PDA

View Full Version : Should Trump supporters be banned from this forum?




Pages : [1] 2

Brett85
08-15-2015, 08:22 PM
Sorry, but I'm getting really annoyed with the Trump supporters and how they act here. All they do is constantly talk about Trump and never offer anything of substance. They're supporting a big government statist who's a sworn enemy of liberty. That makes them enemies of liberty as well. Should we allow enemies of liberty to post here? Thoughts?

LibertyEagle
08-15-2015, 08:24 PM
No, but maybe we should have a poll whether those recommending such things should be banned.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-15-2015, 08:24 PM
doing something like that would just encourage people to like trump more

Brett85
08-15-2015, 08:25 PM
No, but maybe we should have a poll whether those recommending such things should be banned.

Go ahead. And if you want to defend a big government statist like Trump, be my guest. I'm just sick of it.

LibertyEagle
08-15-2015, 08:26 PM
Go ahead. And if you want to defend a big government statist like Trump, be my guest. I'm just sick of it.

Then don't read it.

Brett85
08-15-2015, 08:27 PM
Then don't read it.

I thought this was a forum for people who support liberty and advocate liberty? How can someone possibly be a supporter of liberty and support someone like Trump? Ron Paul said himself that Trump is the exact opposite of a libertarian.

LibertyEagle
08-15-2015, 08:30 PM
I thought this was a forum for people who support liberty and advocate liberty? How can someone possibly be a supporter of liberty and support someone like Trump? Ron Paul said himself that Trump is the exact opposite of a libertarian.

This forum isn't just for libertarians and quite frankly, libertarians don't have the corner on liberty. In fact, some work directly against it.

Brett85
08-15-2015, 08:32 PM
This forum isn't just for libertarians and quite frankly, libertarians don't have the corner on liberty. In fact, some work directly against it.

Donald Trump isn't even a conservative, let alone a libertarian. He was for Obama's stimulus, for the bank bailouts, for the auto bailouts, for a single payer healthcare system, etc. He's the exact opposite of someone who believes in liberty and limited government. He's the exact opposite of a conservative as well. He's a big government liberal. No one who supports his candidacy for President could possibly be someone who believes in liberty and limited government.

Brian4Liberty
08-15-2015, 08:33 PM
Support of Trump and calling Rand names are certainly frowned upon in Rand's Sub-forum.

Anti Federalist
08-15-2015, 08:51 PM
No.

Let them have their fun.

When the Trump-gasm has shot its wad, they'll wash out their mouths, sigh and quietly vote Jeb.

acptulsa
08-15-2015, 09:04 PM
Depends. The spammers need to be banned.

We allow the competition to send their paid shills here so we can practice destroying them. But when they start posting the same previously debunked lies in multiple forums, then they aren't just shills any more, they're spammers. And at that point, we are no longer teaching each how to disarm these arguments. Instead, we're being held hostage by litterbugs. If we go out into the wider world, lies pile up in our own front yard.

I see no reason why we should put up with that.

That's why free speech has never been frowned upon here, but 'low value' (repetitive) posts have led to a great many being banned. And I say we evolved to do it that way for good reasons. That ain't broke. Don't fix it.

juleswin
08-15-2015, 09:44 PM
Ban them all, if its possible and make note of their ip addresses and make sure they wouldn't be able to ever return to this site. These backstabbers are worse that establishment voters since they have indeed woken up and then went straight back to being duped by the same establishment type politicians they supposedly woke up to.

heavenlyboy34
08-15-2015, 10:11 PM
There are certain people on the RPFs who seriously advocate shooting illegal aliens when they cross the border. Trump supporters are way down the list of people to be concerned about 'round here IMHO.

Brett85
08-15-2015, 10:13 PM
There are certain people on the RPFs who seriously advocate shooting illegal aliens when they cross the border. Trump supporters are way down the list of people to be concerned about 'round here IMHO.

They're probably one and the same. The Trump supporters here seem to be one issue voters who believe that Trump's hardline stance on illegal immigration trumps his liberal positions on all of the other issues.

Natural Citizen
08-15-2015, 10:14 PM
libertarians don't have the corner on liberty. In fact, some work directly against it.

eeeeeyep. I see a lot of active work against a genuine free market principle, too. And, ironically, in the name of liberty. Is disgraceful. Transparent as it is I think its still disgraceful. And it's interesting because these friends will expose themselves without pause there if one baits them into it by way of initiating a theoretical position on a given issue. I've done it just to see. Works. A lot of times some of our "libertarian" friends will promote a mercantilist model in the name of a free market. This is, of course, an illusion. A stalking horse scenario. Very disingenuous.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-15-2015, 10:14 PM
Depends. The spammers need to be banned.

We allow the competition to send their paid shills here so we can practice destroying them. But when they start posting the same previously debunked lies in multiple forums, then they aren't just shills any more, they're spammers. And at that point, we are no longer teaching each how to disarm these arguments. Instead, we're being held hostage by litterbugs. If we go out into the wider world, lies pile up in our own front yard.

I see no reason why we should put up with that.

That's why free speech has never been frowned upon here, but 'low value' (repetitive) posts have led to a great many being banned. And I say we evolved to do it that way for good reasons. That ain't broke. Don't fix it.
Every time a forum member here uses the word debunk, I have this picture in my head of Glenn Beck literally regurgitating shit from his mouth all over the camera.

Natural Citizen
08-15-2015, 10:33 PM
Every time a forum member here uses the word debunk, I have this picture in my head of Glenn Beck literally regurgitating shit from his mouth all over the camera.

I don't like that term either. It gets thrown out a lot. And most times I think it just gets thrown out there in order to avoid further discussion with regard to a given subject or issue. 9 times out of 10 the person saying they debunked something you can go back through the forum and see where they actually got their rear end handed to them on the given subject. I like to go back and bump those discussions whenever someone throws out the notion that they debunked something. I find that we understand one another a bit better that way while the terms of controversy remain intact.

dannno
08-15-2015, 10:33 PM
No.

Let them have their fun.

When the Trump-gasm has shot its wad, they'll wash out their mouths, sigh and quietly vote Jeb.

Ya I don't even care if a Jeb supporter posts here - as long as they are polite and obey forum rules.

Sola_Fide
08-15-2015, 10:34 PM
Sorry, but I'm getting really annoyed with the Trump supporters and how they act here. All they do is constantly talk about Trump and never offer anything of substance. They're supporting a big government statist who's a sworn enemy of liberty. That makes them enemies of liberty as well. Should we allow enemies of liberty to post here? Thoughts?

Just give them neg reps.

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-15-2015, 10:35 PM
Ya I don't even care if a Jeb supporter posts here - as long as they are polite and obey forum rules.

I remember getting banned from Mitt Romney fan sites immediately. Some even had filters to block Ron Paul as if it was a swear word. :D

Lord Xar
08-15-2015, 10:47 PM
Perhaps create a Sub-Forum titled... "TRUMP TRUTH"... and it is inevitable that those supporting trump would go in there and see what it is about....

I mean, you can only live with cognitive dissonance so long before reality sets in, and you finally have that "AHA" moment... I think we could wisen up some of them..
To even fathom that trump is a conservative, let alone a republican is assanine.... my guess is these trump supporters do NO research on him, have no clue.... let them find out.. in a TRUMP sub-forum.. where there is only TRUMP TRUTHS.... showing his distaste for true conservative values.

I know the Breitbart types love him because they think he will do something about the border AND the fact he wants to turn the brown people in the middle east into a pile of bones.. they love blood, and ignorance over there. A LOT of Israel firster types... love them some welfare.

LibertyEagle
08-15-2015, 11:45 PM
There are certain people on the RPFs who seriously advocate shooting illegal aliens when they cross the border. Trump supporters are way down the list of people to be concerned about 'round here IMHO.

Yup, I advocate the Border Patrol being able to do that. Absolutely.

Omphfullas Zamboni
08-16-2015, 12:06 AM
Trump supporters, Sanders supporters–this place just needs to be busier.

Origanalist
08-16-2015, 07:15 AM
No. You losers and beta males are just going to have to get used to it.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 07:20 AM
Perhaps create a Sub-Forum titled... "TRUMP TRUTH"... and it is inevitable that those supporting trump would go in there and see what it is about....

I mean, you can only live with cognitive dissonance so long before reality sets in, and you finally have that "AHA" moment... I think we could wisen up some of them..
To even fathom that trump is a conservative, let alone a republican is assanine.... my guess is these trump supporters do NO research on him, have no clue.... let them find out.. in a TRUMP sub-forum.. where there is only TRUMP TRUTHS.... showing his distaste for true conservative values.

I know the Breitbart types love him because they think he will do something about the border AND the fact he wants to turn the brown people in the middle east into a pile of bones.. they love blood, and ignorance over there. A LOT of Israel firster types... love them some welfare.

It really just seems like some conservatives or paleo libertarians or whatever will support Trump as long as he comes out and says that illegal immigrants are rapists, and it doesn't even matter what he says on anything else. He can be in favor of a single payer healthcare system, bailouts, stimulus spending, gun control, and practically every other liberal policy and they simply don't care. But Donald Trump calls illegal immigrants rapists and calls Rosie O'Donnell fat, and that's the only conservative principle that matters, because Donald Trump is being very anti "politically correct." Calling people names and demeaning and insulting people is now a more important conservative principle than reducing the size and scope of government. It's truly the most absurd thing I've ever seen in American politics.

acptulsa
08-16-2015, 07:21 AM
Some are too insipid to realize there are other ways to fix the employment situation than deporting people, yes. Others just automatically fall in love with whomever the media plays up. Some want the country to burn. Some just want the GOP to lose. And some just want to be entertained, period.

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/005/242/screen-capture.png

WINNING!

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 07:22 AM
No, but maybe we should have a poll whether those recommending such things should be banned.
LMAO at this. How hard did you try to have me banned just for questioning things about Rand? What is it about Donald Trump that excites you so much? His speech about getting Mexicans out of the U.S.?

luctor-et-emergo
08-16-2015, 07:28 AM
We don't ban other liberals do we ?

GunnyFreedom
08-16-2015, 07:49 AM
Banned? No, but I would like to see all the Trump spam quarantined somewhere so that people who come here to decide whether they want to support Paul or not don't get turned off and sent packing to Ted Cruz.

CPUd
08-16-2015, 08:01 AM
The Trumpsters aren't really that bad if they keep it in the 2016 forum, even the occasional post or 2 in the Rand forum can be done with no problems. The main issue is with the Rand concern trolling, this is driving people away from the site even faster than the fundies and race baiters.

Dianne
08-16-2015, 08:11 AM
I remember getting banned from Mitt Romney fan sites immediately. Some even had filters to block Ron Paul as if it was a swear word. :D

LOL, try signing up with Democratic Underground. The first few posts you make is held by admin.'s for review. If you say anything the least bit libertarian leaning,your membership is dropped. If you mention Ron Paul, your membership is dropped and they further punish you by putting you on the moveon. org subscription list, for life!!

presence
08-16-2015, 08:25 AM
No, but I do think the "top candidates" should get subforums so as each generates waves of media hype they're not spamming the overall "2016 Presidential Election" forum.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?350-2016-Presidential-Election (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?350-2016-Presidential-Election)

Would be nice if 2016 Presidential Election forum had subforums for each of the most noteworthy 4 candidates +Rand

We could keep it dynamic with an internal poll and update who gets 2016 subforum status monthly.


Certainly aggregating candidates such as Trump and Hillary would help clarify their positions.






subforum suggestion 2016 election: "top 3-5 plus rand"

Rand

Hillary
Trump
Jeb
etc.


post two polls once a month, maybe every other month if the aggregation is too time consuming:

1) who gets subforum status precedence? multichoice poll
2) how many 2016 election subforums? 1-10 poll


encourages participation
adaptive index on perception
political people like busy box polls

++ keeps discussion in ronpaulforums.com subforum "2016 Presidential Election" not 80% trump threads as he's currently generating headlines.



*reported* :D

Carlybee
08-16-2015, 08:34 AM
LMAO at this. How hard did you try to have me banned just for questioning things about Rand? What is it about Donald Trump that excites you so much? His speech about getting Mexicans out of the U.S.?

Out of rep


I voted no to banning though. I want to see what happens when the Trump SHTF.

