Alex Jones endorses Trump

[juleswin]

Why does he prefer Trump over Cruz then?

The NWO, globalist something something something else CFR...... bankers.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist (with the exception of JFK assassination theories). I really only watched his show for the people he interviewed.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Sanders, like Trump, is only allowed to exist to prevent the anti-establishment from coalescing. Ron Paul got too close for comfort last time around. The Tea Party and OWS needed to be consumed and defeated. The "outsider" dynamic has been co-opted by the establishment pretty damned effectively.

(and I think you meant "cakewalk" - at least I hope so.)

Already corrected. Again, Rand was already being neutralized. The outsider trend manifested itself most strongly across three different candidacies, not one (as an establishment plant), plainly indicating the phenomenon is independent of Trump. If the trend was co-opted by the elite, it would have only hurt Rand, but what it has done instead is stall all the establishment candidates, meaning it is not being guided by the elite. But don't just believe me, here's another 'deluded' person:

"The point is, Trump’s popularity is directly related to the way that he is willing to boldly and courageously stand against the Boehner/McConnell, mealy-mouthed, sissified, spineless, jellyfish, pro-amnesty, pro-Obamacare Republican establishment.

Please understand that my mind is still NOT made up about Donald Trump. I still have uncertainties and questions that have yet to be answered. (Perhaps my biggest question is, Will he continue the neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East?) That’s not the point here. The point is, Donald Trump--more than any other Republican candidate--is successfully (so far) mounting a fierce and effective anti-establishment campaign. And you can tell it by the way Boehner and his fellow elitists in the GOP leadership are attacking him.

As far as politics are concerned, more than anything else in this world, it is imperative that the establishment elite in Washington, D.C., are dethroned. Right now, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders are the two men who are most effectively accomplishing that task. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (and to a lesser extent Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina) are also mounting anti-establishment campaigns, but they have not been nearly as effective as Trump." ---Chuck Baldwin

 

[erowe1]

The NWO, globalist something something something else CFR...... bankers.

Probably all true.

And still less terrible than Trump.

I wouldn't endorse either one. But if AJ's gonna pick one, he couldn't do a worse job than he's doing.

 

[Anti Federalist]

And this goes right here.


Is it a “Good Idea”?

by eric • January 30, 2016

http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/01/30/is-it-a-good-idea/

The other day, I wrote about ethanol – the corn-sourced alcohol that’s used as a fuel additive in almost all the “gas” sold in the United States. Air quotes used because the “gas” is actually 10 percent ethanol.

Or, more.

I got replies – mostly favorable, a few not.

Some of the nots touted the virtues of ethanol – and I will freely admit there are some.

As I hope the nots would acknowledge ethanol’s downsides.

It’s neither here nor there.

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that ethanol is the ideal fuel.

It’s still an irrelevance… morally speaking.

The issue – whether it’s ethanol or Obamacare or some other “program” – is whether the use of violence (threatened or actual) is morally justifiable. Debating the utilitarian merits (and deficits) of whatever it is we’re talking about sidesteps this fundamental point and by doing that, concedes the field. Or at the very least, keeps the matter open for discussion when it ought to be closed.

This – debating the utilitarian pros and cons – is key to the ongoing vitality (and viability) of the Red vs. Blue, Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative puppet show.

There is no debate over the fundamental question. Just a discussion over how much violence will be visited on whom – and to what end. Who will benefit (and even profit)… and who will be compelled to provide those benefits (and profits).

This is why it doesn’t matter which candidate or party wins a given election. It’s the same as having an intermission at an auction – and announcing a new auctioneer for the second half of the auction. It’s why the debates are so tiresome – and why people (even though most probably don’t realize it) are so sick of it all. Everyone knows their lives and property are up on the block – that whether it’s Tweedledee or Tweedledum – they are going to be told what to do, how much they’ll pay and so on. It’s like being in a prison and always having to sleep with one eye open.

