Bannon, basically: Trump’s campaign was a fraud

[Zippyjuan]

A) Trump was 100% right about Charlottesville, he blamed both sides, I'm thrilled to hear a president do that.

B) He is probably better off without this "advisory group" of corporate vultures with their hands out, wanting special deals in exchange for "good economic news" photo ops and all. Just be happy they are gone.

Trump promised he would give help to businesses. He asked for the committees to be formed. The "infrastructure" group was created by one of his Executive Orders.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump promised he would give help to businesses. He asked for the committees to be formed.

He shouldn't have.

[devil21]

Not a fraud, he cant fulfill any campaign promises because nearly all the politicians, and corporate owned media as well, have aligned against him and blocking him at every turn.

That's how I know he is the real deal. Buffoonish, I admit, but if he were really as evil as he is made out to be, he wouldn't be made out to be that way.

[milgram]

his actual default position is the position of his base, the position that got him elected

For this reason his campaign was not a fraud.
While he hasn't accomplished very many of his big goals, I would not call that fraudulent unless he never actually believed in the positions that won him the election.

Still he never should have endorsed McCain over Ward.

[Schifference]

So what would have been the difference if we had achieved our goal of a Ron Paul presidency. Granted Ron was respected and diplomatic but, he voted alone and failed to achieve any real change in Washington. He fought but never won as a congressman. He gained a loyal base.

If Ron Paul were president would he have been able to change government or would all the Republicans that never voted with him still not vote with him?

A huge locomotive traveling down a mountain pass will not be stopped by one lone pair of working brake shoes.

Please do not interpret what I have said into something I do not mean. I think Ron Paul's ideals are wonderful and think he is a true patriot. The problem is when you are the only patriot others in power do not share your patriotism.

Looking back over the past decade I would think that only a politician that has or can gain support from others will succeed. It is great to see someone grandstanding against the media but that is not what gets things done in the oval office. Trump is to radical and impulsive. He has alienated himself from everyone. We need a moral diplomat that demands and deserves respect. Someone that will abide by the law and work to change it with the support of his colleagues. The most capable person in my opinion to be president in this day and age would be someone like Trey Gowdy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

This thread is, basically, a fraud.

[Champ]

If Ron Paul were president would he have been able to change government or would all the Republicans that never voted with him still not vote with him?

This thought has crossed my mind a lot often in recent months. Short answer to it would be, no, he wouldn't have been able to achieve almost anything assuming he was not assassinated before inauguration. We have insight into this now to some degree because of the Trump show. The countless amount of games, media tricks, deep state tactics, identity virtue signaling, and the reliance on an uneducated populace have made it largely impossible to do much of anything. Bannon admitted as much recently, and we have seen Trump unable to work with a bought out and paid for Congress or a litany of corrupt judges that put their own leftist ideologies first above the constitution.

Trump actually thought he could work with neocons, leftists, and deep staters that believe in nothing except maintaining power by extending some half assed olive branch. He held his tongue on Paul Ryan and others after ripping them for years during the election. He brought in all sorts of neocons, bankers, and allowed Obama holdovers to stay indefinitely. He was less interested in principles and more interested in generating an operating cabinet that could achieve his nationalistic goals through compromise and acting like some kind of deal maker. It didn't work at all. They still want him gone or dead, whatever comes first. He is dealing with people that have no interest in getting along, they only want people to join them if they are useful and discard any opposition. Trump has not recognized this even after they have discarded most of the nationalists that he had. He still hasn't recognized this or he is playing coy to maintain his base. We'll see.

Ron Paul stands firmly on his principles. He would not have lined his cabinet like this at all. He would not have worked with them like Trump attempted to. He would not have worked with the deep state, which would have been a quick ticket to nationwide villainy and 24/7 baseless attacks by the deep state influenced/operated media. He has stated this many times throughout countless interviews he would not play ball like that and that's why he was often the only "No" vote. On the contrary Rand does play ball, he plays the game and tries to achieve liberty through this game. A Rand presidency may have seen more similarities to Trump than Ron's would have. Ron has stated this is the biggest disagreement between himself and his son, but ultimately they believe in the same principles. Ron wasn't interested in getting along or playing games, he was interested only in following the constitution and exposing people to liberty.

