PDA

View Full Version : Rand vs Trump Poll. Who do these forums support?




Pages : [1] 2

klamath
08-19-2015, 02:46 PM
Being that the posts on these forums have given the media the belief the Ron and Rand people have deserted Rand for Trump I figured a solid indication on how these forums stand would be helpful. If it is true I came back to the wrong place and will be out of here because I don't want ANY part in promoting Trump.

RonPaulFanInGA
08-19-2015, 02:53 PM
I support Rand Paul, easily. Trump's "support" here is just because he's exciting, by being first in the polls. Trumpmania goes away the second he fades in the polls, if he ever does.

Also: Much more tolerable to see Trump support on RonPaulForums than support for Bernie Sanders.

GunnyFreedom
08-19-2015, 02:53 PM
It's not the forums who like Trump, it's only about 5 (out of thousands) of posters. Problem is those 5 are VERY vocal about it, and the mods/admins are turning a blind eye to the effect it is having for the Big6 Media reporting that Ron Paul fans have abandoned Rand in favor of Trump.

Origanalist
08-19-2015, 02:55 PM
Rand. The mods aren't turning a blind eye, there hasn't been this much discussion here for quite some time.

Anti Federalist
08-19-2015, 02:56 PM
Ridiculous poll question is ridiculous.

Trump would not know freedom and liberty if he tripped over it.

He's just a loudmouthed demogogue that happened to start spouting off some things that people want to hear.

GunnyFreedom
08-19-2015, 02:58 PM
I support Rand Paul, easily. Trump's "support" here is just because he's exciting, by being first in the polls. Trumpmania goes away the second he fades in the polls, if he ever does.

Not really. Nine years this site has existed, and not once have people here ever been given to the frontrunner shiny.


Also: Much more tolerable to see Trump support on RonPaulForums than support for Bernie Sanders.

The only difference I see between Trump and Sanders, is that Trump is more rude about it than Sanders. They certainly aren't any different on actual policy.

GunnyFreedom
08-19-2015, 03:01 PM
Rand. The mods aren't turning a blind eye, there hasn't been this much discussion here for quite some time.

Traffic may be nice, but when you have news outlets reporting Ron Paul people going gaga over Trump, it is damaging Ron Paul's legacy of principle over appearances.

Rad
08-19-2015, 03:15 PM
Where are these media reports that you speak of? Anyone have a link?

GunnyFreedom
08-19-2015, 03:26 PM
Where are these media reports that you speak of? Anyone have a link?

This RPF thread shows KOS talking about Breitbart. The takeaway is Breitbart thinks that a vast majority of former Ron Paul supporters are totally on board with making Trump President. Breitbart is extremely influential in Republican Primaries.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480616-Daily-Kos-Diaries-Breitbart-Hates-Charity-(And-Rand-Paul)

CPUd
08-19-2015, 03:38 PM
I guarantee as soon as Trump drops out, these people will be on here pumping Cruz or the LP candidate like they did in 2012. They got off the Randwagon long ago, if they were ever on it.

Steve-in-NY
08-19-2015, 04:02 PM
I agree with CPUds assessment.

kahless
08-19-2015, 04:05 PM
I guarantee as soon as Trump drops out, these people will be on here pumping Cruz or the LP candidate like they did in 2012. They got off the Randwagon long ago, if they were ever on it.

That depends. Cruz's proposed %500 increase in H-1B immigration makes him the biggest traitor to American citizens in the party. Right now the average voter is likely ignorant to that fact since FNC and MSM is not reporting it or using propaganda to make him seem strong on immigration, but that could change.

I do not see them going LP since there are too many open border Libertarians, but it depends on the candidate. More likely I could see them going to the Constitution party, staying home again or another Republican that takes up the anti-immigration mantle. Walker for example has been making allot of noise on H-1B and immigration as of late.

Brett85
08-19-2015, 04:27 PM
It's not the forums who like Trump, it's only about 5 (out of thousands) of posters. Problem is those 5 are VERY vocal about it, and the mods/admins are turning a blind eye to the effect it is having for the Big6 Media reporting that Ron Paul fans have abandoned Rand in favor of Trump.

That's exactly why I suggested that those five or so people be banned. However, I was generally attacked and criticized for suggesting that.

Brett85
08-19-2015, 04:29 PM
Also: Much more tolerable to see Trump support on RonPaulForums than support for Bernie Sanders.

Not at all. If anything I would say that Trump is even worse since he's a big fan of bailouts and Bernie Sanders is opposed to bailouts.

rg17
08-19-2015, 04:29 PM
RAND FOR LIFE!

CPUd
08-19-2015, 05:45 PM
The results here are consistent with pretty much every poll- people are quite entertained by the trump, but when it comes to actual voting, they prefer a real candidate.

garyallen59
08-19-2015, 10:58 PM
That's exactly why I suggested that those five or so people be banned. However, I was generally attacked and criticized for suggesting that.

I agree. They should be banned. They are not simply leaning towards Trump. They are actively campaigning for him in the Rand Paul Forums while simultaneously bashing Rand. I don't know why the mods don't see that. Anyone can name the ones who are a thorn in the side of the RPF's. I didn't vote in the other poll about banning Trump supporters because I thought it was too broad a definition. But those whose only goal is to trash Rand and praise Trump should be banned completely or at the least from the Rand Paul Section of the forum.

Also, this poll should have been public.

Bastiat's The Law
08-19-2015, 11:27 PM
I support Rand being bolder. The version we have now isn't going to inspire anybody.

kcchiefs6465
08-20-2015, 12:42 AM
I would prefer the person who wrote a book (Rand Paul; Government Bullies) speaking out against, in part, eminent domain and the abuses therein, rather than the person who used/uses eminent domain for their own private benefit (Donald Trump).

Donald Trump has one issue 'right' ('free' trade agreements). And that is being very fair on my part as all of his 'positions' are really just rhetoric (which is liable to change depending the weather) and as well, I didn't feel like wasting another fifteen minutes reading what Donald Trump has to write (and eventually stumbling upon why his one 'right' position has authoritarian roots behind it, i.e. even the batshit crazy are occasionally right--though often not for the right reasons).

Good to see the poll speaks for itself.

For someone to say to me that they understand economics and then vote for Trump, they will have lost respect from me. If people say they are against wars and then vote for Trump, they will have lost respect from me. If people say they are pro-2nd Amendment and then vote for Trump, they will have lost respect from me. You could go on and on. I mean his positions are so bad they make awful candidates seem palatable. For God's sake, someone owes me the hour of my life back that I spent researching that fuck with.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 03:30 AM
Question. Has anything been done to change the new rules that the RNC put in effect during the last convention that as I recall basically says that the RNC itself can choose the delegates? Because while those are in place, please explain to me how any grassroots candidate without overwhelming support will be able to win the Republican nomination. Thanks.

H. E. Panqui
08-20-2015, 06:38 AM
....hopefully the results of this poll calm any nazi republicrat goose-steppers here at RPF...;)

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:06 AM
It's not the forums who like Trump, it's only about 5 (out of thousands) of posters. Problem is those 5 are VERY vocal about it, and the mods/admins are turning a blind eye to the effect it is having for the Big6 Media reporting that Ron Paul fans have abandoned Rand in favor of Trump.

This.

FeS2H2O, Kahkless, and -jaja have made Trump pumping here their full-time jobs of late. Then there's DavidSaddest and FudgePacqui picking up some slack here and there.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:08 AM
Question. Has anything been done to change the new rules that the RNC put in effect during the last convention that as I recall basically says that the RNC itself can choose the delegates? Because while those are in place, please explain to me how any grassroots candidate without overwhelming support will be able to win the Republican nomination. Thanks.

How could anyone ever win the nomination without overwhelming support anyway?

The way you win the nomination is by winning at the primaries and caucuses.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:09 AM
How could anyone ever win the nomination without overwhelming support anyway?

The way you win the nomination is by winning at the primaries and caucuses.

The rules were changed. Did you forget?

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:19 AM
The rules were changed. Did you forget?

So? Are you imagining that they changed so that someone other than the person who wins the most delegates in primaries and caucuses can get the nomination?

"Overwhelming support" (your own words), is always how a candidate got the nomination, and, as you said, it still is.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:23 AM
So? Are you imagining that they changed so that someone other than the person who wins the most delegates in primaries and caucuses can get the nomination?

"Overwhelming support" (your own words), is always how a candidate got the nomination, and, as you said, it still is.

The way I remember it is that the RNC can now choose the delegates, regardless of what the individual states decide.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:25 AM
The way I remember it is that the RNC can now choose the delegates, regardless of what the individual states decide.

I don't know if that's true. But even if so, that won't affect who those delegates have to vote for at the convention.

VegasPatriot
08-20-2015, 08:41 AM
I don't know if that's true. But even if so, that won't affect who those delegates have to vote for at the convention.

Right, the delegates will still be able to vote their conscious, however the RNC will simply ignore that vote and not announce it. I know, because that's exactly what they did at the 2012 RNC when I was a delegate from Nevada. https://youtu.be/Mc37TvhJ5Ko

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:46 AM
Right, the delegates will still be able to vote their conscious, however the RNC will simply ignore that vote and not announce it. I know, because that's exactly what they did at the 2012 RNC when I was a delegate from Nevada. https://youtu.be/Mc37TvhJ5Ko

I doubt this. Delegates will have to vote for the candidates they're sent to the convention to vote for according to the results of their states' primaries and caucuses, just like it's always been. We're not going to have a situation where one candidate wins at the primaries and caucuses and then the delegates go to the convention and nominate someone else.

Your experience in 2012 has to do with delegates supporting a candidate other than the one who decisively won nationwide at the primaries and caucuses. That's not the same thing.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:52 AM
I don't remember all the details, but I am sure someone here does. During the last RNC, Mitt Romney's folks were able to change some of the rules. People here were up in arms about it. I recall it being that the RNC could override what the states decided regarding delegates, so as to stop any grassroots candidate from ever winning.

JK/SEA
08-20-2015, 08:56 AM
I don't remember all the details, but I am sure someone here does. During the last RNC, Mitt Romney's folks were able to change some of the rules. People here were up in arms about it. I recall it being that the RNC could override what the states decided regarding delegates, so as to stop any grassroots candidate from ever winning.

yep, and lets not forget the violence, the changing of rules mid-stream (cheating), and just flat out using Roberts Rules to quash Ron Paul Delegates....i was there. I saw it happen...

not too many people realize how close we were to getting Ron nominated.....fact.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:57 AM
yep, and lets not forget the violence, the changing of rules mid-stream (cheating), and just flat out using Roberts Rules to quash Ron Paul Delegates....i was there. I saw it happen...

Yup, but what exactly were the rule changes that will be applicable for this upcoming election?

CPUd
08-20-2015, 08:58 AM
One of the new rules is the individual campaigns can disavow delegates and replace with ones they choose. This is due to the Mitt campaign freaking out about delegates bound for Mitt that they thought might vote Ron Paul at the convention.

JK/SEA
08-20-2015, 08:59 AM
Yup, but what exactly were the rule changes that will be applicable for this upcoming election?

can't say. I never get invited to any back room meetings in my local party...

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:00 AM
One of the new rules is the individual campaigns can disavow delegates and replace with ones they choose. This is due to the Mitt campaign freaking out about delegates bound for Mitt that they thought might vote Ron Paul at the convention.

If this is the case, then this would make Rand's nomination more secure, rather than less secure, provided he wins at the primaries and caucuses.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:03 AM
Dramatic, Little Known GOP Rule Change Takes Choice Of Presidential Candidate Away From Rank And File Republicans And Hands It To Party Elite

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/07/dramatic-little-known-gop-rule-change-takes-choice-of-presidential-candidate-away-from-rank-and-file-republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/

JK/SEA
08-20-2015, 09:08 AM
Dramatic, Little Known GOP Rule Change Takes Choice Of Presidential Candidate Away From Rank And File Republicans And Hands It To Party Elite

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/07/dramatic-little-known-gop-rule-change-takes-choice-of-presidential-candidate-away-from-rank-and-file-republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/


thanks LE...nice find. plus rep.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 09:10 AM
Dramatic, Little Known GOP Rule Change Takes Choice Of Presidential Candidate Away From Rank And File Republicans And Hands It To Party Elite

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/07/dramatic-little-known-gop-rule-change-takes-choice-of-presidential-candidate-away-from-rank-and-file-republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/

As I understand that article, it doesn't look at all bad for Rand in particular, or grassroots candidates in general. At least the way that author describes it, the establishment may have shot itself in the foot. If anti-establishment candidates play defense (as he calls it), and prevent Bush from getting over 50% of the vote in more than 8 states, they can throw a bigger wrench in the establishment's gears than we were able to do in 2012. As he asks towards the end:

What will one candidate offer another to entice a competitor to back out of the race in order to create a majority opportunity in a state? How many candidates will hang on to the bitter end, just for the chance to blow up the convention and, thereby, create a chance to become the nominee even when the primary votes of the public say otherwise?

Bern
08-20-2015, 09:12 AM
... The mods aren't turning a blind eye, there hasn't been this much discussion here for quite some time.

Sorry folks. I've been busy.

Rand is not perfect, but I trust him more than any other candidate in the field. I just wish he understood the social game a bit better. Saying all the right things isn't enough. How you say it is important.

Trump? I don't consider him to be a serious candidate. I like that his candidacy is a big middle finger to the GOP brass, but this country needs someone with some gravitas in charge. I just hope Rand is still in the picture when the rest of America finally wakes up and gets serious.

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:13 AM
Please keep it on topic. RP was never about to win the nomination with or without Rule changes.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:21 AM
Please keep it on topic. RP was never about to win the nomination with or without Rule changes.

No, but the rule changes are STILL IN EFFECT. That is the point.

staerker
08-20-2015, 09:57 AM
Rand. The mods aren't turning a blind eye, there hasn't been this much discussion here for quite some time.

More than likely. Breitbart is in good company.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:23 AM
The rule change is crappy, it disenfranchises grassroots party activists and centralizes power to the RNC, but it DOES NOT permit the RNC to overrule the results of State Primaries/Caucuses. What it does that has people freaked out is 1) prevent a brokered convention 2) prevent delegates from pledging a candidate to 'stealth' into the convention, and 3) lets the candidate to whom the delegates are pledged replace unknown delegates with people they know.

It's crap because we already had rules and laws about delegates voting against their pledge, and lots of grassroots conservatives would pledge a candidate they did not like in order to attend the convention and have an impact on the platform etc.

The whole idea that these new rules would allow tje RNC to just willy-nilly wave their hand and overrule the primary/caucus process is, and always was paranoia.

I I was a delegate to the 2012 RNC convention and I went over the rules chance letter by letter before voting against them.

DevilsAdvocate
08-20-2015, 10:32 AM
Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!

William Tell
08-20-2015, 10:40 AM
The rule change is crappy, it disenfranchises grassroots party activists and centralizes power to the RNC, but it DOES NOT permit the RNC to overrule the results of State Primaries/Caucuses. What it does that has people freaked out is 1) prevent a brokered convention 2) prevent delegates from pledging a candidate to 'stealth' into the convention, and 3) lets the candidate to whom the delegates are pledged replace unknown delegates with people they know.

It's crap because we already had rules and laws about delegates voting against their pledge, and lots of grassroots conservatives would pledge a candidate they did not like in order to attend the convention and have an impact on the platform etc.

The whole idea that these new rules would allow tje RNC to just willy-nilly wave their hand and overrule the primary/caucus process is, and always was paranoia.

I I was a delegate to the 2012 RNC convention and I went over the rules chance letter by letter before voting against them.

Interesting, in what way? What happens now if no one goes into the convention with enough delegates to win outright?

kahless
08-20-2015, 11:16 AM
Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!

