclude that trumpies are the kind of people who would apparently be just fine if somebody camped out on their yards and business premises with Hillary signs. They have no idea how accepting Bryan is being.

No, actually, that would be some on RPFs who are griping the most about Trump.

[acptulsa]

No, actually, that would be some on RPFs who are griping the most about Trump.

Including the man on the masthead, for whom the site is named, I presume? Because his views on Trump are all over this site, and none of them are flattering.

[LibertyEagle]

Including the man on the masthead, for whom the site is named, I presume? Because his views on Trump are all over this site, and none of them are flattering.

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

[erowe1]

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

You can't have it both ways. If you call everyone who agrees with Ron Paul a Hillary supporter, then you're calling Ron Paul a Hillary supporter. Likewise with all the other ways Trump trolls have been mocking Ron Paul supporters here lately.

[acptulsa]

Again, please stop putting words in my mouth.

I didn't put your (mod edit).

I asked a question. Punctuated by a question mark.

And I have it on good authority that couldn't possibly be some kind of strategy:

Asking questions isn't a strategy by itself.

[Bossobass]

Repealing the law that threatens to throw us in jail if we trade using something besides the FRN sounds authoritarian to you?

Gee, if repealing laws sounds authoritarian to you, I guess nothing sounds more authoritarian to you than anarchy...

How does POTUS (the "I" part of the sentence) repeal a law?

Gee… all we have to do to get an interpretation from anyone who says anything is… ask you?

I'm a Libertarian and I'm for Trump. Wanna fight about it? Bring your silly meme to the next Trump rally and start swinging.

[erowe1]

I'm a Libertarian

(mod edit).

[Bossobass]

(mod edit)..

Who asked (mod edit) you?