Say what you want about Trump, and I do, he made a good speech here

[Anti Globalist]

How is that binding on Republicans? And since when are they not concerned with "electability"? When only one guy has ever been elected to non-consecutive terms, it was well over a hundred years ago, he was a Democrat and no one remembers his name, you'd think that would give them pause.

Cleveland would probably be remembered more if he was able to turn the country around after getting reelected and having two successful terms under his belt. Instead his second term was awful and the country continued to decline and get worse. There's no doubt in my mind that a hypothetical second term of Trump would play out just like Cleveland's did.

[nobody's_hero]

And that is the only instance I know of a Republican ex-president running for the office again. This is history people want to relive?

That would depend on who is getting spoiled.

If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run 3rd party, 4th party, 10th party if he has to.

[TheTexan]

That would depend on who is getting spoiled.

If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run 3rd party, 4th party, 10th party if he has to.

Hillary Clinton was an awful horrible demon of a creature

but at least her name wasn't "Liz"

[PAF]

That would depend on who is getting spoiled.

If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run 3rd party, 4th party, 10th party if he has to.

Evil versus Evil. What a way to win! Wanna know why this country continually spirals downward? It’s not only “voting”, but the mentality people have which opposes liberty, freedom and any eensy weensy sense of fiscal responsibility.

But hey, it’s “fun”. Right? At this country and others expense.

[Anti Globalist]

And that is the only instance I know of a Republican ex-president running for the office again. This is history people want to relive?

If you're referring to Trump running third party like Teddy did, I very much doubt that will happen.

If you're referring to making a giant political mistake that sets the country back even further, then I agree that it shouldn't be relived.

[acptulsa]

That would depend on who is getting spoiled.

If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run 3rd party, 4th party, 10th party if he has to.

Darth's daughter already proved she needs no help to lose an election.

[Brian4Liberty]

Ron Paul Forums Mission Statement

Is your point that Trump would likely say everything on that page on any given day?

Perhaps we should have a fresh poll to determine whether or not 2022 Trump is a liberty candidate.

We probably need a poll to determine if we should have a poll. Based upon properly selected and hand picked rhetoric, Trump is ultra-liberty. He is the libertiest politician since George Washington.

[vita3]

This site sucks balls because it can’t talk about anything else but HIM

Put a fork in him

[nobody's_hero]

Evil versus Evil. What a way to win! Wanna know why this country continually spirals downward? It’s not only “voting”, but the mentality people have which opposes liberty, freedom and any eensy weensy sense of fiscal responsibility.

But hey, it’s “fun”. Right? At this country and others expense.

Well if you're starting out with the premise that Trump is "evil" then yeah, you've got an argument..

I'll meet you halfway and admit that he's an idiot. But if an idiot is all I have to stop Cheney and the neocons from regaining a foothold, then I'd use him without any reservation.

[nobody's_hero]

Darth's daughter already proved she needs no help to lose an election.

Or she proved she needs "help" to win one. We're dealing with a president who was in a similar situation and they managed to make that happen.

This site sucks balls because it can’t talk about anything else but HIM

Put a fork in him

Talking about him, even negatively, means you like him, so I've been told.

[PAF]

Well if you're starting out with the premise that Trump is "evil" then yeah, you've got an argument..

Even though he may at times "speak the lingo" to the "right" crowd, Trump is an opportunist with Far-Left views and agendas. His record speaks for itself. Whether you want to admit, or peek at his record, or not, that is your choice. Finding joy in even saying "If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run" just shows an example of how people have no principles or moral fiber, which affects other people, as far as how his country is being managed.

That is not an argument, by the way. It is an observation based upon the facts. Your views/actions are Anti-Liberty, which infringe on me and others who want to be left alone.

[PAF]

Is your point that Trump would likely say everything on that page on any given day?

It was just a friendly reminder for others on this forum to read and consider why we're here.

We probably need a poll to determine if we should have a poll. Based upon properly selected and hand picked rhetoric, Trump is ultra-liberty. He is the libertiest politician since George Washington.

Yep.

After local and council meetings are over, I'll say things like; if you absolutely insist on "voting", Vote the Record, Not the Rhetoric. They look at me like I belong in the loony bin. So then I throw my hands up like what's the use, but then end up going to those meeting again for some strange reason. And it never fails, they ask me "so will you vote for Trump in 2024?".