Ronin Truth
08-16-2015, 08:35 AM
What makes one a Trump supporter? Money, votes, campaigning for, agreeing with, not bitching about, etc.?

Dianne
08-16-2015, 08:38 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?350-2016-Presidential-Election

Would be nice if 2016 Presidential Election forum had subforums for each of the most noteworthy 4 candidates +Rand

We could keep it dynamic with an internal poll and update who gets 2016 subforum status monthly.


Certainly aggregating candidates such as Trump and Hillary would help clarify their positions.

That's actually a good idea. We can tell someone to move their post to the Trump forum and bad rep them if they don't. That way those of us who have no interest in Trump are not forced to read about him in a Rand thread.

juleswin
08-16-2015, 08:42 AM
My problem with Trump fanboys is mainly their dishonesty and the deception. One big Trump booster on here said in one thread that Trump is not his 1st choice, not 2nd, not 3rd but forth choice. But then he posts pro Trump threads all day. I don't even know who number 2 and 3 is.

Also this same Trump booster says he wants the country to burn but then his Trump posts all speak about how he would be good for American. I mean he is clearly trolling and lying his way on this forum. Had fire111 done 1/10 of what he is doing, he would be banned so fast and almost everyone here would cheer the ban.

Speaking of fire111 and bans, why is it ok to ban fire111 and not AuH20? It's only fair that both trolls get the same treatment. I wish there was half this support for fire111 when he was banned. He unlike the new Trump boosters, fire111 was fun and entertaining and his posts were far for informative and less trolling than anything AuH20 has ever posted.

Smitty
08-16-2015, 09:13 AM
I think it would be much more advantageous to Rand's campaign ban the Jesse Benton supporters.

acptulsa
08-16-2015, 09:17 AM
I think it would be much more advantageous to Rand's campaign ban the Jesse Benton supporters.

Too late. That species recently went extinct.

Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist
08-16-2015, 09:20 AM
No I don't believe they should be banned on the forum; Trump is right on the dangers of US's long lasting open borders policy, but seriously, what are his philosophical stances on the economy? For me he seems too much of a reaganite for my liking, he is in no way a threat to the establishment as compared to Rand Paul and even I'm skeptical of him.

Smitty
08-16-2015, 09:20 AM
hardly

69360
08-16-2015, 09:30 AM
There should be a ban on any new threads on Trump and his stupid antics. If his name comes up in discussion whatever. But I am tired of seeing a new thread about it every time that jackass says something ridiculous.

pcosmar
08-16-2015, 09:43 AM
No.
Though mocking and laughing at them should be light hearted and fun.

Trump is only there for entertainment value anyway.

I would guess that those "supporting" him here are trolling for Lulz.

anyone that takes Trump seriously should be pitied.

JK/SEA
08-16-2015, 10:15 AM
i already called the cops on em...

JK/SEA
08-16-2015, 10:27 AM
new Trump vid...must watch..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBfWGNDLHQg

rg17
08-16-2015, 10:27 AM
If you mention Ron Paul, your membership is dropped and they further punish you by putting you on the moveon. org subscription list, for life!!

Is that true?

Sola_Fide
08-16-2015, 10:27 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480440-Idea-Neg-Rep-All-Trump-And-Sanders-Threads

thoughtomator
08-16-2015, 10:47 AM
Is that true?

No. I've had five different accounts banned from DU over the past dozen years, so I'm in a position to know.

By the way, the right-wing DU counterpart (historical note: from which DU was inspired and derived) freerepublic.com is at least as bad if not worse. They claim to be conservative yet the hate for Rand is palpable, even though he is by any measure one of the most reliable conservative Senators there is.

kahless
08-16-2015, 11:22 AM
Some Rand supporters here are too sensitive when it comes to discussing Trump.

I think most people here are not going to agree with Rand 100 percent of the time. Discussing an issue where another candidate such as Trump holds a view we favor over Rand does not necessarily make it a deal breaker since we may agree with Rand on so many other issues.

Instead of driving those people away from the forum maybe you should convince them why Rand is better on an issue over Trump. I thought that was what this forum was for, no?

Smitty
08-16-2015, 11:25 AM
The Rand supporters are pissed because they wanted Rand to establish himself as the outsider candidate by running a "no compromise", straight talk campaign.

Rand didn't.

Trump did.

So they're pissed at Trump for doing what they wanted Rand to do.

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 11:32 AM
Out of rep


I voted no to banning though. I want to see what happens when the Trump SHTF.I did too (vote for no banning)

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 11:33 AM
Too late. That species recently went extinct.If only it were so.

rg17
08-16-2015, 11:34 AM
No. I've had five different accounts banned from DU over the past dozen years, so I'm in a position to know.

By the way, the right-wing DU counterpart (historical note: from which DU was inspired and derived) freerepublic.com is at least as bad if not worse. They claim to be conservative yet the hate for Rand is palpable, even though he is by any measure one of the most reliable conservative Senators there is.

That sucks.

GunnyFreedom
08-16-2015, 11:44 AM
The Rand supporters are pissed because they wanted Rand to establish himself as the outsider candidate by running a "no compromise", straight talk campaign.

Rand didn't.

Trump did.

So they're pissed at Trump for doing what they wanted Rand to do.

No, I hate Trump for the same reason I hated Trump in 2008 and 2012. He is an unprincipled liberal progressive jackass who hates Ron Paul and everything he stands for. Nice try trying to justify your own irrational unprincipled emotionalism though.

Smitty
08-16-2015, 11:49 AM
Nah,...it's what I said.

Trump is the outsider candidate and Rand decided to carry water for FOX News in an attempt to bring him down.

So Trump has crowds following him around Iowa,..and Rand is in Haiti.

"Let it not be said that we hid from reality".

Sola_Fide
08-16-2015, 11:49 AM
The Rand supporters are pissed because they wanted Rand to establish himself as the outsider candidate by running a "no compromise", straight talk campaign.

Rand didn't.

Trump did.

So they're pissed at Trump for doing what they wanted Rand to do.

Yeah. Trump is all "straight talk". His straight talk consists mainly of vague socialistic policy prescriptions and elementary school name-calling.

GunnyFreedom
08-16-2015, 11:53 AM
Nah,...it's what I said.

Trump is the outsider candidate and Rand decided to carry water for FOX News in an attempt to bring him down.

So Trump has crowds following him around Iowa,..and Rand is in Haiti.

"Let it not be said that we hid from reality".

I'm pretty sure I know why I hate Trump. :rolleyes:

I'm a policy guy, I care 100% about Constitutionalist principle, and 0% about everything else. tRump fails that test miserably.

William Tell
08-16-2015, 11:57 AM
If only it were so.

Collins doesn't count.

Tywysog Cymru
08-16-2015, 12:49 PM
They shouldn't be banned, though they clearly wrong.

LibertyEagle
08-16-2015, 01:08 PM
LMAO at this. How hard did you try to have me banned just for questioning things about Rand? What is it about Donald Trump that excites you so much? His speech about getting Mexicans out of the U.S.?

I had no issue with you asking a question. What I did have a problem with was when you ran around all over the forum spewing the same crap over and over again; much of it a pack of lies.

I hope that answers your question.

LibertyEagle
08-16-2015, 01:17 PM
Some are too insipid to realize there are other ways to fix the employment situation than deporting people, yes. Others just automatically fall in love with whomever the media plays up. Some want the country to burn. Some just want the GOP to lose. And some just want to be entertained, period.



Many who support Trump now are just sick of the political class' lies. Constantly saying they are going to do something and then not, when they get into office. How long has the political class said they were going to do something about illegal immigration? A LONG time. Still nada. And very few have said anything at all equating to how horrible our trade deals are. Trump speaks to those people.

If Rand wants those folks, he should be able to get them. Trump is already stepping all over himself. Just like with Huckabee's people during Ron's first Repub. bid, perhaps we shouldn't alienate them, so that if/when they figure out Huckabee is a poser, they will be won over to Ron. We didn't do that then. Will we do it now with Rand? Of course, Rand will also have to play his part for that possibility to be there.

That's not to say that Trump supporters should be able to go into Rand's subforum and spread their stuff. As I recall, there is a guideline now about that. Plus, if it's bad enough, we could suggest a Trump subforum where all Trump posts would be housed.

Southron
08-16-2015, 01:47 PM
I'm no fan of Trump but he has taken up issues that resonate with people. There has been room in the GOP for a hardline immigration candidate, as well as someone who rejects free trade.

Now I'm skeptical whether Trump would do anything at all on either issue, but you have to admit that no other candidate has made them focal points. The door was wide open for something like this to happen. I think the GOP really still has no idea why it lost the last 2 Presidential elections.

As for banning, I wouldn't want to see any perm-bans but the mods should do what they think best. It shouldn't turn into a Trump forum either.

Smitty
08-16-2015, 01:51 PM
If anything, the mods should attempt to do something about the people who have banned themselves from this forum.

Where the hell has everyone gone?

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-16-2015, 01:54 PM
I'm no fan of Trump but he has taken up issues that resonate with people. There has been room in the GOP for a hardline immigration candidate, as well as someone who rejects free trade.

Now I'm skeptical whether Trump would do anything at all on either issue, but you have to admit that no other candidate has made them focal points. The door was wide open for something like this to happen. I think the GOP really still has no idea why it lost the last 2 Presidential elections.

As for banning, I wouldn't want to see any perm-bans but the mods should do what they think best. It shouldn't turn into a Trumo forum either.

in my local gop about 30% of us said we would not be voting for Mitt Romney. It was a beautiful moment.

Rad
08-16-2015, 02:14 PM
I voted Yes. I think anything against group think is bad! All none Rand supporters should be banned. This is a forum dedicated to the maintenance of Paul Inc ;)

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 02:22 PM
I had no issue with you asking a question. What I did have a problem with was when you ran around all over the forum spewing the same crap over and over again; much of it a pack of lies.

I hope that answers your question.
I know you've always misunderstood that, so I'm not going to argue with you on it. I'm just not in the mood for that today.

Mr.NoSmile
08-16-2015, 02:24 PM
Should people who support someone different than who you support be banned? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

Massachusetts
08-16-2015, 02:31 PM
No, but I don't think the Rand Paul subforum should be littered with Trump posts.

69360
08-16-2015, 02:36 PM
Simple solution. Any new post with the word "Trump" in the title gets deleted. If I owned this that is how I would handle it.

anaconda
08-16-2015, 02:38 PM
Go ahead. And if you want to defend a big government statist like Trump, be my guest. I'm just sick of it.

LOL. Allowing freedom of speech in no way infers that one agrees with the content.

timosman
08-16-2015, 03:58 PM
LOL. Allowing freedom of speech in no way infers that one agrees with the content.

This needs to be explained ? :rolleyes:

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-16-2015, 04:03 PM
People should not be banned for having contrary opinions. The fact that this needs to be said on a "libertarian" forum is baffling. The fact that Trump is so popular on RPF is much more about Rand's failings than anything else. Ignore that fact at your own peril.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:04 PM
LOL. Allowing freedom of speech in no way infers that one agrees with the content.

Freedom of speech is simply the right of people to speak freely without getting arrested and imprisoned by the government. No one has a right to post comments here. We are all guests of the owner of this forum. If the owner of this forum decided to ban all Trump supporters, it wouldn't violate anyone's free speech rights.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:08 PM
Should people who support someone different than who you support be banned? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

I'm not saying that. If they at least supported a decent alternative like Cruz, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Notice that I didn't advocate banning Cruz supporters, if there are any here. But Trump agrees with us on nothing. He's the antithesis to liberty. He's a big government liberal through and through. He's more liberal and more statist than even the GOP establishment.

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 04:11 PM
I'm not saying that. If they at least supported a decent alternative like Cruz, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Notice that I didn't advocate banning Cruz supporters, if there are any here. But Trump agrees with us on nothing. He's the antithesis to liberty. He's a big government liberal through and through. He's more liberal and more statist than even the GOP establishment.Cruz??? LOL

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-16-2015, 04:12 PM
I'm not saying that. If they at least supported a decent alternative like Cruz, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Notice that I didn't advocate banning Cruz supporters, if there are any here. But Trump agrees with us on nothing. He's the antithesis to liberty. He's a big government liberal through and through. He's more liberal and more statist than even the GOP establishment.
Not everyone who posts here are doctrinaire libertarians. There are paleocons, constitutionalists, ancaps, minarchists and reactionaries like me. There are even a few liberals who post here. What someone does or doesn't support shouldn't be a prerequisite for posting on RPF.

