Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 307

Thread: Mike Lee Goes on Epic Anti-Trump Rant

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Good point. But we'll finally have that pesky immigration problem solved....look at the bright side.
    How? Are you leaving?
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    small government libertarian Donald Trump.
    It is obvious that Trump is not a libertarian. He's the republican nominee with statists policies of trade, immigration and world intervention. Many of his policies are left of Clinton.

    Is there any evidence that Trump wants smaller government? Is he reducing the height of the fence he is building around the country?

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by dean.engelhardt View Post
    It is obvious that Trump is not a libertarian. He's the republican nominee with statists policies of trade, immigration and world intervention. Many of his policies are left of Clinton.

    Is there any evidence that Trump wants smaller government? Is he reducing the height of the fence he is building around the country?
    LibertyEagle answered you, below. Opposing global trade bureaucracies is not a statist policy, it's less statist. Defending the borders from illegal/unvetted immigration is less statist than open borders, since the latter requires a bigger state (more welfare, more law enforcement to deal with increased crime, more CDC resources to deal with increased disease coming in from the unscreened, etc.). Opposing new wars in the Mideast and ending regime change/empire building means less world intervention, not more. Supporting ending Obamacare and other programs means less intervention or smaller government, not more, etc, etc.:

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Does Hillary want out of NAFTA?
    Does Hillary hate the Trans Pacific Partnership?
    Does Hillary want to get rid of the Dept of Education?
    Does Hillary want to stop the State Department from importing Muslims into our country, that the FBI Director says we have no way to currently adequately vet?
    Do you trust that Hillary will appoint someone other than leftist Supreme Court justices?
    Is there any doubt in your mind that Hillary will continue promulgating more and more war in the Middle East and elsewhere?
    Is there any doubt in your mind that Hillary won't do everything in her power to ban guns?
    Is there any doubt in your mind that Hillary will not do her part to usher us into world government?
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 07-01-2016 at 07:25 AM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    LibertyEagle answered you, below. Opposing global trade bureaucracies is not a statist policy, it's less statist. Defending the borders from illegal/unvetted immigration is less statist than open borders, since the latter requires a bigger state (more welfare, more law enforcement to deal with increased crime, more CDC resources to deal with increased disease coming in from the unscreened, etc.). Opposing new wars in the Mideast and ending regime change/empire building means less world intervention, not more. Supporting ending Obamacare and other programs means less intervention or smaller government, not more, etc, etc.:
    Trump does not oppose global trade bureaucracies - he just wants them to work for America good better. He opposes the deals from a protectionist viewpoint - not a sovereignty viewpoint. Statist.
    Trump's border position has been thoroughly discussed. The question isn't protecting borders vs. open immigration... It's how you protect them. Religious litmus test? The Great Wall of America? Statist.
    Opposing wars - are you kidding me?! Trump's been all over the map here - calling for more intervention one day and then saying we're doing it wrong the next. Trump is not against intervention - he just wants America to intervene bestly. And that's just the ME - he wants to increase international tensions economically. And increase the military tremendously. Statist.
    Ending Obamacare - from the guy who advocated for universal health care? Could you get more statist?!

    Ah, but he does want to make America Great Again.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    LibertyEagle answered you, below. Opposing global trade bureaucracies is not a statist policy, it's less statist. Defending the borders from illegal/unvetted immigration is less statist than open borders, since the latter requires a bigger state (more welfare, more law enforcement to deal with increased crime, more CDC resources to deal with increased disease coming in from the unscreened, etc.). Opposing new wars in the Mideast and ending regime change/empire building means less world intervention, not more. Supporting ending Obamacare and other programs means less intervention or smaller government, not more, etc, etc.:
    This just boggles my mind. I will disagree and respect your freedom of speech. I agree with Capt. America's post above.

  7. #96
    Ted Cruz is Mike Lee's best friend?? So long Mike Lee.
    RVO˩UTION



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Mike Lee is full of crap here. The excuses he put forth are not enough to warrant a refusal of an endorsement. Mike Lee must have purchased a ticket next to his "best friend" on the neocon NeverTrump train.
    RVO˩UTION

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Trump does not oppose global trade bureaucracies - he just wants them to work for America good better. He opposes the deals from a protectionist viewpoint - not a sovereignty viewpoint. Statist.
    Trump's border position has been thoroughly discussed. The question isn't protecting borders vs. open immigration... It's how you protect them. Religious litmus test? The Great Wall of America? Statist.
    Opposing wars - are you kidding me?! Trump's been all over the map here - calling for more intervention one day and then saying we're doing it wrong the next. Trump is not against intervention - he just wants America to intervene bestly. And that's just the ME - he wants to increase international tensions economically. And increase the military tremendously. Statist.
    Ending Obamacare - from the guy who advocated for universal health care? Could you get more statist?!