[nobody's_hero]

Even though he may at times "speak the lingo" to the "right" crowd, Trump is an opportunist with Far-Left views and agendas. His record speaks for itself. Whether you want to admit, or peek at his record, or not, that is your choice. Finding joy in even saying "If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run" just shows an example of how people have no principles or moral fiber, which affects other people, as far as how his country is being managed.

That is not an argument, by the way. It is an observation based upon the facts. Your views/actions are Anti-Liberty, which infringe on me and others who want to be left alone.

Well, suppose Liz does get installed like Biden. Who will be 'speaking the lingo to the right crowd' then? Or is it more likely that we go back to the days of 'rah rah USA let's invade the world.'?

That would quite honestly be a step backwards, IMO. At least right now you have republicans talking about things like non-interventionism. In 2008 that discussion never happened.

If their neocon buddies win back the right, the war in Ukraine will become a republican war (people like Lindsey Graham are already struggling to make it so).

To me, the message is more important than the messenger, but I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on that and probably never will.

[PAF]

Well, suppose Liz does get installed like Biden. Who will be 'speaking the lingo to the right crowd' then? Or is it more likely that we go back to the days of 'rah rah USA let's invade the world.'?

That would quite honestly be a step backwards, IMO. At least right now you have republicans talking about things like non-interventionism. In 2008 that discussion never happened.

If their neocon buddies win back the right, the war in Ukraine will become a republican war (people like Lindsey Graham are already struggling to make it so).

To me, the message is more important than the messenger, but I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on that and probably never will.

Oh, well, in THAT case, let's do another round of lining the pockets of the corrupt pharm complex, Bill Gates and other Globalist Agendas and spend Trillions and Trillions more! I'll be THRILLED to sacrifice my own principles and go DEEPER in debt "for the right cause" just like everybody has done the past couple of hundred years! /SARC

@nobody's_hero, get one thing straight: I am NOT a STATIST. I will never settle for lesser of evils, because Evil is Evil, and the first rule of being libertarian/Agorsist is NEVER infringe upon others.

[acptulsa]

To me, the message is more important than the messenger, but I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on that and probably never will.

Sooner or later, something has to get done. If nobody ever buckles down and actually does something, everything goes to hell.

When was the last time you saw a salesman buckle down and actually get something done?

A lot of Republicans think as you do. A lot. A whole lot. Always have. And lo and behold, everything has gone to hell.

[nobody's_hero]

Oh, well, in THAT case, let's do another round of lining the pockets of the corrupt pharm complex, Bill Gates and other Globalist Agendas and spend Trillions and Trillions more! I'll be THRILLED to sacrifice my own principles and go DEEPER in debt "for the right cause" just like everybody has done the past couple of hundred years! /SARC

@nobody's_hero, get one thing straight: I am NOT a STATIST. I will never settle for lesser of evils, because Evil is Evil, and the first rule of being libertarian/Agorsist is NEVER infringe upon others.

Well, you'd get all of that PLUS war against Russia with Liz so . . . it's still a weighted decision. If you don't think it's worth it, that's your right to determine. However your arguments fall short when you assume from the outset that everyone agrees with the fundamentals, which we don't.

You think Trump is evil. I don't.

So everything after that is pretty much branching off your opinion.

[PAF]

Well, you'd get all of that PLUS war against Russia with Liz so . . . it's still a weighted decision. If you don't think it's worth it, that's your right to determine. However your arguments fall short when you assume from the outset that everyone agrees with the fundamentals, which we don't.

I don't assume anything. Fundamentals are of the utmost of importance, yet never considered, which is why this country is in the shape that it is in.

You think Trump is evil. I don't.

How about that, we agree on something!

So everything after that is pretty much branching off your opinion.

Reality. Even when living it, people for the most part [and statists] love delusion.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't assume anything. Fundamentals are of the utmost of importance, yet never considered, which is why this country is in the shape that it is in.



How about that, we agree on something!



Reality. Even when living it, people for the most part [and statists] love delusion.

Well I think we've reached the end of any possible constructive good that would come of this conversation. You sound quite liberal, IMO, when you resort to declaring 'reality' over a situation as a short-cut to winning a debate. Feels like TYT hijacked your keyboard.

[PAF]

Well I think we've reached the end of any possible constructive good that would come of this conversation. You sound quite liberal, IMO, when you resort to declaring 'reality' over a situation as a short-cut to winning a debate.

The only possible constructive good that would come of anything is to see the Orange Man for what he really is, based upon the record, do a little soul-searching, and think about what liberty and fiscal responsibility really mean.