We will know more soon, but it's still early into this presidency and there are already plenty of clues to answer some of these questions.

[acptulsa]

This thread is, basically, a fraud.

Well, the thread title is fraudulent enough. No doubt that's why the Zippy Account picked it.

[Swordsmyth]

So what would have been the difference if we had achieved our goal of a Ron Paul presidency. Granted Ron was respected and diplomatic but, he voted alone and failed to achieve any real change in Washington. He fought but never won as a congressman. He gained a loyal base.

If Ron Paul were president would he have been able to change government or would all the Republicans that never voted with him still not vote with him?

A huge locomotive traveling down a mountain pass will not be stopped by one lone pair of working brake shoes.

Please do not interpret what I have said into something I do not mean. I think Ron Paul's ideals are wonderful and think he is a true patriot. The problem is when you are the only patriot others in power do not share your patriotism.

Looking back over the past decade I would think that only a politician that has or can gain support from others will succeed. It is great to see someone grandstanding against the media but that is not what gets things done in the oval office. Trump is to radical and impulsive. He has alienated himself from everyone. We need a moral diplomat that demands and deserves respect. Someone that will abide by the law and work to change it with the support of his colleagues. The most capable person in my opinion to be president in this day and age would be someone like Trey Gowdy.

This thought has crossed my mind a lot often in recent months. Short answer to it would be, no, he wouldn't have been able to achieve almost anything assuming he was not assassinated before inauguration. We have insight into this now to some degree because of the Trump show. The countless amount of games, media tricks, deep state tactics, identity virtue signaling, and the reliance on an uneducated populace have made it largely impossible to do much of anything. Bannon admitted as much recently, and we have seen Trump unable to work with a bought out and paid for Congress or a litany of corrupt judges that put their own leftist ideologies first above the constitution.

Trump actually thought he could work with neocons, leftists, and deep staters that believe in nothing except maintaining power by extending some half assed olive branch. He held his tongue on Paul Ryan and others after ripping them for years during the election. He brought in all sorts of neocons, bankers, and allowed Obama holdovers to stay indefinitely. He was less interested in principles and more interested in generating an operating cabinet that could achieve his nationalistic goals through compromise and acting like some kind of deal maker. It didn't work at all. They still want him gone or dead, whatever comes first. He is dealing with people that have no interest in getting along, they only want people to join them if they are useful and discard any opposition. Trump has not recognized this even after they have discarded most of the nationalists that he had. He still hasn't recognized this or he is playing coy to maintain his base. We'll see.

Ron Paul stands firmly on his principles. He would not have lined his cabinet like this at all. He would not have worked with them like Trump attempted to. He would not have worked with the deep state, which would have been a quick ticket to nationwide villainy and 24/7 baseless attacks by the deep state influenced/operated media. He has stated this many times throughout countless interviews he would not play ball like that and that's why he was often the only "No" vote. On the contrary Rand does play ball, he plays the game and tries to achieve liberty through this game. A Rand presidency may have seen more similarities to Trump than Ron's would have. Ron has stated this is the biggest disagreement between himself and his son, but ultimately they believe in the same principles. Ron wasn't interested in getting along or playing games, he was interested only in following the constitution and exposing people to liberty.

We will know more soon, but it's still early into this presidency and there are already plenty of clues to answer some of these questions.

As I remember Dr. Paul put out an article on what the President could do by himself to fix things.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Well, the thread title is fraudulent enough. No doubt that's why the Zippy Account picked it.

Zipper John is a research demon!

[Zippyjuan]

As I remember Dr. Paul put out an article on what the President could do by himself to fix things.