If he did that then Rand would be considered just another establishment shill that is intent on supporting the planned coronation of Jeb Bush.

cajuncocoa
08-20-2015, 11:29 AM
Ridiculous poll question is ridiculous.

Trump would not know freedom and liberty if he tripped over it.

He's just a loudmouthed demogogue that happened to start spouting off some things that people want to hear.
This post said it all.

cajuncocoa
08-20-2015, 11:34 AM
I guarantee as soon as Trump drops out, these people will be on here pumping Cruz or the LP candidate like they did in 2012. They got off the Randwagon long ago, if they were ever on it.
I will never be on the Cruz bandwagon.

I may be on the LP bandwagon if Rand is out...not interested in sticking with the eventual GOP nominee if it isn't Rand. If (God forbid) it happens this way, I know Rand will have to endorse said GOP nominee, but that doesn't mean *I* have to.

jkob
08-20-2015, 11:36 AM
Rand is still the closest to my beliefs, how optimistic or not about our prospects i dunno

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 01:22 PM
I will never be on the Cruz bandwagon.

I may be on the LP bandwagon if Rand is out...not interested in sticking with the eventual GOP nominee if it isn't Rand. If (God forbid) it happens this way, I know Rand will have to endorse said GOP nominee, but that doesn't mean *I* have to.

That's kind of the whole point behind our movement, and why I want to kick people in the head for whining about Ron or Rand's endorsements. The people who actually LIKE Ron and Rand wouldn't pay attention to an endorsement if Jesus Christ Himself came down out of heaven and made it. Therefore endorsements are, for the purposes of our movement, COMPLETELY irrelevant except for political gamesmanship.

Because of this, I think people who get angry about Ron and Rand's endorsements are shallow of thought.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 01:34 PM
If he did that then Rand would be considered just another establishment shill that is intent on supporting the planned coronation of Jeb Bush.

I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.

Anti Federalist
08-20-2015, 02:04 PM
For me, it boils down to endorsing crap, even if nobody pays attention to it, and the taint, the scum line, that leaves behind.

Not many people pay attention to Scroogle ads either, but that does not assuage my disappointment at Ron shilling and huckstering for Porter Stansberry.



I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.

H. E. Panqui
08-20-2015, 02:13 PM
gunny writes: Therefore endorsements are, for the purposes of our movement, COMPLETELY irrelevant except for political gamesmanship.

:confused:

...i don't think so...it's an indicator of political philosophy, values,..

...for example, anyone 'endorsing' mitt stinking romney is worthy more of my contempt than my vote... ;)

...of course there is no 'perfect candidate' except me and you...any everyone has their own level of tolerance, tastes/preferences...and good! for you for being so tolerant...

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 02:17 PM
gunny writes: Therefore endorsements are, for the purposes of our movement, COMPLETELY irrelevant except for political gamesmanship.

:confused:

...i don't think so...it's an indicator of political philosophy, values,..

...for example, anyone 'endorsing' mitt stinking romney is worthy more of my contempt than my vote... ;)

...of course there is no 'perfect candidate' except me and you...any everyone has their own level of tolerance, tastes/preferences...and good! for you for being so tolerant...




I am 1000% intolerant when it comes to principle. When it comes to the political crap one has to do to be viable in a world full of blithering idiots, I do not care one whit. I could not possibly care less if I tried, or if I were dead.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 02:20 PM
For me, it boils down to endorsing crap, even if nobody pays attention to it, and the taint, the scum line, that leaves behind.

Not many people pay attention to Scroogle ads either, but that does not assuage my disappointment at Ron shilling and huckstering for Porter Stansberry.

I'm far more disappointed in Ron's Porter Stansberry ads than any endorsements by either Ron or Rand. People are, by and large, idiots. Whatever one has to do keep their head above water in a world drowning with blithering idiots, I just do not care.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 02:29 PM
Interesting, in what way? What happens now if no one goes into the convention with enough delegates to win outright?

If 2012 was any indication, the teleprompter will take over the convention and tell the world who the nominee is.

And that is almost certainly why there are seventeen candidates in the race.

kahless
08-20-2015, 03:36 PM
I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.

In the context we are discussing, it IS an endorsement of values if Rand refuses to endorse the nominee if it is Trump but will endorse if it is Jeb Bush.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 03:45 PM
...for example, anyone 'endorsing' mitt stinking romney is worthy more of my contempt than my vote...


Romney's no worse than Trump.

DisneyFan
08-20-2015, 03:58 PM
Is it amusing to see Trump make the GOP establishment go crazy?

Definitely.

Is that a reason to becomes one of his voters and supporters?

Definitely not.

I do not see how anyone who is either a libertarian or a moderate/conservative with a libertarian streak could waste time supporting someone like Trump when a good candidate like Rand is available. Paul isn't running the best campaign ever, but his views are pretty good and he has an actual record in the Senate that suggests he will follow through on what he believes. Trump has nothing but his mouth. And that mouth has expressed a million different positions over the years. No thanks.

jj-
08-20-2015, 04:02 PM
A lot of people criticized Alex Jones, yet this election season revealed that he is a lot more connected to political reality than many of his critics here.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 04:03 PM
In the context we are discussing, it IS an endorsement of values if Rand refuses to endorse the nominee if it is Trump but will endorse if it is Jeb Bush.
The only values involved in political endorsements, is the value of political capital.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 04:10 PM
A lot of people criticized Alex Jones, yet this election season revealed that he is a lot more connected to political reality than many of his critics here.

Sometimes, I too wonder what it would be like to live in a meticulously constructed fantasy world. It must be a lot less stressful, having the ability to just warp your perception or reality to whatever pleases you. And then I remember, I will always prefer hard truths over pleasant lies and then I no longer want to live in your world.

heavenlyboy34
08-20-2015, 04:14 PM
Other-Vermin Supreme FTW!! :D

kahless
08-20-2015, 04:17 PM
The only values involved in political endorsements, is the value of political capital.

You have now completely contradicted yourself since Rand would have less political capital if he refuses to endorse Trump as the nominee.

jj-
08-20-2015, 04:18 PM
You have now completely contradicted yourself since Rand would have less political capital if he refuses to endorse Trump as the nominee.

Typical of Gunny. Once pointed out, his standard reaction is pretend it didn't happen and change the topic.

Rad
08-20-2015, 04:27 PM
Wow 3 people are for Trump and all I see is Trump stuff. What is the other 66 out of this 69 doing?

DisneyFan
08-20-2015, 04:36 PM
A lot of people criticized Alex Jones, yet this election season revealed that he is a lot more connected to political reality than many of his critics here.

Can you be more specific?

How has that been revealed this season?

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 04:39 PM
Wow 3 people are for Trump and all I see is Trump stuff. What is the other 66 out of this 69 doing?

Earning an honest living and doing something more productive than being the internet version of a telemarketer.

H. E. Panqui
08-20-2015, 04:44 PM
Can you be more specific?

How has that been revealed this season?


:confused:

...you read my mind, disney fan!!...

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 05:02 PM
Interesting, in what way? What happens now if no one goes into the convention with enough delegates to win outright?

That's when the candidates would get together and trade delegates, so it does still allow SOME brokering, but not if there is a clear winner like it could have in the past.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 05:04 PM
You have now completely contradicted yourself since Rand would have less political capital if he refuses to endorse Trump as the nominee.

Pretty sure the only thing I have said about endorsements in the last...oohh 8 years or so, is that endorsements don't matter. Quote me where I said Rand should or shouldn't do any thing whatever re endorsements. I'll be waiting. :)

Dianne
08-20-2015, 05:05 PM
Rand, obviously.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 05:06 PM
Typical of Gunny. Once pointed out, his standard reaction is pretend it didn't happen and change the topic.

So, since you think I said that Rand should promise to endorse any nominee except Trump, I am sure you can quote my post where I said it, right? :)

http://reho.st/http://i.imgur.com/lLed1UO.jpg

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 05:08 PM
So, since you think I said that Rand should promise to endorse any nominee except Trump, I am sure you can quote my post where I said it, right? :)

You expect him to lose an argument with you when he can just build a straw man and kick the shit out of it?

That definitely doesn't seem to be his style.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 05:12 PM
You expect him to lose an argument with you when he can just build a straw man and kick the shit out of it?

That definitely doesn't seem to be his style.

He seems to think that I am a hypocrite because he believes that I recommended that Rand Paul should promise to endorse any nominee except Trump. Honestly I don't GAF whether he thinks he wins or loses, I just want to see what kind of batshirt nonsense he comes up with to try and justify his attack. :)

Dianne
08-20-2015, 05:13 PM
Anyone who voted trump should get kicked. After all, this is the Paul forum. I'm sure there are dozens of trump forums somewhere, for trump fans to follow. Leave the Paulites alone.

kahless
08-20-2015, 05:59 PM
Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!


If he did that then Rand would be considered just another establishment shill that is intent on supporting the planned coronation of Jeb Bush.


I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.


In the context we are discussing, it IS an endorsement of values if Rand refuses to endorse the nominee if it is Trump but will endorse if it is Jeb Bush.


The only values involved in political endorsements, is the value of political capital.


You have now completely contradicted yourself since Rand would have less political capital if he refuses to endorse Trump as the nominee.


Pretty sure the only thing I have said about endorsements in the last...oohh 8 years or so, is that endorsements don't matter. Quote me where I said Rand should or shouldn't do any thing whatever re endorsements. I'll be waiting. :)

The entire context of the discussion is if Rand made it an issue by endorsing Bush. You are saying "seriously people" it does not matter and then follow-up that it's value is in political capital. So which is it, since Rand would not have any political capital if Trump won the election.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:01 PM
You have now completely contradicted yourself since Rand would have less political capital if he refuses to endorse Trump as the nominee.


The entire context of the discussion is if Rand made it an issue by endorsing Bush. You are saying "seriously people" it does not matter and then follow-up that it's value is in political capital. So which is it, since Rand would not have any political capital if Trump won the election.

I said endorsements do not matter. That's all I've ever said, and I said it again here. I even said it in plain English. What part of "endorsements are irrelevant" do you not understand?

CPUd
08-20-2015, 06:01 PM
This is one of the guys involved in the delegate challenges in 2012:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4pVMbY8kQA



And another who was involved in the Rules Committee fights:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMEXW1_7ewc

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:03 PM
Apparently liking Trump also degrades the language centers of the brain along with the reason. I wonder if motor skills are impaired too? Maybe Trump is like that brain eating amoeba they keep finding in New Orleans?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:05 PM
I'll be waiting for that apology which I am sure is soon to come...

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/rpf/2015_08JUL/stillwaiting.jpg

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:11 PM
I am sure that the apologies for intentionally misrepresenting my position and lying about what I have said/posted will be forthcoming, any minute now.

kahless
08-20-2015, 06:12 PM
I said endorsements do not matter. That's all I've ever said, and I said it again here. I even said it in plain English. What part of "endorsements are irrelevant" do you not understand?

That was not the hypothetical scenario that DevilsAdvocate posted.


Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!

If Rand was going to make it an issue then it would matter, you say it does not....


The only values involved in political endorsements, is the value of political capital.

But of course it does by your own quote for the value of "political capital" for which Rand would have "none" if Trump won the election.

klamath
08-20-2015, 06:26 PM
The entire context of the discussion is if Rand made it an issue by endorsing Bush. You are saying "seriously people" it does not matter and then follow-up that it's value is in political capital. So which is it, since Rand would not have any political capital if Trump won the election.
Gunny never said Rand should endorse anybody but Trump that you attributed to him. DevilAdvacate did. You flat out made a misquote by mistake or you are a flat out liar. The context discussion is about whether you support Rand or Trump not endorsements. Gunny just gave his opinion on endorsements after multiple people derailed the thread in multiple different directions.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:27 PM
That was not the hypothetical scenario that DevilsAdvocate posted.

You seem to be confused. My name is GunnyFreedom. That is spelled g u n n y f r e e d o m. The poster DevilsAdvocate is a different person altogether, he spells his name d e v i l s a d v o c a t e. These two screen names do not even share a single pair of letters.


If Rand was going to make it an issue then it would matter, you say it does not....

But of course it does by your own quote for the value of "political capital" for which Rand would have "none" if Trump won the election.

You seem to be under the impression that Rand would like to curry favor with Trump. What on earth is giving you that impression, and what in the world yo you think that has to do with me?

You accused me of saying/believing something that I do not. I demanded a quote, and all you've got is a different poster saying one thing, and then me saying endorsements don't matter.

You lied about me in a desperate attempt to disparage my name and character.

I am still waiting for that apology.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/rpf/2015_08JUL/waiting2.jpg

Of course by doubling down on your lies about me you are really just demonstrating the type of character which gets led off into Trumpland by the Pied Trumpster.

kahless
08-20-2015, 06:31 PM
Apparently [B]some Rand supporters when they think about Trump it[b] degrades the language centers of the brain along with the reason. I wonder if motor skills are impaired too? Maybe Trump is like that brain eating amoeba they keep finding in New Orleans?

I fixed that quote for you. The name for your condition I believe is "Trump Paranoid Delusional Disorder Syndrome" or TPDDS.

Your hypocrisy really surprises me. This forum has members blatantly intentionally misrepresenting many of Rand and Ron's political positions. Yet not a peep from you.
There are members here daily that have issues with some of Rand's policies or mention something they like about another candidates policies that is similar to Rands and you add to the discussion.

But someone mentions something they like about Trump's immigration policy you lose all sense of proportion and reality.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:35 PM
I fixed that quote for you. The name for your condition I believe is "Trump Paranoid Delusional Disorder Syndrome" or TPDDS.

Your hypocrisy really surprises me. This forum has members blatantly intentionally misrepresenting many of Rand and Ron's political positions. Yet not a peep from you.
There are members here daily that have issues with some of Rand's policies or mention something they like about another candidates policies that is similar to Rands and you add to the discussion.

But someone mentions something they like about Trump's immigration policy you lose all sense of proportion and reality.

I'm not the one just making crap up and lying about people to justify my own twisted accusations, that would be you. If supporting trump turns people into liars and deceivers who bear false witness against others to try and make themselves look good, then I want none of it.

So are you going to apologize for lying about me? Yes or no?

klamath
08-20-2015, 06:40 PM
Actually Gunny the mucho mucho man Trump appealed to the primitive brain centers of tribal units and cerebral cortexes switched off. Did you read about the people at the Iowa state fair fawning over him when he got off of his helicopter, begging him to save them!

kahless
08-20-2015, 06:44 PM
Gunny never said Rand should endorse anybody but Trump that you attributed to him. DevilAdvacate did. You flat out made a misquote by mistake or you are a flat out liar. The context discussion is about whether you support Rand or Trump not endorsements. Gunny just gave his opinion on endorsements after multiple people derailed the thread in multiple different directions.

The thread history and context is all there for everyone to read and you know it. Gunny brought this on himself by being an ass at any mention of Trump. The question is why do you have your head so far up Gunnys ass?


You seem to be confused. My name is GunnyFreedom. That is spelled g u n n y f r e e d o m. The poster DevilsAdvocate is a different person altogether, he spells his name d e v i l s a d v o c a t e. These two screen names do not even share a single pair of letters.

You need glasses or something? Follow the discussion, DevilsAdvocate = OP in the context of the discussion about endorsements, I replied, you replied. Get a grip.



You seem to be under the impression that Rand would like to curry favor with Trump. What on earth is giving you that impression, and what in the world yo you think that has to do with me?

By your own words endorsements = political capital.



You accused me of saying/believing something that I do not. I demanded a quote, and all you've got is a different poster saying one thing, and then me saying endorsements don't matter.

I pulled your two quotes several times in this discussion. First quote = endorsements don't matter, second quote = endorsements = political capital.



You lied about me in a desperate attempt to disparage my name and character.

I am still waiting for that apology.


wtf take a chill, you are being paranoid. I am still waiting for that apology.



