Trump verses Paul

[ProBlue33]

I actually think the support for everybody else is soft and flexible.

Is it possible that some that are caucusing may realize once they are there voting, the only way they can defeat Trump is to move to Paul.
Here is why, Trump supporters aren't moving we know that, it's emotional for them, Paul voters aren't moving they are voting on principle.
The rest are doing it just because, if all those were to move away from there soft support on caucus night once they see the enthusiasm for Paul and little for the other guys, he could come second or actually win.

Or are Americans super stubborn and going to vote for Bush/Cruz/Rubio even if they hate Trump and think there guy can't win either ?

[Fivezeroes]

I actually think the support for everybody else is soft and flexible.

Is it possible that some that are caucusing may realize once they are there voting, the only way they can defeat Trump is to move to Paul.
Here is why, Trump supporters aren't moving we know that, it's emotional for them, Paul voters aren't moving they are voting on principle.
The rest are doing it just because, if all those were to move away from there soft support on caucus night once they see the enthusiasm for Paul and little for the other guys, he could come second or actually win.

Or are Americans super stubborn and going to vote for Bush/Cruz/Rubio even if they hate Trump and think there guy can't win either ?

You answered your own question my friend. American's are so stubborn that even if their guy can't win they will waste their vote on that candidate.

[Crashland]

You answered your own question my friend. American's are so stubborn that even if their guy can't win they will waste their vote on that candidate.

Except that is the same as what I hear constantly from Cruz supporters about Rand supporters.

[Fivezeroes]

Except that is the same as what I hear constantly from Cruz supporters about Rand supporters.

Thing is until everyone's mindset changes, real change will never come to this country. Rand is the only one that can do it, but no Trump supporter is going to switch, nor are any of the above mentioned.

[Theocrat]

I actually think the support for everybody else is soft and flexible.

Is it possible that some that are caucusing may realize once they are there voting, the only way they can defeat Trump is to move to Paul.
Here is why, Trump supporters aren't moving we know that, it's emotional for them, Paul voters aren't moving they are voting on principle.
The rest are doing it just because, if all those were to move away from there soft support on caucus night once they see the enthusiasm for Paul and little for the other guys, he could come second or actually win.

Or are Americans super stubborn and going to vote for Bush/Cruz/Rubio even if they hate Trump and think there guy can't win either ?

This election cycle has become "Celebrity Of-Presidents [Apprentice]," to use Stephen Colbert's phrase. Much of it is more about celebrity status than actual political substance on the issues. In effect, this race has become like some sort of reality TV competition, which is why polls are being used in an excessive amount, unlike any other election cycle that I've seen. The mainstream media use those polls to tell the public who can actually win and who will definitely lose. Thus, the media are casting their votes for the voters.

If the voters can ignore the polling data, overcome the temptation to vote based on fear and vote based on what is right, and actually show up to caucus, then I'm sure that will put Sen. Paul in a great position to win Iowa. But American voters are not completely rational in these Presidential races, either, so it leaves a lot for the imagination on whether, say, Cruz supporters will move over to the Paul camp during the caucuses.

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trum...t_nbr=xzvtknhz

Trump Slams Evangelical Leader Vander Plaats on Twitter

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump unleashed a slew of Twitter attacks on Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats Sunday morning, the second time he has done so in less than a week.

Trump says that Vander Plaats, head of the Iowa-based Family Leader, asked him to stay in his hotels for free and also requested he speak at an event while seeking $100,000 for himself.

He made the same statements on Tuesday in a similar Twitter storm. At that time, Vander Plaats said he and his family stayed for free in Trump's hotels because Trump insisted he do so in hopes of getting his endorsement. When Vander Plaats instead backed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Trump attacked, Vander Plaats said.

As to Trump's claim that Vander Plaats sought $100,000 for himself, the Des Moines Register's chief political reporter Jennifer Jacobs contacted the group to whom Trump spoke.

The paper found that Trump was paid $100,000 to speak at Iowa's Land Investment Expo a year ago, directly contradicting Trump’s claim.

Special:
While the speech was Vander Plaats' idea, he was paid nothing, records showed.

There was no indication why Trump chose Sunday morning to reignite his Vander Plaats attacks, but caucusing is set for the Hawkeye State Monday night. Trump is in the lead in the latest polls, but Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is nipping at his heels.

Vander Plaats also replied to Trump on Sunday, saying his endorsement can't be bought.