The Constitution established a system of checks and balances- preventing any one part of the government from ruling everything. That was to reduce the chances of tyranny and dictatorships. By himself, a president has limited powers. Congress has the power to write laws or change them. A president can mostly veto or sign such laws. Then the courts are to decide on conflicts between those two parties. Its intent was to force groups to work together to get things done. Donald Trump or Ron Paul or Rand Paul has to work with Congress if the hope to achieve anything. And presently Trump is not showing a lot of willingness to work with people. The government world works differently from the corporate world. People don't have to jump because you say so.

[acptulsa]

The Constitution established a system of checks and balances- preventing any one part of the government from ruling everything. That was to reduce the chances of tyranny and dictatorships. By himself, a president has limited powers. Congress has the power to write laws or change them. A president can mostly veto or sign such laws. Then the courts are to decide on conflicts between those two parties. Its intent was to force groups to work together to get things done. Donald Trump or Ron Paul or Rand Paul has to work with Congress if the hope to achieve anything. And presently Trump is not showing a lot of willingness to work with people. The government world works differently from the corporate world. People don't have to jump because you say so.

The president has to work with Congress to achieve anything? Anything? Including bringing the military home? Including writing an executive order? Including telling the many bureaus under the direct command of the Executive branch where to focus their attention?

Anything?

And are you seriously arguing that the Constitution's checks and balances are just as strong as they ever were?

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution established a system of checks and balances- preventing any one part of the government from ruling everything. That was to reduce the chances of tyranny and dictatorships. By himself, a president has limited powers. Congress has the power to write laws or change them. A president can mostly veto or sign such laws. Then the courts are to decide on conflicts between those two parties. Its intent was to force groups to work together to get things done. Donald Trump or Ron Paul or Rand Paul has to work with Congress if the hope to achieve anything. And presently Trump is not showing a lot of willingness to work with people. The government world works differently from the corporate world. People don't have to jump because you say so.

And Dr. Paul's article laid out what a President could and couldn't do by himself.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth or Dr. Paul's it is unsanitary.

[Zippyjuan]

And Dr. Paul's article laid out what a President could and couldn't do by himself.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth or Dr. Paul's it is unsanitary.

There is no link to Dr. Paul's article. I cannot read what he said (nor put words in his or your mouths).

[liveandletlive]

Trump will likely increase US involvement in Afghanistan to be announced in a speech tonight

Despite claiming to be non-interventionist, he now only listens to "his" generals. So there you have it, the man is a complete and utter fraud. Still, he has many delusional fans here and in MAGA-nation.

[acptulsa]

There is no link to Dr. Paul's article. I cannot read what he said (nor put words in his or your mouths).

Interesting how the Zippy du jour's Google Fu always fails him when and where the link in question would not further the causes of the propagandists.

[Swordsmyth]

There is no link to Dr. Paul's article. I cannot read what he said (nor put words in his or your mouths).

You tried to imply that I and Dr. Paul wanted the President to do unconstitutional things, and you tried to claim there was nothing the President could do by himself in direct contradiction of what I said Dr. Paul wrote.

[acptulsa]

So there you have it, the man is a complete and utter fraud.

You say it. I've said it. But the fact remains that Steve Bannon has not said it, or even implied it.

[Zippyjuan]

Trump will likely increase US involvement in Afghanistan to be announced in a speech tonight

Despite claiming to be non-interventionist, he now only listens to "his" generals. So there you have it, the man is a complete and utter fraud. Still, he has many delusional fans here and in MAGA-nation.

The only significant campaign promises kept so far are dropping climate change and bombing ISIS and naming a Supreme Court justice. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000

[PierzStyx]

The Swamp won.

Color me shocked.

Why is anyone shocked? Trump has been knee deep in swamp mud since he became a public figure. He isn't changing, he is just demonstrating what he always has been- as at home in the swamp as a backwoods Creole cooking gumbo in the Louisiana Bayou.