Of course by doubling down on your lies about me you are really just demonstrating the type of character which gets led off into Trumpland by the Pied Trumpster.

If you are behaving like this now how are you going to handle it if Trump wins the nomination.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:50 PM
Actually Gunny the mucho mucho man Trump appealed to the primitive brain centers of tribal units and cerebral cortexes switched off. Did you read about the people at the Iowa state fair fawning over him when he got off of his helicopter, begging him to save them!

LOL I saw where people were fawning over him letting them ride in his helicopter, while criticizing Paul for literally restoring sight to the blind. :rolleyes:

I think we are starting to see a pattern here. Ron Paul was booed for citing the Golden Rule, and Rand Paul is criticized for restoring sight to the blind. I wonder how all that's gonna go down at the Bema Seat?

It's pretty clear by now that Trump does not appeal to the rational centers. Given his history with women I guess it makes sense that Trump appeals to the gonads instead of the brain.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 06:50 PM
The thread history and context is all there for everyone to read and you know it. Gunny brought this on himself by being an ass at any mention of Trump. The question is why do you have your head so far up Gunnys ass?



You need glasses or something? Follow the discussion, DevilsAdvocate = OP in the context of the discussion about endorsements, I replied, you replied. Get a grip.



By your own words endorsements = political capital.



I pulled your two quotes several times in this discussion. First quote = endorsements don't matter, second quote = endorsements = political capital.



wtf take a chill, you are being paranoid. I am still waiting for that apology.



If you are behaving like this now how are you going to handle it if Trump wins the nomination.

It's not that hard to decide. You have two options.

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

Pick one. And let the world know exactly what kind of people you Trumpsters are.

kahless
08-20-2015, 07:01 PM
It's not that hard to decide. You have two options.

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

Pick one. And let the world know exactly what kind of people you Trumpsters are.

1. How have you come to the conclusion I am a Trump supporter when I have made no statement of such in any of my posts?

2. What position of yours did I misrepresent? I quoted both of your posts on endorsements in full.

klamath
08-20-2015, 07:01 PM
The thread history and context is all there for everyone to read and you know it. Gunny brought this on himself by being an ass at any mention of Trump. The question is why do you have your head so far up Gunnys ass?



You need glasses or something? Follow the discussion, DevilsAdvocate = OP in the context of the discussion about endorsements, I replied, you replied. Get a grip.



By your own words endorsements = political capital.



I pulled your two quotes several times in this discussion. First quote = endorsements don't matter, second quote = endorsements = political capital.



wtf take a chill, you are being paranoid. I am still waiting for that apology.



If you are behaving like this now how are you going to handle it if Trump wins the nomination.
The OP is me, not devilsadvacate. He was just many that were derailing the thread. Yes I read the whole thread since I started it and determined you were wrong. The question about 95% of us want to know why you have you head so far up Trumps ass?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:04 PM
1. How have you come to the conclusion I am a Trump supporter when I have made no statement of such in any of my posts?

2. What position of yours did I misrepresent? I quoted both of your posts on endorsements in full.

Which did not even remotely resemble your claim about me.

It's not that hard to decide. You have two options.

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

Pick one. And let the world know exactly what kind of people you Trumpsters are.

kahless
08-20-2015, 07:06 PM
The OP is me, not devilsadvacate. He was just many that were derailing the thread. Yes I read the whole thread since I started it and determined you were wrong. The question about 95% of us want to know why you have you head so far up Trumps ass?

This is the history of the conversation. For the sake of the endorsements conversation the OP IS DevilsAdvocate.


Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!


If he did that then Rand would be considered just another establishment shill that is intent on supporting the planned coronation of Jeb Bush.


I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.


In the context we are discussing, it IS an endorsement of values if Rand refuses to endorse the nominee if it is Trump but will endorse if it is Jeb Bush.


The only values involved in political endorsements, is the value of political capital.


You have now completely contradicted yourself since Rand would have less political capital if he refuses to endorse Trump as the nominee.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:08 PM
This is the history of the conversation. For the sake of the endorsements conversation the OP IS DevilsAdvocate.

It's not that hard to decide. You have two options.

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

Pick one. And let the world know exactly what kind of people you Trumpsters are.

Pick one. Why can't you pick one? Is it because you know you are wrong and therefore committing to #2 will damage your credibility?

kahless
08-20-2015, 07:11 PM
Which did not even remotely resemble your claim about me.

It's not that hard to decide. You have two options.

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

Pick one. And let the world know exactly what kind of people you Trumpsters are.

1. What position did I misrepresent? Your freaking out just because I said you contradicted yourself over endorsements. It is the way I see it since you say on one hand endorsements do not matter and on the other they matter for political capital. That is a contradiction.

2. How have you come to the conclusion I am a Trump supporter when I have made no statement of such in any of my posts?

3. Where is my apology?

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 07:13 PM
...will damage your credibility?

LOL

His what?

I thought the whole notion behind autopsies was that you can't damage the dead.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:20 PM
LOL

His what?

I thought the whole notion behind autopsies was that you can't damage the dead.

LOL good point

klamath
08-20-2015, 07:24 PM
This is the history of the conversation. For the sake of the endorsements conversation the OP IS DevilsAdvocate. Somebody mentioned the word endorsements and Gunny gave his opinion on political endorsements. Gunny's comments don't necessarily have to be following the already derailed topic. You can't try and claim "Context of the discussion" when the real context of the discussion has been derailed multiple different times in multiple different directions. Gunny's comments would have been a derail of a derail.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:27 PM
1. What position did I misrepresent? Your freaking out just because I said you contradicted yourself over endorsements. It is the way I see it since you say on one hand endorsements do not matter and on the other they matter for political capital. That is a contradiction.

I despise liars, and people who lie about me in an effort to discredit me I consider worth less than the dog shyt I scrape off my shoe before coming into the house.


2. How have you come to the conclusion I am a Trump supporter when I have made no statement of such in any of my posts?

3. Where is my apology?

I have accused you of being a Trump supporter.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

^^ See it's really not that hard.

I am perfectly fine with the forums knowing that I have called you a Trump supporter and I will not apologize for it.

Are you okay with telling the forums that I give a shit about Rand's endorsements insinuating that I am a hypocrite, and not apologizing for it?

You see, I did not hesitate to confirm that I consider you a Trump supporter, and I did not hesitate to confirm that I will not apologize for holding that opinion. I am perfectly fine with the judgement of the forums on that matter.

Why are still dancing around the question? Don't you have the guts to answer?

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:29 PM
I'll be waiting for that apology which I am sure is soon to come...



Probably about the time that you apologize for this.


Apparently liking Trump also degrades the language centers of the brain along with the reason. I wonder if motor skills are impaired too? Maybe Trump is like that brain eating amoeba they keep finding in New Orleans?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:31 PM
Somebody mentioned the word endorsements and Gunny gave his opinion on political endorsements. Gunny's comments don't necessarily have to be following the already derailed topic. You can't try and claim "Context of the discussion" when the real context of the discussion has been derailed multiple different times in multiple different directions. Gunny's comments would have been a derail of a derail.

This x 1000. But I think you are wasting your breath. He knows durn good and well that he misrepresented my position, he just doesn't care. He would rather be a liar and try to discredit anybody who opposes Trump, than to tell the truth and be secure in his own integrity. If he thought he was telling the truth then it wouldn't have been like trying to pull teeth to make him pick yes or no as to whether he would apologize to me. It would have been "no" and this whole rodeo would have ended. But he couldn't say no because he knows he's lying.

jj-
08-20-2015, 07:31 PM
"the judgement of the forums" lol

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:32 PM
Probably about the time that you apologize for this.

I stand by that remark. Therefore I have no need to apologize for it. It is not possible to be rational, principled and support Trump. In order to support Trump, you must be irrational, unprincipled, or both.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 07:33 PM
I despise liars, and people who lie about me in an effort to discredit me I consider worth less than the dog shyt I scrape off my shoe before coming into the house.



I have accused you of being a Trump supporter.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

^^ See it's really not that hard.

I am perfectly fine with the forums knowing that I have called you a Trump supporter and I will not apologize for it.

Are you okay with telling the forums that I give a shit about Rand's endorsements insinuating that I am a hypocrite, and not apologizing for it?

You see, I did not hesitate to confirm that I consider you a Trump supporter, and I did not hesitate to confirm that I will not apologize for holding that opinion. I am perfectly fine with the judgement of the forums on that matter.

Why are still dancing around the question? Don't you have the guts to answer?

1) Yes, I misrepresented your position, and I apologize; or

2) No, fuck you, I said what I said and I meant it.

Kahkless has done the same thing to me repeatedly. He clearly deliberately misrepresents my positions to the point that it's not possible to pretend it's a simple mistake, such as claiming I support La Raza. Correcting him won't matter. Even after you explicitly say that's not your position, he'll keep saying it is.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 07:42 PM
Kahkless has done the same thing to me repeatedly. He clearly deliberately misrepresents my positions to the point that it's not possible to pretend it's a simple mistake, such as claiming I support La Raza. Correcting him won't matter. Even after you explicitly say that's not your position, he'll keep saying it is.

Not surprised, I've dealt with this kind of sophistry before. I never expected him to actually admit that he was lying about me in an attempt to advance his own position, my main effort was make the mask slip a little more so nobody gets taken in by his dishonesty. Also, I wanted to see for myself if he genuinely believed the lies he was telling on me, or if he knew they were lies. If he was being honest, then he would have jumped on #2 "No I will not apologize" immediately instead of trying to spin up a justification for his lies. That tells me that he is fully aware that he is lying about me and he does not believe what he is saying.

kahless
08-20-2015, 07:46 PM
I despise liars, and people who lie about me in an effort to discredit me I consider worth less than the dog shyt I scrape off my shoe before coming into the house.

Why would you think I would try to discredit you? You are being paranoid.

Face it you are pissed off at me because you think I am a Trump supporter and screwed up trying to discredit what I posted.

Since again, what position did I misrepresent? You say on one hand endorsements do not matter and on the other they matter for political capital. That is a contradiction.
You want to change what you said in your reply to me that you were talking about something different then fine.



I have accused you of being a Trump supporter.

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

^^ See it's really not that hard.

I am perfectly fine with the forums knowing that I have called you a Trump supporter and I will not apologize for it.


I have not claimed to be a Trump supporter. Why would you believe that?



Are you okay with telling the forums that I give a shit about Rand's endorsements insinuating that I am a hypocrite, and not apologizing for it?


You are being a dick to me and others here at the mention of Trump's name. I and others have been in these forums these last few days defending Rand and Ron's platform from those completely misrepresenting it. You are posting in these same threads but not a peep from you about those claiming Rand and Ron support open borders. Rather you attack me who is in here defending Rand.



You see, I did not hesitate to confirm that I consider you a Trump supporter, and I did not hesitate to confirm that I will not apologize for holding that opinion. I am perfectly fine with the judgement of the forums on that matter.

That says something more about your character than it does mine.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 07:52 PM
Hey guys, I'll give you another target, to get you off of Kahless' back.

I support Rand first, but if he doesn't make it, the way things stand right now, I will be voting for Trump. Why, you ask? I fully realize he is far from ideal and could be a total POS, but I *know* Bush will be. So, none of that for me. I also have eyes and know that if we don't do squat to stop the illegal invasion of our country and at the very least, swing the sucky trade deals more to our favor post haste, our nation is complete TOAST!! Now, I would prefer to just end all entitlements, first for the illegals and get us out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF and ALL of the trade deals from Nafta on up, but guess what, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I don't think we have much time left. So, even if Trump keeps the wars going and all the other crappy stuff, if he even did one positive thing, it would be one helluva lot better than the crap we have been getting for quite some time by both R and D establishment figures.

Attack at your leisure. I have a thick skin. Nor, do I give a shit what you think. ;)

NOTE: All you guys having fits over anyone who doesn't just foam at the mouth about Trump, tell me, what are you doing posting here, when you could be dialing your little fingers off, assisting Rand's campaign? He has a calling program, you know. Don't you think that would be a better way to spend your time?

kahless
08-20-2015, 07:58 PM
Kahkless has done the same thing to me repeatedly. He clearly deliberately misrepresents my positions to the point that it's not possible to pretend it's a simple mistake, such as claiming I support La Raza. Correcting him won't matter. Even after you explicitly say that's not your position, he'll keep saying it is.

Example of you misrepresenting Rand's policies:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480422-Should-Trump-supporters-be-banned-from-this-forum&p=5964251&viewfull=1#post5964251

For all intent and purposes Ron and Rand are for open borders.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 08:03 PM
Hey guys, I'll give you another target, to get you off of Kahless' back.

I support Rand first, but if he doesn't make it, the way things stand right now, I will be voting for Trump. Why, you ask? I fully realize he is far from ideal and could be a total POS, but I *know* Bush will be. So, none of that for me. I also have eyes and know that if we don't do squat to stop the illegal invasion of our country and at the very least, swing the sucky trade deals more to our favor post haste, our nation is complete TOAST!! Now, I would prefer to just end all entitlements, first for the illegals and get us out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF and ALL of the trade deals from Nafta on up, but guess what, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I don't think we have much time left. So, even if Trump keeps the wars going and all the other crappy stuff, if he even did one positive thing, it would be one helluva lot better than the crap we have been getting for quite some time by both R and D establishment figures.

Attack at your leisure. I have a thick skin. Nor, do I give a shit what you think. ;)

NOTE: All you guys having fits over anyone who doesn't just foam at the mouth about Trump, tell me, what are you doing posting here, when you could be dialing your little fingers off, assisting Rand's campaign? He has a calling program, you know. Don't you think that would be a better way to spend your time?

I voted Barr and Baldwin in the prior two elections, but I agree with you. Trump all the way, if Rand continues to flatline. Listening to the piggies on both sides squeal is music to my ears. It's already an established fact that the people will be screwed in some form or fashion, so we may as well as choose the pleasant poison.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:03 PM
Example of you misrepresenting Rand's policies:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480422-Should-Trump-supporters-be-banned-from-this-forum&p=5964251&viewfull=1#post5964251

I don't see where I misrepresent their policies there. It's a true statement. For all intents and purposes they are for open borders (especially Ron). And, while I agree that that's a good example of you misrepresenting something I said, your La Raza claim, which you made repeatedly, even after I corrected you, was an even more obvious example.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:06 PM
Why would you think I would try to discredit you? You are being paranoid.

Face it you are pissed off at me because you think I am a Trump supporter and screwed up trying to discredit what I posted.

Since again, what position did I misrepresent? You say on one hand endorsements do not matter and on the other they matter for political capital. That is a contradiction.
You want to change what you said in your reply to me that you were talking about something different then fine.



I have not claimed to be a Trump supporter. Why would you believe that?



You are being a dick to me and others here at the mention of Trump's name. I and others have been in these forums these last few days defending Rand and Ron's platform from those completely misrepresenting it. You are posting in these same threads but not a peep from you about those claiming Rand and Ron support open borders. Rather you attack me who is in here defending Rand.



That says something more about your character than it does mine.

I'm not the one lying, that would be you. Now either apologize for lying about me or state that you will not apologize. I am holding you to the exact same standard that I am holding myself. I have stated openly without equivocation and without trying to 'justify' it that I consider you a Trump supporter and I make no apology for it. Your turn. Either apologize for lying about me, or state clearly and without equivocation or justification that you will not apologize.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:07 PM
I don't see where I misrepresent their policies there. It's a true statement. For all intents and purposes they are for open borders (especially Ron). And, while I agree that that's a good example of you misrepresenting something I said, your La Raza claim, which you made repeatedly, even after I corrected you, was an even more obvious example.

Liar liar, pants on fire.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:07 PM
I voted Barr and Baldwin in the prior two elections, but I agree with you. Trump all the way, if Rand continues to flatline. Listening to the piggies on both sides squeal is music to my ears. It's already an established fact that the people will be screwed in some form or fashion, so we may as well as choose the pleasant poison.

