Champion of Liberty Donald Rumsfeld endorses Trump

[nikcers]

Precisely. And will that make Trump a Libertarian any more than Rumsfeld saying he will vote for Trump make Trump a neocon? No. There are reasons for endorsements, and the reasons are important. Rumsfeld laid out his reasoning for reluctantly supporting Trump thusly: Hillary is a known known and she is unacceptable, while Trump is a known unkown, which, while not ideal, is preferable.

That's not much of an endorsement, IMO.

But since Hillary shills are rejoicing in this news because it apparently "proves" something, I intend to expose their hypocrisy by holding them to that same "high standard" of logic when Rand endorses.

The only neocon you can make that argument with is Christie, because he signed the same agreement. I guess what I would point out is Rand isn't parading around in his plane with him.

 

[openfire]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads.

 

[nikcers]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads.

go hug Chris Christie

 

[openfire]

Quotes AND context? What kind of witchery is this? Begone from here, foul demon! Jesus loves me!

Why, certainly: Rumsfeld says he'll 'clearly' vote for Trump, calls him 'known unknown'

Former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he's "clearly going to vote" for Donald Trump for president, calling Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, "unacceptable."

"The way I think of it is this," Rumsfeld said Wednesday night on Fox News Channel's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. "On the Democrats' side, we have a known known. On the Republican side, we have a recent entry, who's a known unknown."

That line, of course, was a play on a famous series of statements uttered at a Pentagon briefing in February 2002 in response to a question about whether there was evidence Iraq had tried to supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld said then. "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know."

Trump, apparently, falls into the second category, according to Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld, who served as Defense secretary for both Presidents George W. Bush and Gerald Ford, went on to cite the reasons he found Clinton "unacceptable" for president, including her handling of the Benghazi attack in September 2012 and her use of a private email server to handle government information while serving as secretary of State.

As for Trump, Van Susteren asked Rumsfeld if he was endorsing or just supporting the presumptive GOP nominee, a distinction some Republicans have made in announcing their support of the real estate mogul.

“I don’t know that there’s any difference," but added: "No one asked me for my endorsement."

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads.

Rand signed a pledge that he almost certainly wishes he hadn't.

 

[openfire]

Rand signed a pledge that he almost certainly wishes he hadn't.

I see the rationalizing has already begun.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I see the rationalizing has already begun.

Rand was very anti-Trump when he was running. When all the other candidates were sucking up to the Donald because they didn't want to alienate his supporters, Rand went on the offensive.

 

[twomp]

In May:

Trump supporter: I'm voting for him because the MSM told me he's anti-establishment and look, the neocons hate him!!

In June:

Neocons endorse and support Trump.

Trump supporter: The neocons HAVE to support him because he's on Team Red so its okay now.

 

[CPUd]

Rationalizing of Rand's endorsement will be ruthlessly mocked, since that is the precedent set in this, and other threads.

You may want to rethink that plan, it's not going to work out well for you.

 

[Krugminator2]

FWIW, Rumsfeld was probably the least terrible of all the people in the Bush Administration. Even Pat Buchanan had somewhat of soft spot for him. I think he was in an impossible situation with the people around him.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4198

 

[Antischism]

FWIW, Rumsfeld was probably the least terrible of all the people in the Bush Administration. Even Pat Buchanan had somewhat of soft spot for him. I think he was in an impossible situation with the people around him.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4198

What about Dick Cheney?

 

[Krugminator2]

What about Dick Cheney?

Cheney is the worst of the worst imo.

And upon further inspection Rumsfeld is pretty terrible too. I just remember all the really hardcore neocons hated Rumsfeld.

 

[RandallFan]

All the rhetorical alpha males & serious mid-carders in the Bush Admins endorsed Trump.

Cheney stood up to racist Colin Powell.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Since there are some individuals posting on this thread who are a bit slow on recognizing divergent opinions beyond a binary level (irony, they name is this "with us or against us" nonsense front and center on RPF), I'm going to state before hand that I am not voting in this election cycle and I am not a Trump supporter. My views on this are dispassionate with regard to who wins this election, which has been relegated all but to a joke. However, on the topic of using logic to deal with political realities, I do admit a degree of passion.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are both political animals, not ideologues. There is this myth of Dick Cheney being some sort of diabolical Senator Palpatine character that magically controlled all the Neo-cons from his tiny little state of Wyoming before being selected to be Dubya's VP. There is a spectrum under which most people in the GOP fall, and while both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney display Neo-con viewpoints on matters of foreign policy, there are nuances that separate both of them from core ideologues like Bill Krystol who have a conniption whenever somebody flies off the reservation of foreign policy. Cheney is closer to being a solid Neo-con, where Rumsfeld kinda falls into the quasi school. People seem to forget that 90% of the country supported Dubya's foreign policy for a fair length of time and the theories of 9/11 being some kind of conspiracy didn't gain any traction until well after things began going south in Iraq.

I find the woes of some of the individuals posting on this thread a bit hypocritical, for on one hand they are making these snarky remarks about Trump supporters twisting the laws of logic in rationalizing a handful of Neo-cons endorsing Trump (Rand Paul and Pat Buchanan are not Neo-cons, and both either have or are going to endorse Trump), while on the other they are warping reality itself by positing this grand Neo-con conspiracy that has infected every aspect of political discourse except for a tiny conclave that frequents this forum, almost like a little splinter cult.

I'm getting increasingly tired to coming onto the presidential forum and seeing the same 4 or 5 people constantly putting up useless threads in order to bull-bait the other side. It was obnoxious when guys like AuH20 were doing it months back, and it's actually even worse now. The Liberty movement, if it hasn't already, is about to go the way of The New Atheist movement and become a parody of itself, and it's extremely hard to stomach.

 

[nikcers]

Rand was very anti-Trump when he was running. When all the other candidates were sucking up to the Donald because they didn't want to alienate his supporters, Rand went on the offensive.

Rand's still not sucking up, because fuck you thats why, and thats why Rand is the only one who gets my vote- everyone else told me the emperor was wearing clothes.

Paul's 'premise' on immigrants differs from Trump's June 24, 2016
Paul – who tussled with Trump in debates before dropping out of the presidential race following the Iowa caucuses – on Friday defended immigrants who come to the United States legally.
"My philosophy is we should look at immigrants as people who come here seeking freedom and prosperity," he said.
Asked about Trumps's treatment of the judge, Paul said, "My premise for getting into this race was a different premise. That there wasn't enough sort of rural white voters for the Republican Party to get bigger. I thought we had to get more diverse."

 

[enhanced_deficit]

Rumsfeld is right hand man of SWC Bush, Trumpster should say thanks but no thanks.


Trump lashes out at George W. Bush and Obama
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.../trump-lashes-out-at-george-w-bush-and-obama/
CNN
Apr 16, 2011 - "George Bush gave us Barack Obama. If it weren't for George Bush, we wouldn't have Barack Obama," Trump said on Friday. "

 

[nikcers]

Donald Rumsfeld reported 2 Trillion dollars were missing from the federal defense budget on 9/10/2001. ($8000 for every american citizen) The next day the pentagon accounting office was incinerated, and many people researching the missing money were killed.

Wheres the money Don?