Mark Sanford Loses SC Seat In Primary

[angelatc]

A huge loss for the Freedom Caucus. We're losing ground now.

https://www.postandcourier.com/politics/mark-sanford-concedes-to-katie-arrington-in-sc-district-race/article_f2087f8e-6cc8-11e8-baa2-9fcd285d9c08.html


n a monumental upset fueled by a Donald Trump tweet, U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford lost his Republican primary to Katie Arrington, a one-term state lawmaker who made loyalty to the president the centerpiece of her campaign.

The defeat, which carries national implications, marks the first time Sanford has lost an election, which began with his first congressional bid in this very district in 1994.

President Trump — making a move unprecedented in South Carolina history — in a late afternoon tweet asked state voters to replace Sanford with Arrington, going so far as to say Sanford is "better off in Argentina," a reference to his adulterous affair when he was governor in 2009.

[RonZeplin]

Unfortunately Dick Cheney's Neocon Revival of 2014 lives on under the leadership of NYC progressive globalist President, Donald J. Trump.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxdZd90YCCE

KIckoff announcement for the Neocon Revival of 2014

[Swordsmyth]

:mad:

He was the 7th best member of Congress, does anyone know how good she is?

[thoughtomator]

you need votes to get elected

you need to respond to the needs of the people to get votes

the opponent did it and he didn't

it's not that hard

[RonZeplin]

:mad:

He was the 7th best member of Congress, does anyone know how good she is?

On par with Carpetbagger Liz Cheney (R-WY).

[thoughtomator]

I just saw that woman's picture... holy fucking shit on a pogo stick, that woman is ugly. Sanford must have screwed this up royally to get beat by that. Hell, you could win an election just by printing her name on a picture of her face and distributing it everywhere. DAYUM THAT UGLY ugly. I know they say politics is acting for ugly people, but they didn't mean THAT ugly. That's break the lens ugly. You really gotta fuck up to lose to ugly on that level.

[eleganz]

Mark was a bit too blunt, he should've played it Rand Paul style.

But he knew what was at stake and didn't reflect his constituents so he lost, nothing he could've done at the 11th hour, it was all about playing it cool. What a shame, I believe this is his first ever political loss?

[nikcers]

I just saw that woman's picture... holy $#@!ing $#@! on a pogo stick, that woman is ugly. Sanford must have screwed this up royally to get beat by that. Hell, you could win an election just by printing her name on a picture of her face and distributing it everywhere. DAYUM THAT UGLY ugly. I know they say politics is acting for ugly people, but they didn't mean THAT ugly. That's break the lens ugly. You really gotta $#@! up to lose to ugly on that level.
Sanford was essentially running against "Trump". Trump is going to politically destroy any opposition to the left, its far too late to do anything about it, Trump could literally shoot his vice president and get away with it.

[thoughtomator]

Sanford was essentially running against "Trump". Trump is going to politically destroy any opposition to the left, its far too late to do anything about it, Trump could literally shoot his vice president and get away with it.

How stupid does a person have to be to run against Trump right now? The man clearly has broad and deep popular support, and despite all the nail biting and fretting hasn't done anything to justify any Chicken Little fears of authoritarian dictatorship, which makes critics who claim he is look both silly and petty at once.

Hell, the man hasn't even pulled Jim Acosta's press pass, even though he long ago had more than enough justification and now is practically compelled to do it.

[nikcers]

How stupid does a person have to be to run against Trump right now? The man clearly has broad and deep popular support, and despite all the nail biting and fretting hasn't done anything to justify any Chicken Little fears of authoritarian dictatorship, which makes critics who claim he is look both silly and petty at once.

Hell, the man hasn't even pulled Jim Acosta's press pass, even though he long ago had more than enough justification and now is practically compelled to do it.

DRAIN THE SWAMP

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

[spudea]

I think its pretty obvious he didn't want to win but was too prideful to retire like a Jeff Flake.

[nobody's_hero]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

But populism isn't hipster. Gotta go against the flow, even if the flow sometimes briefly flows in a direction that benefits us. As soon as it becomes popular, it isn't cool anymore, and we're out.

[euphemia]

Yes, just what we need--more sexual shenanigans in the Senate. Sanford is a philanderer. Dude neglected the affairs of the state of South Carolina to be with some Argentine broadcaster. Sanford is why you now have Nikki Haley taking down the Confederate flag and moving on to UN Ambassador. Who actually did a lot of the negotiating in the run up to the US/DPRK summit.

[juleswin]

But populism isn't hipster. Gotta go against the flow, even if the flow sometimes briefly flows in a direction that benefits us. As soon as it becomes popular, it isn't cool anymore, and we're out.

It seems to work for Trump and his fan boys. Trump sold his candidacy with populist policies but once in office abandoned just about every single one of those policies. His anti neocon, take care of America policies were all but abandoned once he became president.

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies? Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

[juleswin]

Yes, just what we need--more sexual shenanigans in the Senate. Sanford is a philanderer. Dude neglected the affairs of the state of South Carolina to be with some Argentine broadcaster. Sanford is why you now have Nikki Haley taking down the Confederate flag and moving on to UN Ambassador. Who actually did a lot of the negotiating in the run up to the US/DPRK summit.

I say he who is without sin cast the first stone, someone made a one time boo boo in life and we want to condemn them. trump is also a sexual deviant, and philanderer/adulterer. Also, it is a fact that we got Nikki Haley in the UN because of Trump, this is not the voters or another group of ignorant people who put her in position, it was Trump. So if you want to blame anyone for Nikki Haley, blame Trump.

[juleswin]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

Who could imagine that a candidate running in a primary would dare attack the front runner. I cannot imagine anything more blasphemous than that. The fact that it did not work for him doesn't mean that it is a bad strategy to criticize Trump. Watch this next coming election how many people who criticize Trump/go against Trump supported candidates kick ass.

You look weak and impotent if you are afraid to attack the front runner. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I will not vote for anyone who is too timid and weak to confront a front runner. Not saying that is all they should be doing but if they shy away from it, I will shy away from voting for said politician(actually, I don't vote anymore). Just saying

[Superfluous Man]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy.

Apparently that's true. But another way you could say that is, "For libertarian-leaning candidates, being libertarian-leaning is not a winning strategy."

[nobody's_hero]

It seems to work for Trump and his fan boys. Trump sold his candidacy with populist policies but once in office abandoned just about every single one of those policies. His anti neocon, take care of America policies were all but abandoned once he became president.

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies? Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Sanford here. To be honest, I've no idea what Sanford did or Trump did to put the two of them at odds.

I was making reference to the libertarians who recoil in horror at the mention of populism and see it more like a turd to be scraped off the boot than something that could actually propel them into power (or non-power, considering how they'd "rule"). Trump knows how to use populism to his advantage. I'd be taking notes. But, as I said, as soon as something becomes popular, for some people it loses its appeal, and I think that's a major problem which has plagued the libertarian party's attempt to break into the mainstream. ThePaleoLibertarian is absolutely right in his comment above. Either the libertarian party starts using populism to their advantage or they will continue to wallow in obscurity.


pop·u·lism
ˈpäpyəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: populism
support for the concerns of ordinary people.


Heavens no! Can't let the libertarian party be associated with that. :rolleyes:

[oyarde]

Apparently that's true. But another way you could say that is, "For libertarian-leaning candidates, being libertarian-leaning is not a winning strategy."

That is also true . Take a hint from the dems and just hide a little .

[juleswin]

I wasn't necessarily referring to Sanford here. To be honest, I've no idea what Sanford did or Trump did to put the two of them at odds.

I was making reference to the libertarians who recoil in horror at the mention of populism and see it more like a turd to be scraped off the boot than something that could actually propel them into power (or non-power, considering how they'd "rule"). Trump knows how to use populism to his advantage. I'd be taking notes. But, as I said, as soon as something becomes popular, for some people it loses its appeal, and I think that's a major problem which has plagued the libertarian party's attempt to break into the mainstream. ThePaleoLibertarian is absolutely right in his comment above. Either the libertarian party starts using populism to their advantage or they will continue to wallow in obscurity.



Heavens no! Can't let the libertarian party be associated with that. :rolleyes:

Paleolibertarian is a Trump worshiping fan boy who disapproves of anyone that doesn't kiss Trump's ass. Just the mere idea that a politician competing with Trump for votes would dare criticize him is anathema for him. He also conflates the libertarian party with libertarian leaning republicans. I am not well read on the libertarian party so I am not going to try and argue with u there but if you are talking about libertarian leaning republicans, then he is wrong. They too support populism, how else can you explain their desire to cut taxes (popular) without cutting spending(another popular policy).