    Ah, but he does want to make America Great Again.
    As pointed out before, the center of Trump's trade speech was about opposing globalist leaning deals, or deals that subordinate US authority to an international entity. That is a sovereignty issue, not protectionism (and Trump has stated he was bluffing about imposing tariffs, to get a better deal).

    The immigration issue has been thoroughly discussed, but unfortunately thoroughly misunderstood by you. Free immigration, like other transactions, requires a means of redress for both parties (migrants and current citizens) from being victims of force or fraud. It is a contract, not a one-way or unilateral choice of the people relocating. The receiving population agrees to the migration based on the lawful process its government sets up to so protect people from force and fraud, while not following the established procedure results in a forced entry or access to American resources, since consent was not established. So there is a proper liberty role for government in protecting the borders and screening the migrants, regardless of your wish to demonize the consent process or structures as "racist' or statist. And note, you did not answer the points raised about how open borders increases statism.

    As far as opposing wars, the consistent theme of his formal statements call for no nation building, declares the most recent wars mistakes, and leans towards ending or reducing NATO. Ignore the rally/tweet hyperbole, Trump is not about furthering US military adventurism. And Trump's considered position on healthcare (not blurbs he put out in interviews years ago) is to end Obamacare, and replace it with the previous alternatives (decentralized regulation of insurance across the states, MSAs, etc), not a universal system.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 07-01-2016 at 08:58 AM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    As pointed out before, the center of Trump's trade speech was about opposing globalist leaning deals, or deals that subordinate US authority to an international entity. That is a sovereignty issue, not protectionism (and Trump has stated he was bluffing about imposing tariffs, to get a better deal).
    Sorry, I do not share your selective hearing. Trump is a protectionist - pure and simple. Sure, he mentioned the sovereignty issues in the speech that was prepared for him, but his whole theme is about bringing back protectionism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    The immigration issue has been thoroughly discussed, but unfortunately thoroughly misunderstood by you. Free immigration, like other transactions, requires a means of redress for both parties (migrants and current citizens) from being victims of force or fraud. It is a contract, not a one-way or unilateral choice of the people relocating. The receiving population agrees to the migration based on the lawful process its government sets up to so protect people from force and fraud, while not following the established procedure results in a forced entry or access to American resources, since consent was not established. So there is a proper liberty role for government in protecting the borders and screening the migrants, regardless of your wish to demonize the consent process or structures as "racist' or statist. And note, you did not answer the points raised about how open borders increases statism.
    That's because it's a red herring. You're attacking open borders, and if you read my post, you'd see that I wasn't even talking about open borders. (It's a nifty little trick Trump is using on you, BTW) It's about how you defend the borders. Trump's positions are incredibly statist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    As far as opposing wars, the consistent theme of his formal statements call for no nation building, declares the most recent wars mistakes, and leans towards ending or reducing NATO. Ignore the rally/tweet hyperbole, Trump is not about furthering US military adventurism. And Trump's considered position on healthcare (not blurbs he put out in interviews years ago) is to end Obamacare, and replace it with the previous alternatives (decentralized regulation of insurance across the states, MSAs, etc), not a universal system.
    More of that selective hearing... You should realize by now that you are projecting onto Trump what you want him to be. Statements that conflict with your fantasy are dismissed by you and those that reinforce them are emphasized. (You even suggest others "ignore" the inconvenient statements.) You've bought the con. Now, you won't let yourself acknowledge it.
    Last edited by CaptUSA; 07-01-2016 at 09:45 AM.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    How? Are you leaving?
    I'm not an immigrant...I was born here, LE. What are you smoking?

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    What is sickening is the ignorance on this thread.

    Mike Lee has the HIGHEST LIBERTY SCORE IN THE SENATE.

    https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard

    Rand Paul endorsed Romney; that's usually what one does when the candidate is finalized.
    I just don't like the rank hypocrisy from these political types, throwing tantrums because an outsider was elected instead of the usual hand-picked establishment dirtbag.

    Lee was probably angling to be Goldman Ted's VP or Secretary of State. Better luck next time, loser.