[ds21089]

This election cycle has become "Celebrity Of-Presidents [Apprentice]," to use Stephen Colbert's phrase. Much of it is more about celebrity status than actual political substance on the issues. In effect, this race has become like some sort of reality TV competition, which is why polls are being used in an excessive amount, unlike any other election cycle that I've seen. The mainstream media use those polls to tell the public who can actually win and who will definitely lose. Thus, the media are casting their votes for the voters.

If the voters can ignore the polling data, overcome the temptation to vote based on fear and vote based on what is right, and actually show up to caucus, then I'm sure that will put Sen. Paul in a great position to win Iowa. But American voters are not completely rational in these Presidential races, either, so it leaves a lot for the imagination on whether, say, Cruz supporters will move over to the Paul camp during the caucuses.

This will probably be happening for a long time. This is why I think Rand should also use fear to his advantage. He should explain how he has the best chance to beat Hillary because of the support he draws from across party lines. He needs to make a connection that If Rand isn't the nominee, Hillary wins. The fear of Hillary winning should shift some support to Rand.

[francisco]

Both Cruz and Trump are making unforced errors. The strain must be getting to them.

[01000110]

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trum...t_nbr=xzvtknhz

Am I missing something here? Why would Trump do this?

[rich34]

Thing is until everyone's mindset changes, real change will never come to this country. Rand is the only one that can do it, but no Trump supporter is going to switch, nor are any of the above mentioned.

I honestly do not understand why these people like Beck and everyone else can't research the candidates the same way we do and select a candidate that way. You know like first, if a guy like Trump is getting media coverage 24/7 then that's obviously a red flag.. Hmm maybe I ought to dig a little deeper. Then you got a guy like Cruz who might sound good to the average voter , but once you find out who's funding him which is Goldman Sachs boom another red flag. Same goes for the rest and eventually you get to the only candidate that is not getting any media attention and is getting zero money from the bank's/elite and then you might have a candidate after checking out their policy positions. But typically if they're getting no media coverage and aren't getting funded by corporate America then most likely they gotta be decent. But no the majority of Americans don't look at candidates that way. They wait until "they believe" the media is telling them NOT to vote for this guy even though they're covering them literally 24/7 and say hey that's the guy they don't want!! He's the I"real" anti establishment guy because the media "don't" like them even though they're covering them literally24/7 and while saying to themselves uhh y'all ain't fooling me! I know y'all don't want Trump to be president. To hell with the fact the man don't have to spend a dime due to all the free publicity he gets, by God that's my man!!

I know y'all already know this, and I'm just preaching to the choir. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

[Theocrat]

This will probably be happening for a long time. This is why I think Rand should also use fear to his advantage. He should explain how he has the best chance to beat Hillary because of the support he draws from across party lines. He needs to make a connection that If Rand isn't the nominee, Hillary wins. The fear of Hillary winning should shift some support to Rand.

If people actually pay attention to Sen. Paul's position's, then they should be fearful of the consequences of his not being nominated and elected. He repeatedly talks about how the U.S. debt is the greatest threat to our national security, delving into the fiscal irresponsibility of both parties to raise spending for the warfare-welfare state. He also speaks on the dangers of the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, creating a false sense of stability (weakening the U.S. Dollar) and causing more inflation that brings more income disparity between the "wealthy" and the "poor."

Those are things which any American should be fearful of, and they are issues in which Sen. Paul is the loudest voice, in either race, to warn the American people about. The problem is voters are being told (lied to) that ISIS and global warming are the biggest threats to us, both by the media and establishment politicians. People's fears are, then, beset by false narratives which are manipulated to gain votes for the establishment-types in both parties. And why is that? It's because most voters are not studious enough to research these issues for themselves; instead, they are fed them by the mainstream media and their cohorts in the Republican and Democrat parties.

Honestly, a Hillary victory will not be fearful to a majority of voters because (I hate to say this) she is a female. We've had a Black President; now many Americans believe we are ready for a female President, no matter who she is. That is the problem, and, yes, it is fearful, in and of itself.

[GunnyFreedom]

Am I missing something here? Why would Trump do this?

LOL why does Trump do 90% of the crap he does?

Probably because he was pissed at Vander Plaats for endorsing Cruz, so he went off on an attack against Vander Plaats. Seems to fit Trump's M.O.

The actual tweets are attached to the original story at the link.