If I were Donald Trump this is who I would pick for both administration and justices

[dude58677]

Vice President: Rand Paul
Attorney General: Rudy Guilani
Secretary of Defense: Pat Buchanan
Secretary of State: Newt Gingrinch
Department of Education: Betsy Devos
Office of Management and Budget: Walter Williams
Department of Treasury: Peter Schiff
FBI director: John Walsh from America’s Most Wanted
Press Secretary: Bobby Knight
Solicitor General: Mark Levine

Supreme Court Justices:
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Larry Becraft

[PAF]

Vice President: Rand Paul
Attorney General: Rudy Guilani
Secretary of Defense: Pat Buchanan
Secretary of State: Newt Gingrinch
Department of Education: Betsy Devos
Office of Management and Budget: Walter Williams
Department of Treasury: Peter Schiff
FBI director: John Walsh from America’s Most Wanted
Press Secretary: Bobby Knight
Solicitor General: Mark Levine

Supreme Court Justices:
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Larry Becraft

Half of that list is SWAMP.

Are you a good little "republican"?

[RJB]

The only person I would trust with those positions and that power over me is...
well...
me.

[dude58677]

Half of that list is SWAMP.

Are you a good little "republican"?

So you think half would be backstabbers?

[PAF]

The only person I would trust with those positions and that power over me is...
well...
me.

+ REP

So you think half would be backstabbers?

I'll give you two freebies for starters.



Ted Cruz. He has been slipping every year, and this year confirms that he votes with democrats 50% of the time. He is a SHILL.


Mark Levin. His Let's-Pretend-They-Are "Liberty" Amendments would legalize what is currently forbidden in the Constitution. He is a SHILL.


Hopefully you will dig up On The Record Dirt on the others. You did name a couple of decent ones, but as an Agorist, all politicians and parties are aggression toward others.


Here, I'll throw a third one out there for you:


Newt Gingrinch On the Record

[dude58677]

+ REP




I'll give you two freebies for starters.


Ted Cruz. He has been slipping every year, and this year confirms that he votes with democrats 50% of the time. He is a SHILL.


Mark Levin. His Let's-Pretend-They-Are "Liberty" Amendments would legalize what is currently forbidden in the Constitution. He is a SHILL.


Hopefully you will dig up On The Record Dirt on the others. You did name a couple of decent ones, but as an Agorist, all politicians and parties are aggression toward others.

I didn’t realize that Ted Cruz was that bad. The OP was that what would I do if I WERE Donald Trump I would take Rudy Guilani because as a close friend of Donald Trump then as a personal favor he would throw all these corrupt Democrats in jail. Mark Levin is a shill you are right.

[PAF]

I didn’t realize that Ted Cruz was that bad. The OP was that what would I do if I WERE Donald Trump I would take Rudy Guilani because as a close friend of Donald Trump then as a personal favor he would throw all these corrupt Democrats in jail. Mark Levin is a shill you are right.

Did you get the Newt Gingrich one that I added above?


Walter Williams: RIP


Donald Trump is a shill himself.


Here's a great one, Ron Paul versus Rudy. After you're done, check out the link in my sig ;-)

[PAF]

Betsy's Education record looks pretty good, however the following should be noted:


Betsy Devos On The Record


- DeVos personally raised more than $150,000 for the 2004 Bush re-election campaign, and hosted a Republican fundraiser at her home in October 2008 that was headlined by President George W. Bush. During the Bush Administration she spent two years as the finance chairperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and worked closely with the Administration on "various projects". The DeVos family has been active in Republican politics for decades, particularly as donors to candidates and the party, giving more than $17 million to political candidates and committees since 1989.


- During the Republican Party presidential primaries for the 2016 election, DeVos initially donated to Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina before eventually supporting Marco Rubio.


- DeVos is chairwoman of the Windquest Group, a privately held operating group that invests in technology, manufacturing, and clean energy. DeVos and her husband founded it in 1989. With a commitment of $100 million, Betsy DeVos's family was one of the largest investors—and losers—in blood-testing company Theranos.


- Betsy and her husband Dick are chief investors in and board members of Neurocore, a group of brain performance centers offering biofeedback therapy for disorders such as depression, attention deficit disorder, autism, and anxiety. The therapy consists of showing movies to patients and interrupting them when they become distracted, in an effort to retrain their brains. According to The New York Times, a review of Neurocore's claims and interviews with medical experts suggest that the company's conclusions are unproven and its methods questionable.


- DeVos announced that she would step down from the company's board but would retain her investment in the company, valued at $5 million to $25 million.