Smitty
08-16-2015, 04:12 PM
If they at least supported a decent alternative like Cruz, I wouldn't have a problem with that. ..

LOL!!

Origanalist
08-16-2015, 04:12 PM
The mold bug is banned, I wonder why?

Mr.NoSmile
08-16-2015, 04:16 PM
I'm not saying that. If they at least supported a decent alternative like Cruz, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Notice that I didn't advocate banning Cruz supporters, if there are any here. But Trump agrees with us on nothing. He's the antithesis to liberty. He's a big government liberal through and through. He's more liberal and more statist than even the GOP establishment.

Well, if people here apparently find something to see in this liberal statist, then their views aren't bothering or affecting anyone else's unless they let them, which apparently some have if they advocate getting rid of Trump supporters altogether.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:20 PM
Not everyone who posts here are doctrinaire libertarians. There are paleocons, constitutionalists, ancaps, minarchists and reactionaries like me. There are even a few liberals who post here. What someone does or doesn't support shouldn't be a prerequisite for posting on RPF.

Maybe I should've made my question more clear. Should people who constantly post threads about Donald Trump but never post anything else be allowed to post here? Those are the kind of people I'm talking about.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:22 PM
LOL!!

Cruz is at least opposed to trillion dollar corporate bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus bills. Donald Trump is every bit as fiscally liberal as someone like Bernie Sanders, if not more so. Heck, even Bernie Sanders opposes bailouts.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-16-2015, 04:22 PM
Maybe I should've made my question more clear. Should people who constantly post threads about Donald Trump but never post anything else be allowed to post here? Those are the kind of people I'm talking about.
Who does this? The closest I can think of would be AuH2O, but it's not accurate to say he never posts anything else.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:25 PM
Cruz??? LOL

Again, do economic issues not matter to people at all here? Donald Trump supported Obama's trillion dollar stimulus bill. He supported TARP and the auto bailouts. He's a big, big spender. Cruz is opposed to all of those things. He also has a 89% lifetime rating from the JBS, just below Rand's 93% rating. And they certainly aren't some neocon organization either as Ron regularly received 95+% ratings from them.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-16-2015, 04:27 PM
Again, do economic issues not matter to people at all here? Donald Trump supported Obama's trillion dollar stimulus bill. He supported TARP and the auto bailouts. He's a big, big spender. Cruz is opposed to all of those things. He also has a 89% lifetime rating from the JBS, just below Rand's 93% rating. And they certainly aren't some neocon organization either as Ron regularly received 95+% ratings from them.
Cruz could afford to oppose those things. Do you think if he was President in 2008, he wouldn't have bailed out the banks? Somehow I doubt it.

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 04:33 PM
Again, do economic issues not matter to people at all here? Donald Trump supported Obama's trillion dollar stimulus bill. He supported TARP and the auto bailouts. He's a big, big spender. Cruz is opposed to all of those things. He also has a 89% lifetime rating from the JBS, just below Rand's 93% rating. And they certainly aren't some neocon organization either as Ron regularly received 95+% ratings from them.Economic issues matter, but other issues do too. Thumbs down to Cruz.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:35 PM
Economic issues matter, but other issues do too. Thumbs down to Cruz.

I'm not saying that I support him, just that he's night and day more liberty oriented than someone like Donald Trump. Trump is the most anti liberty candidate in the race by far.

Rad
08-16-2015, 04:46 PM
People should not be banned for having contrary opinions. The fact that this needs to be said on a "libertarian" forum is baffling. The fact that Trump is so popular on RPF is much more about Rand's failings than anything else. Ignore that fact at your own peril.You've been reading Dan McCarthy haven't you? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/is-rand-paul-missing-his-giuliani-moment/

I'd be honored to be banned. Truly, honored.

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:47 PM
Donald Trump gets foreign policy advice from John Bolton.

http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/08/omg-trump-says-he-looks-for-advice-from.html

Brett85
08-16-2015, 04:48 PM
The fact that Trump is so popular on RPF is much more about Rand's failings than anything else. Ignore that fact at your own peril.

Yeah, so because Rand has run a bad campaign and is performing badly in the polls, people are going to support a candidate with views 180 degrees opposite of Rand's views. Makes a lot of sense.

TaftFan
08-16-2015, 04:51 PM
This forum isn't just for libertarians and quite frankly, libertarians don't have the corner on liberty. In fact, some work directly against it.

By definition, libertarians have the corner on liberty.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-16-2015, 04:57 PM
Yeah, so because Rand has run a bad campaign and is performing badly in the polls, people are going to support a candidate with views 180 degrees opposite of Rand's views. Makes a lot of sense.
Regardless of what sense it makes, that's why it's happening. If Rand was running a good campaign, Trump wouldn't be the wedge he's become.

Krugminator2
08-16-2015, 04:59 PM
Cruz is at least opposed to trillion dollar corporate bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus bills. Donald Trump is every bit as fiscally liberal as someone like Bernie Sanders, if not more so. Heck, even Bernie Sanders opposes bailouts.

I don't see why that is funny either. Cruz is at least a fellow traveler. I like Rand much better but Cruz is a pretty good Senator. I would certainly vote for Cruz in a general election.

Trump has nothing in common with libertarianism or Ron Paul on any issue that I can see. Anyone who supports Trump is an enemy of Ron Paul's views. He is awful in almost every way when it comes to politics.

Dianne
08-16-2015, 05:41 PM
I wish to change my vote. Now that TRUMP is going to Bolton for foreign policy advice, all Trumpsters should be banned. Yesterday, not today. Weeks ago, Bolton did a hit piece on Rand.

cajuncocoa
08-16-2015, 06:02 PM
I'm not saying that I support him, just that he's night and day more liberty oriented than someone like Donald Trump. Trump is the most anti liberty candidate in the race by far.
That's fine, if that's what you want to do. But I wouldn't support either Trump or Cruz.

wizardwatson
08-16-2015, 06:04 PM
People should not be banned for having contrary opinions. The fact that this needs to be said on a "libertarian" forum is baffling. The fact that Trump is so popular on RPF is much more about Rand's failings than anything else. Ignore that fact at your own peril.

What exactly is the statistic of "so popular"? I see like 10 prolific posters maybe who talk him up. Just because the boards are spammed with Trump propaganda doesn't mean he's taking over or a threat. Maybe you should start a poll. Maybe you're right and I'm just not aware of a poll on here.


The mold bug is banned, I wonder why?

Because mods started paying attention to him?

anaconda
08-17-2015, 02:20 AM
This needs to be explained ? :rolleyes:

Yes, to the O.P. apparently.

anaconda
08-17-2015, 02:21 AM
Freedom of speech is simply the right of people to speak freely without getting arrested and imprisoned by the government. No one has a right to post comments here. We are all guests of the owner of this forum. If the owner of this forum decided to ban all Trump supporters, it wouldn't violate anyone's free speech rights.

Point well taken.

luctor-et-emergo
08-17-2015, 04:10 AM
Here's the problem, I just did a search for topics with the word's "Rand" and "*****" (clear who that is).

49 topics where ***** is mentioned
69 topics where Rand is mentioned.

In the last 24hrs that is.

Since this is Ron Paul forums with a large Rand Paul section... Well that's kind of a weird balance don't you think ?

juleswin
08-17-2015, 04:44 AM
People should not be banned for having contrary opinions. The fact that this needs to be said on a "libertarian" forum is baffling. The fact that Trump is so popular on RPF is much more about Rand's failings than anything else. Ignore that fact at your own peril.

Earth to people with libertarian in their usernames but who don't know what a libertarianism is. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you open up your house, business or internet forum to every idiot and their dog. When a libertarian throws a party, it doesn't mean everyone is invited. The fact that this idea is baffling to you and for some reason libertarian is in quotes shows that you are a bit clueless to what it means to be a libertarian. Just as long as the NPT is adhered to, an action is considered to be very libertarian.

If you ask me, I think this website has suffered from bad management since Josh left add to it the wave of loud, obnoxious stormfronters members whose only policy of interest is immigration. A few yrs back, this wave would be given the fire111 treatment and shown the door, but today, they are lionized as free speech (even though free speech lies in the domain of govt) champions and welcomed. Nobody suggested fire111 be laughed at or ignore all the times he was banned, he was kicked out every time he showed up even though he was fun, entertaining and harmless and was not even 1/1000th as divisive as the stormfronters

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-17-2015, 04:56 AM
Earth to people with libertarian in their usernames but who don't know what a libertarianism is. Being a libertarian doesn't mean you open up your house, business or internet forum to every idiot and their dog. When a libertarian throws a party, it doesn't mean everyone is invited. The fact that this idea is baffling to you and for some reason libertarian is in quotes shows that you are a bit clueless to what it means to be a libertarian. Just as long as the NPT is adhered to, an action is considered to be very libertarian.
No one is saying that, you little turd. What I'm saying is that a libertarian forum should value the free marketplace of ideas, and not ban people simply for having contrary opinions. Wanting your community to be an echo-chamber is cowardly.


If you ask me, I think this website has suffered from bad management since Josh left add to it the wave of loud, obnoxious stormfronters members whose only policy of interest is immigration. A few yrs back, this wave would be given the fire111 treatment and shown the door, but today, they are lionized as free speech (even though free speech lies in the domain of govt) champions and welcomed. Nobody suggested fire111 be laughed at or ignore all the times he was banned, he was kicked out every time he showed up even though he was fun, entertaining and harmless and was not even 1/1000th as divisive as the stormfronters
I think people who say I'm from a website I have never once posted on just because I recognize the fact of HBD should be banned. I assume you would have no problem with this.

juleswin
08-17-2015, 05:57 AM
No one is saying that, you little turd. What I'm saying is that a libertarian forum should value the free marketplace of ideas, and not ban people simply for having contrary opinions. Wanting your community to be an echo-chamber is cowardly.


What politically correct BS that is, what if my idea is to wish for the painful deaths of everyone in the forums, is that still part of free market of ideas? is that the kind of idea that would be allowed? should we just allowed every idea to posted here and at any levels? is there anything that should be disallowed? anything at all? its one thing if there were 3, maybe 4 rational people posting on their insane authoritarian ideas and are able to argue like normal people. Its a totally different thing when you have a slew of them coming in and disrupting the forum. Free market of ideas is good, but I think at this point we are having an avalanche of it to the point where it is turning into a very bad thing.

Also whats with putting libertarian in quotation marks? is that your way of saying that rejecting certain ideas is in some way unlibertarian?


I think people who say I'm from a website I have never once posted on just because I recognize the fact of HBD should be banned. I assume you would have no problem with this.

I actually never said you were from any other website, not once did I make such an accusation. I have always known you were a bit different from the new influx of members stormfront members, I have my suspicions on who they are but be rest assured you are not a suspect. If it makes you feel better, I think on your worst drunken stupor day, you have more political IQ on your brain stem alone than jj and AuH20 combined.

acptulsa
08-17-2015, 08:02 AM
No one is saying that, you little turd.

Reported.


What I'm saying is that a libertarian forum should value the free marketplace of ideas, and not ban people simply for having contrary opinions. Wanting your community to be an echo-chamber is cowardly.

McDonald's wants to exercise some free speech. Let's force you to let them air their commercials over your cell phone every fifteen seconds. What's more, they should be allowed to put McDonald's stickers on your clothing and we should physically prevent you from peeling them off. Just wait until you get to the parking lot after work and find out your car is red and gold, and says that billions and billions have been served.

Or we could at least ban whoever is first to spam us with the Establishment Talking Point of the Week. Like, for example, I know exactly who was the first to assert that Rand Paul is an 'establishment candidate' (which is trolling the latest establishment talking point, but at least it cracked me up). Because the very first to press the latest Official Line of Bull has obviously got to be paid to do it, or they wouldn't know what the new Official Line is before anyone else does.

Is this forum here for the purpose of hosting every line of bull the establishment wants to throw at our man? Or is this forum dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights?

jkob
08-17-2015, 08:17 AM
Avoid the bunker mentality, people shouldn't be afraid of giving an honest opinion.

nayjevin
08-17-2015, 08:33 AM
Posts should be reported when seen.

acptulsa
08-17-2015, 08:37 AM
Avoid the bunker mentality, people shouldn't be afraid of giving an honest opinion.