These people have shown than they would compromise their principles for party and populism. From what I have read about Sanford, he never opposed any of Trump's populist policies. He disagreed with him in areas where he was acting like a progressive and a non conservative and that caused a rift with him and Trump.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Who could imagine that a candidate running in a primary would dare attack the front runner. I cannot imagine anything more blasphemous than that. The fact that it did not work for him doesn't mean that it is a bad strategy to criticize Trump. Watch this next coming election how many people who criticize Trump/go against Trump supported candidates kick ass.

You look weak and impotent if you are afraid to attack the front runner. In fact, I will go as far as to say that I will not vote for anyone who is too timid and weak to confront a front runner. Not saying that is all they should be doing but if they shy away from it, I will shy away from voting for said politician(actually, I don't vote anymore). Just saying
It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective and I was one of the first on RPF to bring up the manifest problems when most others were just blindly following something that clearly wasn't working.

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy, but at least try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

[EBounding]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy.


It depends. Amash is doing ok--he got more votes than Trump in his district and doesn't really have a serious primary challenge. Rand on the other hand got fewer votes than Trump so he made the right decision to not go the "NeverTrump" route.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Paleolibertarian is a Trump worshiping fan boy who disapproves of anyone that doesn't kiss Trump's ass. Just the mere idea that a politician competing with Trump for votes would dare criticize him is anathema for him.
That is complete and utter garbage. You are either a liar or an idiot. Well, you are an idiot, but this statement either comes from your obvious stupidity or dishonesty. You are incapable of salient commentary of any sort, I just wonder if you're a liar in addition to that fact. I have been exceedingly even-handed with Trump and I've posted about him far less than the vast majority of people who post here. You cannot find a single post from me "kissing his ass" or anything of the kind.


He also conflates the libertarian party with libertarian leaning republicans. I am not well read on the libertarian party so I am not going to try and argue with u there but if you are talking about libertarian leaning republicans, then he is wrong.
What are you babbling about, fool? Who mentioned the Libertarian Part at all? I haven't said word one about them in this thread. The Republicans can't seem to get elected by going anti-Trump or anti-populist, but the LP can't get elected no matter what they do. They have nothing to do with this.


They too support populism, how else can you explain their desire to cut taxes (popular) without cutting spending(another popular policy).
Jeb Bush (supposedly) supported cutting taxes. That is not what this populist movement is about. This is across the Western world. It's about culture, immigration and identity. Going to people who clamor for these issues with tax cuts is doing it wrong, especially the way they sell it.


These people have shown than they would compromise their principles for party and populism. From what I have read about Sanford, he never opposed any of Trump's populist policies. He disagreed with him in areas where he was acting like a progressive and a non conservative and that caused a rift with him and Trump.
Funny thing is, I'm not even a populist. Populism is demotic in nature. I have no value for "the people" and their political will in principle. All I am doing is analyzing strategy and evaluating what works and what doesn't.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

It depends. Amash is doing ok--he got more votes than Trump in his district and doesn't really have a serious primary challenge. Rand on the other hand got fewer votes than Trump so he made the right decision to not go the "NeverTrump" route.
If going Amash is going after Trump and that really is working (as opposed to just not hurting him), great he should continue. However, I'd say that looking at the board the way it stands, that is going to be the exception, not the rule.

[Krugminator2]

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies?

Trade. Immigration. Spending bill with the wall. Not to hard to find. Google harder.


Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.

Ummm... Yeah. So.... I have no idea what prompted that statement but Rand has opposed Trump at more potential political cost than ANY other Republican in Congress. That isn't my opinion. That is fact. A non-debatable statement. He just frames his opposition in way where he is on Trump's side opposing his bad advisors.

Look at where the dot is with Rand. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

[juleswin]

It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective and I was one of the first on RPF to bring up the manifest problems when most others were just blindly following something that clearly wasn't working.

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy, but at least try to appear like you know what you're talking about.

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the Rand campaign. Personally, I think he wasted too much time talking about surveillance and the constitution. I have come to realize that nobody really cares about that document especially the particulars. Voters just want to be safe and prosper in their homeland and if that means govt surveilling their every move? they are just OK with it.

Secondly, his criticism of Trump conservative cred was the best way to attack Trump but something unusual happened, the media with its unfair attack and constant coverage of Trump, made him into a martyr for republicans to rally behind. At that point, it didn't really matter what what said or who said it, you were seen as part of the
republican enemy for criticizing Trump. Rand's strategy at the point was just fine, I can see no better way of playing it.

[juleswin]

Trade. Immigration. Spending bill with the wall. Not to hard to find. Google harder.



Ummm... Yeah. So.... I have no idea what prompted that statement but Rand has opposed Trump at more potential political cost than ANY other Republican in Congress. That isn't my opinion. That is fact. A non-debatable statement. He just frames his opposition in way where he is on Trump's side opposing his bad advisors.

Look at where the dot is with Rand. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

On criticized the aluminium and steel tariffs but those weren't the populist policies he ran on trade with. Its one thing if Sanford criticized him not signing the TPP. So I wouldn't really consider this going against his populist trade policies..

Immigration and spending bill on the wall are one issue here and this is what Sanford has said about it.


He also drew a loud rebuttal(from pro immigration group) for saying he would vote for Trump’s planned border wall or fence and that the proposal enjoyed popular support, with the caveat it needs a funding source.

http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article136327343.html

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I agree with you on the effectiveness of the Rand campaign. Personally, I think he wasted too much time talking about surveillance and the constitution. I have come to realize that nobody really cares about that document especially the particulars. Voters just want to be safe and prosper in their homeland and if that means govt surveilling their every move? they are just OK with it.
Yes, people want to be safe. It's number two on Maslow's hierarchy. This is a natural and healthy inclination that, sadly, the demotic state uses to spy on people. If you want people to go against such things you must accomplish two goals:

1. A vision of safety that doesn't need such programs
2. An emotional argument in opposition to spying programs


Secondly, his criticism of Trump conservative cred was the best way to attack Trump
Everyone was attacking Trump for his "conservative cred", you idiot! Jeb Bush was trying to woo voters by talking about how Trump would raise taxes. It was a losing strategy because Trump tapped into something visceral, on the gut level of voters, something a libertarian candidate could do, but won't because they're incapable of internalizing effective strategy.


but something unusual happened, the media with its unfair attack and constant coverage of Trump, made him into a martyr for republicans to rally behind. At that point, it didn't really matter what what said or who said it, you were seen as part of the
republican enemy for criticizing Trump. Rand's strategy at the point was just fine, I can see no better way of playing it.
This is just incoherent nonsense. "The strategy was great! Trump was martyred by the people attacking him because of the media!" It's stupid and so are you. A strategy that loses is bad strategy and no one voted for Trump because other candidates were attacking him and he was thus a "martyr".

[euphemia]

I say he who is without sin cast the first stone, someone made a one time boo boo in life and we want to condemn them.

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Maybe Sanford's hipster son, Lamont, will run. I love them classic shows!



http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/fred-sanford-heart-attack-gif-3.gif

[juleswin]

That is complete and utter garbage. You are either a liar or an idiot. Well, you are an idiot, but this statement either comes from your obvious stupidity or dishonesty. You are incapable of salient commentary of any sort, I just wonder if you're a liar in addition to that fact. I have been exceedingly even-handed with Trump and I've posted about him far less than the vast majority of people who post here. You cannot find a single post from me "kissing his ass" or anything of the kind.

Sorry to break your heart but this is my honest to God perception of you. The reverence you have for Trump and the movement that has arisen to follow him gives me that impression that you are a Trump ass kisser. So, I am being completely honest with myself here cos this is how I see you, it is the implicit vibe you exude that bring me to this conclusion. Also, your original post on this thread also didn't help with the matter. Correct me if I am wrong but I have yet to see any post of yours that is any thing but extremely favorable to Trump. Putting all of that together, it is how I came to my conclusion about u as a Trump asskisser.



What are you babbling about, fool? Who mentioned the Libertarian Part at all? I haven't said word one about them in this thread. The Republicans can't seem to get elected by going anti-Trump or anti-populist, but the LP can't get elected no matter what they do. They have nothing to do with this.

The post was a reply to No_body's replying to your post where I mistakenly conflated the posts from you two. He mentioned libertarian party and you were talking about libertarian leaning republicans those are 2 different animals. My apologies for doing that, I should have reread your post before making that post.



