# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns > Liberty Campaign Evaluation >  Campaign Evaluation: Donald Trump (POTUS)

## Bryan

NOTE: This is the official evaluation thread on this candidate. Previously developed points in other threads can be posted here. Assistance in aggregating points for each section is appreciated. Non-constructive posts may be deleted.

This thread is intended to be a collection point of the strong pros and cons of any potential liberty candidate / campaign that is being discussed / promoted on the forum. You are welcome to post both positive and not-so-positive attributes about the candidate as they related to their position on supporting liberty as well as issues relating to their campaign. The most important information may be aggregated in this top post for easy reference.

*Candidate Name:* Donald Trump
*Office Sought:* President of the United States
*Website:* https://www.donaldjtrump.com
*Social Media:*
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump
https://www.instagram.com/realdonaldtrump

*Candidate Profile: On the Issues*
Civil Liberties: F
Constitutional Issues: F
Economic Issues: C
Foreign Policy: F
Social Issues: C
*Overall Issues Rating:* F


*Race Profile: Competition & Demographics*
Incumbent:Barack Obama
Other Primary Candidates: Ted Cruz, John Kasich
Non-Incumbent Candidates from Other Parties: Hillary Clinton,  Gary Johnson, John McAfee, Bernie Sanders
Relevant poll numbers:
*Overall Race Profile Rating:* B

*Miscellaneous Pros/Cons*
Key strong points:

Unknown points for further research:

Possible weak points: character

Possible deal breakers: 

The applied analysis goes well beyond a simple libertarian “purity test” as we understand the potential value of supporting an imperfect candidate who can still be of value to our Mission. We understand the positive changes that Trump can bring and have considered these elements with great care. We have also looked into the down sides as well and evaluated them along with the risks and unknowns. From this we are able to make a fully informed evaluation that considers all elements.

The conclusion of our analysis shows there are reasons why the Trump campaign should not be supported at any level. The site's final determination is a result of some of Trump's extreme positions against liberty, his current power and influence, his predatory alpha-style tactics and his drive to get his way, which in total, is a potentially dangerous combination with the office of the presidency.

Of course, it is impossible to predict what Trump's behavior and actions will be once in the White House, and speculation of any specific wrong-doing would be fruitless, but the concerns are enough for us to withhold any support for Trump as some form of “defense candidate”, supporting the lessor of two evils or hoping for some side benefit from him winning the presidency.

It is understood that some people may not share this concern and still see value in supporting Trump in some capacity, this is understood. While we can amicably agree on differences we do not want to be responsible for supporting what may prove to be a very bad outcome that was reasonably perceivable up front.


*Overall Rating:* Non-Supporting

----------


## cajuncocoa

Trump on torture:  "We have to beat the savages"
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/06/politi...trump-torture/

Trump supports NSA data collection
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...a-surveillance

Trump opposes drug legalization:  changed his views altogether on marijuana legalization
http://national.suntimes.com/nationa...licy-flip-flop

*What does Donald Trump believe about Iran and Israel?* Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase sanctions.
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched uranium to Russia. *He would increase sanctions on Iran.* Trump has been sharply critical of the Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has *called for a closer alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.*
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm  (Quotes on Foreign Policy)

Trump: "Ban all Muslim travel to U.S."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politi...n-immigration/

Donald Trump's pledge: 'We're gonna be saying Merry Christmas' (Does he think he can control how people greet each other??)
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politi...mp-iowa-rally/

Trump: "I Don't Forgive People Who Let Me Down" 
https://grabien.com/file.php?id=62822

----------


## phill4paul

Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]

*1st Amendment*: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]
Abridging freedom of speech, or of the press...

Trump: *One of the things Im going to do if I winand I hope we do, and were certainly leadingIm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,* Trump said. So when the New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, *we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because theyre totally protected.*  (Protected by what? )
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...ibel_laws.html
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Trump: Donald Trump on Monday suggested he would "strongly consider" shutting down mosques in the U.S. as part of the response to the terror attacks in Paris.
"Well, I would hate to do it but *it's something you're going to have to strongly consider,"* Trump said...
Trump said, *Under the old regime we had tremendous surveillance going around and in the mosques in New York City."* (anti-establishment. )
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politi...ues/index.html

*2nd Amendment:* "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*"

Trump: I generally oppose gun control, but* I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun,* he said. With todays Internet technology we should be able to tell within seventy-two hours if a potential gun owner has a record. 
 'The America we deserve" by Donald Trump. http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&key...l_2jo3fik6fh_p

*4th amendment:* *The right of the people to be secure in their*  persons, *houses*, papers, and effects, *against unreasonable* searches and *seizures*, *shall not be violated*, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Trump: "*Eminent domain is an absolute necessity* for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldnt have roads, you wouldnt have hospitals, you wouldnt have anything. "
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/trump-eminent-domain/

----------


## William Tell

- Real estate magnate Donald Trump gave at least $100,000 to the Clinton  Foundation while his daughter Ivanka Trump donated between $5,001 and  $10,000, the Hill reported. Trump also donated to Hillary Clinton’s New  York Senate campaign - http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/abc-news-...IlJIQrKuGvt.99

- Trump has given $541,650 to federal Democratic candidates and  fundraising committees going back to 1990, according to data from the  Center for Responsive Politics. He's handed out money to Democratic  statewide candidates as well. In 2009, for instance, Trump cut a $25,000  check to former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe  for his unsuccessful 2009 Virginia gubernatorial bid. But as Republicans  and Tea Party activists nationwide were working to take back the House  and Senate in 2010, Trump was also handing out checks to top Democratic  incumbents: $4,800 to Reid, $2,000 to Florida Sen. Bill Nelson and more  than $8,000 total to New York's two senators, Charles Schumer and  Kirsten Gillibrand.

Over the last two decades, Trump gave money to a number of high-profile  Democrats and liberal icons, including Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary  Clinton, Tom Daschle and Joe Biden. The biggest recipient of Trump's  largesse? The scandal-plagued Rangel, who has taken $24,750 from Trump  since the 1990 election cycle. - http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/28/trump.democrats/

- Donald Trump predicted Wednesday night that Hillary Clinton will take  one more shot at winning the White House in 2016, and declined to rule  out the possibility of throwing his support behind the former  presidential candidate. “Hillary Clinton, I think, is a terrific woman,”  Trump said in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News. “I am  biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York, she lives  in New York, and I’ve known her and her husband for years and I really  like them both a lot.”

Praising the secretary of state for being a hard worker and for having  done a “good job” since joining the Obama administration, Trump said he  expects Clinton to run for office again.
“I think assuming she is healthy, which I hope she will be, I think she  runs after the next four years, I would imagine,” he said. - http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz3e5yzzwUv

- Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991,  1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to  over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of  which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment  Resorts.Apr 29, 2011 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...-work-for-him/

- TRUMPED: The Donald, The Widow and Eminent Domain:




- The (Liberal) Trump Tapes: Vol. 1:

https://youtu.be/rcUCLwWCihE

----------


## cajuncocoa

Ron Paul articles on Donald Trump, originally posted by @phill4paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...blishment-quot


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...us-person-quot


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Kiss-His-Ring


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ump-Presidency

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...horitarian-%94

----------


## cajuncocoa

On the day of the Kentucky caucus (March 5) a full month after Rand had suspended his campaign, these tweets were completely unnecessary:

----------


## seapilot

Consensus is DT sucks on advocating for liberty. He has shown one thing though which would help liberty in the future. Its his approach to those that want to throw him under the bus or he threatens their power. 

He puts all his opposition on the defensive all the time. They are constantly defending themselves thus he looks like the winner. Even when he is wrong he wont admit it and will double down and attack his opposition. When a group is always trying to defend itself, it is always behind. This is the strategy of the socialists, to always put the opposition on the defensive. It has worked really well on most issues. No team/organization/ideology/group ever wins much by always having to defend itself. 

The libertarian rarely goes on the offensive and normally is on the defensive by its very nature. If there was someway to turn it around pro-liberty candidates would be noticed and winning a lot more.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Pros: 
> 
> - At least pays lip-service to US-centric government and helping the average American.
> - Calling out the media for bias and lies.
> - Supposedly anti-establishment (or better described as new establishment after hostile take-over, but a change in management nonetheless).
> - Neoconservatives hate him (enemy of my enemy scenario) and possibly less aggressive internationally than neoconservatives.
> 
> Cons:
> 
> ...


You left off the most important Pros, in my opinion:
He is the only candidate against the TPP and the only candidate who has not only called out the horrible trade deals, from NAFTA on, but will also at least attempt to do something about them.  I would prefer to get out of them completely, and their associated ruling bodies that sit above our own Congress, but renegotiating them is better than the crap we have now.

He is the candidate who raised the issue about the illegal alien invasion of our country and the stupidity of not only not kicking them out, but giving them birthright citizenship, free education, free healthcare and welfare.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

- Mr. Trump is the only candidate to have defended the Constitution from Usurper Barry's prima facie illegitimate Presidency.  If he follows through, he could reverse every anti-American, anti-liberty action of the Obama Presidency without the cooperation of Congress..