- Truth In Advertising filed complaints against Neurocore with the Food and Drug Administration for unapproved medical devices and the Federal Trade Commission for deceptive marketing.


- Former presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney respectively called DeVos an "outstanding pick" and a "smart choice"


- According to DeVos's 2018 financial disclosure form certified by the Office of Government Ethics on December 3, 2018, she had not divested from twenty-four assets required under her signed ethics agreement nearly 22 months after being confirmed in February 2017.


- In May 2019, the Education Department Inspector General released a report concluding that DeVos had used personal email accounts to conduct government business and that she did not properly preserve these emails.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos

[RJ Liberty]

Vice President: Rand Paul
Attorney General: Rudy Guilani
Secretary of Defense: Pat Buchanan
Secretary of State: Newt Gingrinch
Department of Education: Betsy Devos
Office of Management and Budget: Walter Williams
Department of Treasury: Peter Schiff
FBI director: John Walsh from America’s Most Wanted
Press Secretary: Bobby Knight
Solicitor General: Mark Levine

Supreme Court Justices:
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Larry Becraft

The only place Donald Trump is going to be picking his second term administration from is a mental ward.

[showpan]

ok, besides me...lol...which was already mentioned by somebody else.

It would be very hard to compile a list of true liberty constitutionalists.

Ted Cruz imho would be a decent choice, he does NOT have a 50% as suggested.

http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/ted-cruz

Of course Rand Paul would be an obvious choice even though he has disappointed me time and again by voting for such things as sanctions many times. Sanctions are still and always will be an act of war.

Giuliani, Sydney Powell and Gen Flynn no doubt will all find themselves in senior positions within trumps next administration.
I would also contend that a few others might too such as Mastriano just for their sheer loyalty and willingness to fight the deep state neocons.

[Sammy]

My list:
Vice President: Pat Buchanan
Attorney General: Tucker Carlson
Secretary of Defense: Douglas MacGregor
Secretary of State: Rand Paul
Department of Education: Paul Gottfried
Office of Management and Budget: Ron Paul
Department of Treasury: Peter Schiff
FBI director: Michael scheuer
Press Secretary: Nick Fuentes
Solicitor General: I don't know

[dude58677]

Betsy's Education record looks pretty good, however the following should be noted:


Betsy Devos On The Record


- DeVos personally raised more than $150,000 for the 2004 Bush re-election campaign, and hosted a Republican fundraiser at her home in October 2008 that was headlined by President George W. Bush. During the Bush Administration she spent two years as the finance chairperson for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and worked closely with the Administration on "various projects". The DeVos family has been active in Republican politics for decades, particularly as donors to candidates and the party, giving more than $17 million to political candidates and committees since 1989.


- During the Republican Party presidential primaries for the 2016 election, DeVos initially donated to Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina before eventually supporting Marco Rubio.


- DeVos is chairwoman of the Windquest Group, a privately held operating group that invests in technology, manufacturing, and clean energy. DeVos and her husband founded it in 1989. With a commitment of $100 million, Betsy DeVos's family was one of the largest investors—and losers—in blood-testing company Theranos.


- Betsy and her husband Dick are chief investors in and board members of Neurocore, a group of brain performance centers offering biofeedback therapy for disorders such as depression, attention deficit disorder, autism, and anxiety. The therapy consists of showing movies to patients and interrupting them when they become distracted, in an effort to retrain their brains. According to The New York Times, a review of Neurocore's claims and interviews with medical experts suggest that the company's conclusions are unproven and its methods questionable.


- DeVos announced that she would step down from the company's board but would retain her investment in the company, valued at $5 million to $25 million.


- Truth In Advertising filed complaints against Neurocore with the Food and Drug Administration for unapproved medical devices and the Federal Trade Commission for deceptive marketing.


- Former presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney respectively called DeVos an "outstanding pick" and a "smart choice"


- According to DeVos's 2018 financial disclosure form certified by the Office of Government Ethics on December 3, 2018, she had not divested from twenty-four assets required under her signed ethics agreement nearly 22 months after being confirmed in February 2017.


- In May 2019, the Education Department Inspector General released a report concluding that DeVos had used personal email accounts to conduct government business and that she did not properly preserve these emails.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsy_DeVos

That’s ad hominem regarding Betsy. A solid record is enough and it is more than enough. She is the first person in 170 years to end compulsory schooling by instituting distance learning in public schools.

Regarding Rudy Guilani, that’s why he should be attorney general and not secretary of defense. I can see him putting Hillary in jail.

Oh and Ted Cruz actually isn’t that bad. He did not agree with Democrats 50 percent of the time.

[Anti Globalist]

My picks for administration and justice would all have to be people that are anti-war.