And should posting an opinion, honest or not, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again give them even the slightest pause...?

Rad
08-17-2015, 08:46 AM
I wish to change my vote. Now that TRUMP is going to Bolton for foreign policy advice, all Trumpsters should be banned. Yesterday, not today. Weeks ago, Bolton did a hit piece on Rand.I hope that is possible because we are losing the vote :(

juleswin
08-17-2015, 08:55 AM
Avoid the bunker mentality, people shouldn't be afraid of giving an honest opinion.

Bunker mentality? I guess naming the site liberty tree was the first idea that this site actually stands for something. I guess its not to late to change it to come in and push your shitty idea all day and all the time while talk crap about the liberty candidate forum. While we are at it, I guess its time to unban fire111 and allow him back to litter the forum with his gibberish posts that are still more engaging and entertaining to read than most of the Trump stuff that people have been posting lately.

Its one thing to be open minded and avoiding bunker mentality, its another thing to be too open minded and allow dangerous and ignorant few to invade the forum with their so called new idea that we have seen and rejected a million times.

Sam I am
08-17-2015, 09:13 AM
Bunker mentality? I guess naming the site liberty tree was the first idea that this site actually stands for something. I guess its not to late to change it to come in and push your shitty idea all day and all the time while talk crap about the liberty candidate forum. While we are at it, I guess its time to unban fire111 and allow him back to litter the forum with his gibberish posts that are still more engaging and entertaining to read than most of the Trump stuff that people have been posting lately.

Its one thing to be open minded and avoiding bunker mentality, its another thing to be too open minded and allow dangerous and ignorant few to invade the forum with their so called new idea that we have seen and rejected a million times.

How can we claim to be in favor of a national free society when our own micro-society isn't a free one.

If you can't stand to be around political and social heretics, then you're probably ill-prepared to exist in a free society.

wizardwatson
08-17-2015, 09:22 AM
No one is saying that, you little turd. What I'm saying is that a libertarian forum should value the free marketplace of ideas, and not ban people simply for having contrary opinions. Wanting your community to be an echo-chamber is cowardly.


I think people who say I'm from a website I have never once posted on just because I recognize the fact of HBD should be banned. I assume you would have no problem with this.

Dude, you have "Neo-Reactionary" and a Julius Evola quote in your signature. You are flaunting anti-libertarian/fascist ideas.

That's not even the worst thing in my mind though. The worst thing is that you want to define your home-grown philosophy AS liberty. Hence, the username.

It's maximum irony that you say that your precious "white country" is being destroyed by letting undesirables come in and wipe out the majority but when this ecosystem rejects you, you cry fowl and appeal to "the marketplace of ideas" and call everyone cowards because open fascism isn't acceptable at RPF.

69360
08-17-2015, 10:59 AM
How can we claim to be in favor of a national free society when our own micro-society isn't a free one.

If you can't stand to be around political and social heretics, then you're probably ill-prepared to exist in a free society.

RPF isn't a some micro free society, it's a privately owned entity. If I owned it, I would delete Trump posts.

Sola_Fide
08-17-2015, 11:01 AM
RPF isn't a some micro free society, it's a privately owned entity. If I owned it, I would delete Trump posts.

I would too. I am saddened when I see people who were actual Ron Paul enthusiasts at one time promote Trump.

erowe1
08-17-2015, 11:08 AM
If they repeatedly co-opt this website to oppose what it stands for by pushing Trump, to the point that it's practically their entire agenda here, absolutely they should be banned, based on the site guidelines. They should also be banned if they repeatedly make racist remarks.

AuH2O should have been banned months ago.

jj-
08-17-2015, 02:46 PM
About 75% in favor of NOT banning, even with people who post about Trump like AuH20 and David Sadler not voting (as of now).

Good to see the authoritarian mindset didn't take over the forum.

There is so much butthurt here. Since the immigration plan became public, I often intentionally stayed away when I could've been here to avoid the butthurt.

69360
08-17-2015, 02:57 PM
Don't ban the posters, just ban the posts. Delete them as they pop up. No posts about Trump or with Trump in the title.

Rad
08-17-2015, 03:10 PM
It would be more efficient just to ban the posters. It would be a lot of work to constantly delete their same ideas over and over and over and over every minute of every day until the election.

juleswin
08-17-2015, 03:15 PM
About 75% in favor of NOT banning, even with people who post about Trump like AuH20 and David Sadler not voting (as of now).

Good to see the authoritarian mindset didn't take over the forum.

There is so much butthurt here. Since the immigration plan became public, I often intentionally stayed away when I could've been here to avoid the butthurt.

I think the attitude of many here is akin to the attitude of the obedient worker who dutifully accepts the assignment of training his own replacement. I am all for free speech and very open to diverse ideas but what I will not do is provide a platform for my enemy to spread his message. Call me anti freedom all you want but this is something that I will never do.

One Trump fanboy even said something about renaming this site to Donald Trump forums, these people do not just want to share their ideas with RPF members, they want to take it over.

RickyJ
08-17-2015, 03:15 PM
If anything, the mods should attempt to do something about the people who have banned themselves from this forum.

Where the hell has everyone gone?

Real life for most I guess makes posting on a political forum a luxury they just don't have time for anymore while trying to pay the bills and survive.

jj-
08-17-2015, 09:34 PM
Sorry, but I'm getting really annoyed with the Trump supporters and how they act here

Sorry is the first word of the post? You start apologizing and expect to be persuasive? I'd advise you to watch a bit of this guy named Donald Trump. He doesn't start proposals by apologizing, and he seems quite successful.

Christian Liberty
08-17-2015, 09:57 PM
Not everyone who posts here are doctrinaire libertarians. There are paleocons, constitutionalists, ancaps, minarchists and reactionaries like me. There are even a few liberals who post here. What someone does or doesn't support shouldn't be a prerequisite for posting on RPF.

Two theonomists as well. Theo (who rarely posts) and me.

I'm not sure if hells_unicorn calls himself a theonomist or not. Some covenanters do. Others don't. There might be three of us.

#theonomyftw

idiom
08-17-2015, 10:10 PM
People don't give a shit what Trump says, they like how he says it.

Welcome to actual America.

Rands campaign is mostly saying things that are technically the right things to say, but in the most wishy-washy sell-out sounding way possible.

I loathe Trump, but I do wish Rand would take a page from his book. Rand needs to be filibustering not on Obamacare, but on Medical monopolies and consumer abuses.

He should be front and center at protest marches against police militarization etc.

The electorate is furious and he doesn't give a shit.

TheTexan
08-17-2015, 10:15 PM
Trump is speaking truth to power!

That's probably how he made his billions too!

Brett85
08-17-2015, 11:17 PM
Sorry is the first word of the post? You start apologizing and expect to be persuasive? I'd advise you to watch a bit of this guy named Donald Trump. He doesn't start proposals by apologizing, and he seems quite successful.

I don't care if I'm successful or not. I want to be nothing like Donald Trump.

Christian Liberty
08-17-2015, 11:23 PM
I don't care if I'm successful or not. I want to be nothing like Donald Trump.

Amen. I'm bad at it but kindness is important.

fr33
08-17-2015, 11:30 PM
I voted no but it's going to get even worse if Rand gets disqualified from the next debate or even if Rand drops out later.This site is ripe with republican shills that will spam us no matter which idiot is chosen.

CPUd
08-18-2015, 12:02 AM
I voted no but it's going to get even worse if Rand gets disqualified from the next debate or even if Rand drops out later.This site is ripe with republican and LP shills that will spam us no matter which idiot is chosen.

fixed.

acptulsa
08-18-2015, 06:27 AM
I voted no but it's going to get even worse if Rand gets disqualified from the next debate or even if Rand drops out later.This site is ripe with republican, LP and other 'bipartisan' Establishment paid shills that will spam us no matter which idiot is chosen.

Fixed it better.

At the end of the day, volunteers have less ability to post than paid ops, because one has to earn a living and the other is making a living. Which is the way it is. But does it have to be the way it is here, of all places?

AuH20
08-18-2015, 08:17 AM
3 points

1) There are no paid operatives to run interference when the candidate has destroyed his candidacy by his lonesome. Numbers were trending down months before the Trump surge began.

2) Nearly all the people who find Trump palatable in this sea of mediocrity are driven by anti-establishment motivations. In other words, smash the beltway triumvirate of think tanks, lobbying groups and politicians. Logically, there are little to no coattails for Cruz or others, since they are viewed as part of the problem.

3) The Rand cultists live in a self-enclosed bubble in which Rand is secretly leading but is being held down by the media and the malcontents who jumped to Trump.

erowe1
08-18-2015, 08:18 AM
3 points

1) There are no paid operatives to run interference when the candidate has destroyed his candidacy by his lonesome. Numbers were trending down months before the Trump surge began.

2) Nearly all the people who find Trump palatable in this sea of mediocrity are driven by anti-establishment motivations. In other words, smash the beltway triumvirate of think tanks, lobbying groups and politicians. Logically, there are little to no coattails for Cruz or others, since they are viewed as part of the problem.

3) The Rand cultists live in a self-enclosed bubble in which Rand is secretly leading but is being held down by the media and the malcontents who jumped to Trump.

Why are you here?

AuH20
08-18-2015, 08:19 AM
Why are you here?

I was here to get Rand elected until he pulled the rug out from underneath our feet. No one ever wanted to be on the side of the establishment. We are legion and there are many of us.

Brett85
08-18-2015, 08:22 AM
3 points

1) There are no paid operatives to run interference when the candidate has destroyed his candidacy by his lonesome. Numbers were trending down months before the Trump surge began.

2) Nearly all the people who find Trump palatable in this sea of mediocrity are driven by anti-establishment motivations. In other words, smash the beltway triumvirate of think tanks, lobbying groups and politicians. Logically, there are little to no coattails for Cruz or others, since they are viewed as part of the problem.

3) The Rand cultists live in a self-enclosed bubble in which Rand is secretly leading but is being held down by the media and the malcontents who jumped to Trump.

What good does it do for Trump to crush the establishment when Trump is even more liberal than the establishment? If Trump wins then there will just be a new establishment that will be even more liberal and statist than the old establishment.

nayjevin
08-18-2015, 08:27 AM
3 points

1) There are no paid operatives to run interference when the candidate has destroyed his candidacy by his lonesome. Numbers were trending down months before the Trump surge began.

Candidacy is not destroyed. Numbers not trending down more than expected given so many new candidates have entered race. You've refused to acknowledge this in the past.


2) Nearly all the people who find Trump palatable in this sea of mediocrity are driven by anti-establishment motivations. In other words, smash the beltway triumvirate of think tanks, lobbying groups and politicians. Logically, there are little to no coattails for Cruz or others, since they are viewed as part of the problem.

So this is great, Trump riles them up, we show them he is part of the problem.


3) The Rand cultists live in a self-enclosed bubble in which Rand is secretly leading but is being held down by the media and the malcontents who jumped to Trump.

Exaggerated mischaracterizations are easy to ridicule. Media is against Rand and his numbers are better than he is polling. But polling is more reflective of popular vote anyway, and election is not decided by popular vote.


I was here to get Rand elected until he pulled the rug out from underneath our feet. No one ever wanted to be on the side of the establishment. We are legion and there are many of us.

By reaching out to minorities?

erowe1
08-18-2015, 08:29 AM
I was here to get Rand elected until he pulled the rug out from underneath our feet. No one ever wanted to be on the side of the establishment. We are legion and there are many of us.

No you weren't. Not unless you changed your views or just never had any clue what either he or his dad (or for that matter, your namesake Goldwater) ever stood for.

It has seemed like your views shifted much more away from freedom to anti-immigration statism as your years on this forum went on though.

AuH20
08-18-2015, 08:29 AM
What good does it do for Trump to crush the establishment when Trump is even more liberal than the establishment? If Trump wins then there will just be a new establishment that will be even more liberal and statist than the old establishment.

Look at what Trump singlehandedly did to the GOP propaganda channel known as Fox a few weeks back. He broke them to his will and Ailes fearing for his ratings and credibility finally backed down. The fun has just begun. Nothing hurts the enemy more than high poll numbers. The enemy becomes impatient and sloppy as the vise tightens.