----------


## CPUd

> - Mr. Trump is the only candidate to have defended the Constitution from Usurper Barry's prima facie illegitimate Presidency.  If he follows through, he could reverse every anti-American, anti-liberty action of the Obama Presidency without the cooperation of Congress..


you need to be more specific.  How did he defend the Constitution, and which Obama actions are anti-American, anti-liberty that Trump would hypothetically reverse without the cooperation of the Congress?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

I really don't.

----------


## CPUd

> You left off the most important Pros, in my opinion:
> He is the only candidate against the TPP and the only candidate who has not only called out the horrible trade deals, from NAFTA on, but will also at least attempt to do something about them.  I would prefer to get out of them completely, and their associated ruling bodies that sit above our own Congress, but renegotiating them is better than the crap we have now.
> 
> He is the candidate who raised the issue about the illegal alien invasion of our country and the stupidity of not only not kicking them out, but giving them birthright citizenship, free education, free healthcare and welfare.


Trump does not seem to know much about the TPP, he is obsessed with China though:

----------


## phill4paul

So at what point does the information on this thread get translated into an up or down vote for Trump?

----------


## William Tell

> I really don't.


Because you can't name one instance of Trump defending the Constitution?

----------


## seapilot

He is asked if the constitution is a living document or set in stone and he says it is set in stone and one of the best documents ever made. Then he says it allows for deals (between Senate house president parties?) . That is the thing about Trump, he is never crystal clear on what he really means.

----------


## invisible

> So at what point does the information on this thread get translated into an up or down vote for Trump?


Thread winner.  Interesting that only one shill has bothered to take place in this productive objective discussion here, while they have clogged up an entire section with spam threads.  Given this thread of objective analysis, the best course of action and next step seem rather obvious.  At this point, it is entirely reasonable to ask that a rating please be issued and followed up on.

"you must spread some reputation around..."

----------


## invisible

> He is asked if the constitution is a living document or set in stone and he says it is set in stone and one of the best documents ever made. Then he says it allows for deals (between Senate house president parties?) . That is the thing about Trump, he is never crystal clear on what he really means.


Interesting.  Given his claim here that it is "set in stone" and "one of the best documents ever made", then perhaps a better measure would be to examine all of his various policy proposals mentioned earlier in the thread, and see just how many of them actually adhere to the Constitution.

----------


## seapilot

> Interesting.  Given his claim here that it is "set in stone" and "one of the best documents ever made", then perhaps a better measure would be to examine all of his various policy proposals mentioned earlier in the thread, and see just how many of them actually adhere to the Constitution.


I would bet money he has never even read it all in its entirety let alone try to understand its principals lie in limiting government powers.  At least he seems to get that it is set in stone, a living document is what socialists like to see it as. Now he needs an adviser like Judge Nap to explain what he can and cant do because the constitution is set in stone.

----------


## CPUd

> Interesting.  Given his claim here that it is "set in stone" and "one of the best documents ever made", then perhaps a better measure would be to examine all of his various policy proposals mentioned earlier in the thread, and see just how many of them actually adhere to the Constitution.


A couple here:

1A: "shut down parts of the internet"
6A: death penalty to cop kilers via executive order

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So at what point does the information on this thread get translated into an up or down vote for Trump?


And what's that supposed to result in?  Group think?  

There are no perfect candidates running and this go round has proven to me that we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting one of our own elected President.  Some here, can't wait for the country to fall, period.  Others, for some reason believe that if it does fall, they will be afforded the opportunity to rebuild it from the ashes.  That the very same people who intentionally brought this country down don't have other plans; such as taking us into world government.  Others still won't vote for anyone that they don't deem perfect; even Rand Paul wasn't worthy enough for them.  And then there are those here for the sole purpose of trying to convince those they can, not to vote; even when Rand was in the race.  These people apparently believe that they are accomplishing something by not voting.  When the reality is that they are placing a vote without going to the polls.

I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders.  I totally agree with him.  If there was a better candidate, I would be voting for him/her.  But, there is not.   So, my vote for Trump will be my Hail Mary.  I do not think our country has much time left.  Some of you are happy about that, but you will not be when it comes down to it.  Because all of this is the culmination of a plan that has been executing for years and years.  And time is about up.

----------


## invisible

> And what's that supposed to result in?  Group think?  
> 
> There are no perfect candidates running and this go round has proven to me that we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting one of our own elected President.  Some here, can't wait for the country to fall, period.  Others, for some reason believe that if it does fall, they will be afforded the opportunity to rebuild it from the ashes.  That the very same people who intentionally brought this country down don't have other plans; such as taking us into world government.  Others still won't vote for anyone that they don't deem perfect; even Rand Paul wasn't worthy enough for them.  And then there are those here for the sole purpose of trying to convince those they can, not to vote; even when Rand was in the race.  These people apparently believe that they are accomplishing something by not voting.  When the reality is that they are placing a vote without going to the polls.
> 
> I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders.  I totally agree with him.  If there was a better candidate, I would be voting for him/her.  But, there is not.   So, my vote for Trump will be my Hail Mary.  I do not think our country has much time left.  Some of you are happy about that, but you will not be when it comes down to it.  Because all of this is the culmination of a plan that has been executing for years and years.  And time is about up.


It isn't about group think.  If you're choosing one out of an entirely bad field, that's your thing - no one has to agree with you, or disagree.  One important thing is that you have made your choice based on objective reasoning, rather than an emotional appeal.  The other important thing is that even though you are choosing to vote for an authoritarian ghoul-endorsed candidate, you aren't running around RPF actively and constantly shilling for him, clogging up an entire forum section with useless spam threads, and using his candidacy to distract and divide people.  Those are big differences between your behavior, and that of others - you've conducted yourself rationally as a gentlewoman (I do believe you're female, IIRC - I apologize if I'm wrong on that), and that's why I +repped you for your earlier post in this thread.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And what's that supposed to result in?  Group think?


Uh, no. Not group think. Read Bryan's OP. He asked for evaluation, and his post explains why. You can vote for whoever you want, but this board is not yet the Donald Trump Forum. This thread makes clear that Trump is not a liberty candidate, unless the one point you made overrides all of the other points made on the first page. Those of us who signed up for Liberty Forest, Ron Paul Forums, or Rand Paul Forum have the expectations of supporting liberty candidates, not 80%+ shilling for authoritarian Donald Trump, but that's what it's become recently.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Uh, no. Not group think. Read Bryan's OP. He asked for evaluation, and his post explains why. You can vote for whoever you want, but this board is not yet the Donald Trump Forum. This thread makes clear that Trump is not a liberty candidate, unless the one point you made overrides all of the other points made on the first page. Those of us who signed up for Liberty Forest, Ron Paul Forums, or Rand Paul Forum have the expectations of supporting liberty candidates, not 80%+ shilling for authoritarian Donald Trump, but that's what it's become recently.


And that is why I chose to quote Phil's post and not Bryan's.

----------


## Todd

> And what's that supposed to result in?  Group think?  
> 
> There are no perfect candidates running and this go round has proven to me that we don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting one of our own elected President.  Some here, can't wait for the country to fall, period.  Others, for some reason believe that if it does fall, they will be afforded the opportunity to rebuild it from the ashes.  That the very same people who intentionally brought this country down don't have other plans; such as taking us into world government.  Others still won't vote for anyone that they don't deem perfect; even Rand Paul wasn't worthy enough for them.  And then there are those here for the sole purpose of trying to convince those they can, not to vote; even when Rand was in the race.  These people apparently believe that they are accomplishing something by not voting.  When the reality is that they are placing a vote without going to the polls.
> 
> I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders.  I totally agree with him.  If there was a better candidate, I would be voting for him/her.  But, there is not.   So, my vote for Trump will be my Hail Mary.  I do not think our country has much time left.  Some of you are happy about that, but you will not be when it comes down to it.  Because all of this is the culmination of a plan that has been executing for years and years.  And time is about up.


Some of us don't want the Country to collapse.  Some of us believe a Trump presidency will be the collapse.  To be fair...all of the remaining candidates have no real solutions for solving the most salient issues that are leading to the collapse.   I do not think it's honest to suggest that once this November election rolls around that those of us who choose not to vote or vote for a third party candidate aren't accomplishing anything.   The endeavors some of us have engaged in the years leading up to the election have far more weight than 1 vote on 1 day in November.   I wish people understood how insignificant that is compared to all the other opportunities one has to make political changes.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And that is why I chose to quote Phil's post and not Bryan's.


OK, fair enough.  To me, phill's post just seemed to be saying he thought it was time to make the decision that Bryan called for in the OP, so it seemed consistent with Bryan's request/intent.

----------


## phill4paul

> OK, fair enough.  To me, phill's post just seemed to be saying he thought it was time to make the decision that Bryan called for in the OP, so it seemed consistent with Bryan's request/intent.


  That's exactly what I meant. I don't much get point until waiting after primaries to make the call. God forbid it get strung out until after November if Trump gets the nomination.

----------


## klamath

Doesn't believe in local control of western land and doesn't want anymore private ownership. Believes in federal control of the land. This backed by long personal history against private property rights locks this in as his true stand on the issue.




> “That’s not good, because you want to keep the land great, and you don’t know what the state’s going to do with it. *Are they going to sell it if they get into a little bit of trouble?* *I don’t think it should be sold.* This is magnificent land and we have to be great stewards of this land. The hunters and the fisherman (sic) and all the different people who use this land.” -Trump

----------


## klamath

> That's exactly what I meant. I don't much get point until waiting after primaries to make the call. God forbid it get strung out until after November if Trump gets the nomination.