Jeb Bush (supposedly) supported cutting taxes. That is not what this populist movement is about. This is across the Western world. It's about culture, immigration and identity. Going to people who clamor for these issues with tax cuts is doing it wrong, especially the way they sell it.

Yes, tax cuts and spending increases are also populist policies. Yes its not a populist policy with an ethnic leaning but regardless, it is populist. Well, i should have known that your particular form of populism(anything for that matter) would be related to culture, identity etc. You might not think I know you, but I know quite a bit about you.


Funny thing is, I'm not even a populist. Populism is demotic in nature. I have no value for "the people" and their political will in principle. All I am doing is analyzing strategy and evaluating what works and what doesn't.

Why are you telling me this? how does it relate to what I posted in that last paragraph?

[timosman]

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

+rep

[juleswin]

Everyone was attacking Trump for his "conservative cred", you idiot! Jeb Bush was trying to woo voters by talking about how Trump would raise taxes. It was a losing strategy because Trump tapped into something visceral, on the gut level of voters, something a libertarian candidate could do, but won't because they're incapable of internalizing effective strategy.

Gonna say this, just because a strategy did not work doesn't mean the strategy is wrong. Maybe given the time, his personal, his personal experience, the mood of the country, the help from the media, he was the unbeatable candidate in the race? still doesn't dismiss the idea that attacking his credibility was a good strategy. I think Trump tapped in something emotional in people to the point they were more invested in him as a person than any thing he said about his policies. This is one place where I think libertarians can learn a thing or two from Trump. They need to stop being policy wonks and realize that the masses need more than anything a father figure, a leader, someone to inspire and give them hope. Trump did this better than anyone in the race and he was rewarded with the victory.


This is just incoherent nonsense. "The strategy was great! Trump was martyred by the people attacking him because of the media!" It's stupid and so are you. A strategy that loses is bad strategy and no one voted for Trump because other candidates were attacking him and he was thus a "martyr".

It is not nonsense, wikileak showed the strategy of the elite was to push and promote Trump over all the other republican candidates and they did this via a non conventional, reverse psychology sort of way. Think, addition by subtraction :) and it worked. The people in large masses fell for him. Wrong again, a strategy that loses is not automatically a bad strategy, strategies are relative and the best strategy is the one that gives you the best chance to win regardless of whether it nets you the win.

I think your problem is that you underestimate your enemy, you see them as one dimensional idiots like the people who vote. They are not, they are experienced world conquerors who have different methods to trick the average voter into voting for one of their own whilst they believed they are voting against the establishment.

[timosman]

Why are you telling me this? how does it relate to what I posted in that last paragraph?

How does your psychoanalysis relate to anything?:cool:

[pcosmar]

I mean, I know libertarian are allergic to effective political strategy,

You mean dishonesty..
You are right.. most libertarians tend to be too Honest. Truth is rarely politically correct.

[juleswin]

You mean dishonesty..
You are right.. most libertarians tend to be too Honest. Truth is rarely politically correct.

The thng is this republicans lie in campaign all the time to win election, they pledge support for very populist policies only to renege on them once they get into office, why can't the libertarians do something similar?

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Sorry to break your heart but this is my honest to God perception of you. The reverence you have for Trump and the movement that has arisen to follow him gives me that impression that you are a Trump ass kisser. So, I am being completely honest with myself here cos this is how I see you, it is the implicit vibe you exude that bring me to this conclusion. Also, your original post on this thread also didn't help with the matter. Correct me if I am wrong but I have yet to see any post of yours that is any thing but extremely favorable to Trump. Putting all of that together, it is how I came to my conclusion about u as a Trump asskisser.
Ah, so you're just a moron. Understood. I won't accuse an honest idiot like you of being a liar again! You sure set me to rights. By the way, you barely seem to be able to type in English. Just thought I'd make you aware.

Ah, it's an "implicit vibe". Gotcha. Such incredible deduction. Do you read tea leaves or do a voodoo dance? Again, name one post I have made that is overly laudatory or unrealistically pro-Trump. You won't. You can't. The truth is I've posted about the man far less than most, both on RPF and all other social media. After Rand dropped out, the banalities of the political system didn't interest me enough to comment. I'm interested in the metapolitical and statecraft, not gutter politics.



The post was a reply to No_body's replying to your post where I mistakenly conflated the posts from you two. He mentioned libertarian party and you were talking about libertarian leaning republicans those are 2 different animals. My apologies for doing that, I should have reread your post before making that post.
Unsurprising.




Yes, tax cuts and spending increases are also populist policies.
They can be, yes, but they are not necessarily. Populism isn't just something that is popular, it's a particular way of appealing to the "common man". The way tax cuts are sold to the public is usually decidedly non-populist, including Rand.


Yes its not a populist policy with an ethnic leaning but regardless, it is populist.
No one is talking about ethnic cleansing, you buffoon.


Well, i should have known that your particular form of populism(anything for that matter) would be related to culture, identity etc.
It's not my form of populism. It's a manifest populist movement sweeping the Western world. The meta-movement that elected Trump, voted for Brexit, made Marine le Pen come in second, made right-wing parties in Germany and Sweden among their most popular and is currently revolutionizing modern Italy. It has nothing to do with me. It's a huge wave that libertarians will either learn to ride or be swept aside. I know which one it looks like so far.


You might not think I know you, but I know quite a bit about you.
No you don't. I doubt you could articulate anything I believe about statecraft with any cogency.



Why are you telling me this? how does it relate to what I posted in that last paragraph?
You were talking about people who compromise their principles for populism. I was stating that I am not even a populist.

[Krugminator2]

http://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/community/beaufort-news/article136327343.html[/URL]

1. Here you go. Here he is criticizing withdrawal from TPP. First answer. Second paragraph https://www.weeklystandard.com/haley-byrd/sanford-tariffs-are-an-experiment-with-stupidity

2. He was one of five Republicans to vote against funding for the wall regardless of what he said. Sanford has sensible immigration views similar to Ron Paul's. There is nothing that will please left wing immigration groups. They only want Democratic voters.

[juleswin]

Ah, so you're just a moron. Understood. I won't accuse an honest idiot like you of being a liar again! You sure set me to rights. By the way, you barely seem to be able to type in English. Just thought I'd make you aware.

Moron? I understand how what I said hurts your feelings but if it makes you feel any better, my criticism came from the heart. Also, I don't hold it against you that you support Trump. Loads of good, intelligent people fell for his con. And yes, I know my writing skills aren't the best, my sentence structure/syntax, grammar, spelling could all use some improvement and it is something I have always struggled with. Also, I can't proofread to save my life. You really don't have to tell me about it, I am well aware of it and I work on it every single day of my life. And no, I won't make the excuse that it's because English is my second language, I know loads of people who did not speak English at all before they arriving to the states who have better command of the English language than me.


Ah, it's an "implicit vibe". Gotcha. Such incredible deduction. Do you read tea leaves or do a voodoo dance? Again, name one post I have made that is overly laudatory or unrealistically pro-Trump. You won't. You can't. The truth is I've posted about the man far less than most, both on RPF and all other social media. After Rand dropped out, the banalities of the political system didn't interest me enough to comment. I'm interested in the metapolitical and statecraft, not gutter politics.

Its the vibe I get from reading your many posts of RPF, deal with it.


They can be, yes, but they are not necessarily. Populism isn't just something that is popular, it's a particular way of appealing to the "common man". The way tax cuts are sold to the public is usually decidedly non-populist, including Rand.

Lets just agree to disagree here cos I think tax cuts, spending increase etc appeal to the common man too. I think what you are trying to say here is that Trump introduced new populist policies to the campaign like immigration and border wall security. That I can agree with you on.



No one is talking about ethnic cleansing, you buffoon.

Calm down man, I wasn't talking about ethnic cleansing either. Why would you think that is what I was thinking in my post? That wasn't a typo, I actually meant to say ethnic leaning not ethnic cleansing.


It's not my form of populism. It's a manifest populist movement sweeping the Western world. The meta-movement that elected Trump, voted for Brexit, made Marine le Pen come in second, made right-wing parties in Germany and Sweden among their most popular and is currently revolutionizing modern Italy. It has nothing to do with me. It's a huge wave that libertarians will either learn to ride or be swept aside. I know which one it looks like so far.

I don't disagree with u here, my point is that those aren't the only form of populism in our politics.


No you don't. I doubt you could articulate anything I believe about statecraft with any cogency.

I know enough about you in the area that matter to me. Your opinion on statecraft is one area I don't particularly care about. Also, I qualified my statement with the word "quite" which must mean something different to me than it means to you :)


You were talking about people who compromise their principles for populism. I was stating that I am not even a populist.