Ron Paul was on the right track but couldn't fully plug into the rage. The journey is far more important than the destination. Trump doesn't even have to win. He just has to create enough chaos to split the party in two. Maybe once the party splits, desperate people will start exploring desperate options (secession). More people may arrive at the notion that the game is hopelessly rigged and there can be no national referendum for restoring the Constitution at the federal level.

AuH20
08-18-2015, 08:38 AM
Candidacy is not destroyed. Numbers not trending down more than expected given so many new candidates have entered race. You've refused to acknowledge this in the past.

Look at his favorable splits in NH and Iowa, two places where he was once beloved. His numbers have taken a huge hit.




So this is great, Trump riles them up, we show them he is part of the problem.

Doing the bidding of the neocons that assailed Ron's candidacy for so many years?




Exaggerated mischaracterizations are easy to ridicule. Media is against Rand and his numbers are better than he is polling. But polling is more reflective of popular vote anyway, and election is not decided by popular vote.

Numbers aren't much better outside landline exclusions. Rand has a credibility problem.



By reaching out to minorities?

Deviating from what created the Randslide in Kentucky. Rand Paul was arguably the most popular Republican in the countryside. He was a folk hero superstar who wasn't worried about focus groups and other nonsense. He was more off the cuff like Trump. Then he came to Washington and changed for the worse as he became seduced with the idea of running for POTUS.

Brett85
08-18-2015, 08:59 AM
Look at what Trump singlehandedly did to the GOP propaganda channel known as Fox a few weeks back. He broke them to his will and Ailes fearing for his ratings and credibility finally backed down. The fun has just begun. Nothing hurts the enemy more than high poll numbers. The enemy becomes impatient and sloppy as the vise tightens.

Ron Paul was on the right track but couldn't fully plug into the rage. The journey is far more important than the destination. Trump doesn't even have to win. He just has to create enough chaos to split the party in two. Maybe once the party splits, desperate people will start exploring desperate options (secession). More people may arrive at the notion that the game is hopelessly rigged and there can be no national referendum for restoring the Constitution at the federal level.

I don't want to split the Republican Party in two. I want to reform it and make it more liberty oriented, which has been the goal of the liberty movement from the beginning. The only way to win elections is to be part of a functioning party.

klamath
08-18-2015, 09:09 AM
What make AUH2O frustrating to people is he posts all these gushing threads about Trump and how great his positions are, Yet when cornered on how Trump is almost the opposite of RP's Ideas he reverts to "I am just supporting Trump to destroy the country so we can start new!" You really can't argue with that mentality, best to ignore.

AuH20
08-18-2015, 09:11 AM
What make AUH2O frustrating to people is he posts all these gushing threads about Trump and how great his positions are, Yet when cornered on how Trump is almost the opposite of RP's Ideas he reverts to "I am just supporting Trump to destroy the country so we can start new!" You really can't argue with that mentality, best to ignore.

Trump is a mixed bag in terms of pure policy positions. I have said this numerous times. He's good on immigration, trade deals and interest rates. Not good on eminent domain and entitlement programs. Still with all that said, I would still trust him over Walker and Bush. We've seen what those handlers bring into the Oval Office.

Brett85
08-18-2015, 09:14 AM
Trump is a mixed bag in terms of pure policy positions. I have said this numerous times. He's good on immigration, trade deals and interest rates.

Which Trump are you talking about that's good on immigration? The 2012 Trump who said that there should be a path to citizenship for illegals and criticized Romney for being too harsh on illegal immigration? Or the 2015 Trump who flip flopped and is now saying that all illegals need to be deported? And how in the world do you know which one is the real Trump?

klamath
08-18-2015, 09:27 AM
Which Trump are you talking about that's good on immigration? The 2012 Trump who said that there should be a path to citizenship for illegals and criticized Romney for being too harsh on illegal immigration? Or the 2015 Trump who flip flopped and is now saying that all illegals need to be deported? And how in the world do you know which one is the real Trump? Nobody has a clue of what Trump stands for only that he will build an enemies list of anyone that disagrees with him and will monitor them through the NSA and punish them through the IRS.

acptulsa
08-18-2015, 09:34 AM
Trump is a mixed bag in terms of pure policy positions. I have said this numerous times. He's good on immigration, trade deals and interest rates. Not good on eminent domain and entitlement programs. Still with all that said, I would still trust him over Walker and Bush. We've seen what those handlers bring into the Oval Office.

He refuses to support the man we're all here to support because his substance is right but his delivery isn't obnoxious enough to get the nation to distrust completely the way they do Trump but he'll gush over Trump day and night because he can't get elected and can't make a difference and is the greatest of all available evils and might cause the nation to crash and burn knowing that the people who think we all want that are misguided and flat wrong but he wants us to look that way and even though Trump hires shills all the time and he's here day and night repetitively spamming us he isn't paid to do it even though he considers people who volunteer suckers and respects only those who go for the money and all principle be damned.

Stop me if I say something that actually makes sense, because then I'll know I'm not on the right track...

Because nothing says 'I'm a freedom fighter' like telling the people who are trying to replace those who take bribes with those who don't that they should instead be replacing those who take bribes with those who pay bribes.

Brian4Liberty
08-18-2015, 10:39 AM
Trump is a mixed bag in terms of pure policy positions. I have said this numerous times. He's good on immigration, trade deals and interest rates. Not good on eminent domain and entitlement programs. Still with all that said, I would still trust him over Walker and Bush. We've seen what those handlers bring into the Oval Office.

You left out Trump's support for illegal domestic spying ala Chris Christie, and foreign policy from John Bolton and Bibi...

Brian4Liberty
08-18-2015, 10:41 AM
Nobody has a clue of what Trump stands for only that he will build an enemies list of anyone that disagrees with him and will monitor them through the NSA and punish them through the IRS.

That's Obama. Trump promises to be tougher than that on his (domestic) enemies and dissenters.

William Tell
08-18-2015, 10:46 AM
You left out Trump's support for illegal domestic spying ala Chris Christie, and foreign policy from John Bolton and Bibi...

Executing Snowden, changing his abortion positions every 3 1/2 days...

Rad
08-18-2015, 11:50 AM
I'll come out for Trump if the Yes vote is won! Come on Trumpers!

nayjevin
08-18-2015, 12:59 PM
Look at his favorable splits in NH and Iowa, two places where he was once beloved. His numbers have taken a huge hit.

I take it you watch lot of news, they do they same thing you did. 'his favorable splits' does not refer to anything in reality. There are polls, and methodologies, and margin of error, and outliers, it takes research to come to a conclusion about what it is likely a snapshot of today in one segment of the population is like.

'Taken a huge hit' is scareword for 'I don't want to look it up myself'.

Often dropping favorables are from attack ads in the area, and we know talk radio and con-servative TV are running free ones all the time.


Deviating from what created the Randslide in Kentucky. Rand Paul was arguably the most popular Republican in the countryside. He was a folk hero superstar who wasn't worried about focus groups and other nonsense. He was more off the cuff like Trump. Then he came to Washington and changed for the worse as he became seduced with the idea of running for POTUS.

Kentucky is not America, and political landscape has changed. However you see Trump, Rand is not that, and I'm glad. Trump's recipe is a shotglass on fire.

CPUd
08-18-2015, 01:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_fiVmU0cAY

acptulsa
08-18-2015, 01:32 PM
He can build a wall no one can climb over.

Of course, he has never built a wall in his life, he has never designed a wall in his life, and thousands of prison architects have been trying to build a wall no one can climb over for millennia and no one has done it.

But Trump can. He obviously can, since he said he can, and even though he has obviously lied before, this statement you can take to the bank.

And if you can't see these obvious facts, you're too stupid to understand the pablum the Establishment Media is shoving down your throat on behalf of the very Anti-Establishment Guy who had Bill and Hillary at his wedding.

Now aren't you ashamed for doubting it?


That's right.

Perception is reality, folks. And if you can't perceive this bullshit as reality, then you need to run to your doctor as fast as you can and demand he put you on the same drugs as the rest of the sheep. Otherwise, the herd will leave you behind.

You all see these sheep dogs barking their heads off. Hurry up and go get sheared. The whole herd is doing it.

Guess this is what the forum is now here for.

loveshiscountry
08-18-2015, 04:03 PM
Why ban them? How else are they going to learn?

Rad
08-18-2015, 04:05 PM
Why ban them? How else are they going to learn?Spare the rod, spoil the child! https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs+13%3A24&version=NIV

GunnyFreedom
08-18-2015, 04:05 PM
Why ban them? How else are they going to learn?

They aren't learning.

acptulsa
08-18-2015, 04:08 PM
Why ban them? How else are they going to learn?


They aren't learning.

They are abusing the privilege of being a part of this fine community.

And no abuser ever learned anything from being allowed to do whatever anti-social thing he wants to do. Including spamming. They don't learn until they aren't getting what they want. As any formerly abused spouse can tell you.

As long as they can do whatever they want, no matter how obnoxious, they will. In fact, they'll just keep ramping it up and going even further over the top.

Even the ones who have a financial stake in not getting banned will eventually either get overconfident or just downright curious, and push the envelope harder and harder. Having long since had his every sensible-sounding argument thoroughly disproven, jj has already been reduced to accusing others of what he's guilty of and generally flinging vitriol in another thread. The last resort of any abuser.

Foreigner
08-18-2015, 04:09 PM
I feel like some of them are only trolling - that can be the cause of a ban - if overdone.

Otherwise, it's part of the republican electorate that one needs to convert to Rand to win.

acptulsa
08-18-2015, 04:32 PM
I feel like some of them are only trolling - that can be the cause of a ban - if overdone.

What? Is that not what this forum was founded for--to facilitate the confusion of our enemy's enemies?


Otherwise, it's part of the republican electorate that one needs to convert to Rand to win.

I don't see how politeness could help with that chore. These are Trump fans, after all. Comity doesn't seem to be something they respect. 2x4s, perhaps. Civility, never.

Rad
08-18-2015, 04:53 PM
I think the reason of the No votes is that you'd miss the Trump posts. You may hate them but maybe you love the feeling of that hate. It is addicting. All you need to do is find things about your candidate and flood out the Trump supporters. Then stop responding to those temptingly delicious click bait post about Trump. Or you could end the Old Right coalition and do a banning. Come on join the ban side!

acptulsa
08-18-2015, 04:55 PM
I think the reason of the No votes is that you'd miss the Trump posts. You may hate them but maybe you love the feeling of that hate. It is addicting. All you need to do is find things about your candidate and flood out the Trump supporters. Then stop responding to those temptingly delicious click bait post about Trump. Or you could end the Old Right coalition and do a banning. Come on join the ban side!

Either that or we have no need or desire for our own Howard Cosells, but instead have principled reasons for preferring to pwn them.

Only problem is, they're paid to do it and I'm not. And while I have been getting some fine help, I'm getting tired of repeating myself in the face of an avalanche of spam.

jj-
08-18-2015, 04:58 PM
Either that or we have no need or desire for our own Howard Cosells, but instead have principled reasons for preferring to pwn them.

acptulsa, you're such a hero in your own mind. Where would this place be without you?

AuH20
08-18-2015, 05:03 PM
Pretty funny..

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/08/18/mfp-bro-splains-why-libertarians-support-donald-trump-over-rand-paul/

Rad
08-18-2015, 05:09 PM
Either that or we have no need or desire for our own Howard Cosells, but instead have principled reasons for preferring to pwn them.

Only problem is, they're paid to do it and I'm not. And while I have been getting some fine help, I'm getting tired of repeating myself in the face of an avalanche of spam.I think they are paleoconservatives (Pat Buchanan supporters). They were here back when I was posting back in 2007. What happened to the 9/11 truthers? They were huge back then. The paleoconservatives may stop if Trump drops in the polls and someone else with similar immigration views takes the lead over him. Immigration is very big issue across rural white Americans from paleo's to Christian Zionist. Trump speaks paleo very well and he is winning right now. He is a great sophist. He knows how to work a crowd. Libertarians are for open borders but the conservative portion of the Ron Paul movement is not. Trump talks really tough on this issue. It is appealing to people.

osan
08-18-2015, 07:18 PM
Sorry, but I'm getting really annoyed with the Trump supporters and how they act here. All they do is constantly talk about Trump and never offer anything of substance. They're supporting a big government statist who's a sworn enemy of liberty. That makes them enemies of liberty as well. Should we allow enemies of liberty to post here? Thoughts?