 Yeaw pretty much this. Does us lot of good to wait until after the first Tuesday of Nov to make a decision. In the mean time Trump is locking up the nomination while this platform is being used as the trump organization central.

----------


## klamath

Donald Trump thinks Tiananmen Square should have been put down. 



An interview that Trump gave to Playboy in 1990 has just come to my attention. If I’m the last to know about it, forgive me. Trump was asked about Gorbachev — who was nearing the end of his time in power. Trump said, “Russia is out of control and the leadership knows it. *That’s my problem with Gorbachev. Not a firm enough* hand.” His interviewer asked, “You mean firm hand as in China?” Trump answered, “*When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak … as being spit on by the rest of the world* –”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ananmen-square

----------


## Bryan

I can help drive the process but the least that I am unilaterally assigning grades the better. 
There are two things that I see of value at this point:
1.	Aggregate all the comments into the different sections:
Civil Liberties: [Rating TBD]
Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]
Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]
Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]
Social Issues: [Rating TBD]

List the points in a pro and con list for each.

2.	Assign grades on each point, it would be idea to hear from both supporters and those who opposes. You can help the process by getting some supporters to provide their grading in none post.

In doing this we can set the stage for further analysis.
One note, we should focus on data that is somewhat recent, statements / viewpoints made 15 years ago may have changed.

Thank you everyone, this is all very useful.

----------


## invisible

> I can help drive the process but the least that I am unilaterally assigning grades the better. 
> There are two things that I see of value at this point:
> 1.	Aggregate all the comments into the different sections:
> Civil Liberties: [Rating TBD]
> Constitutional Issues: [Rating TBD]
> Economic Issues: [Rating TBD]
> Foreign Policy: [Rating TBD]
> Social Issues: [Rating TBD]
> 
> ...



Is this what you're asking for?
Going by what has been posted in this thread, here's what I come up with.  Note that some things fall into more than one category.  Also note that "social issues" can be a very subjective category - some issues can be a pro for some people, and a con for others.  IMO, statements made 15 years ago are important because being consistent is important, flip flops should be noted in some way.


Civil Liberties
as per post #2
torture - con (also post #68 and #70)
NSA data collection - con
drug legalization - con*
muslim travel - con

as per post #14
wants to force Apple into backdooring phones - con  (better source needed)

as per posts #3 and #15
freedom of the press - con

as per post #16
internet censorship - con

as per posts #18 and #25
Snowden - con

as per posts #3, #18, #64
eminent domain / property rights - con

as per post #54
thinks China's handling of protests was not harsh enough - con

as per post #77
supports mandatory e-verify - con

as per post #80
would consider gun ban for people on no-fly list - con

---

Constitutional Issues
as per post #2
torture - con (also posts #68 and #70)
NSA data collection - con
drug legalization - con*
muslim travel - con

as per post #3
freedom of the press - con
freedom of religion - con
2nd Amendment - con
eminent domain - con (also post #18 and #64)

as per post #14
wants to force Apple into backdooring phones - con  (better source needed)

as per posts #15 and #3
freedom of the press - con

as per post #16
internet censorship - con (better source needed)

as per posts #18 and #25
Snowden - con

as per post #23
US forces worldwide - con

as per post #54
thinks China's handling of protests was not harsh enough - con

as per post #44
called for death penalty for cop killers, via EO - con

as per post #80
would consider gun ban for people on no-fly list - con

---

Economic Issues

as per post #32
opposed to TPP - pro (source needed)

as per posts #3, #18, and #64
supports eminent domain to advance specific business interests - con

as per post #56
supported bank bailouts - con

as per post #56
supported auto company bailouts - con

as per post #56
in favor of single-payer healthcare - con

as per post #56
refused to take a position on federal funding of planned parenthood, tried to play both sides of the issue - con

as per post #71
tax proposals are self-serving and add $11.74 trillion to the federal deficit - con

---

Foreign Policy
as per post #2
Iran sanctions / closer ties to Israel - con
muslim travel - con

as per posts #10-11 and #24
30,000 ground troops in Syria - con

as per post #13
argues war in Libya is a humanitarian mission - con
want to take Iraq's natural resources - con (also post #20)
"I am the most militaristic person that you will find." - con

as per post #20
preemptive war - con

as per post #23
US forces worldwide - con

as per post #59
named president of CFR as foreign policy adviser cabinet pick - con

---

Social Issues
as per post #2
drug legalization - con
muslim travel - con

as per post #32
tough immigration policy (source needed) - pro, but some may consider this a con

as per post #56
refused to take an actual position on abortion, tried to play both sides of the issue - con

as per post #56
in favor of single-payer healthcare - con

as per post #56
refused to take a position on federal funding of planned parenthood, tried to play both sides of the issue - con

as per post #80
would consider gun ban for people on no-fly list - con

---

Misc
as per post #4, #67
donated to bad candidates - con*

as per post #5
opposed by Ron Paul - con

as per post #6
attacked Rand Paul in Senate primary - con

as per post #7
opposed Ron Paul by threatening indie run in 2012 - con* (flip flop based on numerous current debate statements)

as per post #56
endorsement by and takes advice from the ghoul - con
endorsement by christie - con
endorsement by LePage - pro (some may see this as a con)
opposed by Amash - con




Notes:
Flip flops are denoted by *
Pros and cons listed in post #8 are not supported by any listed specific policy stances, supporting articles or quotes needed.
Pros listed in post #32 need supporting sources, but I included them because they are well-known specific stances with many sources (indisputable, clear stances from many remarks and statements).
Source below for cop killer death penalty via EO, as per post #44:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...or-Trump/page7 (post #182)
Source needed for federal land control quote, as per post #52 
Post #59 does not include direct quotes or policy proposals and stances.
Post #56 stances on various bailouts were given at the time they were current (2008-9) (Has he been asked about bailouts more recently?)
Post #56 stance on abortion is a quote from 1999 (anything more recent on the issue, or where an actual stance is given?)
Posts #93, #94, #95, #96, #97, #98 have not been supported with any sort of source.
There are statements given that appear to make immigration positions a flip-flop, although I have not tried to account for or note this in ratings - see 2012 and 2015 articles here:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...on-suggestion/
http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/24/do...ing-out-video/
I have seen comments to the effect that this candidate supports an assault weapons ban, but have not seen an actual source providing an actual statement or policy position on this issue.
More recent stances on Economic and Social Issues are needed for better accuracy in rating determination.
I will edit this post as additional information and sources are provided, or as per the direction of Bryan and mods.


Conclusions, based on info provided in this thread so far:
Civil Liberties - F (12 con, 0 pro)
Constitutional Issues - F (16 con, 0 pro)
Economic Issues - F (6 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy)
Foreign Policy - F (9 con, 0 pro)
Social Issues - F (6 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy, and some may consider the pro to be a con)
Misc - F (7 con, 1 pro) (pro may be seen as a con by some)

----------


## invisible

Endorsement from the ghoul, and looking to him for advice quote - con
Endorsement from christy - con
Endorsement from LePage - pro, but some may see as a con
Naming CFR president as foreign policy cabinet adviser pick - con
Opposed by Amash - con

Those things should certainly count for something.

con (endorsement and advice from the ghoul)
As per this here with sources cited: (posts #1 and #4)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...endorses-trump



> Rudy Giuliani ‎‎@RealRudyGiulian
> Today I endorse my good friend @realDonaldTrump as the #GOP nominee and future president of the USA.





> Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani is part of Donald Trump’s kitchen cabinet, giving campaign advice to the GOP front-runner, whom he described as a “close personal friend.”


pro (LePage endorsement - some may also see as a con)
con (christie endorsement)
As per this here with source cited: (post #1)
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-for-president



> Washington (CNN) Maine Gov. Paul LePage endorsed Donald Trump for president Friday, lending the GOP front-runner the backing of another northeastern governor on the same day Chris Christie offered his support.


con (CFR president as Foreign Policy adviser) 
3/3/16 debate, as per this thread here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-9-pm-ET/page3

And here's a few more:

con - supported auto company bailouts
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/20/co...louts-in-2008/



> Although Donald Trump is trying to re-invent himself as a conservative for a possible bid for president in 2012, reminders of his prior support for Democrats and big government polices keep adding up. The latest: The Donald supported the auto bailout in 2008. “I think the government should stand behind them 100 percent,” Trump told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto nearly three years ago. “You cannot lose the auto companies. They’re great. They make wonderful products.” Faced with crushing debts caused by poor management and high labor costs, GM and Chrysler requested federal assistance to keep the firms afloat, and were granted a $25 billion loan in the fall of 2008. President George Bush then secured more than $17 billion for the companies. This occurred months before the birth of the Tea Party, but conservatives were outraged. Not Trump. A longtime advocate of sweetheart deals between corporation and state, the real-estate developer went all in for the deal. “[Y]ou have to try and save the companies,” Trump said in a separate 2008 Fox News interview. “And I think you can easily save the companies."


con - supported bank bailouts
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20..._bailouts.html



> Back on September 30, 2008, Donald Trump was asked by CNN's Kiran Chetry what he thought of the plan to bail out failing banks. What he told her: "Well, I think it would be better if it passed. I'm not sure that it's going to work. A lot of people are not -- you know, it is trial and error. This is very complicated. This is more complicated than sending rockets to the moon. Nobody really knows what impact it's going to have. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't. But certainly it is worth a shot."