I was talking about libertarian leaning republicans and you are a paleo libertarian, so at least even you can understand why I was perplexed by your reply to that paragraph. I don't care if you as a person is populist or not, you are not a politician.

[timosman]

Can somebody enlighten me what the purpose of juleswin posting here is?:confused:

[juleswin]

1. Here you go. Here he is criticizing withdrawal from TPP. First answer. Second paragraph https://www.weeklystandard.com/haley-byrd/sanford-tariffs-are-an-experiment-with-stupidity

2. He was one of five Republicans to vote against funding for the wall regardless of what he said. Sanford has sensible immigration views similar to Ron Paul's. There is nothing that will please left wing immigration groups. They only want Democratic voters.

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have missed the one. I did a google search of Sanford + some of populist Trump policies got nothing for the policies I used. Also on the immigration bit, I think he still supports Trump's policies with opposition coming from ways to pay for it.

Could this have harmed him with his base? yes. I guess you were right all along :)

[angelatc]

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

You don't see the irony of Trump calling Sanford out over his infidelities though? Honestly I was always somewhat relieved that I didn't need to hold my nose and vote for Sanford, but I would have.

We were better off with him than we will be without him.

[thoughtomator]

You don't see the irony of Trump calling Sanford out over his infidelities though? Honestly I was always somewhat relieved that I didn't need to hold my nose and vote for Sanford, but I would have.

We were better off with him than we will be without him.

Sanford did it while in office and lied to his constituents about it. I remember when it happened, his behavior was absolutely indefensible.

Trump's infidelities were in his capacity as a private citizen, and no one alleges that they continue while in office.

[angelatc]

Can somebody enlighten me what the purpose of juleswin posting here is?:confused:

One of the owners is on record as saying that the trolls are good for their bottom line. Sadly that seemed to come at the expense of being a political activism forum.

[angelatc]

Sanford did it while in office and lied to his constituents about it. I remember when it happened, his behavior was absolutely indefensible.

.

I agree. If you are bored, dig back through the old threads and you'll see that I was pretty unforgiving about the betrayal.

This will get lost in the Trump noise, but Sanford predicted he was going to lose before Trump tweeted.

[Matt Collins]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.
This is absolutely correct. And I am not a huge Trump fan. But it is a political reality.

Rand and Massie's current strategy are gaining some results.

[specsaregood]

You mean dishonesty..
You are right.. most libertarians tend to be too Honest. Truth is rarely politically correct.

Here is some honesty; Sanford should have worked with a speech therapist years ago to eliminate that lisp of his. I could never stand listening to him for more than a minute just because it was grating.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Yes, just what we need--more sexual shenanigans in the Senate. Sanford is a philanderer. Dude neglected the affairs of the state of South Carolina to be with some Argentine broadcaster. Sanford is why you now have Nikki Haley taking down the Confederate flag and moving on to UN Ambassador. Who actually did a lot of the negotiating in the run up to the US/DPRK summit.

Sanford is in theHouse, not the Senate. And I don't know that you can blame him for Haley...

[Anti Federalist]

I just saw that woman's picture... holy fucking shit on a pogo stick, that woman is ugly. Sanford must have screwed this up royally to get beat by that. Hell, you could win an election just by printing her name on a picture of her face and distributing it everywhere. DAYUM THAT UGLY ugly. I know they say politics is acting for ugly people, but they didn't mean THAT ugly. That's break the lens ugly. You really gotta fuck up to lose to ugly on that level.

I've seen worse at Danke's Home for Wayward Women.

https://cdn.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Arrington-Katie.jpg

[euphemia]

I miswrote. I had it right in another post.

Haley was the one who took over as governor when Sanford left office. Haley was hand picked by Sanford for the office. It makes it all the more important that Sanford not be in the House where his main job is spending money. He spent state money on himself in SC.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Kind of a sad thing, I guess, but don't poke the bear is the lesson here.

[Brian4Liberty]

Sanford did it to himself. No one probably remembers the following thread:

Sanford: ‘I’m a Dead Man Walking’ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?507724-%91I%92m-a-Dead-Man-Walking%92)

My comments:


I saw that when it came out. I am not sure if this article is a good thing. Seems like a way to undermine. Sanford is the point man in the House on Obamacare repeal and replace (Rand's version). Is this the right time for a public "FU" to Trump? Opposing ideas and nominations is one thing, but this will not win Trump's support for legislation.

Other than that, it also portrays Sanford as a disheveled, broken and desperate man, still publically obsessing about his affair.

Yeah, I'd have to say this one isn't positive.

The intro to the article:


None of this feels normal. The congressman greets me inside his Washington office wearing a wrinkly collared shirt with its top two buttons undone, faded denim jeans and grungy, navy blue Crocs that expose his leather-textured feet. Nearing the end of our 30-minute interview, he cancels other appointments and extends our conversation by an hour. He repeatedly brings up his extramarital affair, unsolicited, pointing to the lessons learned and relationships lost. He acknowledges and embraces his own vulnerability—political, emotional and otherwise. He veers on and off the record, asking himself rhetorical questions, occasionally growing teary-eyed, and twice referring to our session as “my Catholic confessional.”

And then he does the strangest thing of all: He lays waste to the president of his own party.

Most Republicans in Washington are biting their tongues when it comes to Donald Trump, fearful that any candid criticisms of the new president could invite a backlash from their constituents or, potentially worse, provoke retribution from the commander in chief himself.

Mark Sanford is not like most Republicans in Washington.
...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/mark-sanford-profile-214791


And who remembers Sanford's NY Times Op-Ed attacking Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/opinion/i-support-you-donald-trump-now-release-your-tax-returns.html

[Krugminator2]

It makes it all the more important that Sanford not be in the House where his main job is spending money. He spent state money on himself in SC.


All of that stuff was brought up when he ran against Stephen Colbert's sister. He spent less on travel than any of his predecessors.

His being frugal personally and in office is the one thing he is most known for. He even turned down stimulus money. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24528985.html

Instead of making minimum wage or whatever a governor makes, they should have paid him $5-$10 million a year and made him governor for life.

[nikcers]

Sanford did it to himself. No one probably remembers the following thread:

Sanford: ‘I’m a Dead Man Walking’ (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?507724-%91I%92m-a-Dead-Man-Walking%92)

My comments:



The intro to the article:



And who remembers Sanford's NY Times Op-Ed attacking Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/opinion/i-support-you-donald-trump-now-release-your-tax-returns.html

This is about this nicest thing a conservative could say, and the only reason a conservative could give for voting for Trump. He probably helped bring about Trumps victory by pushing this narrative and giving conservatives a reason to vote for a moderate like Trump.

I am a conservative Republican who, though I have no stomach for his personal style and his penchant for regularly demeaning others, intends to support my party’s nominee because of the importance of filling the existing vacancy on the Supreme Court, and others that might open in the next four years.

[euphemia]

All of that stuff was brought up when he ran against Stephen Colbert's sister. He spent less on travel than any of his predecessors.

His being frugal personally and in office is the one thing he is most known for. He even turned down stimulus money. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24528985.html

Instead of making minimum wage or whatever a governor makes, they should have paid him $5-$10 million a year and made him governor for life.

He was using state money to visit his mistress in Argentina. He was charged with like 37 separate violation. If he had controlled his hormones, he would still be married and would have finished out his term.

This is why I think people should hold office based on what they're good at. Sanford, hormones aside, was good as governor, but has not been so great in the House. Likewise, liberal Phil Bredesen (founder of HCA/former Nashville mayor and TN gov) has excellent executive abilities, but should not be running for Senate.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.


It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective

[Brian4Liberty]

This is about this nicest thing a conservative could say, and the only reason a conservative could give for voting for Trump. He probably helped bring about Trumps victory by pushing this narrative and giving conservatives a reason to vote for a moderate like Trump.

That statement would have been fine if he had left it at that. He didn't leave it at that though.

[nikcers]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.
Rand's strategy possibly has endeared him with some of the Trump supporters for giving him a chance. I think his strategy was good in hindsight. I don't think anyone would of been able to defeat million dollar attack ads against them the first day they announced, a crowded field that eats up any sort of campaign funding you can get to campaign to non traditional voters, and an opponent that gets billions of dollars in free advertising. I don't think a Rand Paul rally would of ever got played on CNN at primetime.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.

Yeah, perhaps Rand's single biggest mistake. But it wouldn't had mattered anyway, Trump became inevitable very quickly. As a matter of fact, Rand has played it quite well since then.