There is no “leave me be” option – and can’t be, so long as the question is even up for consideration. The very best one can hope for is a temporary respite or a slight decrease in the amount demanded or the control asserted. This is the sole and only difference between Team Red and Team Blue, between liberals and conservatives.

Since at least the time of the Whiskey Rebellion (1791), the principle has been enshrined that it’s ok to take other people’s stuff or make them do what you like provided you have the political muscle; the votes or the “leaders” willing to make it so. Not by asking but by telling.

Some 225 years ago, the “Founding Father” of the United States, Toothless George – and his golem, Alexander Hamilton – marched on rural Pennsylvania to teach the veterans of the American Revolution a lesson about what they’d actually fought for.

Or rather, for whom.

It wasn’t for freedom from obnoxious taxation. It was for an exchange of auctioneers. They’d been bled for the cause of replacing the British ruling elite with a homegrown elite.

Washington and Hamilton and the rest rather than George III and the rest. New boss, same as the old boss.

Worse, actually.

Most Americans do not know this – for very good reason – but the fact is taxes on the average person were less oppressive (effectively nonexistent) under the original Team Red (King George and Parliament) than under the original Team Blue (President George and Congress). The Revolution was fought to benefit the colonial ruling class, crony capitalist finance shysters like Hamilton – not ordinary people like the Pennsylvania farmers – who had previously never been threatened with bayonets to hand over money they didn’t have to pay what amounted to federal income taxes on the whiskey they made and bartered among themselves as a medium of exchange.

It must have been a rude wake-up call.

Since that time, at least, the debate has always been: who shall pay… how much shall they pay… and to what end?

Never whether anyone ought to be forced to pay anything.

The latter concept having been abandoned and the former embraced, it is today merely a question of degree. It is why we have a formal federal income tax, state taxes,local taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, motor fuels taxes, sin taxes, taxes on property, taxes on transactions, taxes on meals (and whiskey) as well as Obamacare and all the rest of it. There is no longer any end to it. How could there be? What would be the basis for drawing a line?

Republicans believe in “less government” (so they say) but still demand your money and insist on their right to control your life. Democrats advocate the same, just tweaked a little here and there. Both sides argue interminably over the spoils. Never whether they have any right to the spoils.

Ron Paul tried to put the debate on a moral rather than utilitarian level. If he’d been a younger, more charismatic man he might have been dangerous. Cue the Zapruder film.

Trump, on the other hand, isn’t.

Neither is Hillary or Bernie or Jeb or Ben or Marco.

Fundamentally, they are all in agreement.

Which is why the coming election doesn’t matter.

A year or so from now, we may have a more luxurious White House (it’ll be great, really) but what we absolutely will not have, ever, is a government that leaves us be. Because it’s a contradiction in terms, an impossibility. Government – as Washington himself admitted – is force. Organized, systematized. Expecting it to just sit there and leave us be is like expecting a lion to not eat the sheep just shoved into his cage. It’s what he does.

It’s the nature of the beast.

 

[Anti Federalist]

///

 

[Dianne]

Why does he prefer Trump over Cruz then?

Because of Cruz's ties to Goldman Sachs.

 

[erowe1]

Because of Cruz's ties to Goldman Sachs.

As opposed to Trump's ties to Goldman-Sachs, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, Chevy Chase Bank, Royal Bank of America, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the KKK?

I still don't get it.

I'm guessing there was an exchange of money involved here.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Already corrected. Again, Rand was already being neutralized. The outsider trend manifested itself most strongly across three different candidacies, not one (as an establishment plant), plainly indicating the phenomenon is independent of Trump. If the trend was co-opted by the elite, it would have only hurt Rand, but what has done instead is stall all the establishment candidates, meaning it is not being guided by the elite. But don't just believe me, here's another 'deluded' person:

Another thing to remember is that there is nothing about Trump's strategy that is particular to Trump himself. A true Liberty Style candidate can utilize the same script Trump is using and ride it to victory themselves (one already has in fact, in the person of Dave Brat). Jones is looking at the big picture here.