Here we go again. How many thousands of pages is this irrelevant nonsense going to generate? Sorry, but this is so bush-league.

osan
08-18-2015, 07:22 PM
You left out Trump's support for illegal domestic spying ala Chris Christie, and foreign policy from John Bolton and Bibi...

You cannot be talking about the long-haired girly-man who sings cheese music over whom women not worth a first look get all gushy in the panties.

Right?

I can't fucking believe I just got sucked into their lame thread. I will attempt to work up the nerve to shoot myself tonight.

CPUd
08-18-2015, 07:46 PM
You cannot be talking about the long-haired girly-man who sings cheese music over whom women not worth a first look get all gushy in the panties.

Right?

I can't fucking believe I just got sucked into their lame thread. I will attempt to work up the nerve to shoot myself tonight.

http://i.imgur.com/JMjTtT8.jpg

Brian4Liberty
08-18-2015, 09:15 PM
You cannot be talking about the long-haired girly-man who sings cheese music over whom women not worth a first look get all gushy in the panties.

Right?

I can't fucking believe I just got sucked into their lame thread. I will attempt to work up the nerve to shoot myself tonight.

Nope. John "I am the Walrus" Bolton:

4474

You must be thinking of Michael Bolton:

4475

William Tell
08-19-2015, 08:52 AM
Sorry, but I'm getting really annoyed with the Trump supporters and how they act here. All they do is constantly talk about Trump and never offer anything of substance. They're supporting a big government statist who's a sworn enemy of liberty. That makes them enemies of liberty as well. Should we allow enemies of liberty to post here? Thoughts?

Well, they have managed to convince Breitbart reporters that we are supporting Trump instead of Rand. That's about as damaging as it gets I suppose.

erowe1
08-19-2015, 09:19 AM
Well, they have managed to convince Breitbart reporters that we are supporting Trump instead of Rand. That's about as damaging as it gets I suppose.

Is this true? If so, it's definitely reason enough for banning them.

H. E. Panqui
08-19-2015, 12:34 PM
:rolleyes:

...good grief!...does anyone know of any websites where there aren't so many whiners/losers who want to ban people?..

...'politics' is a 'competition of ideas about government'....remember when we were kids and there was some snot-nose who SUCKED in the competition of basketball, baseball, football, etc., and he decided to ban you from his court, take his ball home, etc...?

...it's understandable...the snot-nose was being repeatedly drubbed and he didn't like it...and it was certainly within his rights to cry like a baby and take his ball away...

...but remember how people felt about the thin-skinned, snot-nosed losers... ;)

...it's pathetic and VERY unattractive...

erowe1
08-19-2015, 12:44 PM
...good grief!...does anyone know of any websites where there aren't so many whiners/losers who want to ban people?..


Yes. Red State comes to mind immediately. As websites go, this one is very tolerant. Personally, I've rarely supported banning people. But it does happen sometimes, and it should. There should be a limit to how much the Trump trolls can get away with here, per the site guidelines as they already are.

Rad
08-19-2015, 12:51 PM
:rolleyes:

...good grief!...does anyone know of any websites where there aren't so many whiners/losers who want to ban people?..

...'politics' is a 'competition of ideas about government'....remember when we were kids and there was some snot-nose who SUCKED in the competition of basketball, baseball, football, etc., and he decided to ban you from his court, take his ball home, etc...?

...it's understandable...the snot-nose was being repeatedly drubbed and he didn't like it...and it was certainly within his rights to cry like a baby and take his ball away...

...but remember how people felt about the thin-skinned, snot-nosed losers... ;)

...it's pathetic and VERY unattractive...
We all have boogers in our nose! There is a little Yes vote in all of us if we look deep enough (I hope).

JK/SEA
08-19-2015, 01:46 PM
i called the cops on these guys a few days ago...did they show up yet?

GunnyFreedom
08-19-2015, 02:18 PM
Is this true? If so, it's definitely reason enough for banning them.

Yes, it's true. And I agree. I do not, however, hold out much hope that it will actually happen. A not-insignificant part of the reason why Rand Paul is suffering is because people come to the only serious gathering of Ron Paulers left on the Internet, and it looks like we are supporting Trump. News articles are written, and the notion propagates that even the crazy Ron Paul fanatics don't like Rand. At this point, with the Trump supporters free to run amok trashing Rand and promoting Trump, Rand Paul would have been better off in his campaign if this website did not exist. :(

klamath
08-19-2015, 02:33 PM
Yes, it's true. And I agree. I do not, however, hold out much hope that it will actually happen. A not-insignificant part of the reason why Rand Paul is suffering is because people come to the only serious gathering of Ron Paulers left on the Internet, and it looks like we are supporting Trump. News articles are written, and the notion propagates that even the crazy Ron Paul fanatics don't like Rand. At this point, with the Trump supporters free to run amok trashing Rand and promoting Trump, Rand Paul would have been better off in his campaign if this website did not exist. :(Sad.

H. E. Panqui
08-19-2015, 02:56 PM
gunny freedom writes: A not-insignificant part of the reason why Rand Paul is suffering is because people come to the only serious gathering of Ron Paulers left on the Internet, and it looks like we are supporting Trump.

:rolleyes:

c'mon man! ...trump's getting any 'support' from me [IN THE PRIMARY ONLY!!] because he's the most gnarly monkey wrench to throw into the STINKING, ROTTEN, REPUBLICAN PARTY INC. machine...

more gunny: Rand Paul would have been better off in his campaign if this website did not exist.

:confused:

LOL! ...the only time i find myself sticking up for rand and the republicans (vs. democreeps/liberals) is when i remind people that at least the republicans are giving us 'something that resembles honest 'debate'..i ask them, 'what have your stinking democrats brought us?'...(i love it when the smarter ones look down in shame) ;)

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-19-2015, 02:57 PM
this election is feeling less like a revolution and more like a routine

Rad
08-19-2015, 03:05 PM
Sad.That attitude is sad. Where is the hope for change? We are off to save the world!

You guys need to recruit our Rand Paul girl (she doesn't know it yet) or at least steal her stuff and post her stuff. Have you thought about following Paul around and making your own news? Trump is knocking stuff out of the ball park if you agree with him or not. Rand needs some real good juicy knock your socks off quotes. Ron Paul got news stories because he was controversial like Trump otherwise he was made fun of. Rand just gets put down. There is no controversy. Ron was hard to ignore. He explained blow back to a bunch of rabid crazy people! He had serious supporters too. The type of spirit that threw snow balls at Hannity and put a blimp up in the air. Surely people have skills. They can make videos and stuff, songs, comics, etc. Do crazy stuff to get attention. Where is the O'Paul supporter spirit? The human wrecking ball is taking all the oxygen. You guys need to create your own oxygen tank and supply the world with fresh oxygen. I can't believe there isn't a Rand Paul girl video yet. For shame! Surely someone has recording equipment and is adept at it. Surely someone has some toon boom skills and could create a cartoon showing how you are going to deFabian socialize the country by stealing their method of slowly reworking the world into your preferred image. How about a mass hunger strike for Rand Paul? Die for Rand.

How about a Paul fest... we all get drunk and stoned, make out while listening to dubstep, and spread the word of Rand Paul!

If you guys don't want to do anything attention grabbing and exciting you could uhm... (imagine James Earl Jones voice) join me and together we can vote Yes and bring order to this forum .

Warrior_of_Freedom
08-19-2015, 03:07 PM
The campaign against Trump should be so easy. HEre's my campaign slogan
Dump Trump
there you go, free campaign advice

H. E. Panqui
08-20-2015, 06:26 AM
rad writes: "....make out while listening to dubstep, and spread the word of Rand Paul!"

:)

....sounds great!...just please inform people that rand is a conservative republican...please...hasn't the word 'libertarian' been shat upon enough already?...

paleocon1
08-20-2015, 06:36 AM
There are certain people on the RPFs who seriously advocate shooting illegal aliens when they cross the border. Trump supporters are way down the list of people to be concerned about 'round here IMHO.

and that would be different from shooting home invaders just how?

erowe1
08-20-2015, 06:36 AM
[COLOR=#111111]
c'mon man! ...trump's getting any 'support' from me [IN THE PRIMARY ONLY!!]

The primary is where you are supposed to be supporting Rand, poop monger.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:03 AM
No you weren't. Not unless you changed your views or just never had any clue what either he or his dad (or for that matter, your namesake Goldwater) ever stood for.

It has seemed like your views shifted much more away from freedom to anti-immigration statism as your years on this forum went on though.

You still don't get it, or maybe you do and you just don't care. If we continue to allow our country to be overrun by illegal aliens, we have no country to save.

Your stance on this is the very same one as the one-worlders who have pushed this illegal invasion. Congrats.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:05 AM
By definition, libertarians have the corner on liberty.

You're kidding, right? lolol

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:08 AM
Is this true? If so, it's definitely reason enough for banning them.


If they repeatedly co-opt this website to oppose what it stands for by pushing Trump, to the point that it's practically their entire agenda here, absolutely they should be banned, based on the site guidelines. They should also be banned if they repeatedly make racist remarks.

AuH2O should have been banned months ago.

What about those who advocate things that both Ron and Rand are against, like open borders? In that case, you should have been banned long ago.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:11 AM
You still don't get it, or maybe you do and you just don't care. If we continue to allow our country to be overrun by illegal aliens, we have no country to save.

Your stance on this is the very same one as the one-worlders who have pushed this illegal invasion. Congrats.

You don't get it.

Notice the value system behind your comment. It's about some "country," rather than individuals.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:14 AM
What about those who advocate things that both Ron and Rand are against, like open borders? In that case, you should have been banned long ago.

For all intents and purposes, Ron and Rand are for open borders. If you are sympathetic to Trump's position on immigration, then my view on it is closer to both Ron's and Rand's than yours is.

But even so, here's what the site guidelines say:

3) Support our Mission Statement.
• No promoting agendas that counter our Mission Statement.
• Positive energy should be used with content relating towards the achievement of our Mission Statement. Negative content should be approached with the goal of finding constructive solutions to existing problems.
• Non-functional criticism of site supported candidates or politicians is outside the scope of the sites Mission Statement.
• Do not be combative in response to elected officials, candidates, campaign staff or other notable public figures who are site members and advancing our Mission Statement.
• No content that is overly distracting from our Mission Statement, such as topics that focus on gratuitous violence or strong sexual material.

There's plenty of room in there for disagreement on specific issues. There's not room for pushing a candidate like Trump.

kahless
08-20-2015, 07:46 AM
There is clearly an agenda to undermine these forums and support an agenda counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform and it is not the few people here that are posting information related to Trump's positions.

Take erowe1 for example. He is actively campaigning in this forum for a platform that is counter to that of Rand and Ron.

Just scratching the surface on erowe1's positions:

- The US as a country should cease to exist. Elimination of the federal government and complete open borders.

- Support of La Raza, an organization whose goal is white ethnic cleansing of the Western US and establishment of a Marxist state called Aztlán.

Yet no calls for a ban of erowe1. I suspect if we really take a look at all those complaining about the forum members mentioned they will have similar views counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:27 AM
There is clearly an agenda to undermine these forums and support an agenda counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform and it is not the few people here that are posting information related to Trump's positions.

Take erowe1 for example. He is actively campaigning in this forum for a platform that is counter to that of Rand and Ron.

Just scratching the surface on erowe1's positions:

- The US as a country should cease to exist. Elimination of the federal government and complete open borders.

- Support of La Raza, an organization whose goal is white ethnic cleansing of the Western US and establishment of a Marxist state called Aztlán.

Yet no calls for a ban of erowe1. I suspect if we really take a look at all those complaining about the forum members mentioned they will have similar views counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform.

Perfect example. How much longer will this be allowed to continue?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:32 AM
For all intents and purposes, Ron and Rand are for open borders. If you are sympathetic to Trump's position on immigration, then my view on it is closer to both Ron's and Rand's than yours is.

Bullshit. They are most certainly not for the illegal invasion of our country. You, on the other hand, are.


There is clearly an agenda to undermine these forums and support an agenda counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform and it is not the few people here that are posting information related to Trump's positions.

Take erowe1 for example. He is actively campaigning in this forum for a platform that is counter to that of Rand and Ron.

