Trump to give speech on American economic indepence @ 230pmEDT today

[Peace&Freedom]

I think that 46% is brand recognition, celebrity, and sophism (oratory skills). How is Trump expanding the liberty base beyond pointing out the elite and promising to give the American worker a better deal (promising to fight for the American worker instead of letting the market deal with it)? Ron Paul was prioritizing national and domestic interest. He promised to end the empire, restore the republic, was against globalism (the North American Union), he even sought to protect the American border, and he was going to end the Fed's manipulation of the markets. He was against the globalist agenda. He just wasn't a Jacksonian vehicle that people could get behind.

Expanding the base vote, or core supporters who share a coherent ideology (the 5%) across the issues is one thing. Ron Paul probably pushed the envelope of our base from 5% to 10% by his 2012 campaign. Getting to 51% requires a candidate to go beyond the base vote, not just expansion of the base. It requires stitching together a coalition of voters who are not comprehensively with us on the issues, or even capable of having a coherent vision. It takes steering mass emotions that foster building a relationship that says "I'm with you," not just "I agree with you." It is not about positions alone, but about doing things that create a bond.

Trump's celebrity only bought him visibility, and (after 30 years of branding) some resistance from being character-assassinated. What he did was meet the demand of the voter market in 2016 to prioritize national and domestic interests, while confronting the elite. While the Pauls were anti-establishment by policy, Trump was anti-establishment by action. He openly talked about the mega-donors and the rigged election process, flatly exposed GOP hack rivals as being overrated hacks, kept bringing up the "wrong" or unapproved subjects, talked back to PC bias, often kicking media reps off their pedestals, etc.

Neither Paul DID these things. Nor did the Pauls campaign to get the cultural/social right's support, or those concerned about non-legal immigration, or similar major blocs. If you want to reach such voters, you talk UP their issues, not avoid the subjects, and you don't stop talking about them when the MSM tries to frame you as racist, sexist or otherwise for doing so. An outsider trend that you can bend or steer in a liberty direction should be embraced, not distanced from, as Rand did when he attacked Trump.

The pro-war emotional narrative should be openly deflated by pointing out the establishment has used lies (or even false flags) to sustain its empire-biulding---not just by dryly talking about blowback. And so on. Liberty candidates need to be perceived as doers, not talkers, from this time forward.

[timosman]

Do you think blockbuster was just dumb at business and thats why they didn't buy Netflix?

This guy ran Blockbuster into the ground:



http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people...igencer/12270/

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

. Neither Paul ever sought to expand the core liberty base by seeking to engage cultural traditionalists

Ron Paul 2008 ran ads opposing immigration from terrorist countries. He was also consistently pro-life.

Rand seemed to outright fight the outsider trend

True.

With or without Trump in the race, without building a winning voter coalition or openly fighting the establishment, there was no way either Paul was going to win the primaries.

Ron Paul was openly fighting the establishment in the 2008 and 2012 campaigns. The campaign won Iowa in 2012, but the RNC and MSM conspired to say that he did not; which killed his momentum going forward.

[Mad Raven]

This youtube has better sound.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4WNA1aBUQ" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

[nikcers]

This youtube has better sound.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK4WNA1aBUQ" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">

For some reason it still sounds like $#@! to me. It must be my headphones or maybe even my ears or something.

[nikcers]

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people...igencer/12270/

That's interesting- the natural food trend is probably going to only grow. Smart food is going to be the new smart phones. Even in these industries that people specialize in, they sometimes don't even understand it. Then someone like Netflix comes along, that understands the industry better, which is not saying that Blockbuster couldn't have done better by doing different things but just like Mike Tyson says, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Trump is the TLDR candidate- He is personification of an end user license agreement that his supporters take pride in not reading and will argue with you and tell you that you are wrong if you read the license agreement and try to explain it them.

Trump cares nothing about his word, his words mean nothing, not just are they antithetical to their distinct meaning, they literally have no meaning the way he delivers it. Meaning and communication is all about delivery- that's why comedy is all about delivery.

[Rad]

Expanding the base vote, or core supporters who share a coherent ideology (the 5%) across the issues is one thing. Ron Paul probably pushed the envelope of our base from 5% to 10% by his 2012 campaign. Getting to 51% requires a candidate to go beyond the base vote, not just expansion of the base. It requires stitching together a coalition of voters who are not comprehensively with us on the issues, or even capable of having a coherent vision. It takes steering mass emotions that foster building a relationship that says "I'm with you," not just "I agree with you." It is not about positions alone, but about doing things that create a bond.

Trump's celebrity only bought him visibility, and (after 30 years of branding) some resistance from being character-assassinated. What he did was meet the demand of the voter market in 2016 to prioritize national and domestic interests, while confronting the elite. While the Pauls were anti-establishment by policy, Trump was anti-establishment by action. He openly talked about the mega-donors and the rigged election process, flatly exposed GOP hack rivals as being overrated hacks, kept bringing up the "wrong" or unapproved subjects, talked back to PC bias, often kicking media reps off their pedestals, etc.

Neither Paul DID these things. Nor did the Pauls campaign to get the cultural/social right's support, or those concerned about non-legal immigration, or similar major blocs. If you want to reach such voters, you talk UP their issues, not avoid the subjects, and you don't stop talking about them when the MSM tries to frame you as racist, sexist or otherwise for doing so. An outsider trend that you can bend or steer in a liberty direction should be embraced, not distanced from, as Rand did when he attacked Trump.

The pro-war emotional narrative should be openly deflated by pointing out the establishment has used lies (or even false flags) to sustain its empire-biulding---not just by dryly talking about blowback. And so on. Liberty candidates need to be perceived as doers, not talkers, from this time forward.

Ron Paul is shy and Rand was playing games. Neither have the personality of Donald Trump. I think Ron Paul would be much more comfortable with Bernie's voting block (who are culturally/social rights opposed to the Trump block) and the Pauls would have no chance of getting them if they copied Trump. I don't think you can have both. One has to choose. Trump did point out how corrupt the system (explained that he bought influence) is but then he went to AIPAC and kissed the ring. Has he tied illegal immigration to NAFTA? I haven't seen that. We need a celebrity version of a libertarian Michael Scheuer. The Pauls lack Trumps personality and Trump lacks Ron Paul's philosophy.