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    More of that selective hearing... You should realize by now that you are projecting onto Trump what you want him to be. Statements that conflict with your fantasy are dismissed by you and those that reinforce them are emphasized. (You even suggest others "ignore" the inconvenient statements.) You've bought the con. Now, you won't let yourself acknowledge it.
    I think you're talking about yourself. I mention much more context than you admit to, and then you characterize that additional information as "selective." I'm listening to all Trump is saying, and thereby acknowledging the net effect of his policies, which is in the direction of less statism. You're the one pulling tricks and recycling talking points, and I'm the one calling you on it.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    I just don't like the rank hypocrisy from these political types, throwing tantrums because an outsider was elected instead of the usual hand-picked establishment dirtbag.

    Lee was probably angling to be Goldman Ted's VP or Secretary of State. Better luck next time, loser.

    Because the only possible reason to oppose Donald Trump is that he is not "a member of the club."

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    Because the only possible reason to oppose Donald Trump is that he is not "a member of the club."
    I know, right?

    Neocons are trying to oust Mike Lee because he is so liberty-oriented, but because he wants some assurance that Trump will actually support the Constitution, then he's throwing tantrums.
    There is no spoon.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    //
    Last edited by William Tell; 07-01-2016 at 11:20 AM. Reason: double post
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  19. #106
    Besides Rand, Mike Lee is the only Senator who is any good.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  20. #107
    Trump fanboys trying to convince us that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread for the progression of the "liberty movement" and the "r3volution".

    Then simultaneously trying to tell me that Mike Lee, who is quite possibly one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution, is not liberty enough.

    Welcome to RonPaulForums, 2016.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Trump fanboys trying to convince us that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread for the progression of the "liberty movement" and the "r3volution".

    Then simultaneously trying to tell me that Mike Lee, who is quite possibly one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution, is not liberty enough.

    Welcome to RonPaulForums, 2016.
    Yeah- I keep thinking: "What planet am I on?"

    And why aren't they bad-mouthing Ron Paul for not supporting Trump?
    There is no spoon.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Besides Rand, Mike Lee is the only Senator who is any good.
    ^^THIS^^
    There is no spoon.

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Yeah- I keep thinking: "What planet am I on?"

    And why aren't they bad-mouthing Ron Paul for not supporting Trump?
    Ron Paul isn't in the GOP. NeverTrumpers in the GOP, who refuse to endorse or support Donald largely stem from the neocon establishment wing of the Party. Why would Mike Lee align himself with this wing of the Party over a personal vendetta, solely because Donald "attacked" his best friend? When it comes to any "religious discrimination", I'm assuming Mike Lee is referring to Donald's plan to halt Muslim migration to the US. Even Mike Lee's "best friend", Ted Cruz, supported measures to screen and approve Christian refugees from Syria. I know the plans aren't totally similar, but still imply a form a "religious discrimination". Donald has even backtracked on that proposed Muslim ban, and leaned with Rand on limiting migration from certain radical Islamic countries instead. So it just seems like like kind of stretch for Mike Lee to bring up these examples for why he can't support Trump.
    Last edited by notsure; 07-01-2016 at 11:50 AM.
    RVO˩UTION

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    I know, right?

    Neocons are trying to oust Mike Lee because he is so liberty-oriented, but because he wants some assurance that Trump will actually support the Constitution, then he's throwing tantrums.
    But how did Mike Lee actually imply that he wanted assurances from Donald to support the Constitution? Mike Lee wasted his time by not giving specific policy issues and instead replied immediately with he was upset Donald would trash his "best friend" Ted Cruz.
    Wasted opportunity by Mike Lee, he may have shot himself in the foot with this lackluster response.
    RVO˩UTION

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by notsure View Post
    NeverTrumpers in the GOP, who refuse to endorse or support Donald largely stem from the neocon establishment wing of the Party. Why would Mike Lee align himself with this wing of the Party over a personal vendetta, solely because Donald "attacked" his best friend?
    "Solely"? Is that really what you think? Don't kid yourself.

    Yes, a portion of the NeverTrump crowd are "establishment" neocons. So what?

    You know who else is a large portion of this crowd? Those who have basic principles and understand that Trump will not progress them forward. People who believe in a limited, Constitutional, liberty friendly government.

    But here is what you people seem to be unable to grasp.