[PierzStyx]

Interesting how the Zippy du jour's Google Fu always fails him when and where the link in question would not further the causes of the propagandists.

Why ii it his job to do another person's work? If you have an argument you do the work to back it up. Otherwise you're just making claims without evidence of any kind- i.e. producing propaganda.

[PierzStyx]

You tried to imply that I and Dr. Paul wanted the President to do unconstitutional things, and you tried to claim there was nothing the President could do by himself in direct contradiction of what I said Dr. Paul wrote.

You can say a lot of things. But if you're making claims how about you provide the evidence? Otherwise why take anything you say serious?

[acptulsa]

Why ii it his job to do another person's work? If you have an argument you do the work to back it up. Otherwise you're just making claims without evidence of any kind- i.e. producing propaganda.

Well, I remember Ron Paul making the point, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I think I, too, might take it on faith that people who frequent this place would know the statement is true.

But I didn't say it was his job. Though digging up stuff does seem to be his job, as many hours as he spends every day doing it.

Certainly he knows enough not to be running around blathering that there isn't anything a president can do without the cooperation of Congress.

[Swordsmyth]

You can say a lot of things. But if you're making claims how about you provide the evidence? Otherwise why take anything you say serious?

I said I remembered an article from Dr. Paul, what is it that you doubt? That Dr. Paul wrote such an article?
I am trying to find it but it was written a long time ago and I don't remember the title.

[nikcers]

So what would have been the difference if we had achieved our goal of a Ron Paul presidency.

RP would take a bullet before giving the CIA authorization to order drone strikes. If you want more differences let me know, I got lots of them.

[Zippyjuan]

You tried to imply that I and Dr. Paul wanted the President to do unconstitutional things, and you tried to claim there was nothing the President could do by himself in direct contradiction of what I said Dr. Paul wrote.

I say no such thing. I point out what the Constitution does. I only point out the difficulties of trying to act alone. I don't say Trump or Dr. Paul would violate it. You are just making noise. Any link to what Ron Paul says on the subject?

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/br...rticle/2632100

Breitbart staffer says site will call for 'impeachment' if Trump abandons campaign promises


The pro-Trump Breitbart News site, back under the leadership of former senior White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, is prepared to campaign for the president's impeachment if he strays from his campaign promises, according to a new report.

An article published Sunday night in Vanity Fair quoted an anonymous Breitbart staffer as saying that the website is willing to side with House Speaker Paul Ryan, a frequent target of Breitbart, if Trump shows signs of veering from his nationalist agenda.

"We're prepared to help Paul Ryan rally votes for impeachment," the source said.

A source at Breitbart told the Washington Examiner on Monday that Bannon's return to the site has emboldened the staff in terms of its coverage on the administration.

Bannon resigned from his White House position last week and said in a media interview that, "The Trump presidency that we fought for and won, is over."

[acptulsa]

I hear a lot of talk about impeachment, but I sure haven't heard any allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Except from one delusional moron who said something about a president telling the FBI to lay off a dead end investigation being 'obstruction of justice'.

Fraud, fraud everywhere, and still the headline Zippy copied and pasted to this thread is a lie.

[Zippyjuan]

I hear a lot of talk about impeachment, but I sure haven't heard any allegations of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Except from one delusional moron who said something about a president telling the FBI to lay off a dead end investigation being 'obstruction of justice'.

Fraud, fraud everywhere, and still the headline Zippy copied and pasted to this thread is a lie.

As of now, he hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment. If failing to keep all campaign promises is just grounds, all presidents could be impeached. "Fraud" was probably too strong of a word but it reflects that Trump is failing to live up to his high expectations (most presidents fail at that). Reality has a way of getting in the way of campaign promises made.

[acptulsa]

As of now, he hasn't done anything worthy of impeachment. If failing to keep all campaign promises is just grounds, all presidents could be impeached.

Name a campaign promise Calvin Coolidge made that he didn't keep.