I am sure that will bring you great comfort when the Trump Squads are putting you on the cattle cars.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:09 PM
I don't see where I misrepresent their policies there. It's a true statement. For all intents and purposes they are for open borders (especially Ron). And, while I agree that that's a good example of you misrepresenting something I said, your La Raza claim, which you made repeatedly, even after I corrected you, was an even more obvious example.

Ron is not for open borders. One of his major talking point in 2012 was to bring the troops home and put them on the border. He only opposed building a monolithic wall across the border as he associated that with a police state ala East Germany.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:09 PM
I'm not the one lying, that would be you. Now either apologize for lying about me or state that you will not apologize. I am holding you to the exact same standard that I am holding myself. I have stated openly without equivocation and without trying to 'justify' it that I consider you a Trump supporter and I make no apology for it. Your turn. Either apologize for lying about me, or state clearly and without equivocation or justification that you will not apologize.

He said he wasn't.

Sounds like to me, you need to back off, at the very least.

Who do you think you are? Judge, jury and executioner?

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 08:10 PM
I stand by that remark. Therefore I have no need to apologize for it. It is not possible to be rational, principled and support Trump. In order to support Trump, you must be irrational, unprincipled, or both.

You also have to be fine with the Democrat--be it Clinton, the little socialist or whomever--winning the general election.

Of course, that could actually be covered by either 'irrational' or 'unprincipled', couldn't it?

jj-
08-20-2015, 08:10 PM
Sounds like to me, you need to back off, at the very least.

Once gunny is out of control, he seem to not be able to stop.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:11 PM
Liar liar, pants on fire.

Ron Paul is against laws that prohibit us from employing or renting property to people on account of immigration status. That means that, for all intents and purposes, he's for open borders.

On top of that, he's against deporting illegal immigrants and he's against a wall at the border.

Sure, he opposes birthright citizenship (as do I), and he opposes giving welfare and such things to illegal immigrants (as do I). But these things don't involve sealing the border. Under Ron Paul's policies, anyone from any country who got into this country would be able to stay as long as they wanted, have a job, own or rent a place to live, and never have the federal government have any way of even knowing they're here or what their immigration status is. If that's not open borders, for all intents and purposes, then I don't know what is.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:11 PM
I am sure that will bring you great comfort when the Trump Squads are putting you on the cattle cars.

You think you will be more free with Bush, do you?

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:12 PM
Once gunny is out of control, he seem to not be able to stop.

Gunny is on the right side here.

LE, and all you other Trump-trolls should start watching your mouths. I have a feeling that the site admins' patience with you all will reach its limit soon.

jj-
08-20-2015, 08:13 PM
Ron Paul is against law that prohibit us from employing or renting property to people on account of immigration status. That means that, for all intents and purposes, he's for open borders.

There are other mechanisms, for example, tracking people with VISAs and making it a requirement to report, etc.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:13 PM
You think you will be more free with Bush, do you?

I have never said a single positive thing in my life about Bush. Nice try though. Next time try integrity. It's a lot more difficult, but people will respect you.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 08:15 PM
I am sure that will bring you great comfort when the Trump Squads are putting you on the cattle cars.

At least, there is wildcard aspect present in Trump that I can't say with 95% of the other candidates. Self-funding tends to lend one independence as opposed to owing favors to the plutocrat of the week. To be honest, given what I know, Trump will not be allowed to be POTUS. FDR said it best when he stated that presidents are selected and not elected.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:16 PM
He said he wasn't.

Sounds like to me, you need to back off, at the very least.

Who do you think you are? Judge, jury and executioner?

I'm the one telling the truth in a sea of lies. For example, your attempt to insinuate that I support Jeb Bush. I'm not the one who needs to back off. If someone telling the truth bothers you that much, then the exit is on the top right of your browser page.

Feeding the Abscess
08-20-2015, 08:18 PM
Ron Paul is against laws that prohibit us from employing or renting property to people on account of immigration status. That means that, for all intents and purposes, he's for open borders.

On top of that, he's against deporting illegal immigrants and he's against a wall at the border.

Sure, he opposes birthright citizenship (as do I), and he opposes giving welfare and such things to illegal immigrants (as do I). But these things don't involve sealing the border.

Here's evidence to support erowe's claim about Ron and immigration/borders, question starts at about 57:50:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=3613&v=g-mVNYqNkZU

kahless
08-20-2015, 08:19 PM
He said he wasn't.

Sounds like to me, you need to back off, at the very least.

Who do you think you are? Judge, jury and executioner?

I guess this is the new winning RPF strategy to keep or win the hearts and minds of supporters into the Rand camp. :eek:

I remember the good old days that if someone here disagreed with Rand or Ron on policy people would make the case why it is sound policy or why Ron or Rand are better than candidate X on X policy or why against all odds when the chips are down we should continue to support them.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:19 PM
There are other mechanisms, for example, tracking people with VISAs and making it a requirement to report, etc.

How do you track people with Visas? If you require them to report, how do you know if they're still in the country when they don't? I don't know what mechanisms you might have in mind, but whatever they are, they're not things Ron Paul ever supported.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:22 PM
Gunny is on the right side here.

LE, and all you other Trump-trolls should start watching your mouths. I have a feeling that the site admins' patience with you all will reach its limit soon.

lol. Oooohhhh, I be scared.

Whatsamatter, erowe, your totalitarian streak coming out?

I SAID that I support Rand first. But, if he does not win, or drops out, the way things stand now, I will likely vote for Trump. Things could change. Sorry, but I won't goose step to your demands. Too bad if you don't like it.

jj-
08-20-2015, 08:22 PM
I guess this is the new winning RPF strategy to keep or win the hearts and minds of supporters into the Rand camp. :eek:

I remember the good old days that if someone here disagreed with Rand or Ron on policy people would make the case why it is sound policy or why Ron or Rand are better than candidate X on X policy or why against all odds when the chips are down we should continue to support them.

It's just a few people. Those suffering from TDS are few, though some of the flare-ups are very strong.

jj-
08-20-2015, 08:23 PM
How do you track people with Visas? If you require them to report, how do you know if they're still in the country when they don't? I don't know what mechanisms you might have in mind, but whatever they are, they're not things Ron Paul ever supported.

If I recall correctly Rand supported that. Rand also supported having a strong mechanism to enforce security at the border. Congress would have had to vote every year, and if conditions weren't met, visas would be stopped being issued or something like that. That's not open border. It reduces immigration.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:24 PM
If I recall correctly Rand supported that.

Supported what?


Rand also supported having a strong mechanism to enforce security at the border. Congress would have had to vote every year, and if conditions weren't met, visas would be stopped being issued or something like that. That's not open border. It reduces immigration.

Issuing fewer visas would only reduce legal immigration, not illegal immigration. But, by allowing people who don't jump through those hoops to continue to live and work here without restriction would simply make them illegal immigrants, rather than legal ones. The borders would be open de facto, even if not de jure (see my phrase above "for all intents and purposes").

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:25 PM
I guess this is the new winning RPF strategy to keep or win the hearts and minds of supporters into the Rand camp. :eek:

I remember the good old days that if someone here disagreed with Rand or Ron on policy people would make the case why it is sound policy or why Ron or Rand are better than candidate X on X policy or why against all odds when the chips are down we should continue to support them.

Considering that the media is reporting Ron Paul's supporters are flooding to Donald Trump, and then using that to attack Rand, yes, the elimination of a primary avenue of attack that the media is using against Rand is helping Rand.

You people want to discuss Trump in peace, go find a Donald Trump forum and leave Rand's and Ron's forums aloneI promise you that I have no interest in darkening the login prompt of a Trump forum so you will not have to deal with me there.

The media is using the lunatic fringe from this very site to attack Rand Paul by claiming that Ron Paul's base has abandoned Rand for Trump. By refuting that nonsense, I am denying the media ammunition to use against Rand.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 08:27 PM
I SAID that I support Rand first. But, if he does not win, or drops out, the way things stand now, I will likely vote for Trump. Things could change. Sorry, but I won't goose step to your demands. Too bad if you don't like it.

If he loses what?

You won't be able to vote for Trump in the general. Obviously the only way Trump will run ass an independent is if Rand wins the nomination, and last I heard Texas has a sore loser law.

So what does Rand have to lose to cause you to abandon all those principles you used to vow to stand by unto death, and jump for the perceived lesser of evils?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:29 PM
Here's evidence to support erowe's claim about Ron and immigration/borders, question starts at about 57:50:



Sorry, Ron Paul is even good with deporting the illegals when you run into them. Such as if they come for benefits, or they get caught in some other manner. He just thinks to say you're going to import them all would be impossible, because we don't know where they are.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJFcSF80dE#t=70

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:32 PM
If he loses what?
The Republican nomination.


You won't be able to vote for Trump in the general. Obviously the only way Trump will run ass an independent is if Rand wins the nomination, and last I heard Texas has a sore loser law.
Last time I checked, Trump was ahead by leaps and bounds. Like I said, we shall see what happens. I will be voting for Rand in the primary, unless he drops out before then.


So what does Rand have to lose to cause you to abandon all those principles you used to vow to stand by unto death, and jump for the perceived lesser of evils?
I'm not abandoning anything. I will vote for Rand as long as he is still in it. I hope he wins the nomination. But, if he doesn't and Trump wins the Republican nomination, the way things stand now, I will likely vote for him in the General.

Look, Acptulsa, I very strongly believe that we don't have very much longer. If our economy collapses, we will be ushered into world government. So, if Trump could improve the trade deals, it would give us more time to get things in place in the states and locally. I do not think we are going to beat the forces who are intentionally destroying our country, from the federal level. In fact, I think our only chance is at the local and state level, to be honest.

klamath
08-20-2015, 08:33 PM
Hey guys, I'll give you another target, to get you off of Kahless' back.

I support Rand first, but if he doesn't make it, the way things stand right now, I will be voting for Trump. Why, you ask? I fully realize he is far from ideal and could be a total POS, but I *know* Bush will be. So, none of that for me. I also have eyes and know that if we don't do squat to stop the illegal invasion of our country and at the very least, swing the sucky trade deals more to our favor post haste, our nation is complete TOAST!! Now, I would prefer to just end all entitlements, first for the illegals and get us out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF and ALL of the trade deals from Nafta on up, but guess what, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I don't think we have much time left. So, even if Trump keeps the wars going and all the other crappy stuff, if he even did one positive thing, it would be one helluva lot better than the crap we have been getting for quite some time by both R and D establishment figures.

Attack at your leisure. I have a thick skin. Nor, do I give a shit what you think. ;)

NOTE: All you guys having fits over anyone who doesn't just foam at the mouth about Trump, tell me, what are you doing posting here, when you could be dialing your little fingers off, assisting Rand's campaign? He has a calling program, you know. Don't you think that would be a better way to spend your time?I really can't believe you of all people are missing the point. Nobody cares what your second choice is. If Rand doesn't make it I will never vote for trump but I might vote for Carson, Cruz of Kasich. As long as Rand is running I will support him and shout down people trying to promote ANY other candidate over Rand. If I quit supporting Rand I will do the honorable thing and leave and find a place that supports the candidate I pick. I won't try and stay at a place that started in support of the Pauls and still supports the Pauls by 96 percent and pick fights and try and destroy the efforts of the 96% that are trying to help Paul.
Last year a number of us and I believe you were in with us gave Cocco cajan and others a lot of hell for having major disagreements with Rand on his and these forums. A year later I come back and a number of those that giving Cocco cajan hell are bashing Rand and waving Trump banners.
DonaldTrumpforums.com I believe is open to anyone that wants to start a support forum for him.

jj-
08-20-2015, 08:36 PM
Issuing fewer visas would only reduce legal immigration, not illegal immigration. But, by allowing people who don't jump through those hoops to continue to live and work here without restriction would simply make them illegal immigrants, rather than legal ones. The borders would be open de facto, even if not de jure (see my phrase above "for all intents and purposes").

That reduces immigration because some foreigners don't like being in the country illegally. So there is at least one intent for which it's not open borders, that of allowing everybody who want to be in the country in a legal manner.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:37 PM
Sorry, Ron Paul is even good with deporting the illegals when you run into them. Such as if they come for benefits, or they get caught in some other manner.

And when they don't come for benefits, then what?

"Some other manner" such as what? Ron Paul wants to get rid of all the means the government has for knowing who the illegal immigrants are, where they are, or that they're in the USA at all. Like I said, I'm all for not giving them welfare benefits too. But that won't do anything to stop illegal immigration by anyone who comes here and works without getting welfare. For these people, for all intents and purposes, the border would be open.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:39 PM
Considering that the media is reporting Ron Paul's supporters are flooding to Donald Trump, and then using that to attack Rand, yes, the elimination of a primary avenue of attack that the media is using against Rand is helping Rand.
You know the media will say any 'ol crap. Especially anything they can do to divide us. And you are falling for it. For shame.


You people want to discuss Trump in peace, go find a Donald Trump forum and leave Rand's and Ron's forums aloneI promise you that I have no interest in darkening the login prompt of a Trump forum so you will not have to deal with me there.
The only person I have seen saying they plan on voting for Trump instead of Rand is AuH20.

Oh, and no one has to deal with you here, either. You don't have carte blanche to do whatever you want. There are forum guidelines.


The media is using the lunatic fringe from this very site to attack Rand Paul by claiming that Ron Paul's base has abandoned Rand for Trump. By refuting that nonsense, I am denying the media ammunition to use against Rand.
Again, the media will say any 'ol crap and you posting ad nauseum about it, makes it appear much worse to onlookers than it actually is.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:40 PM
That reduces immigration because some foreigners don't like being in the country illegally.

Because being here illegally severely hampers employment opportunities under current law. But when you get rid of the means of enforcing the law by making employers report information about whom they hire to the government, you effectively get rid of the law. It just becomes a symbolic gesture. Sure, some people will respect it, such as many Christians who have been indoctrinated with the heresy that God commands them to obey whatever the government says, just like some people do that already. But the government would have no teeth for such a law. Note again the phrase I used, "for all intents and purposes," without tracking employment and renting, the border would be open.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 08:40 PM
A year later I come back and a number of those that giving Cocco cajan hell are bashing Rand and waving Trump banners.

DonaldTrumpforums.com I believe is open to anyone that wants to start a support forum for him.

+rep

I'm glad Trump is sharing his wealth with you people. But to see people shilling for him while claiming not to support him is kind of disgusting. And a rather interesting definition of the word 'support', too.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:41 PM
And when they don't come for benefits, then what?

"Some other manner" such as what? Ron Paul wants to get rid of all the means the government has for knowing who the illegal immigrants are, where they are, or that they're in the USA at all. Like I said, I'm all for not giving them welfare benefits too. But that won't do anything to stop illegal immigration by anyone who comes here and works without getting welfare. For these people, for all intents and purposes, the border would be open.

Nope. He said he wants more visas.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:43 PM
I really can't believe you of all people are missing the point. Nobody cares what your second choice is. If Rand doesn't make it I will never vote for trump but I might vote for Carson, Cruz of Kasich. As long as Rand is running I will support him and shout down people trying to promote ANY other candidate over Rand. If I quit supporting Rand I will do the honorable thing and leave and find a place that supports the candidate I pick. I won't try and stay at a place that started in support of the Pauls and still supports the Pauls by 96 percent and pick fights and try and destroy the efforts of the 96% that are trying to help Paul.
Last year a number of us and I believe you were in with us gave Cocco cajan and others a lot of hell for having major disagreements with Rand on his and these forums. A year later I come back and a number of those that giving Cocco cajan hell are bashing Rand and waving Trump banners.
DonaldTrumpforums.com I believe is open to anyone that wants to start a support forum for him.