[nikcers]

That statement would have been fine if he had left it at that. He didn't leave it at that though.
His audience was conservatives, you know the ones that were supporting people like Ted Cruz all the way up until the convention. Everything in there sold that one line to his audience.

[dannno]

Apparently that's true. But another way you could say that is, "For libertarian-leaning candidates, being libertarian-leaning is not a winning strategy."

This is a really dumb comment, you must not pay attention to Rand Paul at all. Rand brings out Trump's libertarian side and supports the President in reaching his libertarian goals. When Trump's goals aren't libertarian, Rand steps to the side, makes some mild policy criticisms without shouting them from the rooftops and lives to fight - and win - another day.

All you do is come here and lie and say that Trump doesn't have any libertarian goals, which is complete horse shit.

[juleswin]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.

You can play Monday morning QB all you want but just know that no campaign is perfect. Trump made many mistake himself but once the media latched unto him, it was a foregone conclusion that he would win the race. People underestimate the power the media still have on the average voter.

Rand had very powerful forces working against him

[angelatc]

This is a really dumb comment, you must not pay attention to Rand Paul at all. Rand brings out Trump's libertarian side and supports the President in reaching his libertarian goals. When Trump's goals aren't libertarian, Rand steps to the side, makes some mild policy criticisms without shouting them from the rooftops and lives to fight - and win - another day.

All you do is come here and lie and say that Trump doesn't have any libertarian goals, which is complete horse shit.

I don't care much for SM, but Daniel McCarthy made pretty much the same case that he's making, which is that conservatives don't have any real issues with big government and debt.

I should post this in it's own thread but nobody actually reads articles anyway. https://usa.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/how-donald-trump-eclipsed-the-libertarian-moment/

[angelatc]

This is a really dumb comment, you must not pay attention to Rand Paul at all. Rand brings out Trump's libertarian side and supports the President in reaching his libertarian goals. When Trump's goals aren't libertarian, Rand steps to the side, makes some mild policy criticisms without shouting them from the rooftops and lives to fight - and win - another day.

All you do is come here and lie and say that Trump doesn't have any libertarian goals, which is complete horse shit.

And by the way, Sanford was loyal to Ron Paul in 2007 when the GOP wanted his head. Your man Trump outed him. You might be best served by just staying out of this thread.

[dannno]

And by the way, Sanford was loyal to Ron Paul in 2007 when the GOP wanted his head. Your man Trump outed him. You might be best served by just staying out of this thread.

I'm not going to stay out of a thread where dumb comments are being made.. You didn't see Rand running against Trump for his Senate seat and he is more libertarian than Sanford... like everybody else said that is just stupid regardless.

[angelatc]

I'm not going to stay out of a thread where dumb comments are being made.. You didn't see Rand running against Trump for his Senate seat and he is more libertarian than Sanford... like everybody else said that is just stupid regardless.

This just opens the door for attacks on Massie and Amash, too. They're a lot more vocal than Sanford was.

This just sucks, and Trump is a giant dickhead for encouraging it.

[dannno]

This just opens the door for attacks on Massie and Amash, too. They're a lot more vocal than Sanford was.

I don't think so, Massie has been very supportive of the President when he has done good things, and has been mildly critical when he has done bad things. Massie isn't "running against" Trump by any stretch.

Amash may very well do better in his district if he runs against Trump. Have you seen his town halls?

[Brian4Liberty]

What local (former) Sanford supporters were saying...


“We need to recognize that we are at an inflection point in American politics,” a philosophical Sanford told supporters in a (surprise) exceedingly lengthy concession speech.

The former two-term governor of South Carolina went on to bemoan that his values hadn’t changed, they just didn’t “sell well in this particular election.”

Really?

Sanford saying his core values haven’t changed is downright comical. This news site has written numerous articles over the years chronicling Sanford’s unfortunate evolution into a shill for the #NeverTrump “Republican” establishment.

It finally caught up with him …
...
https://www.fitsnews.com/2018/06/12/sc1-katie-arrington-vanquishes-mark-sanford/

[Krugminator2]

What local (former) Sanford supporters were saying...


Like you (and I) said in the thread last year it wasn't a good strategy going after Trump. I said in the other thread I thought he might run for the LP nomination. Johnson actually asked him as his first choice over Weld to be the VP. Given the tack Sanford took, that seems more likely now. But it is ridiculous Fitnews calling Sanford a shill for the Republican establishment. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Boehner don't agree.

FWIW

1006731469946007552

[dannno]

Like you (and I) said in the thread last year it wasn't a good strategy going after Trump. I said in the other thread I thought he might run for the LP nomination. Johnson actually asked him as his first choice over Weld to be the VP. Given the tack Sanford took, that seems more likely now. But it is ridiculous Fitnews calling Sanford a shill for the Republican establishment. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Boehner don't agree.

FWIW

1006731469946007552

Looks like their freedom meter is broke..

[Brian4Liberty]

Like you (and I) said in the thread last year it wasn't a good strategy going after Trump. I said in the other thread I thought he might run for the LP nomination. Johnson actually asked him as his first choice over Weld to be the VP. Given the tack Sanford took, that seems more likely now. But it is ridiculous Fitnews calling Sanford a shill for the Republican establishment. I'm pretty sure Paul Ryan and Boehner don't agree.

FWIW

1006731469946007552

Yeah, I'm not in agreement with FITS News on that. But Sanford's attacks on Trump have aided the neoconservative establishment agenda, albeit not intentionally on Sanford's part.

Unless one buys into the supposition that Sanford is more of a libertarian-neocon. One has to wonder about his former "aides" that are arguably as hard core neocon as Lindsey Graham. And yes, I am talking about Nikki Haley and Jon Lerner.


Advising Haley then – and now – is Jewish neoconservative pollster and political consultant Jon Lerner (below, far left), who certainly appears to be whoring Haley out politically on the national stage every bit as aggressively as he whored out another former S.C. governor – Mark Sanford.
...
https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/04/09/donald-trump-needs-to-put-a-leash-on-this-puppy/

[angelatc]

I don't think so, Massie has been very supportive of the President when he has done good things, and has been mildly critical when he has done bad things. Massie isn't "running against" Trump by any stretch.

Amash may very well do better in his district if he runs against Trump. Have you seen his town halls?

Sanford voted for Trump's agenda 89% of the time.

Amash has to get through the primary. You may recall that when they couldn't primary him out, they tried to redistrict him out. That seat is now a prime candidate for a pro-Trump thumper in a primary, then to be taken by a Democrat.

[Krugminator2]

One has to wonder about his former "aides" that are arguably as hard core neocon as Lindsey Graham.

His long time Chief of Staff was Tom Davis who was the most visible South Carolina Ron Paul supporter.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Gonna say this, just because a strategy did not work doesn't mean the strategy is wrong. Maybe given the time, his personal, his personal experience, the mood of the country, the help from the media, he was the unbeatable candidate in the race? still doesn't dismiss the idea that attacking his credibility was a good strategy.
I've said this previously, but it bears repeating. The problem with Rand's strategy wasn't that he failed to beat Trump. Nobody beat Trump. It was his year. Rand couldn't have done anything to gain the nomination, it was Trump's from his first speech. The problem with Rand's strategy was that not only did he fail to capitalize on the movement his father built, he failed to get out of the single digits in polling. That is, by definition, a bad strategy. Rand zigged when he should have zagged. He was terrified of being called a racist or an extremist or whatever, so he tried to court favor with the mainstream and ended up alienating everyone in the process. His ill-timed, ineffectual attack against Trump was just part in parcel with a bad strategy. He didn't read the writing on the wall.



I think Trump tapped in something emotional in people to the point they were more invested in him as a person than any thing he said about his policies. This is one place where I think libertarians can learn a thing or two from Trump. They need to stop being policy wonks and realize that the masses need more than anything a father figure, a leader, someone to inspire and give them hope. Trump did this better than anyone in the race and he was rewarded with the victory.
I agree with this partially, but I think that policy had a lot to do with it. If Trump had the exact same personality but talked a lot about how mass immigration and NAFTA were great things, he would have lost. Trump's persona benefited him greatly, but so did his stated goals and we're seeing the rise of similar ideas throughout the West.




It is not nonsense, wikileak showed the strategy of the elite was to push and promote Trump over all the other republican candidates and they did this via a non conventional, reverse psychology sort of way. Think, addition by subtraction :) and it worked. The people in large masses fell for him. Wrong again, a strategy that loses is not automatically a bad strategy, strategies are relative and the best strategy is the one that gives you the best chance to win regardless of whether it nets you the win.
Which leak? I recall a leak where it was clear that Hillary's camp wanted Trump to win the nom because they thought he'd be easy to defeat-something I don't doubt the media agreed with. The media pushing Trump and making him look like a martyr when attacked is a different narrative and not something that happened last election cycle.


