Trump Would Fund Super-PACs Aimed at Taking Down Cruz, Kasich

A complete and utter LIE.

They are opposed on a number of issues. Issues I have posted many, many times. But, since we are not supposed to support Trump here, I guess that means you get away with repeating your lie over and over again.

Hillary and Trump have both made public statements endorsing (among other terrible policies):

-TARP
-QE
-the Obama stimulus
-single-payer socialized medicine
-the PATRIOT Act
-the Iraq War
-the Libya War
-an assault weapons ban

Do you accept this fact, or do I need to post (for the several hundredth time) the direct quotes?
 
Hillary and Trump have both made public statements endorsing (among other terrible policies):

-TARP
-QE
-the Obama stimulus
-single-payer socialized medicine
-the PATRIOT Act
-the Iraq War
-the Libya War
-an assault weapons ban

Do you accept this fact, or do I need to post (for the several hundredth time) the direct quotes?

None of those things matter. All that matters is that Trump is (at least on most days) for big government when it comes to regulating immigration. In the eyes of most of the people here who support him, that's a good thing.
 
None of those things matter. All that matters is that Trump is (at least on most days) for big government when it comes to regulating immigration. In the eyes of most of the people here who support him, that's a good thing.

If only they would admit it.

What's intolerable is the pretense that it's about advancing liberty.
 
13697230_967731386678311_8849483533113062854_n.jpg
 
Thank you for admitting that Governor Johnson did nothing to oppose the Iraq War.

Please apologize to the forum for your lie saying otherwise.

Please stop posting lies to the forum.

Gary Johnson:

I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning
I was opposed to us going into Iraq from the beginning, I really thought that there was no threat to our national security, I really thought that if we went into Iraq we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end and I thought we had the military surveillance capability to see Iraq rollout any weapons of mass destruction and if they would have done that, we could have gone in and dealt with that. Afghanistan originally, I was completely supportive of that.
Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011
 
Regardless or not someone supports trump or not. You have to admit that cruz was there to screw and take the wind out of rand's sail.

I read on bloomberg that kelley paul said that cruz was "two faced". That cruz that parroted whatever rand said.

Rand could have probably lasted as the last 3 candidates in the primaries.
 
Cruz is not very good at making allies, which is why the party elites would rather stand with Trump. Cruz is not done trying to be president, he won't be done for a long time.
 
Hillary is disgusting.

What did the Democrats say "hey remember that guy who was impeached for lying about blow jobs? Get his wife?"

The Clintons set new standards for personal awfulness. We don't want more of that.

How do you know how Trump is going to govern?

You're arguing they're identical. They're not. We can always fall back on the whole "well what we believe is best is so far from what we usually get and what most people seem to want that all the actual nominees always appear close to each other." That's true, but that doesn't mean that Trump and Hillary are identical. There are clear differences. Build the wall. Clinton doesn't agree on that one.

I've changed my position when it became clear that Hillary was going to be the nominee (which technically hasn't happened yet). My position then was they all suck and Giant Meteor 2016. That's when there was an undifferentiated mass of suck. But then it became clear that Trump and Clinton were the nominees. And it became clear that either Trump or Hillary would be President. And Hillary is so awful that it became time to look at Trump.

I lived through the 1990s. I was paying attention. It was an awful embarrassment, and anyone who was older than a little kid at that time really should know that. For months if not years you had the same people who attacked Clarence Thomas defending Clinton, and what Clinton did was far worse. It was disgusting. Democrats took the position that Perjury was completely acceptable to them as long as it's a Democrat who committed the Felony.

That's who you're defending. Trump is a candidate that appeals to people who are pissed off, Both the Pauls appeal to pissed off GOP voters. The message isn't the same, but Trump is not the next RINO in a series of RINOs. There were Ron Paul people - Maine delegates, who were on board with Trump when Rand Paul was still an option. They weren't right to do that, but there were some that did.

Trump explained his contribution as merely something like bribery, hoping that bribing politicians was seen as more acceptable than agreeing with the policies of a repulsive Democrat.

Hillary remains much more repulsive than Trump and there is considerable uncertainty about how Trump is going to govern. This might be a good opportunity to get some of our people in government. It's not like the usual suspect RINOs are first in line. A governing coalition should include Liberty Conservatives. Trump, who might not have a fixed set of ideas, could, in theory at least, bring in some of our people.

We all should know Hillary Clinton real well, and we all should not want Hillary Clinton at all. I can see why someone wouldn't want to vote for a President who is likely to be the worst President ever (all Presidents have been the worst President ever), but with Clinton, it's a little more concrete. We have a pretty good idea how awful things will be with Clinton as President. We have no clear idea at all about Trump.