http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/...ckage-on-fox-n



> President Obama held his first prime-time press briefing — designed to build support for the economic stimulus package that was his top priority upon taking office — on Feb. 9, 2009. Later that same night, real estate mogul Donald Trump took to the airwaves to sing the plan’s — and the president’s — praises. “I thought he did a terrific job,” Trump told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren. “This is a strong guy knows what he wants, and this is what we need.” “First of all, I thought he did a great job tonight,” said Trump. “I thought he was strong and smart, and it looks like we have somebody that knows what he is doing finally in office, and he did inherit a tremendous problem. He really stepped into a mess, Greta.”


con - refused to take a real position on abortion, tried to play both sides of the issue
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/0...ions-old-news/



> RUSSERT: Partial-birth abortion — the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?
> TRUMP: Well, look. I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it, I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I hear people debating the subject. But you still — I just believe in choice. And again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in different parts of the country, and I was raised in New York, grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet I hate the concept of abortion.
> RUSSERT: But you would not ban it.
> TRUMP: No.
> RUSSERT: Or ban partial-birth abortion.
> TRUMP: No, I would — I would — I am pro-choice in every respect, as far as it goes. I just hate it.


con - in favor of single-payer healthcare
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...nada-scotland/



> Last night in Cleveland, the 17 declared Republican presidential candidates participated in the first official debates of the 2016 election season. Health care policy was a bone of contention. “How can you run for the Republican nomination and be for single-payer health care?” asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry of Trump. When Fox anchor Bret Baier later asked Trump to defend his position, Trump responded: “As far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in Scotland.”


https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/tru.../17/id/657674/



> "But I’m quite liberal and getting much more liberal on healthcare and other things. I really say: What’s the purpose of a country if you’re not going to have defensive and healthcare?" he told King. "If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. I mean, it’s no good. "So I’m very liberal when it comes to healthcare. I believe in universal healthcare. I believe in whatever it takes to make people well and better."


con - refused to take a position on funding planned parenthood, tried to play both sides of the issue
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ed-parenthood/



> During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump stated that he was open to the idea of continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars.
> “The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly,” Trump said. “And you can’t have it. And you just shouldn’t be funding it. That should not be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.”
> When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly provides, Trump said, “What I would do when the time came, I’d look at the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly the abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government, absolutely.”
> Trump continued, “I would look at the good aspects of [Planned Parenthood], and I would also look, because I’m sure they do some things properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care of women.”


con - opposed by Amash
http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/1...n-in-congres/1



> Amash: Donald Trump is the byproduct of a political establishment that has completely ignored Americans. I don't think he's ever talked about the Constitution, but he doesn't have to. He just has to be against Washington and people at home say to themselves, "Well, Washington's not standing up for us and this guy will."





> Amash: *I think he could be very dangerous as a president*, but Americans at home want someone who's going to stick it to Washington, D.C., and he'll certainly do that. *He'll create a lot of havoc in the process—and probably violate a lot of rights in the process, based on what I've heard from him*—but unfortunately the political establishment here hasn't been paying attention to people at home, and conservatives haven't been able to knock the establishment off its pedestal. Whereas Donald Trump has been able to.


http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/1...n-in-congres/3



> Amash: *I have a lot of concerns about Donald Trump.* I do not want Hillary Clinton to win. I think she would be the worst president of my lifetime. I think she's much worse than Barack Obama, and President Obama has been a pretty awful president in many ways. I was hopeful that he would actually take steps with respect to civil liberties and wars that would actually reflect what he said were his views. He presented himself as a guy who was going to stop some of the things that were happening under the Bush administration, and he hasn't really taken the steps necessary.
> 
> I will do what it takes to make sure that Clinton is not our next president, but, yeah, *I'm not going to say who I would vote for on Election Day if Trump were the Republican nominee.* I've always been a proud Republican, and I have voted for Republican nominees I didn't always agree with on a whole bunch of issues. *But I think we can do better.*

----------


## Bryan

Excellent work, that’s right in-line with that we’re after.


On the “statements made 15 years ago” issue, I think it may fall in the same category as some other points that could be considered as “2nd Tier Issues” – in that they can be worth mentioning but don’t hold the same weight as direct viewpoints on policies.
Items I would consider as 2nd Tier include:
 Very old statements Endorsements. Candidates can’t control them and they will accept most all of them. Still, it could reflect who he would put into a leadership positions. Campaign donations to other candidates. It’s hard to know all the motives of why someone would donate.  Again, it’s an issue but a minor one.


I will try to get some Trump supporters to weigh in.

BTW, if anyone is so motivated, we can create the most impactful statement but making this aggregation post completely self-contained. For example, for economic issues:



*Economic Issues*

Trump is on-target with the following positions:
Trump is against the TPP and he has called out the horrible trade deals the USA makes, from NAFTA on. Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...deal-insanity/

Trump should not be supported due to the following positions:
Trump supports the taking of private property thought the use of eminent domain. "Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country, for our country. Without it, you wouldn’t have roads, you wouldn’t have hospitals, you wouldn’t have anything. " Source: http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/trump-eminent-domain/


BTW, I would address 2nd issues as: “The following issues provide concern and should be considered:” – or similar. 

Also, taking position points right from the campaign website is the best source.


Thanks!!

----------


## phill4paul

> I will try to get some Trump supporters to weigh in.


  I've asked every one I came across spewing bull$#@! to come here and defend Trump.

*  It's time to $#@! or get off the pot.* 

My time here is about done unless action is taken.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Donald Trump’s Plan to Preserve Social Security by Eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Doesn’t Even Come Close to Adding Up
> 
> Donald Trump has staked out a position as the GOP primary’s most ardent defender of Social Security. He has promised not to change the benefit in any way, and insisted that he will both defend the program, which is on track to insolvency, from any cuts or changes and reduce annual deficits and the national debt at the same time.
> 
> Trump repeated this pledge at last night’s GOP debate, saying that he “will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is; to make this country rich again; to bring back our jobs; to get rid of deficits; to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse, which is rampant in this country, rampant, totally rampant.”
> 
> As is so often the case when Trump talks policy, his response makes clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about.
> 
> Let’s start with “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse is one of Trump’s favorite talking point solutions for covering budget gaps. It’s not a bad idea, exactly, but getting rid of all improper payments in the Social Security system—assuming this could even be done, which is exceedingly unlikely if you otherwise leave Social Security in its current form—would only net about $3 billion in savings annually.
> ...


http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/11/do...erve-social-se

----------


## cajuncocoa

The most important thing that should be considered, in my opinion, and should put an end to any thought to going forward with a pro-Donald Trump section is the fact that there have been numerous warnings against a Donald Trump presidency by none other than DR. RON PAUL. This being the message board that still bears his name, and still has many of his supporters hanging on out of respect for him (with the intention of continuing his fight for liberty) the decision seems obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.

----------


## Bryan

> I've asked every one I came across spewing bull$#@! to come here and defend Trump.


Great, that helps. Thanks!





> The most important thing that should be considered, in my opinion, and should put an end to any thought to going forward with a pro-Donald Trump section is the fact that there have been numerous warnings against a Donald Trump presidency by none other than DR. RON PAUL. This being the message board that still bears his name, and still has many of his supporters hanging on out of respect for him (with the intention of continuing his fight for liberty) the decision seems obvious to me. But that's just my opinion.


Dr. Paul bases his warnings off of facts, we are reconstructing those facts here.


So far, only invisible has provided ratings for the base components:



> Conclusions, based on info provided in this thread so far:
> Civil Liberties - F (10 con, 0 pro)
> Constitutional Issues - F (14 con, 0 pro)
> Economic Issues - C (1 con, 1 pro) (more specific policy stances and proposals needed for accuracy)
> Foreign Policy - F (9 con, 0 pro)
> Social Issues - C- or D (2 con, 1 pro) (more needed for accuracy, and some may consider the pro to be a con)
> Misc - F (6 con, 1 pro) (pro may be seen as a con by some)



We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


Thanks.

----------


## phill4paul

> We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


  Outstanding!

----------


## invisible

I have updated posts #55 and #56 to reflect some additional information.  Bryan appears to have made last call here.  Does anyone else have additional info, or actual (or better) sources for info provided in this thread that has not been properly or accurately sourced?  (please refer to "notes" in post #55)  I will attempt to keep post #55 as updated as possible, pending additional information and sources.

I did attempt to be as objective as possible in post #55.  However, there are some areas that do require a judgement call that is at least somewhat subjective.  For instance, if a area of policy contains 5 cons and 1 pro, with two of the cons being position statements on an issue that was current 8 years ago, and the one pro is a policy that not only may some view as a con, but it also appears to be a flip-flop, then what should the evaluation rating be for that area of policy?  There are two such areas where it becomes a bit subjective, and Bryan (and whoever else is part of the decision) will need to make a judgement call.  However, this only seems to be the case in two areas, and the remaining areas of policy seem quite clear-cut as to where the candidate actually (and currently) stands on the issues.  Remember, the more information, and the better the information, the less subjective the decision can become!

