Donald Trump's 2024 POTUS campaign

[unknown]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

WTF


https://x.com/USTechWorkers/status/1803926021542154323

 

[WarriorLiberty]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

WTF


https://x.com/USTechWorkers/status/1803926021542154323

Whatever happened to America first putting Americans of all first?

 

[WarriorLiberty]

If you re-watch Trump's debates or speeches from 2015 2016, he really only had or mentioned 3 primary issues:

Muslims.

China.

The border.

This is literally what got him elected.

Now, he's flipped, at a time when it's much worse...

Did he say just Indian?

https://www.livemint.com/news/world...give-us-ability-to-import-11719056293357.html

There are many Canadians in Canada who now want less Indian graduates, that hasn't worked out well in Canada...

 

[PAF]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

WTF


https://x.com/USTechWorkers/status/1803926021542154323

“I promise to staple a Green Card to anyone who graduates from ANY college, even 2-yr community colleges.”

That's where his Agenda47 "Nationalized" American University comes in. Trump is going to fine/tax/sue Private donors and use that money to offer it for "FREE".

When are folks going to put 2 and 2 together.


Go ahead and vote for him. He is going to fix it all

 

[spudea]

In 2016, Trump would have responded, we already have the best and the brightest right here in America...

Wrong. He has always said we need legal immigration and it should be merit based for people that benefit our country.

 

[PAF]

Wrong. He has always said we need legal immigration and it should be merit based for people that benefit our country.

Merit based, via his "FREE" college? lol

Oh you Trump-Humpers really crack me up

That's where his Agenda47 "Nationalized" American University comes in. Trump is going to fine/tax/sue Private donors and use that money to offer it for "FREE".

When are folks going to put 2 and 2 together.


Go ahead and vote for him. He is going to fix it all

Boy, if Biden/Harris even uttered such a thing I can't even imagine all of the memes that would be circulating

 

[Sonny Tufts]

In the limit, states should assign their electors however they damn well please...

Funny, that's just what the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

This matter has been hashed out before. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ection&p=7018494&highlight=Paxton#post7018494 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...isconsin-at-Supreme-Court-over-Election-Rules

The bottom line is that SCOTUS (including 2 and possibly 3* Trump appointees) held that Texas had no standing, just as I had predicted in 2000. When 7 (and possibly 9*) justices pour you out, it's a good indication that your suit is meritless.

So you can bitch and moan about the "cowardly" or "corrupt" Supreme Court justices, but it doesn't change the fact that Paxton wasted Texas taxpayers' money by filing a baseless petition with the Court.

* 7 justices declined to hear Texas' petition due to lack of standing. Alito and Thomas would have heard the petition but would not have granted other relief. While not totally clear, their statement (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.) can be interpreted as indicating that they too believed that Texas lacked standing.

EDIT: All three Trump appointees agreed Texas had no standing. Neither Alito nor Thomas was appointed by Trump.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Funny, that's just what the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

This matter has been hashed out before. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ection&p=7018494&highlight=Paxton#post7018494 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...isconsin-at-Supreme-Court-over-Election-Rules

The bottom line is that SCOTUS (including 2 and possibly 3* Trump appointees) held that Texas had no standing, just as I had predicted in 2000. When 7 (and possibly 9*) justices pour you out, it's a good indication that your suit is meritless.

So you can bitch and moan about the "cowardly" or "corrupt" Supreme Court justices, but it doesn't change the fact that Paxton wasted Texas taxpayers' money by filing a baseless petition with the Court.

* 7 justices declined to hear Texas' petition due to lack of standing. Alito and Thomas would have heard the petition but would not have granted other relief. While not totally clear, their statement (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.) can be interpreted as indicating that they too believed that Texas lacked standing.

If the PA legislature wants to assign its Electors directly and forgo an election it has that right, but it must do it officially, and the PA executive branch doesn't get to just bypass the legislature and the legislated electoral process and cheat surreptitiously.

