Posted on 08/25/2015 3:26:55 PM PDT by z taxman
Former Republican Rep. Ron Paul blasted the presidential hopeful, Donald Trump for being “authoritarian” on Alan Colmes’ Show recently.
Paul’s comments about Trump came about when he was asked if Donald Trump was good or bad for the Republican Party, to which Paul replied, chuckling, “Well I don’t even care whether he’s good or bad for the Republican party. I don’t have much interest in that per se. But, I think he’s a dangerous person and a lot of people find him kind of funny and they love him, even libertarian types love him…”
When Colmes presses Paul to explain why Trump is so dangerous, Paul states:
Well, they like him because he is so disruptive … to the party system, and I enjoy that too! But, I think he is a man ….if conditions deteriorate, which they can … people want to be told … what to do ‘And I know what the answer is, and I’ll do this, and I am the man to this.’ … he comes across very well–and people listen to him and I believe that he may be raising white horses on questions and he’s going to ride in…
Paul went on further to say that Trump is the virtual opposite of what a libertarian is, “He’s an authoritarian and he claims that’s how he’s made all his money. So, I see that as dangerous.”
A few months ago, when Trump made his announcement that he would be running for president, he wasted no time in asserting his authority in his speech. He said,
I will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And we won’t be using a man like Secretary Kerry that has absolutely no concept of negotiation, who’s making a horrible and laughable deal, who’s just being tapped along as they make weapons right now and then goes into a bicycle race at 72-years-old and falls and breaks his leg. I won’t be doing that. And I promise, I will never be in a bicycle race — that I can tell you.
Trump is not a fascist. But when a real one comes along, he is likely to attract the same level of enthusiasm.
Maybe he is a bit on the authoritarian side. A real president. Mind you POTUS is an executive position, for one who manages the federal bureaucracy. Part of POTUS job is to protect our border. Obama on the other hand legislates by ignoring statute, twisting statute, and surmising executive authority where he has none. Id rather have an authoritarian President (as an executive), than id want a rollover, sit on thy arse, go along get along, limp wristed Rino. It will take and authoritative executive to erase Obama’s unlawful fingerprints which have defaced the Constitution. Ole Jeb would probably leave 90% of Obama’s orders intact for the most part. Enough Rino crap. Time to get rid of it for good. We have more of a chance With Trump not being a Rino than we have with the Rinos not being a Rino.
I keep seeing this line of reasoning and frankly it’s concerning. Kind of like the people who say, “Trump doesn’t need Congress or the Constitution because Obama doesn’t care about them.”
I want better than that. MUCH better than that.
But maybe my concern itself is even a little tongue-in-cheek.
After all, chances are you don’t really consider Trump to be a dangerous authoritarian.
Usually I would agree, but the other side is no longer following the constitution, so we can’t tie our hands behind our back when fighting them.
We have to play for keeps and be willing to play as dirty as they do if we want to win, otherwise at best we stall their victory for awhile.
In fairness, a large reason why Trump is “doing so well” is because the media covers him and gives him the largest microphone and platform of any candidate.
Now, part of that, a large part, I can give credit where it’s due. Trump knows how to make his voice heard.
But still, the media is entertained by him beyond belief. That’s why I don’t know if he’s “sticking it to them” as much as some think. I think they see this all as a big game. I heard they spent 36 minutes of coverage on Trump last week, or for some period of time last week. Coming in second was Jebby at about 9 minutes, and then Kasich at less than 3.
Thanks to all the great posters on this thread.
HOORAY Trump
Thanks for the response and correcting some of the details.
So... what you are saying is that claims by you or anyone else that Trump actually Stole the house from the old lady and threw her out are untrue ?
No. What I am saying and doing is trying to correct those who claim he stole her property and threw her out on the street.
As with all things, truth matters. That is what I am arguing. It has nothing to do with whether I want Trump for President, even though you may think so.
Ever noticed how those who complain everyone else is viewing their candidate as the messiah or savior, is really just mad because you didn’t pick THEIR choice for SAVIOR ?
I don’t know. I guess I’m just more principled than that.
I’m not saying you’re not. I don’t know you. And you are right about the other side.
My concern in engaging in such tactics just to “win” would be that hypothetically we never get that back when it comes to following the constitution. The lure of power is great for any human, let alone any political party.
Truth be known, I’m not even so sure “they” started it. They just took it to a whole new, ridiculous level.
Just the fact that people are at the point you’re at though tells me personally not only how frustrated people are but how there’s a very fine line between turning things around and in effect losing everything.
You say "Trojan Horse, false candidate ... " but this is just name calling - so you are actually coming from the culty continuum yourself - you are anti Trump in the non-thinking / non-critical way some are for him. But my support for him is based on a rational calculation of his x percent chance of accomplishing y. That is based on his skillset, leadership, past accomplishments and just as importantly rebound from past failures. When he's not purposefully being a showman, he's perfectly well thought out. Further, he is capable of seeing the obvious ... a rare skill these days. Of course all the politicians do in fact see the obvious, but they've been bought, have their hands tied. Trump's aren't!
If you can come up with some rational, logical reasons supporting disqualifying problems that outweigh his positives, rather than the easy name calling that qualifies for political debate these days (mostly on the left, but both sides) then you should lay them out here. He's certainly not perfect, far from it, but who is it that you think will, regardless of your personal reaction to them, cause this country to change it's very very bad direction?
The only question that really matters is 'based on x man or woman being president for 4 years / 8 years, where will the country be when he leaves office, and headed in what direction, how fast?'' I don't care if he blows bubbles for 8 years, if THAT causes the country to return closer to it's roots and proper direction and values, tell me who that guy is.
Finally, of course it's true that he has many many moronic supporters. That's because America is filled with many morons. ANY candidate who has charisma will have morons and lemmings in tow. Great! I hear he's peeling of some of the dopes who went with O twice for exactly that reason. If a zombie is on your side, put him to work.
But don't be ashamed to support Trump just because he's a showman and can make you cringe. I see the culty aspect too. But better to have it on our side. It does no good to say 'hey! all you cultish people - go vote for Biden and the fake Indian, we don't want you.'
How about cadging the question like this: "Why follow a despot commie with a strong-willed non-commie?"
Why does Ron Paul care?
His latest gig is predicting the end of the world as we know it.
No fool like an old fool.
So who is your candidate of choice?
Note: this topic is from 8/25/2015. This account has been banned or suspended. That means one less Paultard FINO on FR.
Don’t insult. You are not the purveyor of God.
This is true for any candidate, often for different reasons.
A Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush candidacy each carries their own set of risks.
But, on balance, the benefits outweigh the risks with Donald Trump. With Trump, the potential is there for an historic Presidency.
A Ted Cruz Presidency might also be historic, but Ted will need to convince the American voting public at large of that, not just me.
And as phony as I believe the NBC allegations against Ted Cruz are, I do think that the issue can and will be used against him in both the nomination and general election cycles.
That's why I think that it's imperative to have some kind of formal court ruling in Ted Cruz's favor on the issue of NBC, because with that lurking in the background, enthusiasm for Cruz will be problematic with some of his potential supporters.
There you go!
Alan Colmes???? C’mon you can do better than that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.