I think your problem is that you underestimate your enemy, you see them as one dimensional idiots like the people who vote. They are not, they are experienced world conquerors who have different methods to trick the average voter into voting for one of their own whilst they believed they are voting against the establishment.
No I don't. Politicians are often dim, but they at least posess animal cunning of some sort. People who stay in power long are often quite smart. It's no easy feat.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Moron? I understand how what I said hurts your feelings but if it makes you feel any better, my criticism came from the heart. Also, I don't hold it against you that you support Trump. Loads of good, intelligent people fell for his con. And yes, I know my writing skills aren't the best, my sentence structure/syntax, grammar, spelling could all use some improvement and it is something I have always struggled with. Also, I can't proofread to save my life. You really don't have to tell me about it, I am well aware of it and I work on it every single day of my life. And no, I won't make the excuse that it's because English is my second language, I know loads of people who did not speak English at all before they arriving to the states who have better command of the English language than me.
Again, for the third time, show me a time where I praised Trump in a sycophantic or overly myopic way. Do this or I have been proven right, as all can see.




Its the vibe I get from reading your many posts of RPF, deal with it.
Ah, "vibes". Yes, such great epistemological rigor.



Lets just agree to disagree here cos I think tax cuts, spending increase etc appeal to the common man too. I think what you are trying to say here is that Trump introduced new populist policies to the campaign like immigration and border wall security. That I can agree with you on.
Tax cuts can be populist but you have to make the emotional argument, not heady economic ones.



Calm down man, I wasn't talking about ethnic cleansing either. Why would you think that is what I was thinking in my post? That wasn't a typo, I actually meant to say ethnic leaning not ethnic cleansing.



I know enough about you in the area that matter to me. Your opinion on statecraft is one area I don't particularly care about. Also, I qualified my statement with the word "quite" which must mean something different to me than it means to you :)
You are a communist apologist who cheers when millions are murdered by leftist governments. How do I know this? Well, it's just a vibe I get. I know enough about you in that area to make that claim. I mean, look at your avatar. I like this new standard, no reason to demonstrate validity or soundness anymore. So much easier.

[eleganz]

I've said this previously, but it bears repeating. The problem with Rand's strategy wasn't that he failed to beat Trump. Nobody beat Trump. It was his year. Rand couldn't have done anything to gain the nomination, it was Trump's from his first speech. The problem with Rand's strategy was that not only did he fail to capitalize on the movement his father built, he failed to get out of the single digits in polling. That is, by definition, a bad strategy. Rand zigged when he should have zagged. He was terrified of being called a racist or an extremist or whatever, so he tried to court favor with the mainstream and ended up alienating everyone in the process. His ill-timed, ineffectual attack against Trump was just part in parcel with a bad strategy. He didn't read the writing on the wall.


Oh Please, this is such flawed reasoning, save the high horse all knowing political operative bullsht. Rand didn't read the writing on the wall because nobody could see it, neither could you. You're only claiming to now because you've experienced it the successful way Trump did it, guess what? We all experienced it. Its so easy to say that Rand (or any candidate) should've been more like Trump before Trump himself even entered the race. The only way to be the anti-Trump was to NOT act like Trump.

By your logic, Cruz and Carson's time as the anti-Trump was pure genius and good political "strategy", because good strategy automatically equals success right? No, Cruz and Carson were LUCKY. Everybody who has witnessed the primaries in the past knows that voters and media flirt with a flavor of the week, they spend some time at the top of the polls and whenever the voters get bored or they were successfully attacked, the next one comes up. 2012 Santorum got LUCKY and in a sense Bachmann, Gingrich and Ron also got LUCKY, or did you think Ron Paul actually had 21% of the republican party as his base? lol, gtfo~


Rand ran a good traditional campaign, which at one point he was considered a top tier candidate having spent some time at the TOP of the polls before Trump entered.


If you're so good at reading the writing on the wall, run a campaign and show us all how its done. Its that easy right? read and run. Go for it boy

[oyarde]

I am thinking Sanford has lost interest . Cannot blame anyone for that . I hated to see DeMint go .

[angelatc]

I am thinking Sanford has lost interest . Cannot blame anyone for that . I hated to see DeMint go .

Demint is a guy I'd like to see get involved with the Libertarians.

[Brian4Liberty]

His long time Chief of Staff was Tom Davis who was the most visible South Carolina Ron Paul supporter.

Yeah, Tom Davis is good.


Oh Please, this is such flawed reasoning, save the high horse all knowing political operative bullsht. Rand didn't read the writing on the wall because nobody could see it, neither could you.
...

Not to interrupt and go on a tangent, but Dave Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign and took out Eric Cantor. His platform was essentially Ron Paul with an America-first twist, including opposition to mass immigration and the US Chamber of Commerce. That was in 2014. That was an indicator, from a position standpoint, of what was going to be successful.

[thoughtomator]

Yeah, Tom Davis is good.

Not to interrupt and go on a tangent, but Dave Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign and took out Eric Cantor. His platform was essentially Ron Paul with an America-first twist, including opposition to mass immigration and the US Chamber of Commerce. That was in 2014. That was an indicator, from a position standpoint, of what was going to be successful.

It's time for people here to come to terms with the fact that not only is "open borders" an anti-liberty position, it is an extreme anti-liberty position - every bit as extreme as confessing allegiance to full-blown Communism.

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

[angelatc]

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

Either you're wrong, or I'm an open borders proponent.

[thoughtomator]

Either you're wrong, or I'm an open borders proponent.

You and Zippy don't count.

[Influenza]

It's time for people here to come to terms with the fact that not only is "open borders" an anti-liberty position, it is an extreme anti-liberty position - every bit as extreme as confessing allegiance to full-blown Communism.

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.
So you believe there are no legitimate criticisms of Trump, despite the fact that he is dropping bombs at an unprecedented rate, continues to support Saudi Arabia, who, alongside the US, are committing war crimes in Yemen and exporting their salafist ideology across the world. He blindly supports Israel and has elevated many Israel-firsters in his admin. like Haley, Kushner, and Bolton. He ripped up the Iran deal, one of the few decent things obama did. He appointed a torturer to head the CIA and as his Sec. of State. He has not drawn down the empire even a little bit in his first 17 months, (he will probably renege his comments on military exercises with South Korea after his advisers give him a talking to.) He expanded military spending by 151 billion dollars (this INCREASE is way more expensive than evil communist demoncrat Bernie Sanders free college plan.) He has delegated much of his commander in chief responsibilities to the pentagon.

Ahh forget it. I'm just scratching the surface and I'm already tired. You are so so right, the only way you can be against Trump is if you want completely unfettered immigration. Nah, you are either being intentionally disingenuous or are just plain stupid. I await the impending logical fallacies and HILRY WOULDA BEEN WERSE.

[thoughtomator]

So you believe there are no legitimate criticisms of Trump,

Strawman right out the gate, you are a dishonest person and will receive no other response from me than to call out that dishonesty. Please go fuck yourself, asshole.

[angelatc]

Strawman right out the gate, you are a dishonest person and will receive no other response from me than to call out that dishonesty. Please go fuck yourself, asshole.

It's not really a strawman though, because you said :
...the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

Clearly that's not the case.

[Influenza]

Strawman right out the gate, you are a dishonest person and will receive no other response from me than to call out that dishonesty. Please go $#@! yourself, $#@!.
Lmao, you are a fuckin dumbass.


And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

Do you know what genesis means? You said that every objection to Trump originates in people wanting open borders, a position you find akin to communism. You clearly do not find those sorts of objections to Trump legitimate, and you said every single objection to Trump stems from that anti-liberty position. Do you have any understanding of the english language? Your idiotic grandstanding just makes you look even more stupid. Get lost retard

[thoughtomator]

It's not really a strawman though, because you said :

Clearly that's not the case.

The two statements are not at all inconsistent with each other. On this board in particular, the objections are all but exclusively about open borders.

That is not even closely equivalent to saying there is no legitimate criticisms. They just aren't the reasons why users on this board object to him. They are goal-seeking open borders Marxists and it's no surprise that they are so upset that someone calls out their number, since deception is essential to their trade.

Act like a Marxist, don't act suprised when someone offers you a free helicopter ride.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Libertarians are just happy being losers because they have made it into some kind of virtue. That's why they have faded and will continue to fade. To the rest of y'all who haven't thrown in the towel: Rally behind people like Corey Stewart. He isn't perfect but at least he has balls.

