Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
The only thing Romney would have bombed China with is smack-talk.
The US excels at (directly or indirectly) stomping the $#@! out of places that have no chance of defending themselves (like Libya and Yemen), but when it comes to places that can and would actually fight back (such as Russia and China), I suspect the only thing you'll see from the US is a lot of screeching threats and hissy fits.
The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)
- "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
-- The Law (p. 54)- "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-- Government (p. 99)- "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
-- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)- "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
-- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)· tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
Toady is the debate.
Rand Paul and Jim Gray debate tonight, airing live on CSPAN - 8 pm ET
Officially official thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-CSPAN-8-pm-ET
I'd argue that Trump's brand of nationalism would be worse against Russia, unless he reverses those stances. Every thing we do in the middle east is anti Russian. Trump just wants to do it better, he doesn't just want to control the price of oil, he wants to take the oil and give it to people who buy it from Russia.
There is a difference whether you believe it or not.
I registered as a Republican because Ron Paul suggested it. It is Ron that told us that the best way to affect the system is by working within it. I no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to win the White House, as I did in 2008 and 2012.
I agree with Rand Paul:
Citizen of Arizona
@cleaner4d4
I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.
Your rightTHUMP admits to hating Liberty.
More war, more patriot act, more NSA, more militarized police, Snowden is a traitor.
Ron Paul ran as a RATpubliCON, because He had to. it was his best way to advance Liberty. He knew he would NEVER win. So, In our 2 party system. The RATs (as opposed to the DEMONS) were the closest party to what he believes in. Ron ran as a RATpubliCON so he could tap the funds, get in the debates, get exposure and expose the system for the corruption it's all about. He did a he l l of a job at it too. You didn't register as a RATpubliCON because "Ron suggested it" you registered because that WAS THE ONLY CHOICE. I've heard all this from Ron in his interviews since 2007. Didn't you? This is what I mean when some people "like" him and some people UNDERSTAND him.
Sounds like he's trashing the RATs in this video
@38seconds, why did he run?
theres more.
Good for you. But Rand is no Ron.
Last edited by scm; 10-31-2016 at 06:13 PM.
@Cleaner44
I wish more Libertarians would acknowledge this. The last two election cycles I applauded those that would not vote for the GOP candidate, especially that traitor Romney.I no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to win the White House, as I did in 2008 and 2012.
This round is different, very different, but it would have been the same if Jeb Bush was the nominee, but he isn't.
Et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos
"For me it is very simple. Clinton can't be allowed to be our president. She is a criminal of the highest order."
Agree 100%
Not many good choices here, but Clinton can't gain power again.
I think the argument Rand had until he got hammered at 300 town hall events was that he signed a pledge the establishment made him do it in order to run for president he had to pledge to support the republican nominee. After the nominee was decided he had no choice, what do you want him to do attack the republican nominee like Paul Ryan? Do you guys really think Rand Paul loves Trump after $#@!ting on him the entire year of 2015, or is he running re re-election? Do you Trump supporters really think Rand Paul loves coal more than sliced bread and thinks we can use it forever too?
In 2008 and 2012 I wanted the GOP to lose so that they would stop offering up neocons like Bush. That goal has been accomplished, even if it did result in a very non-libertarian former liberal authoritarian candidate. I was really hoping that Rand would build on what Ron started and he would win, but obviously that didn't happen.
In 2016 I am looking at the Libertarian party and shaking my head that they have drifted so far away from what they are supposed to stand for. After Bob Barr and now Johnson/Weld I can only hope that they retool in 2020, but sadly they will probably get worse for a while. I certainly don't want to encourage them to nominate Gary Johnson or someone like him yet again. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they nominated Mitt Romney in 2020.
I am very much looking forward to Hillary Clinton losing, collecting on my bets and watching the liberals stumble around with their brand badly exposed as corrupt and rigged.
It is a small win against statism and Republican statism will be making a comeback, but at least it won't be under the control of the neocons.
Citizen of Arizona
@cleaner4d4
I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.
Another two time Paul vote for Trump. This is the first time I'm voting for the GOP nominee, and didn't in 2008/2012 after Ron lost the primaries.