Have you seen me bashing Rand? No.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:45 PM
+rep

I'm glad Trump is sharing his wealth with you people. But to see people shilling for him while claiming not to support him is kind of disgusting. And a rather interesting definition of the word 'support', too.

How so? I have not attacked Rand. In fact, I said I was going to vote for him. I even said that those who have totally thrown in the towel on Rand should go find another forum.

What is your problem?

Meanwhile, erowe is still here misrepresenting Ron and Rand's positions and you apparently are just fine and dandy with that. Amazing.

kahless
08-20-2015, 08:45 PM
Considering that the media is reporting Ron Paul's supporters are flooding to Donald Trump, and then using that to attack Rand, yes, the elimination of a primary avenue of attack that the media is using against Rand is helping Rand.

You people want to discuss Trump in peace, go find a Donald Trump forum and leave Rand's and Ron's forums alone I promise you that I have no interest in darkening the login prompt of a Trump forum so you will not have to deal with me there.

The media is using the lunatic fringe from this very site to attack Rand Paul by claiming that Ron Paul's base has abandoned Rand for Trump. By refuting that nonsense, I am denying the media ammunition to use against Rand.

There is a 2016 Presidential Election forum for the purpose of discussing all the candidates. Allowing forum members to discuss candidate positions is no different from past cycles so what is so special about this cycle that we are not supposed to discuss other candidates?

There is no evidence the media is using this site to attack Rand. I saw that other thread where you make that claim and visited the referring links and there was no mention of RPF, your claim is basically conjecture.

If anything it is this sense of desperation taking place here with this Trump witch hunt that will drive curious voters away.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:46 PM
I really can't believe you of all people are missing the point. Nobody cares what your second choice is. If Rand doesn't make it I will never vote for trump but I might vote for Carson, Cruz of Kasich.

Kasich is a weird one to have in that list. But with Cruz and especially Carson, I at least get where you're coming from. I can see the issues where a Ron Paul supporter would agree with them, or think they're noticeably better than the rest of the pack. And some people care more about some issues than others. I've always appreciated the diversity of Ron Paul's support, and it's always been clear that without him, they'd diverge in different directions.

But Trump? That makes no sense at all. These people who would vote for him are just hapless victims of some kind of bamboozlement. I can explain it in no other way than that they must be innately susceptible to getting conned.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:47 PM
I really can't believe you of all people are missing the point. Nobody cares what your second choice is. If Rand doesn't make it I will never vote for trump but I might vote for Carson, Cruz of Kasich. As long as Rand is running I will support him and shout down people trying to promote ANY other candidate over Rand. If I quit supporting Rand I will do the honorable thing and leave and find a place that supports the candidate I pick. I won't try and stay at a place that started in support of the Pauls and still supports the Pauls by 96 percent and pick fights and try and destroy the efforts of the 96% that are trying to help Paul.
Last year a number of us and I believe you were in with us gave Cocco cajan and others a lot of hell for having major disagreements with Rand on his and these forums. A year later I come back and a number of those that giving Cocco cajan hell are bashing Rand and waving Trump banners.
DonaldTrumpforums.com I believe is open to anyone that wants to start a support forum for him.

Damn. I'm outta rep for this. :(

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/rpf/2015_08JUL/dtf.png

AuH20
08-20-2015, 08:47 PM
Have you seen me bashing Rand? No.

Rand has run a horrible campaign though. Brutal. It's like watching a natural right handed batter try to hit left handed with a blind fold on.

erowe1
08-20-2015, 08:48 PM
There is a 2016 Presidential Election forum for the purpose of discussing all the candidates.

Yes. It's for trashing all of them who are not Rand, and mocking, belittling, and shaming anyone who would support them.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:49 PM
There is a 2016 Presidential Election forum for the purpose of discussing all the candidates. Allowing forum members to discuss candidate positions is no different from past cycles so what is so special about this cycle that we are not supposed to discuss other candidates?

There is no evidence the media is using this site to attack Rand. I saw that other thread where you make that claim and visited the referring links and there was no mention of RPF, your claim is basically conjecture.

If anything it is this sense of desperation taking place here with this Trump witch hunt that will drive curious voters away.

I would not go on to ************s bashing Cruz and praising Rand. Why are you on Ron/Rand Paul forums bashing Rand and promoting Trump?

The media is already using this to attack Rand Paul, claiming that Ron Paul's supporters are deserting Rand en masse and taking up the Trump banner. You and your ilk are responsible for this attack on Rand and you just don't GAF.

klamath
08-20-2015, 08:50 PM
Have you seen me bashing Rand? No.I didn't say you do. Other are. As I recall last year you wanted all these disagreeing with Rand banned. I generally don't support bans but I also won't give any quarter to those trying to promote Trump on the forums started for the Pauls.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:51 PM
Rand has run a horrible campaign though. Brutal. It's like watching a natural right handed batter try to hit left handed with a blind fold on.

There are several domain registrars on the Internet, and DonaldTrumpForums.com is still available.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:51 PM
There is a 2016 Presidential Election forum for the purpose of discussing all the candidates. Allowing forum members to discuss candidate positions is no different from past cycles so what is so special about this cycle that we are not supposed to discuss other candidates?

There is no evidence the media is using this site to attack Rand. I saw that other thread where you make that claim and visited the referring links and there was no mention of RPF, your claim is basically conjecture.

If anything it is this sense of desperation taking place here with this Trump witch hunt that will drive curious voters away.

For sure.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 08:55 PM
I didn't say you do. Other are. As I recall last year you wanted all these disagreeing with Rand banned. I generally don't support bans but I also won't give any quarter to those trying to promote Trump on the forums started for the Pauls.

Klamath, back then, Josh was still the owner and allowed a select few to go into Rand's own forum, ad nauseum, and flat out lie and twist Rand's positions. They repeated their BS in nearly every thread they could find all over the forums. Even those where Rand's name hadn't even been mentioned.

That stopped when Bryan bought the forums.

I never took issue with people stating their grievances outside of Rand's forum the first 10 or 50 times. Especially, if they are telling the truth and not twisting it all to hell. But, there is a limit ya know, when it becomes clear that is an agenda.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 08:59 PM
For sure.

Actually, what's driving people away are the grand total of 5 Trumpsters spamming a forum of thousands of Ron Paulers. You should probably stop driving people away.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:00 PM
Klamath, back then, Josh was still the owner and allowed a select few to go into Rand's own forum, ad nauseum, and flat out lie and twist Rand's positions. They repeated their BS in nearly every thread they could find all over the forums. Even those where Rand's name hadn't even been mentioned.

That stopped when Bryan bought the forums.

I never took issue with people stating their grievances outside of Rand's forum the first 10 or 50 times. Especially, if they are telling the truth and not twisting it all to hell. But, there is a limit ya know, when it becomes clear that is an agenda.

You mean like an agenda to disparage Rand Paul and promote Donald Trump?

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 09:01 PM
You know the media will say any 'ol crap. Especially anything they can do to divide us. And you are falling for it. For shame.


The only person I have seen saying they plan on voting for Trump instead of Rand is AuH20.

Why, yes. Yes, the media will say anything. Like for instance, they'll say the guy who openly admits to buying influence and hosting the Clintons at his wedding could possibly be against the NWO. What I don't get is how someone who has clearly seen how little coverage someone who actually is gets from the media could believe that of someone who gets coverage 24/7.

At least AuH2O admits Trump won't keep any of his promises. He just wants the powers that be to know exactly how many people hate them, and seems to think they can't add up the numbers generated by their controlled opposition (namely Trump and Sanders) and Rand Paul.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:02 PM
You mean like an agenda to disparage Rand Paul and promote Donald Trump?

I have seen one major person doing that. AuH20. And your hissy fit is drawing attention to it. Is that your goal?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:06 PM
I have seen one major person doing that. AuH20. And your hissy fit is drawing attention to it. Is that your goal?

My goal is to deny the media ammunition against Paul by refuting their impression that Ron Paul supporters have gone en masse over to Trump and rejected Rand. By continuing to harp on Trump, you are lending credibility to that impression and handing the media more ammunition to use against Rand. Why are you okay with giving the media ammunition to use against Rand?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 09:09 PM
My goal is to deny the media ammunition against Paul by refuting their impression that Ron Paul supporters have gone en masse over to Trump and rejected Rand. By continuing to harp on Trump, you are lending credibility to that impression and handing the media more ammunition to use against Rand. Why are you okay with giving the media ammunition to use against Rand?

All you are doing is making it seem worse than it is. If someone was constantly misrepresenting Rand's positions, I would be far more concerned about that. But, I don't see that happening to any extent.

Bryan owns the forums now. If you have a concern, perhaps you should send him a message or post in the Site Feedback subforum. I am sure he will take it into consideration.

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:13 PM
There is a 2016 Presidential Election forum for the purpose of discussing all the candidates. Allowing forum members to discuss candidate positions is no different from past cycles so what is so special about this cycle that we are not supposed to discuss other candidates?

There is no evidence the media is using this site to attack Rand. I saw that other thread where you make that claim and visited the referring links and there was no mention of RPF, your claim is basically conjecture.

If anything it is this sense of desperation taking place here with this Trump witch hunt that will drive curious voters away.Oh you can discuss support those others but you sure aren't immune from being challenged and that is exactly what you are getting.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:15 PM
My goal is to deny the media ammunition against Paul by refuting their impression that Ron Paul supporters have gone en masse over to Trump and rejected Rand. By continuing to harp on Trump, you are lending credibility to that impression and handing the media more ammunition to use against Rand. Why are you okay with giving the media ammunition to use against Rand?

Rand Paul's glaring mistakes have led to the Trump phenomenon. Rand is one of the chief architects for the Trump surge. You would think Rand Paul has never been at the ground level with the actual people who reside in the country. Rand Paul didn't even mention illegal immigration once during his campaign introduction speech. He's completely tone deaf and got blown to the wayside by a non-Republican.

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:17 PM
Klamath, back then, Josh was still the owner and allowed a select few to go into Rand's own forum, ad nauseum, and flat out lie and twist Rand's positions. They repeated their BS in nearly every thread they could find all over the forums. Even those where Rand's name hadn't even been mentioned.

That stopped when Bryan bought the forums.

I never took issue with people stating their grievances outside of Rand's forum the first 10 or 50 times. Especially, if they are telling the truth and not twisting it all to hell. But, there is a limit ya know, when it becomes clear that is an agenda.
That is happening now, but you are not seeing it because you kinda like Trump.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:21 PM
Oh you can discuss support those others but you sure aren't immune from being challenged and that is exactly what you are getting.

See, not only do they want to spam Trump, they want everyone else to leave them alone and let the spam Trump in peace. And when we call them on their BS they whine and cry and lie about us to try and make us stop holding them accountable.

Rad
08-20-2015, 09:25 PM
I posted something in vents after thinking about this forum. I think you guys should go watch it. It was made by a psychiatrist.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:25 PM
All you are doing is making it seem worse than it is. If someone was constantly misrepresenting Rand's positions, I would be far more concerned about that. But, I don't see that happening to any extent.

Bryan owns the forums now. If you have a concern, perhaps you should send him a message or post in the Site Feedback subforum. I am sure he will take it into consideration.

No, I'm just paying attention. I've seen the news reports on how Ron Paul's supporters have gone gaga over Trump, when the reality is it's 96% to 4% Rand. The media thinks that because of 4 or 5 lunatics running around spamming Trump. I do not believe that it's okay to use Ron Paul Forums as a weapon to attack Rand Paul. You used to agree with that until Trump tickled your ears and told you whatever you wanted to hear.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:27 PM
No, I'm just paying attention. I've seen the news reports on how Ron Paul's supporters have gone gaga over Trump, when the reality is it's 96% to 4% Rand. The media thinks that because of 4 or 5 lunatics running around spamming Trump. I do not believe that it's okay to use Ron Paul Forums as a weapon to attack Rand Paul. You used to agree with that until Trump tickled your ears and told you whatever you wanted to hear.

What about this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/11/the-daily-202-cruz-trying-to-poach-paul-voters/

kahless
08-20-2015, 09:31 PM
Rand has run a horrible campaign though. Brutal. It's like watching a natural right handed batter try to hit left handed with a blind fold on.


Rand Paul's glaring mistakes have led to the Trump phenomenon. Rand is one of the chief architects for the Trump surge. You would think Rand Paul has never been at the ground level with the actual people who reside in the country. Rand Paul didn't even mention illegal immigration once during his campaign introduction speech. He's completely tone deaf and got blown to the wayside by a non-Republican.

^This about sums up my frustration right here.


I would not go on to ************s bashing Cruz and praising Rand. Why are you on Ron/Rand Paul forums bashing Rand and promoting Trump?

The media is already using this to attack Rand Paul, claiming that Ron Paul's supporters are deserting Rand en masse and taking up the Trump banner. You and your ilk are responsible for this attack on Rand and you just don't GAF.

I may disagree with Rand on language used for his immigration policy and H-1b but I do not see it as bashing Rand. I may agree with Trump's immigration plan but that does not mean I am promoting Trump.

I have been a pretty hardcore Rand/Ron supporter up until recently. I think if you ask most people here not everyone is going to agree with Rand %100 on everything. No candidate is perfect and sometimes we have to decide whether some issues are a deal killer.

There have been some cumulative issues going on with Rand which I won't get into since they have been repeated here in these forums ad nauseum. Immigration is one of those issues I thought Rand was weak on and it is always a decision whether it is worth over looking for the greater good. But then you have him coming out talking about increasing H1-B immigration and I think who the hell is Rand serving by doing so. This goes exactly to what AuH20 wrote in that 2nd quote.

So I have one post praising Trump which was specifically for his H1-B immigration plan which favors American citizens first. Rand's policy favors foreigners over American citizens. That is a tough thing to get past and I do have a huge problem with that. The media and I are still waiting for Rand to clarify what they are calling his "vague" H-1B position but regardless he has stated he will increase H-1B immigration.

I am undecided whether I will continue to support Rand or support Trump over Rand. I think I am leaning towards Trump and I am aware of the risks. There are so many issues at play I am undecided.

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:31 PM
Rand Paul's mistakes have led to the Trump phenomenon. Rand is one of the chief architects for the Trump surge. You would think Rand Paul has never been at the ground level with the actual people who reside in the country. Rand Paul didn't even mention illegal immigration once during his campaign introduction speech. He's completely tone deaf and got blown to the wayside by a non-Republican. Rand is making some mistakes in my opinion, however I still support him. Trump is getting the full on support of the anti Hispanic wing of the republican party which is putting him ahead in a 17 candidate race but in doing so it is solidly alienating the other parts of the GOP, the independents and any possible democrat crossovers in the fall. Sure rand could have jumped out ahead and then be squashed and ruined forever in the fall. In just the last 4 years the Hispanic voter block has grown 16%. They are going to organize in mass against trump in the fall if he gets that far, especially when it gets around that he will deport Hispanic citizens as well.
Rand's biggest problem with gop right now is that republicans are back in the mood to kick some issus ass for raping and beheading people.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 09:32 PM
Rand Paul's glaring mistakes have led to the Trump phenomenon. Rand is one of the chief architects for the Trump surge. You would think Rand Paul has never been at the ground level with the actual people who reside in the country. Rand Paul didn't even mention illegal immigration once during his campaign introduction speech. He's completely tone deaf and got blown to the wayside by a non-Republican.
It's true. If Rand had owned illegal immigration as a campaign issue early, the Trump surge would be a fraction of what it is now. It's pretty clear why he didn't; he's absolutely terrified of being called racist. He's got to find his backbone, or he has no chance.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:32 PM
What about this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/11/the-daily-202-cruz-trying-to-poach-paul-voters/

They are not spamming RonPaulForums. They have every right to be political activists. If they were spamming RonPaulForums with it, then I'd be telling them to get stuffed too. I would, however, be a bit less annoyed and repulsed considering that at least Cruz has principles where Trump has none. That wouldn't stop me from telling them to go find their own forums to promote their chosen candidate.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:35 PM
It's true. If Rand had owned illegal immigration as a campaign issue early, the Trump surge would be a fraction of what it is now. It's pretty clear why he didn't; he's absolutely terrified of being called racist. He's got to find his backbone, or he has no chance.