Just scratching the surface on erowe1's positions:

- The US as a country should cease to exist. Elimination of the federal government and complete open borders.

- Support of La Raza, an organization whose goal is white ethnic cleansing of the Western US and establishment of a Marxist state called Aztlán.

Yet no calls for a ban of erowe1. I suspect if we really take a look at all those complaining about the forum members mentioned they will have similar views counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform.

Exactly.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:36 AM
Bullshit. They are most certainly not for the illegal invasion of our country. You, on the other hand, are.


No I am not. I don't think immigration should be illegal. And according to the only law that actually exists, God's law, it isn't.

Sola_Fide
08-20-2015, 08:46 AM
No I am not. I don't think immigration should be illegal. And according to the only law that actually exists, God's law, it isn't.

Same.

staerker
08-20-2015, 09:02 AM
There is clearly an agenda to undermine these forums and support an agenda counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform and it is not the few people here that are posting information related to Trump's positions.

Take erowe1 for example. He is actively campaigning in this forum for a platform that is counter to that of Rand and Ron.

Just scratching the surface on erowe1's positions:

- The US as a country should cease to exist. Elimination of the federal government and complete open borders.

- Support of La Raza, an organization whose goal is white ethnic cleansing of the Western US and establishment of a Marxist state called Aztlán.

Yet no calls for a ban of erowe1. I suspect if we really take a look at all those complaining about the forum members mentioned they will have similar views counter to that of Ron and Rand's platform.

Both Ron and Rand propose a palatable form of minarchism. There will always be differences, but the spirit driving anarchism and minarchism are one and the same.

Trump, however, proposes a complete dictatorship. Notice how both Ron and Rand constantly condemn his positions.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:11 AM
Same.

Congrats, you and Erowe don't believe in the concept of nations. That makes you tools of the one-worlders. It's one of the problems in this so-called movement.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:13 AM
Both Ron and Rand propose a palatable form of minarchism. There will always be differences, but the spirit driving anarchism and minarchism are one and the same.

Trump, however, proposes a complete dictatorship. Notice how both Ron and Rand constantly condemn his positions.

Yes. And I don't see anybody coming in here and pumping up the candidacy of some other candidate on account of his having a more pro-immigration position than Rand (if there are any such candidates, which I doubt). I do, however, see people pushing Trump on account of his distinction as a more anti-immigration candidate.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:14 AM
Congrats, you and Erowe don't believe in the concept of nations. That makes you tools of the one-worlders. It's one of the problems in this so-called movement.

We can have nations without having regimes that regulate immigration. Nations have existed for thousands of years. Your support for a central manager controlling America's demographics is much closer to one-world-government than what I support.

kahless
08-20-2015, 09:16 AM
Both Ron and Rand propose a palatable form of minarchism. There will always be differences, but the spirit driving anarchism and minarchism are one and the same.

They believe in a form of minarchism that would not be possible with an open border. I have not seen any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their immigration platform as it would appear you and erowe1 are claiming.

If either of you have any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their publicly released platforms to the point they desire complete open borders and dissolution of the US as a country then make your case.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:17 AM
Yes. And I don't see anybody coming in here and pumping up the candidacy of some other candidate on account of his having a more pro-immigration position than Rand (if there are any such candidates, which I doubt). I do, however, see people pushing Trump on account of his distinction as a more anti-immigration candidate.

No, but you constantly try to lead readers away from Ron and Rand's stances, while claiming to support them. Verses someone who says something positive about Trump because of Trump's stance on an issue.

Which one is more damaging? I say someone like you.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:18 AM
They believe in a form of minarchism that would not be possible with an open border. I have not seen any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their immigration platform as it would appear you and erowe1 are claiming.

If either of you have any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their publicly released platforms to the point they desire complete open borders and dissolution of the US as a country then make your case.

I don't think they're being dishonest. Not sure where you got that idea. Maybe the way you came up with the idea that I supported La Raza.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:19 AM
I don't think they're being dishonest. Not sure where you got that idea. Maybe the way you came up with the idea that I supported La Raza.

You support a group called THE RACE? Seriously? And you call yourself a libertarian?

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:21 AM
No, but you constantly try to lead readers away from Ron and Rand's stances, while claiming to support them.

No I don't.

Ron's greatest legacy, and one for which I'm sure he's quite proud, has been in drawing over huge numbers of people like me from rank-and-file Republican conservatism to being full-fledged enemies of the state. Over the years, this very website has been a great tool in doing that. It always has been. And it should continue to be.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:21 AM
You support a group called THE RACE? Seriously? And you call yourself a libertarian?

Go back and reread what you just quoted.

No, I don't support them. And no, I don't call myself a libertarian.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:22 AM
No I don't.
Yeah, you do. You preach open borders and your disdain for the concept of nations. This is totally against what Ron and Rand believe.


Ron's greatest legacy, and one for which I'm sure he's quite proud, has been in drawing over huge numbers of people like me from rank-and-file Republican conservatism to being full-fledged enemies of the state. Over the years, this very website has been a great tool in doing that. It always has been. And it should continue to be.

You are pushing your agenda. Not Ron and Rand's.

staerker
08-20-2015, 09:23 AM
They believe in a form of minarchism that would not be possible with an open border. I have not seen any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their immigration platform as it would appear you and erowe1 are claiming.

If either of you have any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their publicly released platforms to the point they desire complete open borders and dissolution of the US as a country then make your case.

Okay.? Point being, their form of minarchism is identical in spirit to anarcho-capitalism. They simply have not carried their arguments out to their logical conclusions (publicly,) as many here have.

A dictatorship is antithetical to that spirit. Note the constant condemnation by both Ron and Rand.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:23 AM
Yeah, you do. You preach open borders and your disdain for the concept of nations. This is totally against what Ron and Rand believe.

I preach open borders, which for all intents and purposes is Ron Paul's position. Rand isn't far from that either, as evidenced by the hatred he gets from the anti-immigration people here. But I defy you to find a quote where I express any disdain for the concept of nations.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:24 AM
Go back and reread what you just quoted.

No, I don't support them. And no, I don't call myself a libertarian.

Anarchist? If so, good, then we agree that anarchists and libertarians are not the same thing.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:28 AM
Anarchist? If so, good, then we agree that anarchists and libertarians are not the same thing.

No, I don't call myself an anarchist either. And it makes no difference to me if anarchists and libertarians are the same thing or not.

I guess if you want to label me, just call me a traditional conservative.

Sola_Fide
08-20-2015, 09:32 AM
Congrats, you and Erowe don't believe in the concept of nations. That makes you tools of the one-worlders. It's one of the problems in this so-called movement.

What if one doesn't believe in the concept of nations or world government?

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 09:34 AM
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:37 AM
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.

There is nothing xenophobic about wanting less dependents. Ron has preached this ad nauseum.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:38 AM
No, I don't call myself an anarchist either. And it makes no difference to me if anarchists and libertarians are the same thing or not.

I guess if you want to label me, just call me a traditional conservative.

Nah, you most certainly aren't that. Traditional conservatives value limited government, amongst other things.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:41 AM
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.

That's bullshit, acptulsa. No one has a fear of people from other countries. What many of us are sick and tired of, however, are the people who do not obey our immigration laws; deciding instead to overrun our borders. No nation can exist like that. Which is the purpose of the elite encouraging it.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:43 AM
Contrary to what most Americans may believe, in fact, the Founding Fathers were by and large skeptical of immigration. If the United States lacked people with particular skills, then the Founders had no objection to attracting them from abroad. But they were convinced that mass immigration would bring social turmoil and political confusion in its wake.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:46 AM
Nah, you most certainly aren't that. Traditional conservatives value limited government, amongst other things.

I do value that. I want to limit it more than you do, it's pretty clear.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:47 AM
http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

You're welcome to be a skeptic of immigration. Just like drugs and every other issue, we can have different views, but keep the government out of it.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:49 AM
That's bullshit, acptulsa. No one has a fear of people from other countries. What many of us are sick and tired of, however, are the people who do not obey our immigration laws; deciding instead to overrun our borders. No nation can exist like that. Which is the purpose of the elite encouraging it.

Oh, so if we changed the laws so that the immigration that is not legal now were to be legal such that these people wouldn't be breaking laws any more, you'd be for it?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:55 AM
You're welcome to be a skeptic of immigration. Just like drugs and every other issue, we can have different views, but keep the government out of it.

Overwhelming, mass immigration, you betcha. Letting people flood our borders as they have been, gives absolutely no chance of them assimilating into our culture and principles. Instead what happens is that they attempt to change us into what they came from.

Apparently, you didn't take the time to read the article. Figures.


Oh, so if we changed the laws so that the immigration that is not legal now were to be legal such that these people wouldn't be breaking laws any more, you'd be for it?

Again, immigration was limited so that those immigrating would not be a burden on our country, they wanted to become AMERICANS and that they would be able to assimilate into our culture/principles.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 10:06 AM
There is nothing xenophobic about wanting less dependents. Ron has preached this ad nauseum.

Rand Paul also preaches that. If you want to get rid of the cockroaches in your house, you don't try in vain to surround the whole foundation in boric acid. You get your kitchen so clean that they starve.


Oh, so if we changed the laws so that the immigration that is not legal now were to be legal such that these people wouldn't be breaking laws any more, you'd be for it?

This nation not only survived, but thrived, at a time when we were advertising abroad for immigrants. Grew into a world superpower on that, in fact.

Clearly we were doing something right then that we are not doing right now. I'm not saying the unlimited immigration was that thing. I don't think it was. I think it was the fact that we didn't regulate our startup businesses right back out of business.

'It's the economy, stupid!'

AuH20
08-20-2015, 10:08 AM
Rand Paul also preaches that. If you want to get rid of the cockroaches in your house, you don't try in vain to surround the whole foundation in boric acid. You get your kitchen so clean that they starve.
[/B]'

When the law specifically says that you can't clean the kitchen, you are out of luck.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 10:12 AM
Again, immigration was limited so that those immigrating would not be a burden on our country, they wanted to become AMERICANS and that they would be able to assimilate into our culture/principles.

If that's your position, then stop lying and claiming that it's not immigration that you oppose, but only illegal immigration.

What you oppose is the immigration itself, which is why you are against legalizing it.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 10:15 AM
When the law specifically says that you can't clean the kitchen, you are out of luck.

Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.

staerker
08-20-2015, 10:26 AM
Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.

Yes. But it will work this time.

kahless
08-20-2015, 11:37 AM
No, but you constantly try to lead readers away from Ron and Rand's stances, while claiming to support them. Verses someone who says something positive about Trump because of Trump's stance on an issue.

Which one is more damaging? I say someone like you.

^This needed to be repeated.

I do not see the few people here saying something positive about Trump's policies promoting their own policies by falsely representing them as Rand and Ron's polices.


For all intents and purposes, Ron and Rand are for open borders.


We can have nations without having regimes that regulate immigration. Nations have existed for thousands of years. Your support for a central manager controlling America's demographics is much closer to one-world-government than what I support.


I don't think immigration should be illegal.


I have not seen any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their immigration platform as it would appear you and erowe1 are claiming.

If either of you have any evidence that Ron and Rand are being dishonest with their publicly released platforms to the point they desire complete open borders and dissolution of the US as a country then make your case.


I don't think they're being dishonest.

DFF
08-20-2015, 11:44 AM
Should Trump supporters be banned?

78% of Trump supporters say no. :p

erowe1
08-20-2015, 03:52 PM
Overwhelming, mass immigration, you betcha. Letting people flood our borders as they have been, gives absolutely no chance of them assimilating into our culture and principles.

What is "our culture"? And why is it any of the government's business? Sorry, but if you don't like the way my family has its Sunday dinner at lunch time because that's not the same culture as you, tough. I'll let you live according to your culture and you should let me live according to mine. Using the government to regulate culture is immoral.



Again, immigration was limited so that those immigrating would not be a burden on our country, they wanted to become AMERICANS and that they would be able to assimilate into our culture/principles.
You don't need to keep repeating it. Just don't lie and say that you're not against immigration but only against illegal immigration.

There's that "our culture" line again. Such arrogant elitism.

Rad
08-20-2015, 04:06 PM
rad writes: "....make out while listening to dubstep, and spread the word of Rand Paul!"