"Winning a debate". Well, I am not debating, I am calling it exactly like I see it.

You expect me to sacrifice [debate] my principles and bow down to your way of doing things, when it was your way the past couple of hundred years that got us into this mess in the first place.

[Occam's Banana]

Finding joy in even saying "If Liz Cheney gets the GOP nomination, I'd love for Trump to run" just shows an example of how people have no principles or moral fiber [...]

I would absolutely love it if Cheney got the GOP nomination and Trump ran 3rd party.

(I am heavily invested in popcorn futures - and popcorn just happens to be an excellent source of fiber.)

[PAF]

I would absolutely love it if Cheney got the GOP nomination and Trump ran 3rd party.

(I am heavily invested in popcorn futures - and popcorn just happens to be an excellent source of fiber.)

LOL

[nobody's_hero]

The only possible constructive good that would come of anything is to see the Orange Man for what he really is, based upon the record, do a little soul-searching, and think about what liberty and fiscal responsibility really mean.

"Winning a debate". Well, I am not debating, I am calling it exactly like I see it.

You expect me to sacrifice [debate] my principles and bow down to your way of doing things, when it was your way the past couple of hundred years that got us into this mess in the first place.

What is "my way of doing things" as you see it? Let's establish some fundamentals there.

Is it:

ultimately voting for Trump because most of us were so busy focused on Trump Trump Trump that we missed any possible opportunity to run a better primary candidate in 2024?

Because, spoiler alert, that's what we're setting ourselves up for here.

Y'all like to say that people talking about Trump 'promotes' him, but even YOU can't resist it. Obviously you aren't motivated by personal support for him, so is it at all possible that others (like editors for MSM outlets, or the people who tell them what to publish) also don't like him . . . but just can't resist talking about him?

[acptulsa]

You think Trump is evil. I don't.

Funding the poison jab. Trying to get Massie to lay off and let Pelosi suspend the Constitution. Trying to drive Massie out of the party after he didn't cooperate.

He's not evil? Okay. He still does evil. I say evil is as evil does. I say winking at evil doers and making excuses, and "sending messages", has resulted in a nation severely damaged and enduring sabotage daily.

We definitely agree to disagree on something. But I disagree about what that is. We disagree on just how much longer this country can survive its conservatives, the keepers of the faith, the people who supposedly concern themselves with the good traditions that made this country what it is, being forgiving, good-natured chuckleheads more interested in charisma and feel-good rallies (and denying in their own minds that they aren't as good judges of character as they hope) than in repairing the major malfunctions that are dooming the Hope of the World to the abyss.

Y'all like to say that people talking about Trump 'promotes' him, but even YOU can't resist it. Obviously you aren't motivated by personal support for him, so is it at all possible that others (like editors for MSM outlets, or the people who tell them what to publish) also don't like him . . . but just can't resist talking about him?

No. That's not possible.

One, a whole lot of people were talking about Ron Paul by 2012, but the media still managed to report only who came in first, second and a distant fourth in Iowa. Those people are paid to talk about who they're paid to talk about, and paid not to talk about who they're paid not to talk about. And they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that this system works. Remember Tucker Carlson walking out of the Rally for the Republic the moment Ventura mentioned 9/11? Have you ever heard him mention that day?

Two, your theory doesn't explain how every Republican primary challenger in 2016 (like, about sixteen of them) was asked questions about Trump (and only Trump) by every MSM outlet that deigned to speak to them at all, and they kept repeating the question to every candidate who refused to talk about him until the time was up.

Three, we aren't starting these conversations about Trump, and we aren't hijacking conversations over to Trump. The MSM, together with shylls, are.

My friend, these are facts. Clear-eyed facts. You can deny facts, but they're persistent. You can use mental gymnastics to explain it all away, but that gives me a headache, and does no one any good. So, yeah, if I'm not doing mental gymnastics means we're going to disagree, then that's that.

We've been watching Republicans driven to the worst candidate, usually through reverse psychology, like herd animals decade after decade. You act like reverse psychology isn't a thing, but every three year old knows better. Somebody has to point out that if it happens one more time, you can stick a fork in the country and you'll find it's done. Now. How the living $#@! are we supposed to do that without pointing out the fatal flaws of the $#@!er the MSM is using to suck all the oxygen out of the room?

[PAF]

What is "my way of doing things" as you see it? Let's establish some fundamentals there.