----------


## William Tell

> *Donald Trump: Eminent Domain Is Wonderful*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump sees a simple reason why so many conservatives disagree with him on eminent domain, the controversial power by which the government seizes private land for development projects: *They just dont understand the issue as well as he does. I fully understand the conservative approach, but I dont think it was explained to most conservatives, Trump said in an interview with Fox Newss Bret Baier that aired yesterday. Nobody knows this better than I do, because Ive built a lot of buildings in Manhattan and youll have twelve sites and youll get eleven and youll have the one holdout, and you end up building around them. I know it better than anybody.* Eminent domain may seem like an obscure issue, but the Club for Growth Action Fund found it important enough to spotlight in an attack ad against Trump.
> 
>  The ad focused on Trumps full-throated support for the Supreme Courts decision in Kelo v. New London, which allowed state and local governments to seize land from one private owner and give it to another private owner to further economic development. Many conservatives saw the decision as expanding the power of elected officials and wealthy developers at the expense of the private landholders who often stand in the way of their ambitions.
> 
> ...


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...main-wonderful

----------


## William Tell

From @*r3volution 3.0* 


> *INDEX* (numbers below issues link to sources)
> 
> *I. Policy Issues*
> 
> Pro Socialized Medicine
> #1 . #2 . #3 . #4 . 
> 
> Pro Bank Bailouts
> #1 . 
> ...


 http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5954359

----------


## William Tell

leaving this here 


> *O'reilly** : Libya- um, the libyan action is being explained as a humanitarian issue*
> 
> *"I support stopping that kind of slaughter, but the problem is where do you stop..."*
> 
> *Iraq:*
> *"To the victor go the spoils" 
> "as sure as you are sitting there Iran is going to come in and take over the oil (in Iraq), you stay and you take the oil"*
> 
> *"I am the most militaristic person that you will find."* 
> ...

----------


## William Tell

> *Donald Trump to Endorse Harry Reid
> *
> 
> 
>  Reality  TV star, Donald Trump, who endorsed and contributed money to Harry Reid  and Charlie Rangel will travel today to Nevada to endorse a Republican  candidate?
> 
>         Please explain to us why anyone would care.
> 
>         Please explain to Republican voters in Nevada why they should  consider the opinion of a billionaire from New York who endorsed the  arch enemy of all Republicans in Nevada, and really the enemy of all  Republicans in the US.
> ...


 ..

----------


## William Tell

> *Donald Trump: 'Torture Works'* Donald Trump, the Republican candidate currently  leading the pack in South Carolina, told a crowd Wednesday morning that  "waterboarding is fine" but "not nearly tough enough." 
> 
> 
>                                                                                     This was not the first time Trump has advocated  in favor of the controversial enhanced interrogation tactic. But at a  town hall event in Bluffton, South Carolina, Trump insisted that  "torture works." 
> 
> 
>                                                                                     A Senate Torture report from 2014 said enhanced interrogation tactics did not help to retrieve information from prisoners. 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...-works-n520086

----------


## presence

> I am voting for Trump, even though I know him to be a very flawed candidate, because for the first time in a long time, someone has actually had the intestinal fortitude to call the trade deals out for the piece of crap that they are and shout from the rooftops that we do not have a country without borders.  I totally agree with him.


so lets just boil it down

you're not here to support liberty
you're here to support state nationalism and socialism

you want to overturn globalist trade deals for nationalist trade deals, $#@! everyone from adam smith to murray rothbard... and their free markets

you want to overturn eons of open borders because we give too many benefits to newcomers in opposition to



> Some people and organizations advocate for an extension of the freedom  of movement to include a freedom of movement – or migration – between  the countries as well as within the countries. *This include Libertarian Party of the United States, the International Society for Individual Liberty*


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

and in solidarity with




> The Eastern Bloc  claimed that the Wall was erected to protect its population from  fascist elements conspiring *to prevent the "will of the people" in  building a socialist state* in East Germany. In practice, the Wall served to prevent the massive emigration and defection that had marked East Germany and the communist Eastern Bloc during the post-World War II period.


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


such liberty
much eagle

----------


## William Tell

> *Donald Trump Promises to Bring Back Waterboarding and Worse Torture: 'If It Doesn't Work, They Deserve It Anyway'*Donald Trump is doubling down on his promise to reinstate waterboarding as an accepted form of interrogation – and taking it one step further by saying he'd approve even _worse_ torture.  
> 
> "Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would – in a  heartbeat," Trump said to cheers during a rally in Columbus, Ohio,  Monday night, according to _The Washington Post_.  "And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It  works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work." 
> 
> Trump added that waterboarding – a controversial interrogation  tactic that was banned by the Obama administration and classified by the  United Nations as torture – is what's needed to deal with terrorists  who "chop off our young people's heads" and "build these iron cages, and  they'll put 20 people in them and they drop them in the ocean for 15  minutes and pull them up 15 minutes later." 
> 
> "It works," Trump repeated of waterboarding. "Believe me, it  works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway,  for what they're doing."


http://www.people.com/article/donald...arding-torture

----------


## William Tell

> Economic Issues - D- or F (5 con, 1 pro) (more recent policy stances and proposals needed for best accuracy)


Here's something





> *Donald Trump’s tax plan costs $12 trillion, according to analysis*
> 
> 
> Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s tax plan would  cost an eye-popping $12 trillion over 10 years, according a new estimate  that runs directly counter to the billionaire’s pledge not to increase  the deficit with the proposal.
> 
> 
>  The conservative Tax Foundation,  which has been scoring candidates’ tax proposals throughout the race,  found that Trump’s changes to the individual tax code would add $10.2  trillion to the deficit using traditional scoring methods, his corporate  tax cuts would add $1.54 trillion and his proposal to eliminate the  estate tax would add another $238 billion. 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-tr...rding-analysis

----------


## William Tell

> Last night in Cleveland, the 17 declared Republican presidential   candidates participated in the first official debates of the 2016   election season. Health care policy was a bone of contention. How can   you run for the Republican nomination and be for single-payer health   care? asked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry of Trump. When Fox anchor Bret   Baier later asked Trump to defend his position, Trump responded: As  far as single payer, it works in Canada, it works incredibly well in  Scotland.


...

----------


## William Tell

> *Trump Open To Idea of Continuing Taxpayer Funding of Planned Parenthood*
> 
> During an interview with CNN Tuesday morning, Republican   presidential  frontrunner Donald Trump stated that he was open to the   idea of  continuing to fund Planned Parenthood with federal tax dollars.
> 
>  The problem that I have with Planned Parenthood is the abortion    situation. It is like an abortion factory, frankly, Trump said. And    you cant have it. And you just shouldnt be funding it. That should not    be funded by the government, and I feel strongly about that.
> 
>  When pressed on non-abortion services Planned Parenthood allegedly    provides, Trump said, What I would do when the time came, Id look at    the individual things they do, and maybe some of the individual things    they do are good. I know a lot of the things are bad. But certainly  the   abortion aspect of it should not be funded by government,  absolutely.
> 
>  Trump continued, I would look at the good aspects of [Planned    Parenthood], and I would also look, because Im sure they do some things    properly and good and that are good for women, and I would look at    that, and I would look at other aspects also. But we have to take care    of women.
> ...


http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ed-parenthood/

----------


## invisible

> Here's something
> http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-tr...rding-analysis


I got the impression that this was something from 1999 or 2000, I don't think this is a current proposal.  I didn't include it for this reason.  I did already include some of the stuff you've posted.  However, Bryan said that he wants to discount older positions, and try to concentrate on things said in the current campaign.  So, I paid less attention to things from 1999-2000, that were undated, or that did not articulate a clear policy proposal or stance on an issue.  Referring to my notes in post #55, do you have anything more current or better sourced, for the issues that I mentioned there?  It would be great to have something more solid and current on gun control and abortion issues.  The waterboarding is a good one, as that is a current well-defined stance on an issue - I'll add it in, but unfortunately it isn't in either of the areas where more or better information is needed.

edit:  I see that the waterboarding position is already in there.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So far, only invisible has provided ratings for the base components:
> 
> 
> 
> We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


 @invisible has done a fantastic job grading the information provided here (I can't really improve on what he's already done, but I will continue to look for more information to evaluate.)

----------


## cajuncocoa

> http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ed-parenthood/


My comment on that Brietbart piece: it's not just a question of whether PP might later shift those funds to abortion. Even if they don't, government has no business paying for mammograms, Pap smears, birth control Pills, etc (I've never been to a PP clinic, so I'm just guessing what these other "good things" are that Trump is speaking of.) If those are the things he's speaking of, they ARE good and necessary procedures (the first two, anyway) but government shouldn't be providing the funding for ANY of that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*How Realistic Is Donald Trump's Immigration Plan?    * (Answer: It's not)







> Donald Trump wears what's become a campaign signature: his "Make America Great Again" hat. Part of making the country great again, Trump says, is implementing his hard-line immigration plan.
> 
> 
> Scott Heppell/AP
> 
> 
> Donald Trump's immigration plan is  like the candidate  flashy, strident and headline-grabbing. Fox News called it "an early Christmas gift" for immigration hawks. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter pronounced it "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-plan

----------


## invisible

> *How Realistic Is Donald Trump's Immigration Plan?    * (Answer: It's not)
> http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...migration-plan


I haven't seen the e-verify position before, I'll add that in!  Immigration has already been covered - that's an issue that is hard to determine accurately (which has been noted), since it seems to have been flip-flopped on, is an obviously impractical proposal, and some will view it as either a pro or a con, depending on opinion.  However, I did mark it as a pro, simply because this is an issue that supporters have argued as being one of the candidate's strengths.