And he didn't even have to talk as radical like Trump or King. Just lay it out there. Let people know where you stand. But the deceptive hiding on the subject is near unforgivable in my eyes.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:35 PM
^This about sums up my frustration right here.



I may disagree with Rand on language used for his immigration policy and H-1b but I do not see it as bashing Rand. I may agree with Trump's immigration plan but that does not mean I am promoting Trump.

I have been a pretty hardcore Rand/Ron supporter up until recently. I think if you ask most people here not everyone is going to agree with Rand %100 on everything. No candidate is perfect and sometimes we have to decide whether some issues are a deal killer.

There have been some cumulative issues going on with Rand which I won't get into since they have been repeated here in these forums ad nauseum. Immigration is one of those issues I thought Rand was weak on and it is always a decision whether it is worth over looking for the greater good. But then you have him coming out talking about increasing H1-B immigration and I think who the hell is Rand serving by doing so. This goes exactly to what AuH20 wrote in that 2nd quote.

So I have one post praising Trump which was specifically for his H1-B immigration plan which favors American citizens first. Rand's policy favors foreigners over American citizens. That is a tough thing to get past and I do have a huge problem with that. The media and I are still waiting for Rand to clarify what they are calling his "vague" H-1B position but regardless he has stated he will increase H-1B immigration.

I am undecided whether I will continue to support Rand or support Trump over Rand. I think I am leaning towards Trump and I am aware of the risks. There are so many issues at play I am undecided.

I don't agree with Rand on 100% everything either. That doesn't mean I'm going to camp out on his forums and promote his opponents. There is a reason the media is claiming that Ron Paul people are abandoning Rand in favor of Trump, and that reason is you. You want to spam Trump? Fine. Do it somewhere other than RonPaulForums.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:37 PM
Rand is making some mistakes in my opinion, however I still support him. Trump is getting the full on support of the anti Hispanic wing of the republican party which is putting him ahead in a 17 candidate race but in doing so it is solidly alienating the other parts of the GOP, the independents and any possible democrat crossovers in the fall. Sure rand could have jumped out ahead and then be squashed and ruined forever in the fall. In just the last 4 years the Hispanic voter block has grown 16%. They are going to organize in mass against trump in the fall if he gets that far, especially when it gets around that he will deport Hispanic citizens as well.
Rand's biggest problem with gop right now is that republicans are back in the mood to kick some issus ass for raping and beheading people.

I think Trump's support is far broader than the experts suspect. Trump is getting major moderate support as well in the 18-45 age bracket. That was supposed to be Rand's bread and butter.

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:38 PM
What about this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/11/the-daily-202-cruz-trying-to-poach-paul-voters/
Start promoting Cruz here and see what you get.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:39 PM
I'll just leave this out there. Stop believing the lies about Trumps' support. It is very broad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/6/donald-trump-polling-best-among-liberal-and-modera/?page=all

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:40 PM
I think Trump's support is far deeper than the experts suspect. Trump is getting major moderate support as well in the 18-45 age bracket. That was supposed to be Rand's bread and butter.
I guarantee it is NOT. A sure way of getting Bernie sanders elected it to run trump.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:40 PM
I think Trump's support is far broader than the experts suspect. Trump is getting major moderate support as well in the 18-45 age bracket. That was supposed to be Rand's bread and butter.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/rpf/2015_08JUL/dtf.png

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 09:42 PM
Why, yes. Yes, the media will say anything. Like for instance, they'll say the guy who openly admits to buying influence and hosting the Clintons at his wedding could possibly be against the NWO. What I don't get is how someone who has clearly seen how little coverage someone who actually is gets from the media could believe that of someone who gets coverage 24/7.

At least AuH2O admits Trump won't keep any of his promises. He just wants the powers that be to know exactly how many people hate them, and seems to think they can't add up the numbers generated by their controlled opposition (namely Trump and Sanders) and Rand Paul.

I thought this was worth a comment. I guess not.


It's true. If Rand had owned illegal immigration as a campaign issue early, the Trump surge would be a fraction of what it is now. It's pretty clear why he didn't; he's absolutely terrified of being called racist. He's got to find his backbone, or he has no chance.

Oh, sure, what better way to remain the GOP candidate with the best numbers against the opposition in the general election than to 'grow enough backbone' to take advice from the stormfronters?

Right. Got news. That may look like 'growing a backbone' to you, but to the rest of the world that looks like abandoning all his principles for a possible short term gain in the nomination race, and destroying all his brain cells in the bargain.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:44 PM
I guarantee it is NOT. A sure way of getting Bernie sanders elected it to run trump.

Go up to my post #178 and click on the Washington Times link. Scroll down and see who is comfortably leading the 'Somewhat Conservative' and 'Moderate/Liberal Republican' Categories.

klamath
08-20-2015, 09:46 PM
I'll just leave this out there. Stop believing the lies about Trumps' support. It is very broad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/6/donald-trump-polling-best-among-liberal-and-modera/?page=all I don't much pay attention to the Washington times anymore. Decades ago I followed. They try and create they own reality. Always acting like they had the smoking gun that was going to destroy Clinton. Never happened and I quit following their hype.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 09:46 PM
Oh, sure, what better way to remain the GOP candidate with the best numbers against the opposition in the general election than to 'grow enough backbone' to take advice from the stormfronters?

Right. Got news. That may look like 'growing a backbone' to you, but to the rest of the world that looks like abandoning all his principles for a possible short term gain in the nomination race, and destroying all his brain cells in the bargain.
It doesn't matter how he polls against the opposition if the base doesn't nominate him. How is it "abandoning all his principles", you little nothing of a man? He proposed legislation to stop anchor-babies from being citizens. How many people know that? He wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, since you're an idiot.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 09:50 PM
It doesn't matter how he polls against the opposition if the base doesn't nominate him. How is it "abandoning all his principles", you little nothing of a man? He proposed legislation to stop anchor-babies from being citizens. How many people know that? He wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, since you're an idiot.

Rand "wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively." So instead of going out and publicizing Rand's positions more effectively on his behalf, like we did for Ron Paul, the strategy is to disparage Paul and promote Trump? How does that make any sense?

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:53 PM
I don't much pay attention to the Washington times anymore. Decades ago I followed. They try and create they own reality. Always acting like they had the smoking gun that was going to destroy Clinton. Never happened and I quit following their hype.

That's fine and dandy, but do you really think they tailored their methodology to favor Donald Trump? In fact, the Washington Post, a publication that is hostile to Trump, did a survey on Trump supporters and found them to be much younger than originally estimated. A new paradigm is at work in these uncertain times. People care less about political correctness and are more concerned about bold results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/10/is-donald-trumps-base-just-the-tea-party-reborn-not-exactly/


Trump fans are slightly more likely to be 18 to 39 than non-Trump fans.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 09:54 PM
Rand "wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively." So instead of going out and publicizing Rand's positions more effectively on his behalf, like we did for Ron Paul, the strategy is to disparage Paul and promote Trump? How does that make any sense?
I'm not doing that. I haven't made more than five or six posts on Trump since he announced. I appreciate that Trump had the balls to bring up immigration, and it's fun to see him tell the PC cops to go fuck themselves, but I'm not on board with him. I don't think he's in it for the long haul, and even if he got elected, President Trump would likely not resemble candidate Trump all that closely.

kahless
08-20-2015, 09:55 PM
I don't agree with Rand on 100% everything either. That doesn't mean I'm going to camp out on his forums and promote his opponents. There is a reason the media is claiming that Ron Paul people are abandoning Rand in favor of Trump, and that reason is you. You want to spam Trump? Fine. Do it somewhere other than RonPaulForums.

That is simply not true at least for me. Show me where I have done that?



There is a reason the media is claiming that Ron Paul people are abandoning Rand in favor of Trump, and that reason is you.

ROFL, yeah right I am sure there was Drudge headline with sirens that read RAND LOST KAHLESS!

AuH20
08-20-2015, 09:55 PM
I'm not doing that. I haven't made more than five or six posts on Trump since he announced. I appreciate that Trump had the balls to bring up immigration, and it's fun to see him tell the PC cops to go fuck themselves, but I'm not on board with him. I don't think he's in it for the long haul, and even if he got elected, President Trump would likely not resemble candidate Trump all that closely.

He would be forced to make concessions like Reagan. Rand would be forced to make concessions as well.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 09:57 PM
Go up to my post #178 and click on the Washington Times link. Scroll down and see who is comfortably leading the 'Somewhat Conservative' and 'Moderate/Liberal Republican' Categories.

Why would we do that when there are plenty of polls who actually ask people if they'd vote (given the matchup) for Paul or Clinton? Because by speculating in a bizarre manner on what 'moderate' has come to mean, you figure you can obfuscate the truth--which is Paul does best and Trump does worst against her?


It doesn't matter how he polls against the opposition if the base doesn't nominate him.

Yes, we know. And we know that the Establishment knows. And we know that's why you paid shills are here, too.


That's fine and dandy, but do you really think they tailored their methodology to favor Donald Trump? In fact, the Washington Post, a publication that is hostile to Trump, did a survey on Trump supporters and found them to be much younger than originally estimated. A new paradigm is at work in these uncertain times. People care less about political correctness and are more concerned about bold results.

Last I heard, his strongest demographic was middle schoolers. Still don't know why I should care what the children think, unless it's because so many Republicans think like children.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 10:02 PM
Yes, we know. And we know that the Establishment knows. And we know that's why you paid shills are here, too.
I was consistently praising Rand before his campaign started to falter. If he gets it back on track, I'll be praising him again. Unlike you, I'm not some sycophant who will laud everything he does, regardless of how good it is. You are a paranoid moron who understands absolutely nothing. Dunning-Kruger personified.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:06 PM
That is happening now, but you are not seeing it because you kinda like Trump.

Here, you are ASKING for me to say something positive about Trump. You are ASKING FOR IT. Do you realize that?

Your strategy needs an adjustment, klamath. You are attempting to pick a fight with someone who said she was going to vote for Rand.

Bad plan you have there.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:06 PM
That is simply not true at least for me. Show me where I have done that?



ROFL, yeah right I am sure there was Drudge headline with sirens that read http://www.drudgesiren.com/siren.gifRAND LOST KAHLESS! http://www.drudgesiren.com/siren.gif

What an ego on you. Now if you want to promote Trump, the exit is at the top right of your screen.

Feeding the Abscess
08-20-2015, 10:08 PM
He would be forced to make concessions like Reagan. Rand would be forced to make concessions as well.

Actually, Reagan would be a perfect comparison for Trump. A lifelong modern US liberal who became conservative when it was opportunistic to become so.

Reagan didn't make concessions from his candidacy while in office. His record as governor was absolutely abysmal. He lied while campaigning in order to garner support and get elected. Just as Trump is doing now.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:08 PM
I'm not doing that. I haven't made more than five or six posts on Trump since he announced. I appreciate that Trump had the balls to bring up immigration, and it's fun to see him tell the PC cops to go fuck themselves, but I'm not on board with him. I don't think he's in it for the long haul, and even if he got elected, President Trump would likely not resemble candidate Trump all that closely.

You are not one of the 5 Trumpsters I was thinking about. I have reasons other than Trump to consider you non-credible.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:10 PM
What an ego on you. Now if you want to promote Trump, the exit is at the top right of your screen.

lol. You're the one with the ego.

He told you that what you were implying was NOT TRUE. Man, you get an A+ in defamation of character.


That is simply not true at least for me. Show me where I have done that?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:12 PM
lol. You're the one with the ego.

He told you that what you were implying was NOT TRUE. Man, you get an A+ in defamation of character.

Do you think I support Jeb Bush, yes or no? This is not a hard question to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

Do you believe that I support Jeb Bush or not?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:12 PM
You are not one of the 5 Trumpsters I was thinking about. I have reasons other than Trump to consider you non-credible.

What a fantastic way of winning someone over, Gunny.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:13 PM
Do you think I support Jeb Bush, yes or no? This is not a hard question to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

Do you believe that I support Jeb Bush or not?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:14 PM
Do you think I support Jeb Bush, yes or no? This is not a hard question to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

Do you believe that I support Jeb Bush or not?

OPEN YOUR DAMN EARS. i NEVER SAID YOU DID.

It's your paranoid delusional behavior. Do you honestly believe you are helping Rand? If I had just come to this forum or was looking on, I would want to get the hell away from your crazy behavior and anyone you claim to support.

klamath
08-20-2015, 10:15 PM
That's fine and dandy, but do you really think they tailored their methodology to favor Donald Trump? In fact, the Washington Post, a publication that is hostile to Trump, did a survey on Trump supporters and found them to be much younger than originally estimated. A new paradigm is at work in these uncertain times. People care less about political correctness and are more concerned about bold results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/10/is-donald-trumps-base-just-the-tea-party-reborn-not-exactly/Trump is getting 25% of just the republicans. 75% Are NOT supporting him and very likely won't ever. I know I won't. He IS exactly the type of politician I hate. Bribes politicians and then says it is because of the system just like McCain did with campaign finance reform when he got caught in the keating 5 scandal. Has flipfloped on almost every major issue in very recent years., Pro abortion including partial birth, Treats women like objects, Used imminent domain to kick people out of their homes, Inherited his wealth, dodged the draft, follows john Bolton as his foreign policy advisor, supported the bailouts, supported Obama stimulus, supports single payer healthcare, God I could go on all night.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:16 PM
OPEN YOUR DAMN EARS. i NEVER SAID YOU DID.

Then why did you say so here?



You think you will be more free with Bush, do you?



It's your paranoid delusional behavior. Do you honestly believe you are helping Rand? If I had just come to this forum or was looking on, I would want to get the hell away from your crazy behavior and anyone you claim to support.

Good. Then do what you say and get the hell away. I don't truck with liars.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 10:16 PM
What a fantastic way of winning someone over, Gunny.

How does one 'win over' someone who is only here to appear to be a pro-Rand stormfronter, then (as he admitted above) flip flop when another agenda designed to torpedo Rand Paul comes to the fore?

Because whether for pay, or to torpedo the one candidate in the race who thinks in terms of individuals instead of demographics, your loyalties are obvious. And not the same as ours.


Trump is getting 25% of just the republicans. 75% Are NOT supporting him and very likely won't ever. I know I won't. He IS exactly the type of politician I hate. Bribes politicians and then says it is because of the system just like McCain did with campaign finance reform when he got caught in the keating 5 scandal. Has flipfloped on almost every major issue in very recent years., Pro abortion including partial birth, Treats women like objects, Used imminent domain to kick people out of their homes, Inherited his wealth, dodged the draft, follows john Bolton as his foreign policy advisor, supported the bailouts, supported Obama stimulus, supports single payer healthcare, God I could go on all night.

Principle is passe'. Time to abandon everyone the MSM doesn't approve of because it's too much work to set the record straight, and find an excuse to prostitute yourself for whatever establishment stooge catches your fancy.

Because it appears that somehow, in the last three years, the lesser evil ceased to be evil.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 10:16 PM
You are not one of the 5 Trumpsters I was thinking about. I have reasons other than Trump to consider you non-credible.
I don't care what you consider me. At all.

It's funny, I was first called a shill because I was trying to make Rand Paul look racist through my support of him. Now I'm called a shill because I've been critical of his (so far) lousy campaign. The paranoid retards need to get their narratives straight.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:17 PM
Do you all see what tolerating Trumpspam is doing to these forums?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:21 PM
How does one 'win over' someone who is only here to appear to be a pro-Rand stormfronter, then (as he admitted above) flip flop when another agenda designed to torpedo Rand Paul comes to the fore?

