The ambiguous part of this, of course, is what of discussions about side benefits that have already occurred, or things that amount to a very good outcome in terms of the site's Mission, as a result of the Trump candidacy? It has been pointed out that there are numerous institutional obstacles blocking the success of Paul-like liberty candidates at the national level. Specifically, the donor class backing and controlling puppets like Bush, Rubio, etc. Or the similarly controlled mainstream media, whose job has been to push the donors' puppets, marginalize all the unapproved candidates, and relentlessly push or shame all parties to conform to a 'mainstream' narrative that promotes a bigger state, or a break with cultural tradition.
I have quoted Ron Paul himself, and Chuck Baldwin, and conservatives like Buchanan and Schafly et al, to confirm their agreement that Trump's presence in the race has disrupted this established order. As in already happened, past tense. This is an already achieved result of his campaign, to have disempowered the donors, crushed the prospects for a Bush III or Rubio I neocon regime, and overcome the MSM's control games. How could this crippling of the anti-liberty racket not be compatible with the site's Mission? Can this real, not theoretical achievement be spoken of freely under this policy? The wording of the policy appears to presume all talk of Trump's value for the liberty cause is hypothetical, which is not accurate.