----------


## William Tell

> I got the impression that this was something from 1999 or 2000, I don't think this is a current proposal.


No, it is a tax plan he released in September of last year according to the Tax Foundation. That's why the article compares it to Rubio's, Rand's, etc. I saw a graph comparison on Twitter a while back not sure if I can find it. The point is Donald Trump getss an F on economic issues.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at*





> Sun December 6, 2015
> 
> Washington (CNN)Republican presidential contenders have largely called for increases in surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris and California. But they also argued Sunday that one U.S. surveillance tool -- the government's no-fly list -- can't be trusted as a tool to bar gun purchases.
> 
> 
> *Several GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential nomination argued against a Democratic push to bar members of the no-fly list from buying firearms during appearances on Sunday news shows, saying that list is too broad. Just one -- Donald Trump -- said they were willing to consider the move.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/

----------


## William Tell

> One note, we should focus on data that is somewhat recent, statements / viewpoints made 15 years ago may have changed.
> 
> Thank you everyone, this is all very useful.


 How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.




> *Donald Trump Calls 'Self-Deportation' Idea 'Maniacal'* Billionaire Donald Trump is the latest in a string of Republicans to  criticize the party for failing to recognize the increasing diversity of  the country. 
> 
> 
>  "Republicans didn't have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians," Trump told Newsmax. 
>  He told the site that Republicans appeared hostile toward minorities this election cycle. 
> 
> 
>  "The Democrats didn't have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants,  but what they did have going for them is they weren't mean-spirited  about it," he said. "They didn't know what the policy was, but what they  were is they were kind." 
> 
> ...


 http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17814473

----------


## invisible

> No, it is a tax plan he released in September of last year according to the Tax Foundation. That's why the article compares it to Rubio's, Rand's, etc. I saw a graph comparison on Twitter a while back not sure if I can find it. The point is Donald Trump getss an F on economic issues.
> 
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/det...ump-s-tax-plan


Ok, added.

----------


## klamath

> How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17814473


That one really shows the dishonesty of Trump but I am sure Trump supporters will say we can't count anything he says 3 years ago now.

----------


## William Tell

> That one really shows the dishonesty of Trump but I am sure Trump supporters will say we can't count anything he says 3 years ago now.


Well, that would mean they think it is OK for Trump to totally change his mind for the last year of his presidency. If 3 years isn't considered relevant I don't know what is.

----------


## invisible

> *Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at*
> More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/


Ok, added.

----------


## William Tell

> *Trump would consider gun ban for no-fly list members that rest of GOP balks at*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/06/politi...s-no-fly-list/


Wow. I forgot about that. If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is. That puts him in F- territory in a category or two. Constitutional and Civil Liberties come to mind.

We do have F-, right?

----------


## undergroundrr

> Well, that would mean they think it is OK for Trump to totally change his mind for the last year of his presidency. If 3 years isn't considered relevant I don't know what is.


Then I would think 7 or 8 years would be the cutoff for flip-flops.  For the last 24 years, we've been in an era of two-term presidents.

----------


## invisible

> How recent? Trump was liberal on immigration 3 years ago. That is a total flipflop on the main issue that makes him appealing to people.
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...ry?id=17814473


As I had noted, that's going to require a subjective judgement call by Bryan.  In the interest of being completely objective, I marked immigration down as a pro, but did note the concerns of an apparent flip-flop on the issue.

----------


## invisible

> Wow. I forgot about that. If that isn't a deal breaker I don't know what is. That puts him in F- territory in a category or two. Constitutional and Civil Liberties come to mind.


It's also a social issue, so I counted it in that category as well.

----------


## cajuncocoa

*Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge*
Aug 27, 2015




> Donald Trump told Mark Halperin yesterday that his sister, a federal judge, would be a “phenomenal” Supreme Court justice. He also said that “we will have to rule that out now, at least.”
> 
> 
> If he ever becomes president, let’s hope he rules it out permanently. Maryanne Trump Barry came up in my book The Party of Death for writing one of those heated judicial decisions in favor of giving constitutional protection to partial-birth abortion. She called a New Jersey law against it a “desperate attempt” to undermine Roe v. Wade. It was, she wrote, “based on semantic machinations, irrational line-drawing, and an obvious attempt to inflame public opinion instead of logic or medical evidence.” It made no difference where the fetus was when it “expired.”
> 
> 
> So: The right of abortionists to make a child “expire” by partially extracting her from the womb, sticking scissors in the back of her head, vacuuming out her brain, and crushing her skull to complete her extraction, is right there in the Constitution. But let’s please not have any “semantic machinations.”



More: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru


*Donald Trump: I Was Joking When I Said I’d Put My Pro-Abortion Sister on the Supreme Court*

FEB 15, 2016   




> Now that pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia has passed away, pro-life voters are scrutinizing each of the candidates in terms of how they will handle Supreme Court appointments. And when it comes to businessman Donald Trump, he has faced criticism in some quarters from pro-life voters who point to a past interview he gave about his sister, who is a pro-abortion attorney.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Now, in a new interview, Trump says pro-life voters shouldn’t take the offhanded praise for his sister seriously and that she is not someone he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> SIGN THE PLEDGE: I Pledge to Vote for a Pro-Life Candidate for President
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/15/d...supreme-court/

----------


## invisible

> Then I would think 7 or 8 years would be the cutoff for flip-flops.  For the last 24 years, we've been in an era of two-term presidents.


The apparent immigration flip-flop is within that time frame.  I have attempted to note any information that is included, but is older than the current election cycle.  I have also excluded information that is older than the current election cycle, except in the cases for where there is apparently no current policy proposal or stance, and information in that particular category is somewhat lacking.  If you have additional updated information, I'd be glad to include it.  Any additional current information with supporting sources would be most welcome!

----------


## invisible

> *Trump Praises His Sister, a Pro-Abortion Extremist Judge*
> Aug 27, 2015
> 
> 
> 
> More: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423196/trump-praises-his-sister-pro-abortion-extremist-judge-ramesh-ponnuru
> 
> 
> *Donald Trump: I Was Joking When I Said I’d Put My Pro-Abortion Sister on the Supreme Court*
> ...


I don't feel that this should be included.  Given what you have presented here, it doesn't seem to clearly provide a policy proposal or stance on an issue - it's a "retracted statement", with the claim that it was said as a joke.  If Bryan feels it should be factored in, I'd be glad to include it.  But in the interest of objectivity, I'm going to leave it out for now.

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## Origanalist

> Pro - Wants to end pointless wars in the Middle East
> 
> I have to run, but I'll see if I can come up with more when I get back later


When you do I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Pro - *Wants to end pointless wars in the Middle East*
> 
> I have to run, but I'll see if I can come up with more when I get back later


By sending 30,000 troops to Iraq and Syria?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-g...q-syria-220608

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Pro - Wants to eliminate cronyism re: government contracts


*'Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist'*


Luigi Zingales:


Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist: Four years ago, in the first draft of my book “A Capitalism for the People,” I had a section dedicated to how worrisome a Donald J. Trump presidential bid would be for America. I was not prescient. It’s just that having grown up in Italy, I knew how a real estate tycoon — in this case, Silvio Berlusconi — whose career exemplified crony capitalism could become the leader of supposed pro-market forces, and I knew what it meant for the country.


I cut this section after being told that my point was irrelevant: In America, there was no chance that a character like Mr. Trump would ever be seriously considered as a candidate.


Then 2016 happened. ...


Mr. Trump ... is, in short, the essence of that commingling of big business and government that goes under the name of crony capitalism. ...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He obviously doesn't think destroying ISIS would be pointless. *He thinks Iraq and Afghanistan are pointless*.


You don't explain what you mean by the second sentence, but sending 30,000 American troops to that region to defeat ISIS is not in our best interest.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Pro - Not beholden to Wall Street or special interests


See:  *Donald Trump, Crony Capitalist*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Pro - Defends 2nd amendment


It's already been pointed out that he wants to ban guns for people on the no-fly list.  Slippery slope, plus people could be put on the  no-fly list by mistake (it's happened before.)

----------


## William Tell

....

----------


## William Tell

...

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## openfire

//

----------


## LibertyEagle

> so lets just boil it down
> 
> you're not here to support liberty
> you're here to support state nationalism and socialism


Not socialism at all.  But yes, if you give me the choice between putting my country before some commie one-world globalism, you betcha, I'll choose my own country EVERY time.




> you want to overturn globalist trade deals for nationalist trade deals, $#@! everyone from adam smith to murray rothbard... and their free markets


I hate to break it to you, but the trade deals we have now are NOT free trade.  It requires more than putting the words "free trade agreement" in the name, you know.

And hell yes, I believe our trade balance/imbalance needs to be watched.  When we did, our economy was much better off, and shock of all shocks, American businesses still managed to trade with other countries without having 1000s of pages of federal government dictates and an international ruling body sitting above our own Congress.




> you want to overturn eons of open borders because we give too many benefits to newcomers


You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS.  Yeah, no "benefits" whatsoever to them, comrade.  