She's just saying whatever the hell she thinks will hurt me. I don't think she believes any of it, she's just trying to cause pain. She accused me of sexual perversion the other day simply for opposing Trump, and for opposing the spamming of Trump on these forums. I didn't report it, but someone must have because they deleted the post. It's pretty clear to me that because I refuse to walk in lock-step with her she will do anything and everything she can to try and hurt me. Only, it doesn't hurt, I find it rather pathetic what has become of her. Several years ago, she used to have principles, and was willing to work together to advance the cause of liberty. Now she's just a sadist, attacking people and telling lies on them for failing to slavishly agree with everything she says.

Anti Federalist
08-20-2015, 10:22 PM
Well, at least you're honest about it.

Even though I happen to agree with a lot of those things, and do not toe the "standard" libertarian party line on trade and immigration, I can tell you this, after growing up in the same area as Trump, watching his career for almost forty years, watching what he did in AC up close, among so many other things and decades of self promotion, I can tell you this:

He's an empty suit and playing some kind of game here.

You will not get what you think you are buying, if you hitch your wagon to Trump.


Hey guys, I'll give you another target, to get you off of Kahless' back.

I support Rand first, but if he doesn't make it, the way things stand right now, I will be voting for Trump. Why, you ask? I fully realize he is far from ideal and could be a total POS, but I *know* Bush will be. So, none of that for me. I also have eyes and know that if we don't do squat to stop the illegal invasion of our country and at the very least, swing the sucky trade deals more to our favor post haste, our nation is complete TOAST!! Now, I would prefer to just end all entitlements, first for the illegals and get us out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF and ALL of the trade deals from Nafta on up, but guess what, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I don't think we have much time left. So, even if Trump keeps the wars going and all the other crappy stuff, if he even did one positive thing, it would be one helluva lot better than the crap we have been getting for quite some time by both R and D establishment figures.

Attack at your leisure. I have a thick skin. Nor, do I give a shit what you think. ;)

NOTE: All you guys having fits over anyone who doesn't just foam at the mouth about Trump, tell me, what are you doing posting here, when you could be dialing your little fingers off, assisting Rand's campaign? He has a calling program, you know. Don't you think that would be a better way to spend your time?

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 10:22 PM
How does one 'win over' someone who is only here to appear to be a pro-Rand stormfronter, then (as he admitted above) flip flop when another agenda designed to torpedo Rand Paul comes to the fore?
I have never once posted on stormfront. Not once. I have to endure you plebes constantly calling me a "stormfronter" because I know certain facts about race that terrify little weaklings like you.

I want to know what happened to you. What makes a person so deranged, that you see anyone who accepts a different narrative than them as a paid shill? This is not the behavior of a rational, well adjusted person. If you want to think of me as some horrible white supremacist, fine, but my opinions are my own. No one is paying me to be here.

AuH20
08-20-2015, 10:22 PM
Trump is getting 25% of just the republicans. 75% Are NOT supporting him and very likely won't ever. I know I won't. He IS exactly the type of politician I hate. Bribes politicians and then says it is because of the system just like McCain did with campaign finance reform when he got caught in the keating 5 scandal. Has flipfloped on almost every major issue in very recent years., Pro abortion including partial birth, Treats women like objects, Used imminent domain to kick people out of their homes, Inherited his wealth, dodged the draft, follows john Bolton as his foreign policy advisor, supported the bailouts, supported Obama stimulus, supports single payer healthcare, God I could go on all night.

If he wins both NH and Iowa and doesn't trip up, the mere novelty of his campaign will grab another 10 to 15% of that supposed untouchable 75%. Voters fall in line for the victor.

jj-
08-20-2015, 10:23 PM
Because being here illegally severely hampers employment opportunities under current law. But when you get rid of the means of enforcing the law by making employers report information about whom they hire to the government, you effectively get rid of the law. It just becomes a symbolic gesture. Sure, some people will respect it, such as many Christians who have been indoctrinated with the heresy that God commands them to obey whatever the government says, just like some people do that already. But the government would have no teeth for such a law. Note again the phrase I used, "for all intents and purposes," without tracking employment and renting, the border would be open.

I disagree that having a situation where not everyone can come legally is consistent with having "open borders for all intents and purposes". In my view, "open borders for all intents and purposes" occurs when it is legal for everyone to come, that's why I agree that you're spreading misinformation about Rand and Ron's views.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:27 PM
Well, at least you're honest about it.

Even though I happen to agree with a lot of those things, and do not toe the "standard" libertarian party line on trade and immigration, I can tell you this, after growing up in the same area as Trump, watching his career for almost forty years, watching what he did in AC up close, among so many other things and decades of self promotion, I can tell you this:

He's an empty suit and playing some kind of game here.

You will not get what you think you are buying, if you hitch your wagon to Trump.

HAVE YOU GUYS BECOME FRICKIN' MORONS???

I have said over and over that I am supporting Rand, and will be, unless he drops out of the race, or loses the primary.

If that isn't enough for you, then you know where to stick it.

Seriously, your behavior is not attracting anyone. You're acting like a bunch of wannabe bullies.

kahless
08-20-2015, 10:27 PM
I was consistently praising Rand before his campaign started to falter. If he gets it back on track, I'll be praising him again. Unlike you, I'm not some sycophant who will laud everything he does, regardless of how good it is. You are a paranoid moron who understands absolutely nothing. Dunning-Kruger personified.

Thats where I am at with Rand and acptulsa, which I think stands for "a cult of paul tulsa".


I have never once posted on stormfront. Not once. I have to endure you plebes constantly calling me a "stormfronter" because I know certain facts about race that terrify little weaklings like you.

I want to know what happened to you. What makes a person so deranged, that you see anyone who accepts a different narrative than them as a paid shill? This is not the behavior of a rational, well adjusted person. If you want to think of me as some horrible white supremacist, fine, but my opinions are my own. No one is paying me to be here.

It is his standard debate tactic, I have never visited or posted there or post anything racist in these forums yet he went so far as to list me as a stormfronter in his signature. LOL.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 10:32 PM
It is his standard debate tactic, I have never visited or posted there or post anything racist in these forums yet he went so far as to list me as a stormfronter in his signature. LOL.
That's all these plebes know. "Hurrrr durrrr, yurr a strrrrmfrrrntrrr hurrr durrr yurr a siprimisisssst". I'm not even a white nationalist, let alone a supremacist. My opinions on race were shared by Murray fucking Rothbard for fuck's sake! I guess he was a stormfronter too. These are deeply stupid people, old men who have no idea how to grapple with concepts outside of their currently held preconceptions.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:32 PM
Then why did you say so here?

What's the matter, big man. Did you skip 1st grade when they taught what the question mark meant?


Good. Then do what you say and get the hell away.
Make me, big boy. You don't own these forums.


I don't truck with liars.
Then you had better figure out how to get away from yourself.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 10:35 PM
Well. The Trumpsters have certainly shown their true colors in this thread.

'I never posted on stormfront.com.' Not denying being paid to troll, and not denying trying to spam a forum dedicated to individuals with a bunch of collectivism. 'I'm not a racist, but I play one on the internet.'

Hooray.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:36 PM
That's all these plebes know. "Hurrrr durrrr, yurr a strrrrmfrrrntrrr hurrr durrr yurr a siprimisisssst". I'm not even a white nationalist, let alone a supremacist. My opinions on race were shared by Murray fucking Rothbard for fuck's sake! I guess he was a stormfronter too. These are deeply stupid people, old men who have no idea how to grapple with concepts outside of their currently held preconceptions.

I can understand why they wouldn't think this forum was the best place to have such discussions, since we are actually trying to get someone elected. But, that's no excuse for you being called a stormfronter. It's disgusting. If they had an issue, they should have flagged it for the Mods and taken it to Bryan, if they believed that strongly.

garyallen59
08-20-2015, 10:36 PM
Do you all see what tolerating Trumpspam is doing to these forums?

Yes. It's tearing it apart. Making it nearly impossible to discuss anything rationally and calmly without concern trolls ready to devour every little piece of optimism and productivity. Yet it continues. I have no idea why something isn't being done. Some of the loudest and most active voices on this forum are those that are actively campaigning against the candidate we are trying to elect. That is not OK.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:38 PM
Well. The Trumpsters have certainly shown their true colors in this thread.

Who has shown their true colors is some of you guys. Just wow. What the hell happened to you? You seriously need to take a break. This isn't like you.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:41 PM
Yes. It's tearing it apart. Making it nearly impossible to discuss anything rationally and calmly without concern trolls ready to devour every little piece of optimism and productivity. Yet it continues. I have no idea why something isn't being done. Some of the loudest and most active voices on this forum are those that are actively campaigning against the candidate we are trying to elect. That is not OK.

I have seen ONE person on here who has thrown in the towel. And even he, I think would come back to Rand, if he saw Rand getting more active and vocal. But, yes, if all he can say is something bashing Rand, then he probably should take a break from here.

The people causing the most problem though, in my opinion, are the ones highlighting it ad nauseum. Because they are giving it more light than it otherwise would have had.

jj-
08-20-2015, 10:44 PM
I have never once posted on stormfront. Not once. I have to endure you plebes constantly calling me a "stormfronter" because I know certain facts about race that terrify little weaklings like you.

I want to know what happened to you. What makes a person so deranged, that you see anyone who accepts a different narrative than them as a paid shill? This is not the behavior of a rational, well adjusted person. If you want to think of me as some horrible white supremacist, fine, but my opinions are my own. No one is paying me to be here.

It's clear some people use this place as an outlet for their anger and things like that. The behavior is so over the top that it's clear it's not about the issues.

ThePaleoLibertarian
08-20-2015, 10:46 PM
I can understand why they wouldn't think this forum was the best place to have such discussions, since we are actually trying to get someone elected. But, that's no excuse for you being called a stormfronter. It's disgusting. If they had an issue, they should have flagged it for the Mods and taken it to Bryan, if they believed that strongly.
Whether Rand is elected or not, this forum will have (at best) a negligible effect on his campaign. Most people here like Rand; those that don't tend to be doctrinaire ancaps who won't vote for anyone other than Ron Paul (if that). That's why the "shill" accusation is so stupid. Shills for Trump wouldn't be here, they would be on Twitter or somewhere like that, where they could convince fence-sitters. Not many of those around here.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:48 PM
What's the matter, big man. Did you skip 1st grade when they taught what the question mark meant?


Make me, big boy. You don't own these forums.


Then you had better figure out how to get away from yourself.

I'm not the one lying on people with the sadistic intent to cause them hurt, that would be you. I am a man of principle. I have held my same principles now for 30 years. I have not changed, neither in principle nor in practice. You loved me when you agreed with me, and now that you disagree with me, you freak the fk out and are lying about me and desperately trying to cause me harm and pain. That is not the sign of a rational or balanced person.

I do not lie about people to hurt them, but you do, and it's disgusting. I am not a sadist, you are, and you should repent. The Lord God will not look very kindly on your bearing false witness against people with the deliberate intent to make them hurt and cause them harm.

I do not enjoy seeing people hurt, but you seem to glee at the thought of hurting those who you disagree with. You have become an embarrassment to the liberty movement, and frankly it would be very beneficial to the Ron Paul movement as a whole if you went full neocon and started embarrassing them for a while instead.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:50 PM
I'm not the one lying on people with the sadistic intent to cause them hurt, that would be you. I am a man of principle. I have held my same principles now for 30 years. I have not changed, neither in principle nor in practice. You loved me when you agreed with me, and now that you disagree with me, you freak the fk out and are lying about me and desperately trying to cause me harm and pain. That is not the sign of a rational or balanced person.

I do not lie about people to hurt them, but you do, and it's disgusting. I am not a sadist, you are, and you should repent. The Lord God will not look very kindly on your lying about people with the deliberate intent to make them hurt and cause them harm.

I do not enjoy seeing people hurt, but you seem to glee at the thought of hurting those who you disagree with. You have become an embarrassment to the liberty movement, and frankly it would be very beneficial to the Ron Paul movement as a whole if you went full neocon and started embarrassing them for a while instead.

:rolleyes:

You need to learn how to read. That might solve your problem. Don't know. But, it might.

You are creating issues out of thin air, Gunny. I asked you a question. You misinterpreted it as a statement. If you go back and read it, you might get it. You have a problem with me saying that if Rand does not win the nomination, that the way things stand now, if Trump wins the nomination, that I will vote for him in the General. You didn't like it, so I asked you if you preferred Bush, or something like that. What I meant was that, in my opinion, Bush is no better. I hope a miracle occurs and Rand is able to win the nomination. But, if he doesn't, I think we will be getting Trump or Bush. If that's the case, I prefer Trump over Bush. Thus, my question to you.

You misunderstood and proceeded to throw a royal temper tantrum like a little child.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 10:50 PM
Who has shown their true colors is some of you guys. Just wow. What the hell happened to you? You seriously need to take a break. This isn't like you.

Bullshit. I'm doing nothing to these Trumpchumps that I didn't do to thousands of Obamabots who came here trying to convince me to abandon my principles in the desperate hope for a little chump change.

You, meanwhile, would have banned this lot in a moment back then, and brooked no questions about it. So don't tell me who has changed.


The people causing the most problem though, in my opinion, are the ones highlighting it ad nauseum. Because they are giving it more light than it otherwise would have had.

Let the bullshit stand right in our own house in the vain hope that fewer people will notice it?

No. That's not why I'm here. If you want to see bullshit go unanswered, tune into Fox.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:51 PM
:rolleyes:

You need to learn how to read. That might solve your problem. Don't know. But, it might.

Do you actually believe that I am illiterate? Or are you bearing false witness against me, yet again? Is this how you act in your everyday life?

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 10:54 PM
Who has shown their true colors is some of you guys. Just wow. What the hell happened to you? You seriously need to take a break. This isn't like you.

You are clearly the one who has changed. Someone tickles your ears the right way and you abandon all those principles you used to claim at the drop of a hat. Some book somewhere written long ago had something to say about that.

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/rpf/2015_08JUL/trump1.jpg

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 10:59 PM
Bullshit. I'm doing nothing to these Trumpchumps that I didn't do to thousands of Obamabots who came here trying to convince me to abandon my principles in the desperate hope for a little chump change.

You, meanwhile, would have banned this lot in a moment back then, and brooked no questions about it. So don't tell me who has changed.

I see no "lot", besides AuH20, and I would have given him quite a bit of rope since he had been an active Paul supporter for so long. But, yes, at this point, I would have asked him to take leave. So, no, I haven't changed on that.

The question is, why aren't you talking to the current Mods and/or Bryan, if you think something should be done that isn't?

You running around calling people "stormfronters", isn't helping anything and it makes you appear horribly.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 11:00 PM
I have seen ONE person on here who has thrown in the towel.

All that proves is that you are not very observant. You really think all this entire foofaraw spammed all over the entire breadth of all of these forums over the last two months is just over one solitary person who you think just doesn't know whether or not he should support Rand?

ALL OF THIS crap, because ONE PERSON doesn't know who he wants to support?

Does telling yourself this make it easier to attack those of us who still have actual principles?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:01 PM
You are clearly the one who has changed. Someone tickles your ears the right way and you abandon all those principles you used to claim at the drop of a hat. Some book somewhere written long ago had something to say about that.


Gunny studies at the Goebbels school.

https://theredpillnation.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/tell-a-lie-long-enough-goebbels.jpg

I have said over and over again, that I will be voting for Rand.

jj-
08-20-2015, 11:01 PM
Not only calling them stormfronters, he also accused them of being paid, but if you look at their post history, AuH20 and David Sadler, and others, were saying the same things about immigration that are triggering the accusations of being paid, way before Trump announced.

garyallen59
08-20-2015, 11:01 PM
Who has shown their true colors is some of you guys. Just wow. What the hell happened to you? You seriously need to take a break. This isn't like you.