:)

....sounds great!...just please inform people that rand is a conservative republican...please...hasn't the word 'libertarian' been shat upon enough already?...
Yeah we can have a wet t-shirt contest where the contestants wear "Rand is the #1 Conservative Republican" on them. That should get the point across! I think the term libertarian has been destroyed but we can try! I say we go back to the term classical liberalism. Mises wrote a book on it. There are just so many things we could do! We could create an effigy of Trump and make a video of it being burnt to a crisp like burning man. We could try voodoo with Trump looking Chucky dolls and pins. It could be a social media game. Who knows someone might have the lucky touch! We could play Charlie Charlie pencil game and see who Charlie thinks will win the presidency. See which positions on the issues is best to have in order to win. We could have a winter sledding competition. The winner gets a date with the Rand Paul girl (who doesn't know it yet). We could have ball room dancing for old folks playing those old swinging songs of yesteryear.

We could come up with some slogans that stay in the head like a song and it is easy to say so people can think they know something. Remember Hermain Cain and his 999 plan. It just 9 9 9. He said it in such a suave way. Where are Rand's suave, easy to parrot sayings? People we have work to do! Perhaps Rand has something that could be the 3-4-5 right triangle plan. Its just right! We all know it.

Oh yeah I found a helpful website to use to argue Rand's case on the Iran deal: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/

Feeding the Abscess
08-20-2015, 04:08 PM
Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.

That this needs to be broken down on this of all forums is sad.

Out of rep, but I'll +rep eventually.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 04:09 PM
When the law specifically says that you can't clean the kitchen, you are out of luck.

That statement is infused with the same sort of liberal 'logic' that saw the Democrats rushing to pass Obamacare so they could turn around and say, 'You may not like it but it's the law of the land, and you have to deal with it.' Is that the type of company you like to keep, Mr. 'Goldwater'?

I notice the politicians back in the 1980s didn't have any trouble getting the laws against bribing politicians repealed...

H. E. Panqui
08-21-2015, 12:13 AM
acptulsa writes: But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs,

:rolleyes:

...if by 'jobs' you are referring to real, honest 'work,' then you are wrong...

...there is plenty of honest 'work'/jobs to be done all around us...one would have to blind, stooooooooooopid, etc., to not see all the undone work/'jobs' to do all around us...

...the REALITY (a harsh mistress for republicrats) is 'that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES/TOKENS..same with the 'illegal aliens,' 'legals' and just about everyone else here in 'murka..including you..

......you really should learn some monetary reality (see my fabulous, 'Exposing Republicrat Monetary Ignorance For Dummies' thread)...the fog could lift and your per$pective could improve greatly... ;)

...btw, all the fighting/bickering/finger-pointing around here reminds me of the vicious in-fighting in the dugout/clubhouse of a team on a bad losing streak...but take heart...a few wins and it won't be near as nasty, self-destructive...

LibertyEagle
08-21-2015, 12:38 AM
I do value that. I want to limit it more than you do, it's pretty clear.

As I recall, you don't want a government at all. Is that the case? If so, that's quite a bit different than advocating a limited constitutional government. :p

anaconda
08-21-2015, 04:08 AM
Sorry is the first word of the post? You start apologizing and expect to be persuasive? I'd advise you to watch a bit of this guy named Donald Trump. He doesn't start proposals by apologizing, and he seems quite successful.


Trump says "sorry" twice here (starting at 0:24):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGz92kaZUrc

paleocon1
08-21-2015, 04:14 AM
.........................



This nation not only survived, but thrived, at a time when we were advertising abroad for immigrants. Grew into a world superpower on that, in fact.

.....................................

That time is long past. America has no need for unskilled (except at baby making) and unwilling to learn our ways immigrants from the third world.

staerker
08-21-2015, 07:17 AM
Letting people flood our borders as they have been, gives absolutely no chance of them assimilating into our culture and principles.

'MURICA

http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/6-week-embryo1.jpg

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG11197850/m/main-miley-rihanna_3090229a.jpg http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/drone_strike_victims_in_pakistan_children.jpg

http://kouroshziabari.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/police-state.jpg

erowe1
08-21-2015, 07:21 AM
'MURICA

http://clinicquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/6-week-embryo1.jpg

http://ris.fashion.telegraph.co.uk/RichImageService.svc/imagecontent/1/TMG11197850/m/main-miley-rihanna_3090229a.jpg http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/drone_strike_victims_in_pakistan_children.jpg

http://kouroshziabari.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/police-state.jpg

+rep

Great post. American culture? Thanks. But as a Christian I'll pass. And nobody has a right to use my tax money to promote and preserve that culture.

Wilf
08-23-2015, 04:40 PM
That time is long past. America has no need for unskilled (except at baby making) and unwilling to learn our ways immigrants from the third world.

So you would be for uncontrolled immgration if the immigrants come europe only...check.

r3volution 3.0
08-24-2015, 03:25 AM
Much as it would please me, I had to vote no.

A couple of them should be banned; not for being Trump supporters per se, but for being straight-up spammers, actively working against the site mission.

For the remainder, I have a better penance in mind.

Design a badge to resemble the image below, but with a big T.

http://www.mosta2bal.com/vb/imgcache/3/31411wall.jpg

There's no box to check to display it, it displays automatically once they cross a certain threshold (e.g. a certain number of pro-Trump threads).

This will be permanent.

So, even after Trumpmania passes, they'll have to live in shame for the rest of their days at RPF, cast out, despised of men.

cajuncocoa
08-24-2015, 06:35 AM
So you would be for uncontrolled immgration if the immigrants come europe only...check.
You mean you didn't know this was all about skin color?

cajuncocoa
08-24-2015, 07:09 AM
No, but you constantly try to lead readers away from Ron and Rand's stances, while claiming to support them. Verses someone who says something positive about Trump because of Trump's stance on an issue.

Which one is more damaging? I say someone like you.

Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

acptulsa
08-24-2015, 07:17 AM
Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

And helping suck the oxygen out of the room, so the rational alternatives to Bush v. Clinton The Sequel never get discussed. And helping Fox play Republicans for suckers by perpetuating the myth that the idiot who throws the most red meat at Republicans can actually win the general election, though that has never in history happened, thereby helping Fox throw the election to the unabashed socialist--for the third disastrous time in a row. And helping the MSM spread the lie that the honest man who votes against all the pork is Establishment because he got off his ass and went to Washington, while they people who buy, lease or rent all the other senators are anti-Establishment because they aren't sitting senators.

Thus sabotaging the whole nation while sanctimoniously sitting around intimating that those who jump into those threads and try to set the record straight (about how a 'successful businessman' might not be the best choice to straighten out the country if he has been to bankruptcy court four freaking times) in our own house ought to be phone banking instead.

klamath
08-24-2015, 07:35 AM
Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.I do have to say after being gone from this place since last November and then coming back when the campaign started gave me a "WTF happened!" moment. Why were we so hard on poor Cajun and others who had legitimate reasons to be upset with Rand yet have people actively promoting the complete opposite of Ron or Rand in Trump right in the middle of the ACTUAL election?

Jamesiv1
08-24-2015, 09:30 AM
Banned? No, but I would like to see all the Trump spam quarantined somewhere so that people who come here to decide whether they want to support Paul or not don't get turned off and sent packing to Ted Cruz.
how about mods create an "Anti-Rand" forum set to 'no-index' so the search engines won't find it?

Have sub-forums like "trump truth", "jeb junk, "bernie bullshit" and such like. That way if a trump supporter acts like an ass the mods put their post in the proper place rather than making "we ban all trump supporters" the official forum rule --- which is petty and childish and makes it look like we fear opposing views.

Jamesiv1
08-24-2015, 11:28 AM
Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.
No matter what the POTUS or potential POTUS says, corporate interests and the elite absolutely love the Mexican and South American immigrants and will NEVER do anything to curb or discourage immigration - whether it's legal or illegal.

Without them, nothing in this country would be cleaned, built, mowed or cooked.

They are doing all the low-wage jobs that whites and blacks don't want to do anymore.

Get used to them. They aren't going anywhere.

Wilf
08-24-2015, 11:53 AM
You mean you didn't know this was all about skin color?

Maybe ...... Maybe not. I am just not huge fan of scapegoating.

rg17
08-25-2015, 04:40 PM
Au20 is banned for awhile.

acptulsa
08-25-2015, 04:51 PM
Au20 is banned for awhile.

Not for any position he may or may not have held, but for speed-spamming.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2015, 04:57 PM
Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

That was never the issue with you. You would make innuendos about Rand, not backed by facts and when that was pointed out to you, you would just run off and post the very same thing in another thread. You did this CONSTANTLY. And a great deal of the time, you were doing it in RAND's own subforum.

Asking a real question that you really wanted answered was never the question. That was also told you many, many times.

phill4paul
08-25-2015, 05:00 PM
That was never the issue with you. You would make innuendos about Rand, not backed by facts and when that was pointed out to you, you would just run off and post the very same thing in another thread. You did this CONSTANTLY.

Asking a real question that you really wanted answered was never the question. That was also told you many, many times.

Annnnd, panty buncher is back picking on her usual targets. :rolleyes: Life must be a laugh riot in your household.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2015, 05:01 PM
Annnnd, panty buncher is back picking on her usual targets. :rolleyes: Life must be a laugh riot in your household.

I was responding to a post, Phill. Sorry if that twists your panties.

heavenlyboy34
08-25-2015, 05:31 PM
This is a divide and conquer tactic. But it's more than that. This whole thing is a smokescreen to cover the fact that this economy has been micromismanaged to death.

It is.

The xenophobes undoubtedly approve. But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs, and the reason they don't have them isn't because of this ten or twenty or even thirty million--otherwise known as three or four or five percent of the people within these borders. Hate to quote Slick Willie, but the fact is, 'It's the economy, stupid!' And the way to trump this distraction is to say flat out that Rand Paul will give us the freedom to fix this economy, and fix it so well that we'll be begging for immigrants again before we know it.

I'd love to believe this, but AF and others have documented in many ways that the majority of American people don't really want freedom. They want bread, circuses, and saaaaaafety. :(

cajuncocoa
08-25-2015, 05:50 PM
That was never the issue with you. You would make innuendos about Rand, not backed by facts and when that was pointed out to you, you would just run off and post the very same thing in another thread. You did this CONSTANTLY. And a great deal of the time, you were doing it in RAND's own subforum.

Asking a real question that you really wanted answered was never the question. That was also told you many, many times.
You realize you're in the minority opinion (possibly of one) here, don't you? And now you're just making stuff up to cover your ass. Most people who contacted/repped me after I posted this recognized the hypocrisy.

phill4paul
08-25-2015, 06:03 PM
I was responding to a post, Phill. Sorry if that twists your panties.

Don't twist. Don't bunch. I don't wear panties. ;) See you a week form now when you come to bitch and moan again.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2015, 06:05 PM
You realize you're in the minority opinion (possibly of one) here, don't you? And now you're just making stuff up to cover your ass. Most people who contacted/repped me after I posted this recognized the hypocrisy.

Oh, I'm sure your fan club did. I got plenty of +reps when I called you out back then when you were doing it. You stopped when Bryan bought the forums and stopped you posting your crap in Rand's subforum.

cajuncocoa
08-25-2015, 06:37 PM
Oh, I'm sure your fan club did. I got plenty of +reps when I called you out back then when you were doing it. You stopped when Bryan bought the forums and stopped you posting your crap in Rand's subforum.At least I have a fan club. And Bryan didn't stop me. I stopped myself when I decided that, in spite of not being all that I wanted him to be, I would settle for what Rand is. You're still lying about what I did though. I complained when Rand said something that was out-of-tune with my idea of a liberty position.

When are you going to do something similar to all the Trump supporters running around this place? When are you going to give them the same treatment you gave me? Let's talk about what you're not doing.

phill4paul
08-25-2015, 06:40 PM
It's taken me awhile but I've decided on "Yes." Just a temp ban.

phill4paul
08-25-2015, 06:42 PM
Oh, I'm sure your fan club did. I got plenty of +reps when I called you out back then when you were doing it. You stopped when Bryan bought the forums and stopped you posting your crap in Rand's subforum.

Your panties are in a bunch because her fan club is bigger than your fan club. Despite all the sock puppets your fan club owns.

LibertyEagle
08-25-2015, 06:43 PM
Your panties are in a bunch because her fan club is bigger than your fan club. Despite all the sock puppets your fan club owns.

You have confused me with someone who gives a crap.