> in opposition to
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement


People will still be able to visit.  Recognizing borders does nothing to end that.  




> and in solidarity with
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall


Yeah right, comrade.  
The proposed wall will be in high traffic areas that are currently being flooded by illegal aliens.  If you recall, during the last election, Ron suggested putting the National Guard on the border.  Would you also equate that to a DMZ?

I was here to support Ron and then Rand.  In case you hadn't noticed, neither is in the race.  

Someone is going to be the President.  From the less than desirable ones still in the race, I find Trump to be the best.  I have already expressed why.  That doesn't mean I don't have concerns.  Your choice may differ or from the looks of it, you may think yourself high and mighty pious by not voting for anyone at all.  However, all you have done is removed yourself from the equation and put your stamp of approval on whomever is chosen for you.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> you may think yourself high and mighty pious by not voting for anyone at all.  However, all you have done is removed yourself from the equation and put your stamp of approval on whomever is chosen for you.


Arguing this point is not what this thread is about, but I have to jump in and say I disagree with this reasoning completely.  If you want to continue the discussion, I'll be happy to start a thread on it.

----------


## presence

> Not socialism at all.  But yes, if you give me the choice between putting my country before some commie one-world globalism, you betcha, I'll choose my own country EVERY time.


so why do you need that wall if you don't want to continue giving benefits to everyone on this side of it?

_that is state socialism_

You face three options:  globalism, nationalism, and individualism.   you choose nationalism because you fear globalism.    congratulations you've been trolled, the nationalists are globalists in sheep's clothing.




> I hate to break it to you, but the trade deals we have now are NOT free trade.  It requires more than putting the words "free trade agreement" in the name, you know.


doubtless.   I don't disagree.

but whereas you and trump seem to think we should have nationalized "good trade deals" 

austrians, like Ron and myself believe in free markets 




> And hell yes, I believe our trade balance/imbalance needs to be watched.  When we did, our economy was much better off, and shock of all shocks, American businesses still managed to trade with other countries without having 1000s of pages of federal government dictates and an international ruling body sitting above our own Congress.


I'd like a citation from an austrian economist on beneficial state policies which impact "our trade balance".     Else just come to terms that you're a state socialist, because national trade deals are state socialism.    Its ok... if you stick around long enough we'll convert you to free market austrian economics.    here, have some gary north:

https://mises.org/library/tariffs-we...tate-economics




> You mean ILLEGAL ALIENS.  Yeah, no "benefits" whatsoever to them, comrade.


but benefits for everyone else... see you set yourself up...  *you want a socialist state*... and you're willing to aggrandize state power and use VIOLENT state border controls *to maintain it.*

I want life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.    $#@! entitlements.  $#@! prison state machine guns at the border wall between two fictitious "states".    If individuals want to defend their personal private property I have no issue with it.   





> People will still be able to visit.  Recognizing borders does nothing to end that.


ihre papiere bitte.... national id cards to come





> Yeah right, comrade.  
> The proposed wall will be in high traffic areas that are currently being flooded by illegal aliens.  If you recall, during the last election, Ron suggested putting the National Guard on the border.  Would you also equate that to a DMZ?


that's because Ron knows that "the laws"; however unjust, can be changed with the stroke of a pen, and border walls are inherently difficult, divisive, and costly to take down once they are erected.




> I was here to support Ron and then Rand.  In case you hadn't noticed, neither is in the race.


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

I don't believe in voting for the least $#@!ty option    

see this guy:  





that's me.










> Someone is going to be the President.  From the less than desirable ones still in the race, I find Trump to be the best.  I have already expressed why.  That doesn't mean I don't have concerns.  Your choice may differ or from the looks of it, you may think yourself high and mighty pious by not voting for anyone at all.  However, all you have done is removed yourself from the equation and put your stamp of approval on whomever is chosen for you.


You'll find that Ron always supported electoral politics pragmatically "to get the message out".    




> Samuel Edward Konkin III responded:[20]
> 
> Can  you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and  spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be  heading for the underground railway? Surely they would choose the counter-economic  alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be  seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist  Slavemasters Party is elected.




I don't believe in binary solutions.   I don't believe I have to vote for someone that has "a good chance of winning"; as a matter of fact I find that to be THE problem with modern propagandised elections.   I feel ZERO guilt from failing to pick red or blue.




> In our almost psychotic fear of communism and other totalitarian  philosophies, we tend to adopt some of their methods and thinking.  Essentially, communism and fascism are ideas, and unless we have a  better idea we will never be able to win the battle for men's minds. The  Smith Act, the McCarran Act and all the armies in the world can never  insulate or isolate us from the onslaught of totalitarianism. As never  before in our history, we need men in this country who are willing to  defend their liberty
> 
> 
> * by espousing the conditions which make up that  liberty.*
> 
> 
> 
> Unless we can create a healthy, free economy, we will  continue to have conflicts; and *no amount of government, worldwide or  otherwise*, is going to bring about a lasting peace. If anything, more  government will lead to more distress. I want a world where there will  be less, not more laws; where there will be more, not less freedom;  where people will travel from one country to another with less, not more  immigration restrictions; a world where trade is free and not regulated  by tariffs and quotas; where a man can walk in the sunlight without  fear of the police, and where his ideas are free and not censored; a  world where the individual is supreme and the state is subservient, and  not the other way around.


https://mises.org/library/peace-thro...rld-government




> Anti-communism was the central root of the decay of the old  libertarian right, but it was not the only one. In 1953, a big splash  was made by the publication of Russell Kirk's _The Conservative Mind._  Before that, no one on the right regarded himself as a "conservative";  "conservative" was considered a left smear word. Now, suddenly, the  right began to glory in the term "conservative," and Kirk began to make  speaking appearances, often in a kind of friendly "vital center" tandem  with Arthur Schlesinger Jr.
> 
> 
> This was to be the beginning of the  burgeoning phenomenon of the friendly-though-critical dialogue between  the liberal and conservative wings of the Great Patriotic American  Consensus. A new, younger generation of rightists, of "conservatives,"  began to emerge, who thought that the real problem of the modern world  was nothing so ideological as the state vs. individual liberty or  government intervention vs. the free market; the real problem, they  declared, was the preservation of tradition, order, Christianity and  good manners against the modern sins of reason, license, atheism and  boorishness.
> 
> 
> One of the first dominant thinkers of this new right  was Buckley's brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell, who wrote fiery articles  in National Review attacking liberty even as an abstract principle (and  not just as something to be temporarily sacrificed for the benefit of  the anti-communist emergency). The function of the state was to impose  and enforce moral and religious principles.
> Another repellent  political theorist who made his mark in National Review was the late  Willmoore Kendall, NR editor for many years. His great thrust was the  right and the duty of the majority of the communityas embodied, say, in  Congressto suppress any individual who disturbs that community with  radical doctrines. Socrates, opined Kendall, not only _should_ have been killed by the Greek community, whom he offended by his subversive criticisms, but it was their moral _duty_ to kill him.


https://mises.org/library/confession...t-wing-liberal





no man can serve two masters

----------


## staerker

> Yeah right, comrade.  
> The proposed wall will be in high traffic areas that are currently being flooded by illegal aliens.  If you recall, during the last election, Ron suggested putting the National Guard on the border.  Would you also equate that to a DMZ?


Berlin Wall: 96.3 mi
Korean Wall: 149 mi
*Trump Wall: 1000 mi*

----------


## LibertyEagle

> so why do you need that wall if you don't want to continue giving benefits to everyone on this side of it?
> 
> _that is state socialism_


Nope.  No prize for you.  I would prefer if citizens didn't receive benefits, either.  However, even Ron said he wouldn't end everything for citizens overnight; including Social Security, which citizens paid in to.

Illegal aliens are a different matter altogether.  They earned and deserve zip.




> You face three options:  globalism, nationalism, and individualism.   you choose nationalism because you fear globalism.    congratulations you've been trolled, the nationalists are globalists in sheep's clothing.


Comrade, your love of world communism is showing.  Careful now.




> doubtless.   I don't disagree.
> 
> but whereas you and trump seem to think we should have nationalized "good trade deals"


This just shows you haven't read much of what I have written; even in this thread.  I said quite clearly, that I would prefer if all of the incorrectly named free trade deals were ripped to shreds, and that includes the ruling bodies above our own Congress.  But, if that isn't going to happen, yes, I would much prefer the horrible trade deals, were at minimum, renegotiated.  Because right now, they are helping to turn our country into a 3rd world nation.




> austrians, like Ron and myself believe in free markets


lol.  No, Ron, free markets.  You, world communism.






> I'd like a citation from an austrian economist on beneficial state policies which impact "our trade balance".     Else just come to terms that you're a state socialist, because national trade deals are state socialism.


You are the one who appears to want to keep the trade deals we are now in.  Not I.   




> Its ok... if you stick around long enough we'll convert you to free market austrian economics.


Let's see, I've been here since '07; you, since '11.  lol




> here, have some gary north:
> 
> https://mises.org/library/tariffs-we...tate-economics
> 
> but benefits for everyone else... see you set yourself up...  *you want a socialist state*... and you're willing to aggrandize state power and use VIOLENT state border controls *to maintain it.*
> 
> I want life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.    $#@! entitlements.  $#@! prison state machine guns at the border wall between two fictitious "states".    If individuals want to defend their personal private property I have no issue with it.