Is it:

ultimately voting for Trump because most of us were so busy focused on Trump Trump Trump that we missed any possible opportunity to run a better primary candidate in 2024?

Because, spoiler alert, that's what we're setting ourselves up for here.

Y'all like to say that people talking about Trump 'promotes' him, but even YOU can't resist it. Obviously you aren't motivated by personal support for him, so is it at all possible that others (like editors for MSM outlets, or the people who tell them what to publish) also don't like him . . . but just can't resist talking about him?

You missed the millionth time when I said I don't vote anymore. It's not about "votes". It's about the mindset of the people. It's about how much they are willing to sacrifice for a few breadcrumbs here and there. It's about as long as their "side" wins, because that is what is engrained into their shallow minds.

Just imagine for a moment that if folks like me, @acptulsa, and a few others on this board who hold them fully accountable, were the norm rather than the exception. The r3volution in '08 and '12 was a good start. But few grew beyond that, and instead of embracing individualism looked to politicians to solve their problems. People like you settle for the likes of Trump, now DeSantis, instead of helping to educate others about the foundations of liberty. It is nothing new, it has gone on for thousands of years. And look at the result. You believe that playing their time-tested and proven game of 1 baby-step forward and 4 steps back will somehow advance liberty and fiscal responsibility. Well, I've got news for you, anytime you sacrifice one thing, you are sure to sacrifice others. That is why lines in the sand are never drawn and tptb win.

Why do I bring up the New York Fascist Lib? Because since it doesn't matter who runs or becomes president, my goal is to try to educate others to at least look at records - if they feel that they must "vote" for somebody to control their lives.

[Brian4Liberty]

This site sucks balls because it can’t talk about anything else but HIM

Put a fork in him

Hmm. Let’s see, in a thread that was not about Trump, who brings up Trump?

Trump really was effective crime fighter

Oh I mean awesome tweeter & the best political concert rocker, ever!

[Occam's Banana]

Just imagine for a moment that if folks like me, @acptulsa, and a few others on this board who hold them fully accountable, were the norm rather than the exception.

Such people will always be the exception, and will never be the norm.

Most people (i.e., the general population) are not animated by such issues. Even among those who are, many are not sufficiently animated to do much, if anything, about it (apart from gestures such as voting, responding to polls, expressing their opinions on social media, waving signs at protests, etc.). [And please note that I do not exclude myself from this.]

Any difference that is ever actually made is always made by proverbial "irate, tireless minorities" - by means ranging from active non-compliance to the application of whatever power or influence they might have (or, ultimately, to open and violent resistance) - and in contrast to the (effective) indifference of the masses (who, in the end, will simply submit and comply, more or less grudgingly, with whatever outcome eventuates).

Fortunately for the prospects for liberty - and depending on circumstances - less than a plurality (let alone a majority) may well be enough to produce effective change.

Unfortunately, the same also goes for the enemies of liberty.

[pcosmar]

This site sucks balls because it can’t talk about anything else but HIM

Put a fork in him

Observation

I see Trump Rallies, and Crowds of people everywhere he shows.

And I have seen his Opposition.



Who do you want to hang with really??

[PAF]

Such people will always be the exception, and will never be the norm.

Most people (i.e., the general population) are not animated by such issues. Even among those who are, many are not sufficiently animated to do much, if anything, about it (apart from gestures such as voting, responding to polls, expressing their opinions on social media, waving signs at protests, etc.). [And please note that I do not exclude myself from this.]

Any difference that is ever actually made is always made by proverbial "irate, tireless minorities" - by means ranging from active non-compliance to the application of whatever power or influence they might have (or, ultimately, to open and violent resistance) - and in contrast to the (effective) indifference of the masses (who, in the end, will simply submit and comply, more or less grudgingly, with whatever outcome eventuates).

Fortunately for the prospects for liberty - and depending on circumstances - less than a plurality (let alone a majority) may well be enough to produce effective change.

Unfortunately, the same also goes for the enemies of liberty.

Which is why it is important for the few of us to keep the spark lit, else to the abyss it goes.

[acptulsa]

Which is why it is important for the few of us to keep the spark lit, else to the abyss it goes.

Telling the truth is no way to ingratiate yourself to people, but somebody had better do it.

[vita3]

Hmm. Let’s see, in a thread that was not about Trump, who brings up Trump?

Wtf are you talking about? Original post was video with T R U M P