[Influenza]

The two statements are not at all inconsistent with each other. On this board in particular, the objections are all but exclusively about open borders.

That is not even closely equivalent to saying there is no legitimate criticisms. They just aren't the reasons why users on this board object to him. They are goal-seeking open borders Marxists and it's no surprise that they are so upset that someone calls out their number, since deception is essential to their trade.

Act like a Marxist, don't act suprised when someone offers you a free helicopter ride.

Oh I see - these comments are actually just projection on your part. Your position on immigration is one of the few things you have in common with Trump - and the only thing you feel capable to justify from a liberty perspective. I know most of you trumptards avoid threads about Trump's foreign policy, except for the handful of occasions where he said something non-interventionist, and therefore you don't see the very common foreign-policy based objections to Trump. So I guess your comments could be coming from a place of cognitive dissonance and ignorance as opposed to dishonesty. Sorry I didn't see that earlier

[RonZeplin]

You and Zippy don't count.

You' re wrong, many oppose Trump because he's a reconquista who refuses to enforce the law and deport illegal aliens. He's running Sanctuary Nation USA for illegal aliens.

"Build the Wall" translates into - Amnesty for invaders.

[eleganz]

Yeah, Tom Davis is good.



Not to interrupt and go on a tangent, but Dave Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign and took out Eric Cantor. His platform was essentially Ron Paul with an America-first twist, including opposition to mass immigration and the US Chamber of Commerce. That was in 2014. That was an indicator, from a position standpoint, of what was going to be successful.

Can anybody here explain, to what degree, is a anti-immigration message, a successful one?


PaleoLibertarian or Brian4Liberty, let us know how much more anti-immigration Rand Paul had to be, over Trump, to take the nomination?

[angelatc]

The two statements are not at all inconsistent with each other. On this board in particular, the objections are all but exclusively about open borders..

I think that you see the boards through a different filter than I do, apparently.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Oh Please, this is such flawed reasoning, save the high horse all knowing political operative bullsht. Rand didn't read the writing on the wall because nobody could see it, neither could you.
Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in.


You're only claiming to now because you've experienced it the successful way Trump did it, guess what? We all experienced it. Its so easy to say that Rand (or any candidate) should've been more like Trump before Trump himself even entered the race. The only way to be the anti-Trump was to NOT act like Trump.
I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump.

I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy.



By your logic, Cruz and Carson's time as the anti-Trump was pure genius and good political "strategy", because good strategy automatically equals success right?
Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.


No, Cruz and Carson were LUCKY. Everybody who has witnessed the primaries in the past knows that voters and media flirt with a flavor of the week, they spend some time at the top of the polls and whenever the voters get bored or they were successfully attacked, the next one comes up. 2012 Santorum got LUCKY and in a sense Bachmann, Gingrich and Ron also got LUCKY, or did you think Ron Paul actually had 21% of the republican party as his base? lol, gtfo~
Of course there's flavors of the month, but there's also branding and strategy. Rand had poor branding and bad strategy, so he had no opportunity to be a flavor of the month. He was a "different kind of Republican", "a true conservative", "a Detroit Republican" and "libertarianish". He was all over the place and totally failed to capitalize on the cachet he built since being elected or the movement his father built.


Rand ran a good traditional campaign, which at one point he was considered a top tier candidate having spent some time at the TOP of the polls before Trump entered.
Rand started strong and I was initially optimistic. He then started floundering quickly which was obvious to everyone but overly-optimistic posters on RPF.


If you're so good at reading the writing on the wall, run a campaign and show us all how its done. Its that easy right? read and run. Go for it boy
I think I would be good at it, but I don't have the connections or the desire. And it's not easy. I've actually studied this stuff. Machiavelli, de Jouvenel, Mosca, Moldbug. One could spend a lifetime studying power.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Can anybody here explain, to what degree, is a anti-immigration message, a successful one?


PaleoLibertarian or Brian4Liberty, let us know how much more anti-immigration Rand Paul had to be, over Trump, to take the nomination?I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.

[enhanced_deficit]

I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.

Rand either misread GOP base's dislike for Obama or did not want to capitalize on it; Trump on the other fully focussed on it.

[devil21]

:mad:

He was the 7th best member of Congress, does anyone know how good she is?

AIPAC lackey, MIC stooge. Same ol'

eta: The lessons here are that in order for a libertarian to win in a Republican field, the libertarian has to wrap his/her views in a media-inspired package. Be the biggest Trumptard on the planet while threading in libertarian ideals in your platform. Don't attack sheeple voter's "sacred cows". Most voters are MSM swallowing sheep and that's probably not going to change, though support for Trump is a mile wide by an inch deep (as are most voters grasp of candidates and issues). People like Arrington win because they do it while threading in neocon ideals. One that considers running for GOP office should start considering whether the same semi-chameleon strategy can work for libertarians as well. My opinions on Trump are well known here but if I was running for a GOP office I'd be a Trumptard. A Trumptard that threads in sound money, Constitutional rights, strong defense (not offense), 2A support, etc. If there's one thing we've learned over the years it's that attacking the media-created "sacred cows" isn't a winning electoral strategy.

(assuming the votes even matter....)

[eleganz]

Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in.


I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump.

I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy.



Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.


Of course there's flavors of the month, but there's also branding and strategy. Rand had poor branding and bad strategy, so he had no opportunity to be a flavor of the month. He was a "different kind of Republican", "a true conservative", "a Detroit Republican" and "libertarianish". He was all over the place and totally failed to capitalize on the cachet he built since being elected or the movement his father built.


Rand started strong and I was initially optimistic. He then started floundering quickly which was obvious to everyone but overly-optimistic posters on RPF.

[B]
I think I would be good at it, but I don't have the connections or the desire. And it's not easy. I've actually studied this stuff. Machiavelli, de Jouvenel, Mosca, Moldbug. One could spend a lifetime studying power.



Rubio, someone who everyone knew was soft on immigration, softer than Rand, spent plenty of time outside of the single digits.


The only person that has benefitted from being hardline on immigration was Trump and it was because he didn't give AF. Nobody was as crazy as him, he made building a wall seem sane.


Anyway, if you were right, you'd be a making a ton of money winning GOP campaigns.

[eleganz]

Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in.


I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump.

I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy.



Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.


Of course there's flavors of the month, but there's also branding and strategy. Rand had poor branding and bad strategy, so he had no opportunity to be a flavor of the month. He was a "different kind of Republican", "a true conservative", "a Detroit Republican" and "libertarianish". He was all over the place and totally failed to capitalize on the cachet he built since being elected or the movement his father built.


Rand started strong and I was initially optimistic. He then started floundering quickly which was obvious to everyone but overly-optimistic posters on RPF.

[B]
I think I would be good at it, but I don't have the connections or the desire. And it's not easy. I've actually studied this stuff. Machiavelli, de Jouvenel, Mosca, Moldbug. One could spend a lifetime studying power.



Rubio, someone who everyone knew was soft on immigration, softer than Rand, spent plenty of time outside of the single digits.


The only person that has benefitted from being hardline on immigration was Trump and it was because he didn't give AF. Nobody was as crazy as him, he made building a wall seem sane.

Despite everything you just said, Rand had the potential to win the primary. Rand was a top tier candidate, everybody knew it, apparently except you did not because you seem to have wiped from your memory all of his top tier status that even the MSM admitted. Then Trump entered the race and ruined everybody's plans.

Anyway, if you were right, you'd be a making a ton of money winning GOP campaigns.

[Brian4Liberty]

Can anybody here explain, to what degree, is a anti-immigration message, a successful one?

PaleoLibertarian or Brian4Liberty, let us know how much more anti-immigration Rand Paul had to be, over Trump, to take the nomination?

Trump came out and said there are rapists and murderers. That is as extreme as you can get. That was an emotional appeal. Emotional appeals are often the most successful. Cause, effect, actions and consequences are not so effective. Logic loses in politics.


I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.

Agree completely. Trump was going to win, Rand could not win no matter what he did. The media and DNC wanted Trump to win. Rand could have done better but...

In hindsight, Rand played it as well as he possibly could. He now has more influence than the majority of Senators. His initial attack on Trump, while not good for polling numbers or his chance to duke it out till the end of a long and bloody primary (like Cruz did), turned out to be a good move as Senator Paul. Trump respects someone who stands up to him. He also respect someone who will then put it in the past and work together on mutual goals. Rand is doing a great job.

