PEACE, RPF, PEACE PLEASE

[openfire]

Still waiting for an explanation for why we noninterventionists should support an alliance with Russia.

You are aware that the neocons are at war with Russia, right?

That working with Russia to resolve problems is preferable to fighting them should be self evident, but that's a topic for another thread that gets into geopolitics that I would be happy to participate in.

But the point is that you said:

You can't actually point to anything from Trump himself that indicates that he disagrees with neoconservative foreign policy.

I gave you a very good example.

[HVACTech]

He openly mentions, wholeheartedly, the Constitution and National Sovereignty, did you miss those?



"Did you get the memo?"

yes. since at least 2007. Ron Paul has been about "reclaiming" the Republic. and "restoring the CONstitution"

why would he do that.. if they were in effect toady or the cause of our problems?

clearly we have lost both. and Ron wants them back!

[enhanced_deficit]

Until this site becomes unanimously anti-Trump, we still need to do more work at belittling those people.

Do you support "belittling" of their supporters until this place becomes unanimously anti-Obama, anti-Cruz, anti-Rubio, anti-Hillary, anti-Sanders also?

If not, do you see these politicians as better than Trump?

At least some of them have already been involved in droning/killing of innocent children and contributing to massive bloodshed of civilians and are confirmed puppets of war mongering tyrants/money baggers etc.

[CPUd]

[surf]

You have a problem with Trump, make your case, post a link, and that should be it.

I could fill up 3 pages with links that make a strong case backing up my case that trump is a short-dick-lying-stupid-warmonger-$#@! if that's what you're looking for from a long-time liberty proponent....

honestly, to see any support here for such an idiotic authoritarian $#@! here is very disappointing. pointing out errors is about the only enjoyable thing left of this clowncluster$#@! until I can vote for Johnson in Nov.

[CPUd]

I could fill up 3 pages with links that make a strong case backing up my case that trump is a short-$#@!-lying-stupid-warmonger-$#@! if that's what you're looking for from a long-time liberty proponent....

honestly, to see any support here for such an idiotic authoritarian $#@! here is very disappointing. pointing out errors is about the only enjoyable thing left of this clowncluster$#@! until I can vote for Johnson in Nov.

There is such a thread here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-(POTUS)

[hankrichter12]

The problem is, even at this point, we still have people coming here and imagining that they are somehow advancing the same cause we were advancing by supporting Ron Paul when they support Donald Trump.

Until this site becomes unanimously anti-Trump, we still need to do more work at belittling those people.

Oh, I think what you just said sums up the problem. People such as yourself have gone ahead and appointed yourselves the arbiters as far as what path we all must take with regards to shrinking the govt and what we are allowed to say and not say.

I believe the man who runs this site is named Bryan correct, if he feels speaking about or presenting ideas as to how Trump could and has been good for liberty are inappropriate than he can shut down those conversations, if it's his site I will respect his wishes, but so far I have not seen him agree with your definition of what people are allowed to say here.

Notice how you have to resort to this enemy of my enemy nonsense.

You can't actually point to anything from Trump himself that indicates that he disagrees with neoconservative foreign policy. Because he doesn't.

And that wouldn't be enough anyway. FDR, Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln weren't neoconservatives either. But it's not enough just to be something other than a neoconservative if you're still every bit as much of a war monger and tyrant.

Well, if nothing else he's already changed the conversation on it, and suppose he does war monger, you saying any of the others won't? Let's see, Trump maybe 50% chance we'll get a humble FP, Hillary and all the rest NO CHANCE - I'll take some chance over none.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

You're no fun.

Stir the pot, rock the boat, rattle cages, yank chains, polarize, make waves, etc.. All in all, have a good fun educational time here.

I'm all for good-natured fun, but would hate to see Ron Paull/libertarian supporters leave RPF for good over disagreements of supporting a presidential candidate.

[CPUd]

[erowe1]

You are aware that the neocons are at war with Russia, right?

Not necessarily. Take Trump, for example.

That working with Russia to resolve problems is preferable to fighting them should be self evident, but that's a topic for another thread that gets into geopolitics that I would be happy to participate in.

Noninterventionism would be preferable.

I gave you a very good example.

You did? How? I asked you to explain it and you still haven't.

It looks like your whole argument boils down to favoring Trump because he's an enemy of an enemy.

[erowe1]

Oh, I think what you just said sums up the problem. People such as yourself have gone ahead and appointed yourselves the arbiters as far as what path we all must take with regards to shrinking the govt and what we are allowed to say and not say.

The questions we're discussing here aren't about how to shrink government, but whether to. I (along with Ron Paul and this website) am for shrinking, and you are for expanding it.

[HVACTech]

I'm all for good-natured fun, but would hate to see Ron Paull/libertarian supporters leave RPF for good over disagreements of supporting a presidential candidate.

what you are not aware of. is that we have lost most our good members and also the DP.

there is NOTHING good natured about the "warrior truth" until he finds the absolute purest form of anarchy.

[erowe1]

your statement sir, presupposes that an "alliance" mandates "intervention"
it does not.

No it doesn't. Read it again, this time with comprehension.

[hankrichter12]

The questions we're discussing here aren't about how to shrink government, but whether to. I (along with Ron Paul and this website) am for shrinking, and you are for expanding it.

Never once advocated expanding govt, please do show me where I did........

what you are not aware of. is that we have lost most our good members and also the DP.

there is NOTHING good natured about the "warrior truth" until he finds the absolute purest form of anarchy.

Oh yeah, anarchy, a paradox that never has and never will happen.

[twomp]

There is compelling evidence and your proclamation to the contrary doesn't make it so. Explain this to me, then I might take your position seriously. Or call me a name, your choice.

Your move.

Trump just said the last debate that he would send 20,000 -30,000 troops into Syria genius. That's worse than Obama and guess what? Neocons hate Obama too!!

[erowe1]

Do you support "belittling" of their supporters until this place becomes unanimously anti-Obama, anti-Cruz, anti-Rubio, anti-Hillary, anti-Sanders also?

If not, do you see these politicians as better than Trump?

At least some of them have already been involved in droning/killing of innocent children and contributing to massive bloodshed of civilians and are confirmed puppets of war mongering tyrants/money baggers etc.

I support treating Trump supporters the same was we do supporters of the others you mentioned. As you can see, that's not what's happening here.

You should understand my use of "unanimous" as a slight exaggeration. Take it as 99%, if you want. Of course we should welcome outsiders who disagree with us and want to come here and discuss things and learn. And that's what how we should view Trump supporters and how they should view themselves.

Once we get to the point where that's the status they have here, all will be well.

[hankrichter12]

I support treating Trump supporters the same was we do supporters of the others you mentioned. As you can see, that's not what's happening here.

You should understand my use of "unanimous" as a slight exaggeration. Take it as 99%, if you want. Of course we should welcome outsiders who disagree with us and want to come here and discuss things and learn. And that's what how we should view Trump supporters and how they should view themselves.

Once we get to the point where that's the status they have here, all will be well.

So we all must share your view of Trump and how to treat Trump supporters or we are in the wrong and in need of fixing, boy, for someone who complains of tyranny you are quite the little dictator.

[openfire]

Trump just said the last debate that he would send 20,000 -30,000 troops into Syria genius. That's worse than Obama and guess what? Neocons hate Obama too!!

To destroy ISIS genius. ISIS = neocon proxy army.

[twomp]

To destroy ISIS genius. ISIS = neocon proxy army.

Oh yeah okay. Nice try at spinning. You lose.

[openfire]

Oh yeah okay. Nice try at spinning. You lose.

[enhanced_deficit]

I support treating Trump supporters the same was we do supporters of the others you mentioned. As you can see, that's not what's happening here.

So your answer to below question is "yes", if I'm reading your response correctly... granted "unanimous" will be flexible measure in such a stance.

"Do you support "belittling" of their supporters until this place becomes unanimously anti-Obama, anti-Cruz, anti-Rubio, anti-Hillary, anti-Sanders also?"

[erowe1]

Let's see, Trump maybe 50% chance we'll get a humble FP

The likelihood of anything at all about any of Trump's policies being humble is 0%, and it's lower odds than for any other candidate.

Admit it. The reason you support him is only about your views of race and nothing else.

[hankrichter12]

Can I keep that?

The likelihood of anything at all about any of Trump's policies being humble is 0%, and it's lower odds than for any other candidate.

Admit it. The reason you support him is only about your views of race and nothing else.

I'd admit anything at all if it was true. I don't deny my views on what I think the demographics of America should be, haven't once, but to suggest for a second they are my only concern, not even close. I actually have less faith in Trump with regards to the border than I do FP, but at least he's finally gotten the conversation in the public forum. The rest of your babble is not even worth replying to.

[HVACTech]

The questions we're discussing here aren't about how to shrink government, but whether to. I (along with Ron Paul and this website) am for shrinking, and you are for expanding it.

at least be honest Man. please?

you are NOT for "a limited state" your desire is for NO STATE at all.

[erowe1]

So your answer to below question is "yes", if I'm reading your response correctly... granted "unanimous" will be flexible measure in such a stance.

"Do you support "belittling" of their supporters until this place becomes unanimously anti-Obama, anti-Cruz, anti-Rubio, anti-Hillary, anti-Sanders also?"

Under current circumstances the answer is no. If we ever had a problem with them like we do now with Trump supporters, then under those circumstances it would be yes.

[erowe1]

at least be honest Man. please?

you are NOT for "a limited state" your desire is for NO STATE at all.

Of course I'm for no state. That's just what I said. At no point did I say or imply otherwise.

[Son_of_Liberty90]

what you are not aware of. is that we have lost most our good members and also the DP.

there is NOTHING good natured about the "warrior truth" until he finds the absolute purest form of anarchy.

That is unfortunate; then again, I just joined a month ago - I was only a lurker on thread topics not privy to RPF internal conflict.

[Smitty]

I'm tired of pickin' on the Trump people.

Hey!,...I know!

Let's go chase the Hare Krishnas out of the airport again!

[enhanced_deficit]

No justice, no peace!!!!

Kidding.

Time has come for Trump to receive Nobel Peace Prize.

[HVACTech]

Of course I'm for no state. That's just what I said. At no point did I say or imply otherwise.

like Ron Paul. I support restoring the original US constitution.
does that make me a "statist"? sir?