 

[donnay]

As opposed to Trump's ties to Goldman-Sachs, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, Chevy Chase Bank, Royal Bank of America, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the KKK?

I still don't get it.

I'm guessing there was an exchange of money involved here.

Can you document any of these claims?

 

[erowe1]

Can you document any of these claims?

Yes. Every one of them. I wasn't aware any of them were unknown.

The banks are all ones he owes money to.

There are tons of pictures, donations, and quotes on record of his love relationship with the Clintons.

And his dad was arrested at a KKK event. He also has retweeted utter lies from white nationalist sources.

 

[jllundqu]

He actually prefers Rand. Just thinks Trump has a better chance.

So he is a coward and has no principle or integrity.... got it.

 

[jllundqu]

Probably trying to avoid being scooped up in the first round of purges.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kade again.

That shit made me spit my coffee on the keyboard.... I'm billing you!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kade again.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Zero proof here that Jones is supporting Trump. He had him on in an interview recently, I remember that, but I don't remember him endorsing Trump.

He's definitely talked Trump up, but I believe he has maintained that Rand is his #1 candidate.

 

[donnay]

Yes. Every one of them. I wasn't aware any of them were unknown.

The banks are all ones he owes money to.

There are tons of pictures, donations, and quotes on record of his love relationship with the Clintons.

And his dad was arrested at a KKK event. He also has retweeted utter lies from white nationalist sources.

Your words are not the same as documenting the claims.

Have you ever borrowed money from a bank--mortgage, car loan--etc...?

During Ron Paul's Presidential runs many of the same tactics were use on him. They called him a racist with the alleged newsletters. Anyone who is worth their salt knows that is simply untrue--but it was said, nevertheless to smear a good man.

 

[limequat]

The way the controlled opposition is getting doxed this cycle makes me think Rand is doing better than we thought.

AJ is a honey pot. Partake at your own risk.

 

[ARealConservative]

That's all there is to it. I think he'll come around if/when Rand wins something. The Jones hate on this thread has more to do with the personality cult surrounding the Pauls displayed by many supporters here, than liberty. Those supporters are only "pro-liberty" if it looks like, talks like, or behaves exactly like the Pauls---genteel, dryly rational, professorial. If progress towards the cause comes in any other form, like a brassy sounding talk show host, or a blue collar sounding, confident business leader, they call it "the enemy."

Trump is burning to the ground all the gains Ron Paul tried to make in the GOP. he is an enemy of this movement.

 

[dannno]

Probably all true.

And still less terrible than Trump.

I wouldn't endorse either one. But if AJ's gonna pick one, he couldn't do a worse job than he's doing.

Actually I would say Cruz is more establishment than Trump. I refuse to support either one, I have no idea what Trump's actual motivations are and the fact that he isn't very liberty friendly just turns me off completely - but I do know Cruz' motivations, he is a slimy, CFR, NWO Goldman Sachs scoundrel on a mission to destroy any vestiges of liberty. I'm actually very disappointing that Ted Cruz is even on Jones' "short list" more than I am about Trump.

The Truth About Ted Cruz
[video]http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?489285-The-Truth-About-Ted-Cruz[/video]

 

[TER]

Trump is burning to the ground all the gains Ron Paul tried to make in the GOP. he is an enemy of this movement.

Trump is just demonstrating the critical thinking skills of a large portion of the American populace. Same way Mussolini did with the uneducated masses who supported him.

 

[specsaregood]

Your words are not the same as documenting the claims.

Have you ever borrowed money from a bank--mortgage, car loan--etc...?

During Ron Paul's Presidential runs many of the same tactics were use on him. They called him a racist with the alleged newsletters. Anyone who is worth their salt knows that is simply untrue--but it was said, nevertheless to smear a good man.

Agreed, just wait until Trumps supporters find out about his half-black love child. That should clear up any racist claims.