[PAF]

That’s ad hominem regarding Betsy. A solid record is enough and it is more than enough. She is the first person in 170 years to end compulsory schooling by instituting distance learning in public schools.

Regarding Rudy Guilani, that’s why he should be attorney general and not secretary of defense. I can see him putting Hillary in jail.

Oh and Ted Cruz actually isn’t that bad. He did not agree with Democrats 50 percent of the time.

That is why I made it a point to say:

Betsy's Education record looks pretty good

Rudy, Hitlery... Friends like that don't put friends in jail.

I will rephrase: Ted Cruz voted against the Constitution 50% of the time. If you think Ted "isn't that bad", don't cry about about the Constitution not being adhered to.

Anyway, I no longer vote state/federal. I may vote local, depending on who is running.

I'll let you guys figure out the rest; voting is a very nice sentiment ;-)

[PAF]

ok, besides me...lol...which was already mentioned by somebody else.

It would be very hard to compile a list of true liberty constitutionalists.

Ted Cruz imho would be a decent choice, he does NOT have a 50% as suggested.

http://congress.freedomworks.org/legislators/ted-cruz

Of course Rand Paul would be an obvious choice even though he has disappointed me time and again by voting for such things as sanctions many times. Sanctions are still and always will be an act of war.

Giuliani, Sydney Powell and Gen Flynn no doubt will all find themselves in senior positions within trumps next administration.
I would also contend that a few others might too such as Mastriano just for their sheer loyalty and willingness to fight the deep state neocons.

LOL you use FreedomWorks LOL


While FW is not too bad, Freedom Index is far more accountable:

https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-i...gislator/17574


See my post #14

[showpan]

LOL you use FreedomWorks LOL


While FW is not too bad, Freedom Index is far more accountable:

https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-i...gislator/17574


See my post #14

lol...it was there. The big one for me is the war powers act, FISA is a close 2nd. He is still not as bad as most of them....lol

[Invisible Man]

So you think half would be backstabbers?

It wouldn't be considered backstabbing if the tyranny they imposed was exactly what Trump wanted from them in the first place.

But here's a good experiment you could do.

Search up the names on your list on this forum, and look at what people here said about most of them in 2008-2012. Granted, you picked out a few allies of the liberty movement to include. But most of them are people who devoted their entire careers to unmitigated statism who did all they could to shut down Ron Paul.

[PAF]

lol...it was there. The big one for me is the war powers act, FISA is a close 2nd. He is still not as bad as most of them....lol

My take is that anytime the Constitution is violated, even by one single vote, it cascades into many other problems. Given the overall records of all politicians, and when I used to "vote", I lowered my threshold to 90% as a cut-off. After soul-searching and consideration, that 90% is every bit as destructive as folks with a 50%, or 10% record.

It is not difficult to open and read the Constitution, certainly with the many aids working for them, and simply vote the "Law of the Land" 100% of the time. It is, after all THE LAW.

If Ron did it, and Tom Massie does it, there is absolutely no excuse not to vote the Constitution every time. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, they are treasonous to the Constitution. Which I will not give consent to.

Though I no longer vote and never will again, I still contact representatives on BOTH sides of the aisle. I let them know what is Constitutional, and how I want them to vote on the house/senate floor. When they ask what "party" I belong, my response is "I am a constituent".

Politicians care only about two things: 1. Money 2. Re-election.

Standing on principle is the most important thing one can do. If you do not, never expect your representatives to do so.

[Invisible Man]

If Ron did it, and Tom Massie does it, there is absolutely no excuse not to vote the Constitution every time. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, they are treasonous to the Constitution. Which I will not give consent to.

If you're an anarchist, as I understand, then shouldn't there be cases where you would positively support violation of the Constitution, which is, after all, a statist compact?

[PAF]

If you're an anarchist, as I understand, then shouldn't there be cases where you would positively support violation of the Constitution, which is, after all, a statist compact?

Like STATIST government where there are FACTIONS such as republican, democrat, independent, which is aggression toward others, there are factions of anarchists. My faction is Agorist who promotes true free-markets, voluntarism and abides by the non-aggression principle, which provides for self-defense.

See the link in my sig. Page 46 talks about ways to "starve the state", which I do every day of my life.

[Invisible Man]

Like STATIST government where there are FACTIONS such as republican, democrat, independent, which is aggression toward others, there are factions of anarchists. My faction is Agorist who promotes true free-markets, voluntarism and abides by the non-aggression principle, which provides for self-defense.

See the link in my sig. Page 46 talks about ways to "starve the state", which I do every day of my life.