Mark Sanford was an example of how not to play it (from a political standpoint).

[Brian4Liberty]

Unsurprisingly, Sanford gets the spotlight so he can criticize Trump (and ramble on about his affair)...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhBOPW1lsog

[Brian4Liberty]

Sanford almost always takes the right position on issues and votes, his major problem, very evident after his affair, is that he doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4W7Ai2sQYU

[Jamesiv1]

It seems to work for Trump and his fan boys. Trump sold his candidacy with populist policies but once in office abandoned just about every single one of those policies. His anti neocon, take care of America policies were all but abandoned once he became president.

On the other hand, can you give an example where Mark Sanford went against Trump on any and I mean any of his populist policies? Any president to be successful doesn't just need yes men like Rand, he needs people to hold his feet to the fire and encourage him to do the right thing.You might want to do some research before you embarrass yourself again.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I know most of you trumptards avoid threads about Trump's foreign policy, except for the handful of occasions where he said something non-interventionist,....

And the progressive infiltrators try to avoid threads where their progressive intentions will be revealed. ;)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Lmao, you are a fuckin dumbass.

Hey, good one. You showed him!






...a position you find akin to communism.

Your idiotic grandstanding just makes you look even more stupid. Get lost retard

Hunh. Commies really do still get insulted when you talk bad about communism.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So you believe there are no legitimate criticisms of Trump, despite the fact that he is dropping bombs at an unprecedented rate, continues to support Saudi Arabia, who, alongside the US, are committing war crimes in Yemen and exporting their salafist ideology across the world. He blindly supports Israel and has elevated many Israel-firsters in his admin. like Haley, Kushner, and Bolton. He ripped up the Iran deal, one of the few decent things obama did. He appointed a torturer to head the CIA and as his Sec. of State. He has not drawn down the empire even a little bit in his first 17 months, (he will probably renege his comments on military exercises with South Korea after his advisers give him a talking to.) He expanded military spending by 151 billion dollars (this INCREASE is way more expensive than evil communist demoncrat Bernie Sanders free college plan.) He has delegated much of his commander in chief responsibilities to the pentagon.

Ahh forget it. I'm just scratching the surface and I'm already tired. You are so so right, the only way you can be against Trump is if you want completely unfettered immigration. Nah, you are either being intentionally disingenuous or are just plain stupid. I await the impending logical fallacies and HILRY WOULDA BEEN WERSE.



I can't believe you people get paid to post stuff like this!

[Influenza]

I can't believe you people get paid to post stuff like this!
LOL you are incapable of addressing an argument substantively. I completely destroyed thoughtomator to the point where he refused to respond other than to untruthfully claim I was using a logical fallacy, but now we have an absolute retard like yourself here to defend him. Have you ever even had a proper argument on these forums in your entire posting history? Or is every single person who disagrees with the standard R position a liberal plant?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

thoughtomator...untruthfully claim[ed] I was using a logical fallacy,....


Thoughtomator is right. You even started your straw man with the word "so," which makes straw man detection that much easier. Here is your first sentence to Thoughtomator:
So you believe there are no legitimate criticisms of Trump,...







I completely destroyed thoughtomator...

I love it when people get frustrated to the point of declaring themselves the winner. And, they usually use the word "destroyed" in their declaration.






Or is every single person who disagrees with the standard R [Republican] position a liberal plant?


No, because I am extremely careful when identifying RPF's paid shenaniganists. I won't identify someone as a paid liberal plant if I'm only 99% sure. I have to be 100% sure, with no question about. I am 100% sure about you. No question about it.

















`

[Influenza]

Thoughtomator is right. You even started your straw man with the word "so," which makes straw man detection that much easier. Here is your first sentence to Thoughtomator:

I love it when people get frustrated to the point of declaring themselves the winner. And, they usually use the word "destroyed" in their declaration.

No, because I am extremely careful when identifying RPF's paid shenaniganists. I won't identify someone as a paid liberal plant if I'm only 99% sure. I have to be 100% sure, with no question about. I am 100% sure about you. No question about it.


It's not a strawman at all. He qualified his statement with "on this board," as if somehow that made my post a strawman. There are plenty of legitimate criticism of Trump all over RPF, it happens every time your god-emperor threatens to nuke someone, ordains torture, bombs countries that didn't attack us, etc. No one on RPF pushes the 99.9% BS Russia narrative. No one focuses exclusively on Stormy daniels and other accusers. The vast majority of Trump criticisms on this forum are policy-oriented and always have been. I won the argument because he falsely accused me of a strawman and just refused to respond instead. Please post 1 piece of evidence showing that I am a PAID LIBERAL SHILL.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I won the argument...



http://www.kwiq.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/pouty-kid.jpg






Please post 1 piece of evidence showing that I am a PAID LIBERAL SHILL.

I already have. Plenty of times. Nice try though.










`

[Jamesiv1]

Sanford is a chump.

Either get on board the Trump Train or get the hell out.

[thoughtomator]

Thoughtomator is right. You even started your straw man with the word "so," which makes straw man detection that much easier. Here is your first sentence to Thoughtomator:








I love it when people get frustrated to the point of declaring themselves the winner. And, they usually use the word "destroyed" in their declaration.








No, because I am extremely careful when identifying RPF's paid shenaniganists. I won't identify someone as a paid liberal plant if I'm only 99% sure. I have to be 100% sure, with no question about. I am 100% sure about you. No question about it.

















`

I put him on ignore the moment my dishonesty detector went off, on the principle that if I let time-wasting losers consume my time it's my own damn fault.

Keep on winning, bro. :p

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I put him on ignore the moment my dishonesty detector went off, on the principle that if I let time-wasting losers consume my time it's my own damn fault.

Keep on winning, bro. :p

Heh heh; yeah, I probably waste too much time on the paid shills, but sometimes I just like to trolls the trolls. Taste of their own medicine. :D










`

[thoughtomator]

Heh heh; yeah, I probably waste too much time on the paid shills, but sometimes I just like to trolls the trolls. Taste of their own medicine. :D
`


go on Twitter and troll someone significant, a better use of your time and more effective in terms of anti-psyops

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

go on Twitter and troll someone significant, a better use of your time and more effective in terms of anti-psyops


Wouldn't the Twitter account owner just block me? But yeah, I'm always up for some good hijinks. :D

I also sort of take another approach. I still regularly talk with individuals asking questions on Yahoo Answers. I think I make much more impact talking with people individually. The world is so cluttered with information that you have to be the one creating the information rather than being passive and responding to it.

I also posted so much on the yahoo military section that a lot of regulars got disgusted and left. I made a thread about it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?503048-RPFers-Join-me-on-Yahoo-Anwers-Reply-to-questions-on-jury-nullifying-CPS-joining-cops-etc).

[thoughtomator]

Wouldn't the Twitter account owner just block me? But yeah, I'm always up for some good hijinks. :D

You couldn't ask for a more target-rich environment. It's not even terms of course but this is guerilla psywar.

[EBounding]

1009534054801268736

[Brian4Liberty]

Katie Arrington, who ousted Rep. Mark Sanford in primary, seriously injured in car crash (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/23/katie-arrington-who-ousted-rep-mark-sanford-in-primary-seriously-injured-in-car-crash.html)


Katie Arrington, who ousted incumbent South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford in a Republican congressional primary this month, was seriously injured in a car accident on Friday -- in a wreck that left one person dead.

In a statement posted to Facebook, her campaign said that she underwent surgery after she was injured when a driver traveling in the wrong direction hit her vehicle. A friend who was also in the car was seriously injured.

The Post and Courier reported that the driver in the other vehicle died at the scene.

Her office said that she suffered a fracture in her back, several broken ribs and other injuries that required surgery including the removal of part of her small intestine and a portion of her colon.

“Additionally, the main artery in her legs has a partial collapse and will require a stent,” the statement said. “Additional surgeries will be required including one likely today; and it is likely that Katie will remain hospitalized for the next two weeks.”
...
More: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/23/katie-arrington-who-ousted-rep-mark-sanford-in-primary-seriously-injured-in-car-crash.html

[spudea]

1009534054801268736
New Trump curse target, probably too late for this year, but definitely something will happen for 2020. I bet he retires like weak Jeff Flake.

[Swordsmyth]

Katie Arrington, who ousted Rep. Mark Sanford in primary, seriously injured in car crash (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/23/katie-arrington-who-ousted-rep-mark-sanford-in-primary-seriously-injured-in-car-crash.html)

Was it a hit?

[nikcers]

Was it a hit?

We will find out if they blame it on road rage and having a dirty car.