And Texas has standing, since they suffer under the consequences of the cheating in PA and other states.
SCOTUS chickened out and caved to the deepstate.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If the PA legislature wants to assign its Electors directly and forgo an election it has that right, but it must do it officially, and the PA executive branch doesn't get to just bypass the legislature and the legislated electoral process and cheat surreptitiously.

You haven't a clue what the issue with the PA process was. The PA Supreme Court had held that the PA Constitution's provision for free and equal elections required extending the deadline for submitting mail-in and absentee ballots. Texas's argument was based on the astonishing claim that in devising the rules for selecting electors a state legislature isn't bound by its state constitution. This theory, called the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, had been previously rejected by SCOTUS in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), a case involving the authority of state legislatures under the Article I Elections Clause. It was rejected again in Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), another case involving the Article I Elections Clause. The reasoning in those cases would also apply to a case involving the Article II Elections Clause, such as Texas' complaint.

And Texas has standing, since they suffer under the consequences of the cheating in PA and other states.

B.S. Texas wasn't injured at all; all of its electoral votes went to Trump, and that's all Texas and its voters were entitled to.

All three Trump appointees were of the view that Texas lacked standing. But Trump lemmings such as yourself would never consider for a second that those three and the other 4 in the majority just might know a bit more than you about the law of standing and that maybe, just maybe, they got it right. No, under your outlook they "chickened out", as if their lifetime appointments were meaningless.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That's where his Agenda47 "Nationalized" American University comes in. Trump is going to fine/tax/sue Private donors and use that money to offer it for "FREE".

When are folks going to put 2 and 2 together.


Go ahead and vote for him. He is going to fix it all

No one said he was going to fix it all. Even Ron Paul couldn’t.

There is no liberty candidate running and even if there were, they wouldn’t be perfect either.

Some of us nonetheless would prefer if we had more time to take action before our country totally imploded. Trump, with all his many warts, is clear to me to be far less damaging than gun confiscation, communist Harris/Walz.

However, aren’t you the guy rooting for the country to hurry up and go belly up?

 

[PAF]

No one said he was going to fix it all. Even Ron Paul couldn’t.

There is no liberty candidate running and even if there were, they wouldn’t be perfect either.

Some of us nonetheless would prefer if we had more time to take action before our country totally imploded. Trump, with all his many warts, is clear to me to be far less damaging than gun confiscation, communist Harris/Walz.

However, aren’t you the guy rooting for the country to hurry up and go belly up?

Less damaging???

Well, I'm certainly not going to vote! vote! vote! for the guy who wants to implement National Militarized Policing to take over Local LEO and then give them Immunity. I'm certainly not going to vote! vote! vote! for "Stop and Frisk". I'm certainly not going to vote! vote! vote! for the guy who wants to Tax/Fine/Sue PRIVATE donors and then use that money to start a Nationalized American University and pass out "FREE" diplomas to immigrants coming in.

I mean, come on now, if Obama changed his letter after his name to an R, would you vote for him if he was running against Nancy Pelosi? And then on top of that give him "another chance"???

Do you even understand how politics works??? I mean, outside of going to a voting booth and putting a check mark next to the letter R in a little square???

No, dear, I actually have principles and will not vote! vote! vote! for that just because "other side".

 

[LibertyEagle]

Less damaging???

Well, I'm certainly not going to vote! vote! vote! for the guy who wants to implement National Militarized Policing to take over Local LEO and then give them Immunity. I'm certainly not going to vote! vote! vote! for "Stop and Frisk". I'm certainly not going to vote! vote! vote! for the guy who wants to Tax/Fine/Sue PRIVATE donors and then use that money to start a Nationalized American University and pass out "FREE" diplomas to immigrants coming in.

I mean, come on now, if Obama changed his letter after his name to an R, would you vote for him if he was running against Nancy Pelosi? And then on top of that give him "another chance"???

Do you even understand how politics works??? I mean, outside of going to a voting booth and putting a check mark next to the letter R in a little square???