So, it's bad to have a border wall in illegal alien high traffic areas, but it's ok for Ron Paul to suggest putting the National Guard on the border?  ok, gotcha.  lol




> ihre papiere bitte.... national id cards to come


Actually, that is going to come before we blink our eyes, if the illegal alien invasion of our country is not curtailed.  Neither of us wants that.  You, however, prefer, to hand-wring and wait for it to come.  I don't.




> that's because Ron knows that "the laws"; however unjust, can be changed with the stroke of a pen, and border walls are inherently difficult, divisive, and costly to take down once they are erected.


So, here you are giving your high-five to a militarized border.  How very "libertarian" of you.  lol




> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
> 
> I don't believe in voting for the least $#@!ty option


Yes, I understand.  You prefer sitting on the sidelines and letting others decide for you.  Great choice there, Sparky.

<incessant Presence blather snipped>




> no man can serve two masters


True and you have chosen to serve the master that others will choose for you, while you whine on the sidelines.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Arguing this point is not what this thread is about, but I have to jump in and say I disagree with this reasoning completely.  If you want to continue the discussion, I'll be happy to start a thread on it.


I would imagine that Bryan will split all of this out soon.  But no, we've all been through this a million times.  No reason to do it one million and one.  We are not going to change each other.

----------


## presence

> Nope.  No prize for you.  I would prefer if citizens didn't receive benefits, either.  However, even Ron said he wouldn't end everything for citizens overnight; including Social Security, which citizens paid in to.


so if you paid in and have a number you get pay back out.  why do we need a wall for that?




> Illegal aliens are a different matter altogether.  They earned and deserve zip.


and it should be on the books they didn't "pay in" , so again... no need for a wall.




> Comrade, your love of world communism is showing.  Careful now.


please I'm an anarchist eating the prison food I'm fed and willing to deal civilly with the voluntarist minarchists as the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel





> This just shows you haven't read much of what I have written; even in this thread.  I said quite clearly, that I would prefer if all of the incorrectly named free trade deals were ripped to shreds, and that includes the ruling bodies above our own Congress.  But, if that isn't going to happen, yes, I would much prefer the horrible trade deals, were at minimum, renegotiated.  Because right now, they are helping to turn our country into a 3rd world nation.


I don't believe bodies politic should stand between consenting adults in trade, I agree we should rip up our trade deals.   I'm not interested in supporting or advocating statist *"repeal and replace"* solutions to statist imposed problems.







> lol.  No, Ron, free markets.  You, world communism.


You want government goons to steal from me to build and enforce walls, I say no... therefore I'm a commie.

seems legit








> You are the one who appears to want to keep the trade deals we are now in.  Not I.


you seem to miss my call for ZERO TRADE DEALS.   Free trade means INDIVIDUALS making deals with WILLING PARTIES without government interference. 







> Let's see, I've been here since '07; you, since '11.  lol


I guess that means you began your liberty activism and Ron Paul promotion when you joined this site, that's enchanting LE.   I've been actively protesting statism by various means since before I was legally an adult.




> So, it's bad to have a border wall in illegal alien high traffic areas, but it's ok for Ron Paul to suggest putting the National Guard on the border?  ok, gotcha.  lol


I don't support either.    Its much easier to march troops back out than it is to tear walls down, so I suspect its a matter of political calculus for Ron.  







> Actually, that is going to come before we blink our eyes, if the illegal alien invasion of our country is not curtailed.  Neither of us wants that.  You, however, prefer, to hand-wring and wait for it to come.  I don't.


I prefer to stop handing out free cheese, declaring contraband, and fomenting wars. 

You reactively assume all of that is impossible and want more state impositions on freedom as solutions to deal with the terror of state imposed problems.   

brilliant.   Diocletian.







> So, here you are giving your high-five to a militarized border.  How very "libertarian" of you.  lol


I'm here for no border.  I'm here for natural unalienable rights. 




> True and you have chosen to serve the master that others will choose for you, while you whine on the sidelines.


free your mind the rest will follow

----------


## phill4paul

> 03-16-2016, 10:10 PM
> We should have an assessment complete within 24-48 hours.


  I consider this thread closed. Both sides have made their case. The time for debating is past. Now is the time for Bryan to make the call.

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## Danke



----------


## phill4paul

> 


 Too late breaking. Deadline is over.

----------


## Bryan

Here is the site policies resulting from this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-support

----------


## Bryan

> Too late breaking. Deadline is over.


Evaluations can always change, however in cases like these adding new good points is of little value, what has to happen is to prove that negatives were misplaced.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> on (also post #18 and #64)
> tough immigration policy (source needed) - pro, but some may consider this a con


Isn't his immigration policy to send the SS to root out the illegals send them over the border, and bring them right back with voting rights in hand? Even the skinheads here should hate that policy.

----------


## undergroundrr

> Isn't his immigration policy to send the SS to root out the illegals send them over the border, and bring them right back with voting rights in hand? Even the skinheads here should hate that policy.


Yes, trump has offered the most expensive and disruptive amnesty proposal yet.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

Trump - zero

Ron Paul - The Gold Standard in candidates...

----------


## phill4paul

> Trump - zero
> 
> Ron Paul - The Gold Standard in candidates...


  +rep.

----------


## William Tell

What a waste of time, there is more Trump support on this site now than before we wasted all our time compiling this info. Pointless and depressing.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What a waste of time, there is more Trump support on this site now than before we wasted all our time compiling this info. Pointless and depressing.


Yet, Johnson remains a "liberty candidate", after he came out in support of Hillary's innocence and for the Trans Pacific Partnership.   lolol.  Amazing.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yet, Johnson remains a "liberty candidate", after he came out in support of Hillary's innocence and for the Trans Pacific Partnership.   lolol.  Amazing.


Not in my opinion. Some would give their support just to elevate awareness of the party but I see no value to that with those two heading the ticket.

----------


## jllundqu

Love the new sub-banner of "None of the Above!"

----------


## AuH20

I don't have many major contentions with the grades, with the exception being the foreign policy grade. I honestly think it's pretty ridiculous. 'C 'or 'B-' I could see, but F?

How does someone receive an F who wants to diminish the increasingly burdensome NATO commitment, cease nation building and ultimately restore friendly relations with a major nuclear power in Russia?  The only real pox on Trump is his position on Iran. If Trump is an F, I don't think you can even fairly grade the other Republicans, since they are foreign policy extremists.

For example, look at the American Conservative's grading scale on FP issues. Trump received a collective 'C' grade, which is probably accurate. Notice that noted neoconservative Marco Rubio received Fs across the board:

----------


## Petar

> Love the new sub-banner of "None of the Above!"


"None of the above" can't actually get elected President...

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't have many major contentions with the grades, with the exception being the foreign policy grade. I honestly think it's pretty ridiculous. 'C 'or 'B-' I could see, but F?
> 
> How does someone receive an F who wants to diminish the increasingly burdensome NATO commitment, cease nation building and ultimately restore friendly relations with a major nuclear power in Russia?  The only real pox on Trump is his position on Iran. If Trump is an F, I don't think you can even fairly grade the other Republicans, since they are foreign policy extremists.
> 
> For example, look at the American Conservative's grading scale on FP issues. Trump received a collective 'C' grade, which is probably accurate. Notice that noted neoconservative Marco Rubio received Fs across the board:


LOL.  Bernie freaking Sanders got a B and a higher grade than any GOP candidate including Trump.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yet, Johnson remains a "liberty candidate", after he came out in support of Hillary's innocence and for the Trans Pacific Partnership.   lolol.  Amazing.


And now Donald Trump has endorsed Obama's immigration efforts as "tremendous."  LOL

----------


## Zap!

> I don't have many major contentions with the grades, with the exception being the foreign policy grade. I honestly think it's pretty ridiculous. 'C 'or 'B-' I could see, but F?
> 
> How does someone receive an F who wants to diminish the increasingly burdensome NATO commitment, cease nation building and ultimately restore friendly relations with a major nuclear power in Russia?  The only real pox on Trump is his position on Iran. If Trump is an F, I don't think you can even fairly grade the other Republicans, since they are foreign policy extremists.
> 
> For example, look at the American Conservative's grading scale on FP issues. Trump received a collective 'C' grade, which is probably accurate. Notice that noted neoconservative Marco Rubio received Fs across the board:



That's wrong. Trump and Carson should both get an "A" on the Iraq war. They opposed it. Hillary supported it, so she should at the very least get a "D". Cruz also said we should leave Assad alone, so he should get an "A" or "B".

----------


## William Tell

Well.............

----------


## phill4paul

> Well.............


......




> I heard he called for 30k troops in Syria in the debate this evening.
> 
> /Deal breaker

----------


## phill4paul

Hat tip to cajun. When I think of those we have lost over Donald $#@!ING Trump I just gotta SMDH.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

> Hat tip to cajun. When I think of those we have lost over Donald $#@!ING Trump I just gotta SMDH.


It's a damn shame for sure! It hurts to see the liberty idea grasping for breath in this age of free idea exchange.  When they stop us from being able to exchange ideas over the interwebs I really don't know how liberty will prevail.  I had such high hopes for the intewebs being the tool that would open people's eyes but it seems that is simply not whats happening.  The wheelers and the dealers are taking control of what should be our tool...

----------


## merkelstan



----------