A lot of little things change when there's an R in there as opposed to a D. Comedy is better. SNL will be better. In 2016, no comedians, SNL, Stewart, Colbert, etc ever attack Democrats, and the best and easiest target is the President, so, there will be funny attacks on Trump, instead of never criticizing Obama at all, or never criticizing Hillary at all. I can't think of one good outcome of a Hillary Presidency. Trump might not suck. The trend points to sucking, sure, no doubt about it, but Hillary is already 100% proven to suck.


You know that you're defending Hillary Clinton on a Ron Paul forum, right?


No, Trump has higher unfavorables (and lower favorables).



That's a nice way of rephrasing the problem to make it sound less bad.

It's not that Trump "doesn't hate" Hillary enough.

It's that he shares her views on all of the important issues facing the country, such that he would govern in the same way.



Again, you're ignoring the most serious problem.

It's not just about donations, it's about a long record of public statements in support of her terrible policies.

Those policies are always and everywhere terrible, whoever mouths them.



....yea, he started criticizing her around the time he started running in the GOP.

:rolleyes:



Yes we do.



No, but Trump likely does.



It makes no difference who wins.

It does make a difference that ostensible libertarians/conservatives are getting suckered into supporting Trumpllary.
 
Trump has a personal personality vendetta against these assholes. That's why less worrysome than people who think widescale government policy should be bought.
 
How is pointing out the truth about Trump considered defending Hillary?

You and Rev are the same person, right?

You picked out one sentence in a reply to Rev.

He was defending Hillary. If you say that disgusting person Y is the same as person X, who is not as awful, it's a form of defense of the disgusting person X (Hillary).

Trump hasn't done the disgusting things that Hillary has done. And to say that her record of disgustingness doesn't exist the way Trump's record doesn't exist defends Hillary. Ignoring her awfulness, wishing it away, pretending it isn't there, all defending her.
 
I skimmed an article earlier that said Trump is going to go after (paraphrasing) a "small guy" of some sort, in addition to Cruz and Kasich. Better not be one of ours. Though I doubt he'll follow through on it. Stupid statements nonetheless from a purely political aspect if you are trying to coalesce a base.
 
http://www.mofopolitics.com/2016/07/24/guess-small-person-trump-wants-super-pac/

Trump, Meet The Depressed:

[h=1]Yeah, I’ll probably do a super PAC…Kasich, for $10 million to $20 million, against Ted Cruz. And maybe one other person that I’m thinking about…but I won’t tell you that.

He’s actually such a small person– I hate to give him the publicity.




[/h]​


2 possibilities…

[h=1]Marco Rubio[/h] “Little Marco”…

[h=1]Rand Paul[/h] Trump repeatedly trolled Rand’s height…
 
I skimmed an article earlier that said Trump is going to go after (paraphrasing) a "small guy" of some sort, in addition to Cruz and Kasich. Better not be one of ours. Though I doubt he'll follow through on it. Stupid statements nonetheless from a purely political aspect if you are trying to coalesce a base.

He was talking about Mike Lee. Trump has real problems in Utah.
 
You and Rev are the same person, right?

You picked out one sentence in a reply to Rev.

He was defending Hillary. If you say that disgusting person Y is the same as person X, who is not as awful, it's a form of defense of the disgusting person X (Hillary).

Trump hasn't done the disgusting things that Hillary has done. And to say that her record of disgustingness doesn't exist the way Trump's record doesn't exist defends Hillary. Ignoring her awfulness, wishing it away, pretending it isn't there, all defending her.

MmspVsJ.jpg
 
Regardless or not someone supports trump or not. You have to admit that cruz was there to screw and take the wind out of rand's sail.

I read on bloomberg that kelley paul said that cruz was "two faced". That cruz that parroted whatever rand said.

Rand could have probably lasted as the last 3 candidates in the primaries.

it boils down to a three~way GOP race in 2o2o? SENATOR RAND PAUL, SENATOR TED CRUZ and ENTREPRENEUR DONALD TRUMP?
 
it boils down to a three~way GOP race in 2o2o? SENATOR RAND PAUL, SENATOR TED CRUZ and ENTREPRENEUR DONALD TRUMP?

Trump won't be there. Rand probably won't be there if Cruz runs. It will be Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Tom Cotton.
 
Hillary is disgusting...


The Clintons set new standards for personal awfulness. We don't want more of that...

How do you know how Trump is going to govern?

You're arguing they're identical. They're not...

You know that you're defending Hillary Clinton on a Ron Paul forum, right?

i remember 2oo8 + 2o12 and i hope RAND makes the 2o2o
POTUS contest more eventful than i think it is going to be...
 
Back
Top