I've visited this forum at least once a day since the day I registered in 2007. You are the one who has changed.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:03 PM
All that proves is that you are not very observant. You really think all this entire foofaraw spammed all over the entire breadth of all of these forums over the last two months is just over one solitary person who you think just doesn't know whether or not he should support Rand?

ALL OF THIS crap, because ONE PERSON doesn't know who he wants to support?

Does telling yourself this make it easier to attack those of us who still have actual principles?

I have watched what you have been doing on here and it is scary. It is nothing that Ron would support.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 11:03 PM
You running around calling people "stormfronters", isn't helping anything and it makes you appear horribly.

Even Jesus says He can't help people who have no eyes to see. But for everyone else, I'm happy to provide a clue as to which post histories reveal interesting motivations.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:03 PM
I've visited this forum at least once a day since the day I registered in 2007. You are the one who has changed.

How so?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:04 PM
Even Jesus says He can't help people who have no eyes to see. But for everyone else, I'm happy to provide a clue as to which post histories reveal interesting motivations.

Then report him. Write Bryan a note. It's not like before when the owner was AWOL.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 11:11 PM
Gunny studies at the Goebbels school.

https://theredpillnation.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/tell-a-lie-long-enough-goebbels.jpg

I have said over and over again, that I will be voting for Rand.

I don't care who you vote for. You attack people to deliberately cause them harm for the sin of merely disagreeing with you. That's sick. I don't want votes from sadists like you. You are the one bearing false witness against me, and now you accuse me of being Goebbels because I took offense at being lied about? Really? Really??

You are sick, and you need help. I don't know what in the hell has happened to you, but you have turned into a monster. You are nothing like you used to be. You have changed dramatically, and very much for the worse. Go promote some other candidate...PLEASE. Go lose votes for them instead of losing votes for Rand. You are not helping. You are actively harming the liberty movement, and if you care about Ron Paul and Rand Paul at all, then you should stop.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:16 PM
I don't care who you vote for. You attack people to deliberately cause them harm for the sin of merely disagreeing with you. That's sick. I don't want votes from sadists like you. You are the one bearing false witness against me, and now you accuse me of being Goebbels because I took offense at being lied about? Really? Really??
Wow. Yes, because you keep claiming I lied about you and I never did. I even took the time to attempt to help you clear your delusion. But, here you go again. Stating the same lie over and over again. That is exactly what Goebbels was talking about.


You are sick, and you need help. I don't know what in the hell has happened to you, but you have turned into a monster. You are nothing like you used to be. You have changed dramatically, and very much for the worse. Go promote some other candidate...PLEASE. Go lose votes for them instead of losing votes for Rand. You are not helping. You are actively harming the liberty movement, and if you care about Ron Paul and Rand Paul at all, then you should stop.

Gunny, you are the one doing harm to the liberty movement. In your delusion, you are suggesting that someone be ousted who has said multiple times that they are voting for Rand. I also haven't been running around here cutting him down. Yet, that's not good enough for the self-ordained hangman.

You are making an ass out of yourself.

How about you do something productive and start making phone calls for Rand?

garyallen59
08-20-2015, 11:21 PM
How so?

In recent years you have become quite a hostile and angry person. You were much more level-headed in the past.

You need to realize that this discussion wouldn't be happening if several of us members, many longstanding, didn't feel like something was amiss here. I bring this up because I sincerely believe it is hindering production and discouraging people. Hell, I get discouraged by it and I am a strong willed guy who doesn't sway easy. People come here excited about Rand Paul and leave discouraged because of these people. It should not continue. We don't have to see eye to eye on everything here, and no one expects that, but we do need to share one goal and that is promote Rand and promote liberty. Not continue to be enamored by a candidate who does not promote liberty, but makes people feel good because he is stirring things up. He's just a bull headed jerk. We should not even be considering at this point, "well if Rand doesn't get the nom, I'll vote Trump." If you truly support Rand and I believe you do, the goal is simple, make sure people know why Rand Paul should be the candidate they vote for. And let's work as a team to do so. Let's post the positives and work with them, and let's post the negatives and work them out in a rational non-defeatist matter.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 11:22 PM
I have watched what you have been doing on here and it is scary. It is nothing that Ron would support.

Ron Paul would very much support people standing on principle and defending what is right and good. Ron Paul would very much support our rejection of Trump. I have not changed a whit in 20 years, and once again you are trying to cause pain with words. It's pathetic. When did you become a sadist? Ron Paul himself said that I stand exclusively on principle and will fight for right good and truth against all odds.

Are you saying that Ron Paul himself is wrong about me?

Or are you willing to consider maybe, just maybe, you are the one who has lost her way?


Dear Friends in Liberty,Our R3VOLUTION is growing by leaps and bounds!

Today, I’d like to endorse – and urge you to vote for – Representative Glen Bradley for North Carolina State Senate District 18 in the May 8 Republican Primary.

Like you, Glen firmly believes in our founding principles of individual liberty, free markets, sound money, and constitutional government.

A Marine Corps veteran, he’s never once wavered in his convictions during his time in the State House – even when it meant standing against his own Party.

When Washington bureaucrats attempted to take over our entire food industry, Representative Bradley fought against them by introducing the Farmer’s Freedom Protection Act.

On every single issue – from guns to taxes to unnecessary regulations on small businesses to REAL ID – Representative Bradley has courageously fought Washington’s attempts to force federal rules and regulations on the good folks in North Carolina.

In fact, because of his efforts, he’s considered one of the leading advocates for using the Tenth Amendment to block federal regulations.

He’s also considered one of the leading advocates for sound money in the country, introducing legislation in North Carolina to allow silver and gold to once again be legal tender and speaking out on this issue on national TV.

If you agree that we need more principled men and women like Representative Bradley in office, then I hope you’ll agree to vote for Glen – and make a generous donation to his State Senate campaign if you can (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).

Glen doesn’t have – nor want – the special interest lobby funding his campaign.

He’s not a career politician. In fact, Glen was never involved in politics at all before he was inspired by my 2008 presidential run.

Instead, Glen is a true Patriot who is fed up with the corruption in government – and wants to do something about it.

And since the special interest lobby knows he’s running to put the brakes on their Big Government gravy train, you can be sure they’re going all out to defeat him during the upcoming May 8 Republican Primary.

That’s why Glenn is counting on good folks like you – who truly value individual liberty and freedom – to help him lead the fight against Big Government in the North Carolina State Senate.

You can do that by voting for Glen in the May 8 Republican Primary – and by contributing to his campaign (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).

Like Glen, I know what it’s like to take on the entire political establishment.

I’ve been doing it for more than 30 years now.

I’m confident that – with the help and support of folks like you – Glen has a great chance of becoming the next State Senator in District 18.

So please, help Glen fight the political establishment by voting for him for the State Senate on May 8 and by making a generous donation to his campaign (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).
You won’t be disappointed you did!

For Liberty,
http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/cimages/9e1a03df3a024e863ece9f4018b8c898/RPsig.jpg
Ron Paul

P.S. I’m proud to endorse Representative Glen Bradley’s campaign for State Senate, and I hope you’ll vote for him in the Tuesday, May 8 Republican primary and make a generous contribution to his campaign.

Glen firmly believes in our founding principles of individual liberty, free markets, sound money, and constitutional government.

Please help Glen Bradley fight for liberty in the State Senate by voting for him and by donating to his State Senate campaign (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).




Paid for by Liberty PAC.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
www.Libertypac.net (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454405:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r)

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:26 PM
In recent years you have become quite a hostile and angry person. You were much more level-headed in the past.
I can see why you would think that, but it's not the case. What is true is that one, I no longer have to put up with being attacked and two, I have always stood up for the little guy. I honestly think some of you guys would benefit from taking a break. Because if you are here every day and never get away, I think there is a tendency to become what you once hated.


You need to realize that this discussion wouldn't be happening if several of us members, many longstanding, didn't feel like something was amiss here. I bring this up because I sincerely believe it is hindering production and discouraging people. Hell, I get discouraged by it and I am a strong willed guy who doesn't sway easy. People come here excited about Rand Paul and leave discouraged because of these people. It should not continue. We don't have to see eye to eye on everything here, and no one expects that, but we do need to share one goal and that is promote Rand and promote liberty. Not continue to be enamored by a candidate who does not promote liberty, but makes people feel good because he is stirring things up. He's just a bull headed jerk. We should not even be considering at this point, "well if Rand doesn't get the nom, I'll vote Trump." If you truly support Rand and I believe you do, the goal is simple, make sure people know why Rand Paul should be the candidate they vote for. And let's work as a team to do so. Let's post the positives and work with them, and let's post the negatives and work them out in a rational non-defeatist matter.

Then flag it for the Mods and/or send Bryan a message. That's always been the way. It's nothing new.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 11:26 PM
Wow. Yes, because you keep claiming I lied about you and I never did. I even took the time to attempt to help you clear your delusion. But, here you go again. Stating the same lie over and over again. That is exactly what Goebbels was talking about.



Gunny, you are the one doing harm to the liberty movement. In your delusion, you are suggesting that someone be ousted who has said multiple times that they are voting for Rand. I also haven't been running around here cutting him down. Yet, that's not good enough for the self-ordained hangman.

You are making an ass out of yourself.

How about you do something productive and start making phone calls for Rand?

The only reason we are arguing, is because you are being mean and nasty, and accusing everyone else of horrible things merely because they have the audacity to disagree with Your Highness. There is an ass in this conversation alright, and she needs to stop.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 11:28 PM
Gunny studies at the Goebbels school.

https://theredpillnation.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/tell-a-lie-long-enough-goebbels.jpg

I have said over and over again, that I will be voting for Rand.

There was a time you had no use at all for a flip flopper like Trump, and could have understood that he was controlled opposition. Even if you do still consider Rand Paul your 'first choice', that is still a shift of viewpoint--and not in the direction of principle.

There was also a time when you would not have accused Gunny of being some kind of Goebbels. Especially in a thread full of Trump spammers who are daily repeating lies in the hopes that repetition will make them believable.

And there was a time when you'd have banned people for falsely comparing Gunny to Goebbels.

Just the facts, ma'am.

If we need a break, then by all means give us a break.


Not only calling them stormfronters, he also accused them of being paid, but if you look at their post history, AuH20 and David Sadler, and others, were saying the same things about immigration that are triggering the accusations of being paid, way before Trump announced.

Just trying to give you people the benefit of the doubt. Because if you people really are doing for free what the Establishment is paying thousands of people to do, then your behavior is not only unprincipled, but downright foolish.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 11:28 PM
I can see why you would think that, but it's not the case. What is true is that one, I no longer have to put up with being attacked.

LMAO you seriously think you are the one being attacked? :eek: This entire argument is over YOU attacking US. You really, really need help.

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:29 PM
Ron Paul would very much support people standing on principle and defending what is right and good. Ron Paul would very much support our rejection of Trump. I have not changed a whit in 20 years, and once again you are trying to cause pain with words. It's pathetic. When did you become a sadist? Ron Paul himself said that I stand exclusively on principle and will fight for right good and truth against all odds.

Are you saying that Ron Paul himself is wrong about me?

Or are you willing to consider maybe, just maybe, you are the one who has lost her way?

So, you are saying that because you were a one-term Congressman, that you have Carte Blanche to insult the hell out of people on these forums and decide who is welcome in the liberty movement and who isn't? Really? This forum belongs to Bryan; not you, not me.

Note: What did you do with this post, Gunny, including that big 'ol graphic with Ron's letter of support for your candidacy?

LibertyEagle
08-20-2015, 11:30 PM
The only reason we are arguing, is because you are being mean and nasty, and accusing everyone else of horrible things merely because they have the audacity to disagree with Your Highness. There is an ass in this conversation alright, and she needs to stop.

Disagree with what? Disagree with you repeatedly calling me a liar for something I never said?

Disagree with me saying I would likely vote for Trump in the General if he was the Republican nominee, the way things stand right now? I don't care if you agree or not. Doesn't matter to me at all. Knock your socks off.


LMAO you seriously think you are the one being attacked? :eek: This entire argument is over YOU attacking US. You really, really need help.

Seriously, you need a break, Gunny. That is the kindest thing I can say to you at this point.

kahless
08-20-2015, 11:34 PM
You attack people to deliberately cause them harm for the sin of merely disagreeing with you.

That is a bit hypocritical to accuse LE of that considering you spent a large part of this thread doing the same to me.


The only reason we are arguing, is because you are being mean and nasty, and accusing everyone else of horrible things merely because they have the audacity to disagree with Your Highness. There is an ass in this conversation alright, and she needs to stop.

Listen to yourself. Get a grip.


LMAO you seriously think you are the one being attacked? :eek: This entire argument is over YOU attacking US. You really, really need help.

Listen to yourself. It is really the other way around.

This is all on you. I think we all can agree to disagree. Peace out. Really.

acptulsa
08-20-2015, 11:36 PM
That is a bit hypocritical to accuse LE of that considering you spent a large part of this thread doing the same to me.

Care to go back and take a look at the mission statement for this website...?

garyallen59
08-20-2015, 11:37 PM
I can see why you would think that, but it's not the case. What is true is that one, I no longer have to put up with being attacked and two, I have always stood up for the little guy. I honestly think some of you guys would benefit from taking a break. Because if you are here every day and never get away, I think there is a tendency to become what you once hated.

I don't sit on here like a zombie, ya know, pouring over every thread. I come here in leisure time and read something that catches my eye. I need no break and have not become some weird thing that I once hated, whatever that means. I'm more active now because I feel I have to be because we don't have as many motivators around here anymore. I like to hang back and chill that's my way but if I gotta step up and call people to action and work my butt off I will.
.

Then flag it for the Mods and/or send Bryan a message. That's always been the way. It's nothing new.

Really. Thats all you had to say about that. Dang, I thought that was one of those movie speeches that changes people's hearts. :cool: Oh, well I tried.

jj-
08-20-2015, 11:38 PM
Just trying to give you people the benefit of the doubt. Because if you people really are doing for free what the Establishment is paying thousands of people to do, then your behavior is not only unprincipled, but downright foolish.

The person who falsely calls others "stormfronters" likes to give them the benefit of the doubt? Ok.

GunnyFreedom
08-20-2015, 11:41 PM
So, you are saying that because you were a one-term Congressman,

I was never in Congress, but thanks for that dig. :rolleyes:


that you have Carte Blanche to insult the hell out of people

I am guessing they do not have mirrors on your planet? This whole thing here has blown up because of you attacking people whom you disagree with. This isn't me, ACPTulsa, klamath, GaryAllen, and so on, this is you lashing out at people, and people defending themselves against your sadistic attacks.

You attack people, lie on them, and then lose you mind when we don;t just roll over and take it? What the hell is wrong with you?


on these forums and decide who is welcome in the liberty movement and who isn't? Really? This forum belongs to Bryan; not you, not me.

I don't go crying to 'authority' whenever people attack me, I defend myself. If you don't like it, then you should stop attacking people for having the audacity to disagree with Your Highness, because if you keep attacking me, then I will keep defending myself against your lies.

If you want me to stop defending myself against you lies, the answer is simple. Stop doing it.

You are the one running around attacking me, and then getting offended when I fight back.

If my defending myself from your attacks bothers you that much that you want me to go to Bryan, then the answer is really simple: stop attacking me.

Stop attacking us, and we will no longer need to defend ourselves against your hostility. Problem solved, right?

Or can you simply just not resist trying to hurt those of us who still have principles?

Is it the fact that we have principles why you are attacking us?

Or do you not like how we look? Maybe you just don't like the cut of our jib.

Either way, you are the one attacking us, and we are the ones defending our honor from your venom.

Don't like it? The stop spitting venom at us and it stops.

You are the one who is wrong here, and you really do need to repent.