No, dear, I actually have principles and will not vote! vote! vote! for that just because "other side".

Don’t act surprised. I have been saying much the same thing this entire election. Where we seem to disagree is that you prefer if the country hurried up and collapsed. I know you don’t believe in borders; do you believe in there being nations?

 

[PAF]

Don’t act surprised. I have been saying much the same thing this entire election. Where we seem to disagree is that you prefer if the country hurried up and collapsed. I know you don’t believe in borders; do you believe in there being nations?

Here we go, "borders" again. Because you can't and/or refuse to Follow the Money. YOU are the GLOBALIST if you support closed borders. Here is one example, and it get's better/worse as you watch the entire thing:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QvtT_lgl_Q

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here we go, "borders" again. Because you can't and/or refuse to Follow the Money. YOU are the GLOBALIST if you support closed borders. Here is one example, and it get's better/worse as you ..

I support having them, yes. Lew Rockwell has written at least two articles about this. The earliest one is in my sig.

 

[PAF]

I support having them, yes. Lew Rockwell has written at least two articles about this. The earliest one is in my sig.

Ok, so what, Lew Rockwell wrote 2 articles. Walter Block has written and given lectures multiple times opposing that, which you of course would object.

I take things further and Follow the Money, the effects that it has, what the end-goal is and forming my own analysis.

Though Walter Block does not bring Bill Gates up in his discussions, I agree with his solution because not only is it the rightful solution, but because it also rejects Bill Gates' plan to "restrict" freedom of travel and would have people live in cell-block company/government owned residences. Because, you know, "overpopulation" and the "damaging effects" that humans have on the environment. COVID was but one test for lock-down, travel-restriction compliance.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, so what, Lew Rockwell wrote 2 articles. Walter Block has written and given lectures multiple times opposing that, which you of course would object.

I take things further and Follow the Money, the effects that it has, what the end-goal is and forming my own analysis.

Though Walter Block does not bring Bill Gates up in his discussions, I agree with his solution because not only is it the rightful solution, but because it also rejects Bill Gates' plan to "restrict" freedom of travel and would have people live in cell-block company/government owned residences. Because, you know, "overpopulation" and the "damaging effects" that humans have on the environment.

None of us wants any of that UN crap. But, being overrun by fighting age men we know little to nothing about from all over the world, doesn’t seem very wise. Or perhaps you haven’t kept up with what is going on in the UK?

And yes, I believe in sovereign nations.

 

[PAF]

None of us wants any of that UN crap. But, being overrun by fighting age men we know little to nothing about from all over the world, doesn’t seem very wise. Or perhaps you haven’t kept up with what is going on in the UK?

What you strongly advocate is government solutions to government created problems. I reject that. The only rightful remedy is what nobody on either "side" is talking about [because they are in cahoots, one hand feeds the other], which is to DEFUND the programs which are allowing it to happen. [invite and pay for them to come, implement police-state to counter it].

I hear the excuse all the time "well, defunding will never happen, so we should and will support the police-state". If as much energy and coalition went into defunding the programs in order to return things back to normalcy, as there is screaming and voting for police-state solutions, we could actually return to the Bill of Rights while saving tremendous amount of money.

I do not advocate, nor will I "vote", to throw more money away while stripping me of my rights. I would never vote for Obama with an R after his name just because he was running against Nancy Pelosi.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Enjoy PAF. Should they be sent to your house to fund all of their needs? And if they murder someone?

https://x.com/thelucyshow1/status/1824683395802337301

 

[Anti Federalist]

Walter Block has written and given lectures multiple times opposing that, which you of course would object.

LOL

Walter Block is the guy that cleared out the RftR way back when, talking about abortion and evictionism.

He's a crank.

 

[PAF]

LOL

Walter Block is the guy that cleared out the RftR way back when, talking about abortion and evictionism.

He's a crank.

Disagree with Walter on 3 topics. Disagree with Trump on many, many, many, many, including $8T.

Vote goes to Trump, not Walter.

Got it