For me, it boils down to this: Hillary is a known quality at this point, and it's all bad. Trump is a spin at the wheel.
He's also the only one to break through the GOP establishment since Goldwater or possibly Reagan, 1980. That's powerful. They clearly wanted Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich, and then tried to settle for Cruz. Trump beat them all and forced them to heel.
I'm afraid there may not be an opportunity like this again for decades. If Trump loses, the GOP will be pushing damned hard to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. I won't be surprised if they roll out a Superdelegate system or some similar guard to prevent populist, paleocon, or liberty candidates from ever making it through in the future.
I'm also sold on the demographic argument. We are going to have a near permanent Democratic firewall if the Obama-Hillary immigration policy continues. Then we can forget all about warring on the GOP. It won't matter who runs if the Dems have a 270+ lock on states to easily elect future Presidents.
Finally, Hillary is a demon and her victory will cement one more political dynasty that will continue to taint future elections. You can go ahead and bet on Chelsea coming back in 10-20 years. But there were still a few idiots who supported Jeb, despite W. flaming out just eight years ago.
Ehh, if someone says they are going to vote Trump because they fear Hillary will instigate a nuclear holocaust, well, there is some evidence to back up that line of reasoning, so I don't really have any judgement for that. WW3 would suck. Nuclear winter would suck even more. So, if that is their thought process I do not begrudge them of it.
It is, however, when people try blowing smoke up my tailpipe and whizzing on my leg and calling it rain that I start to take umbrage. And quite a lot of that goes on around here, or at least it has been.
We're going to have a near permanent Democratic firewall (I'm assuming you're referring to non-white voters) regardless of who is elected this year (or any year to come) if the stances of the two major parties remain the same. Even if America's borders were clamped down and a freeze was placed on the naturalization of new citizens, the demographic trajectory of this country won't deviate from where it has been heading - the Hispanic vote alone will only continue to grow rapidly (this year 27 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote) just based on who is here already. The Republican party has known this for years - see their "autopsy report" from the past presidential election which advocates for minority outreach and diversifying the party. With each election cycle the Republicans' usual base of older white voters shinks as the Democrats swell their ranks with more and more minority and younger voters. As Trump is driving away minority support for the GOP in droves, I don't know how voting for Trump can do anything to dismantle your "Democratic firewall." Rand Paul's minority outreach was heavily criticized as pandering, but that's the only way forward for the GOP. We'll have taco trucks on every corner regardless of who's elected.
Definitely. But that is not a surprise at all. There were 2012 Ron Paul county coordinators who were with Trump when Rand was still an option.
Ron Paul supporters weren't all Libertarians by any means.
Ron Paul said "Things Suck - and here are solutions"
Donald Trump says "Things Suck - and here are solutions"
The solutions are different. But they both are saying that things suck to people who think that things suck.
It's amazing how 2015s can attack 2007s for not being a real Ron Paul supporter.
I have a lot of trouble believing, at all, that 2015s here, especially those who aren't supporting Trump, especially those using a "no difference" argument, aren't paid trolls. It's clear that paid trolls are all over the place.
Last edited by bunklocoempire; 11-01-2016 at 12:43 AM.
Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
"I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
Ron Paul
Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty ReportBITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE
Even if Trump wins, wouldn't the GOP want to have more control over the primary outcome for their selected candidate? Similarly, if Trump wins or loses, wouldn't the political elites try harder to cover up their tracks and prevent someone like Trump or Paul from getting anywhere close? At least this cycle, Wikileaks and Trump have been able to show more people how corporate media is a player in the corruption.
I suppose another way to look at it is would a Trump presidency cause enough disruption to help Paul short term and/or long term?
If Hillary WINS NH the Free State movement is a total failure.
It's possible that it could help, assuming that Trump will "burn it all down," leaving a cleared field for 2020 or 2024. I do not believe that is a fair assumption to make, however. I do not see how replacing an oligarchy puppet with an actual oligarch will have any negative effect at all on the processes of tyranny.
Connect With Us