OK, without having yet read that link, doesn't the strategy you follow at least in some cases positively support violation of the US Constitution?

[PAF]

OK, without having yet read that link, doesn't the strategy you follow at least in some cases positively support violation of the US Constitution?

Yes. There are many flaws in the Constitution. Nevertheless, it is the Law of the Land. I believe that if politicians and their voting constituents can somehow return to the Constitution with some semblance of morals, then we can address its many flaws. For now, the Constitution is the only government lawful tool, but it must be adhered to 100% of the time. Otherwise, all bets are off.

One example of its flaws: The Bill of Rights are merely an outline of our Natural Rights. The writers of the Bills of Rights either 1. Forgot or 2. Intentionally omitted, repercussion for those who violate them. There are many more examples.

[Ender]

It wouldn't be considered backstabbing if the tyranny they imposed was exactly what Trump wanted from them in the first place.

But here's a good experiment you could do.

Search up the names on your list on this forum, and look at what people here said about most of them in 2008-2012. Granted, you picked out a few allies of the liberty movement to include. But most of them are people who devoted their entire careers to unmitigated statism who did all they could to shut down Ron Paul.

Exactly.

OK, without having yet read that link, doesn't the strategy you follow at least in some cases positively support violation of the US Constitution?

As far as the Constitution goes, the Anti-Federalists were right. The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to take over the states with a strong central government. It has worked perfectly.

[PAF]

Exactly.



As far as the Constitution goes, the Anti-Federalists were right. The Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup to take over the states with a strong central government. It has worked perfectly.

+++++ REP +++++

[Invisible Man]

Yes. There are many flaws in the Constitution. Nevertheless, it is the Law of the Land. I believe that if politicians and their voting constituents can somehow return to the Constitution with some semblance of morals, then we can address its many flaws. For now, the Constitution is the only government lawful tool, but it must be adhered to 100% of the time. Otherwise, all bets are off.

One example of its flaws: The Bill of Rights are merely an outline of our Natural Rights. The writers of the Bills of Rights either 1. Forgot or 2. Intentionally omitted, repercussion for those who violate them. There are many more examples.

I don't accept the premise that the Constitution is the law of the land. Without trying to derail the thread, I would ask if there is a non-circular way of supporting the claim that it is (i.e. something other than the fact that the Constitution itself says it is).

But to put more specificity to my earlier question in a way that hopefully highlights why I think it was worth asking, consider the following.

The Constitution obligates the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Now, we can rightly I think limit this only to those laws that are actually constitutional in the first place, and which neither exercise any powers that are not expressly delegated to the federal government, nor any which are expressly denied to it.

But even with that limitation, there are many laws which are fully within the limits set by the Constitution, which the Constitution obligates the president to execute faithfully. These include unjust laws.

For example, the Constitution permits a wide range of taxes. And it permits that the funds raised by these taxes be spent on a wide range of things, including such blatantly indefensible statist things as a federal post office, among others.

Each person's highest duty is to obey the law of justice (which is, I would submit, truly the only law of this land and all lands). This is the duty of the US President as much as it is everyone else's. Therefore, if justice obligates the US President to disobey the US Constitution, such as by refusing to execute faithfully an unjust but constitutional law, then violating the US Constitution is what the President must do.

[PAF]

I don't accept the premise that the Constitution is the law of the land. Without trying to derail the thread, I would ask if there is a non-circular way of supporting the claim that it is (i.e. something other than the fact that the Constitution itself says it is).

But to put more specificity to my earlier question in a way that hopefully highlights why I think it was worth asking, consider the following.

The Constitution obligates the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Now, we can rightly I think limit this only to those laws that are actually constitutional in the first place, and which neither exercise any powers that are not expressly delegated to the federal government, nor any which are expressly denied to it.

But even with that limitation, there are many laws which are fully within the limits set by the Constitution, which, the Constitution obligates the president to execute faithfully. These include unjust laws.

For example, the Constitution permits a wide range of taxes. And it permits that the funds raised by these taxes be spent on a wide range of things, including such blatantly indefensible statist things as a federal post office, among others.

Each person's highest duty is to obey the law of justice (which is, I would submit, truly the only law of this land and all lands). This is the duty of the US President as much as it is everyone else's. Therefore, if justice obligates the US President to disobey the US Constitution, such as by refusing to execute faithfully an unjust but constitutional law, then violating the US Constitution is what the President must do.

+ REP

I don't remember exchanging dialogue with you before, but it appears that you are way above the curve :-) If only more folks can think this way, instead of blindly voting the party line and taking one for the team.


Edit to say: I never signed that contract, and I no longer vote ;-)