    The neocons can be wrong about everything else but that doesn't mean that they're wrong about Trump. It's true - they don't want Trump for different reasons than the rest of us. They want to retain their power. We don't want Trump because he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and is the polar opposite of liberty. We are not smitten by his use of the power of persuasion and his sales techniques. Multiple groups having temporary agreement about a single thing does not mean we agree with each other on everything.

    If you really can't think beyond "Establishment bad. Neocons Hate Trump. Trump good", I truly feel sorry for you. This is what I come to expect from progressives, not "libertarians".



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    "Solely"? Is that really what you think? Don't kid yourself.

    Yes, a portion of the NeverTrump crowd are "establishment" neocons. So what?

    You know who else is a large portion of this crowd? Those who have basic principles and understand that Trump will not progress them forward. People who believe in a limited, Constitutional, liberty friendly government.

    But here is what you people seem to be unable to grasp.

    The neocons can be wrong about everything else but that doesn't mean that they're wrong about Trump. It's true - they don't want Trump for different reasons than the rest of us. They want to retain their power. We don't want Trump because he is a wolf in sheep's clothing and is the polar opposite of liberty. We are not smitten by his use of the power of persuasion and his sales techniques. Multiple groups having temporary agreement about a single thing does not mean we agree with each other on everything.

    If you really can't think beyond "Establishment bad. Neocons Hate Trump. Trump good", I truly feel sorry for you. This is what I come to expect from progressives, not "libertarians".
    Hell yes! ^^All of this^^
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Read your own words, Dude and all your conjectures against a religion because Mike Lee, THE #1 Liberty politician in DC, is hesitant on Trump.
    Mike Lee is "hesitant on Trump" because there's a guy on the Internet who isn't a fan of Mormonism?

    What a nutty statement.

    (Almost as nutty as saying Mike Lee is more pro-Liberty than Rand Paul.)

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    Trump fanboys trying to convince us that Trump is the best thing since sliced bread for the progression of the "liberty movement" and the "r3volution".

    Then simultaneously trying to tell me that Mike Lee, who is quite possibly one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution, is not liberty enough.

    Welcome to RonPaulForums, 2016.
    No one who is acquainted with Lee's voting record can deny that, POSITION-wise, he is one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution. The issue in 2016 is not whether he is "liberty enough." The question is, is LIBERTY enough? The issue going forward for the progression of the national movement is supporting candidates who can also build winning vote coalitions useful to liberty, and are willing to disrupt establishment barriers to liberty, not just have consistent liberty positions.

    Following the 2008, 2012 and 2016 experience, we should now know that running a pure liberty candidate in the GOP universe is NOT enough to win nationally, or achieve changes in policy. Without the voting blocs and a will to truly attack and disable the system, it's just like running another LP candidate who has no resources. Without those missing strategic factors, new liberty prospects cannot be expected to nationally succeed, any more than the Pauls did in three tries.

    Lee is an example of the liberty-only, or one dimensional candidate, who shows no evidence of being able to create the broader coalitions needed to win a future Presidential nomination race, nor to confront and defeat the elite. Trump HAS shown the kind of progress on these fronts that is needed, and he has shown us a pathway for doing the same going forward. THAT is why he and the outsider trend is appreciated. Welcome to reality, and achieving victory following 2016.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 07-01-2016 at 12:31 PM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    No one who is acquainted with Lee's voting record can deny that, POSITION-wise, he is one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution. The issue in 2016 is not whether he is "liberty enough." The question is, is LIBERTY enough? The issue going forward for the progression of the national movement is supporting candidates who can also build winning vote coalitions useful to liberty, and are willing to disrupt establishment barriers to liberty, not just have consistent liberty positions.

    Following the 2008, 2012 and 2016 experience, we should now know that running a pure liberty candidate in the GOP universe is NOT enough to win nationally, or achieve changes in policy. Without the voting blocs and a will to truly attack and disable the system, it's just like running another LP candidate who has no resources. Without those missing strategic factors, new liberty prospects cannot be expected to nationally succeed, any more than the Pauls did in three tries.

    Lee is an example of the liberty-only, or one dimensional candidate, who shows no evidence of being able to create the broader coalitions needed to win a future Presidential nomination race, nor to confront and defeat the elite. Trump HAS shown the kind of progress on these fronts that is needed, and he has shown us a pathway for doing the same going forward. THAT is why he and the outsider trend is appreciated. Welcome to reality, and achieving victory following 2016.
    Yes, yes... In order to obtain liberty, we need to back an authoritarian tyrant. Of course. It's so simple.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  31. #117
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    No one who is acquainted with Lee's voting record can deny that, POSITION-wise, he is one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution. The issue in 2016 is not whether he is "liberty enough." The question is, is LIBERTY enough? The issue going forward for the progression of the national movement is supporting candidates who can also build winning vote coalitions useful to liberty, and are willing to disrupt establishment barriers to liberty, not just have consistent liberty positions.
    This argument might be persuasive if there was any evidence indicating that a Trump presidency would do anything to help build "winning vote coalitions useful to liberty".

    The only "evidence" Trump people have to support the above is him being "anti-establishment" (whatever that means?), which is arguable in and of itself. Even assuming it were so, show me one shred of evidence that Trump is going to "disrupt establishment barriers to liberty"?

    The reality of the situation is that all of the above is just wishful thinking at this point and is extremely unlikely, given what we know about Trump, his past, and what he has said. You could pin the exact hopes you have above on a Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton and have the same likelihood of it happening at this point.

    Trump is a salesman. This is the one thing he has a great deal of talent in. Trump has sold you on your hopes and dreams. Trump represents exactly what it is that you want to see right now and nothing more. The basis of your argument would be acceptable if it were based on reality.
    Last edited by fcreature; 07-01-2016 at 12:49 PM.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    No one who is acquainted with Lee's voting record can deny that, POSITION-wise, he is one of our best nationally elected champions of liberty and the Constitution. The issue in 2016 is not whether he is "liberty enough." The question is, is LIBERTY enough? The issue going forward for the progression of the national movement is supporting candidates who can also build winning vote coalitions useful to liberty, and are willing to disrupt establishment barriers to liberty, not just have consistent liberty positions.

    Following the 2008, 2012 and 2016 experience, we should now know that running a pure liberty candidate in the GOP universe is NOT enough to win nationally, or achieve changes in policy. Without the voting blocs and a will to truly attack and disable the system, it's just like running another LP candidate who has no resources. Without those missing strategic factors, new liberty prospects cannot be expected to nationally succeed, any more than the Pauls did in three tries.

    Lee is an example of the liberty-only, or one dimensional candidate, who shows no evidence of being able to create the broader coalitions needed to win a future Presidential nomination race, nor to confront and defeat the elite. Trump HAS shown the kind of progress on these fronts that is needed, and he has shown us a pathway for doing the same going forward. THAT is why he and the outsider trend is appreciated. Welcome to reality, and achieving victory following 2016.
    By that logic, since we only have a handful of liberty guys in Congress, we should start purposely looking for non-liberty candidates to support for Congress since after all, don't we want to win?
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by fcreature View Post
    This argument might be persuasive if there was any evidence indicating that a Trump presidency would do anything to help build "winning vote coalitions useful to liberty".

    The only "evidence" Trump people have to support the above is him being "anti-establishment" (whatever that means?), which is arguable in and of itself. Even assuming it were so, show me one shred of evidence that Trump is going to "disrupt establishment barriers to liberty"?

    The reality of the situation is that all of the above is just wishful thinking at this point and is extremely unlikely, given what we know about Trump, his past, and what he has said. You could pin the exact hopes you have above on a Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton and have the same likelihood of it happening at this point.
    Trump was not the establishment's choice, Bush was. The media tried to marginalize Trump to get him out of the way, just as with the Pauls, but totally failed. Trump has deflated control-freak reporters to their face, and put them in their place. So, he has already shown he can disrupt their kingmaker system and defy the MSM's attempts to control the framework. He also showed he could put together groups to support him, from the working poor to many evangelicals to disaffected conservatives, etc, that Rand could not or would not.

    Hillary and Jeb have NOT talked about controlling illegal immigration, rolling back glabalist trade treaties including NAFTA, rolling back support for NATO, or admitted the Mideast wars were mistakes, etc, as Trump has, meaning his agenda really is different. It would help their credibility if the anti-Trump side took him out of the equation, and at least acknowledged these are the kind of things that needed to be done to make strategic progress more possible for liberty. At least support the outsider trend, if you won't support the man.

    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    By that logic, since we only have a handful of liberty guys in Congress, we should start purposely looking for non-liberty candidates to support for Congress since after all, don't we want to win?
    We should purposefully run liberty candidates who can attract voting majorities, and who will fight the elite.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 07-01-2016 at 06:01 PM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  34. #120



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •