Trump-Kasich Feud Has GOP Worried About Ohio

[CPUd]

THE PLAN was for Jeb or similar elite puppet to win the nomination, with Kasich as his running mate, to run a FL/OH ticket as a simple paint-by-numbers, supposedly 'slam-dunk' fall campaign strategy. The Bush clan, and Kasich are still furious that Trump upset their apple cart. It's really that simple.

Kasich's behavior during the primaries was bizarre. He was connected enough to the network execs for them to change their rules so he could get into the main debates, and did much of nothing until it was down to the last 5. Even when it was down to the last 3, he made no real attempts to build out his campaign to be competitive in more than 2 or 3 states. He was much stronger in Indiana than Cruz, yet makes some weird deal with the Cruz campaign to back out of IN, and then denied such a deal existed, which hurt him overall. He strenuously refused to suspend his campaign while he was splitting the non-Trump vote, then suddenly drops the day after Cruz.

[Cleaner44]

I don't post these threads to help Hillary.

By the way, can you tell us why you do post these threads?

[CPUd]

By the way, can you tell us why you do post these threads?

Forums: 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem

News and discussion on the Republicans and Democrats in the 2016 Presidential Election. Coverage of: Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...on-GOP-amp-Dem

[Cleaner44]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdi...on-GOP-amp-Dem

Is this non-answer meant to say that you are just trolling? Why not just give an answer like a normal person?

[parocks]

I am going to try and remember this prediction come Nov.

8 years, bing, time for change.

Carter had 4, Reagan/Bush 12, but after that Clinton 8, Bush 8, Obama 8. Before Carter, Eisenhower 8, Kennedy/LBJ 8, Nixon/Ford 8.

So, in the last 64 years, there's only been one election that didn't meet that formula. If it was Carter instead of Reagan in 1980, it would've been 8 sets of 8 going back and forth.

[Feelgood]

I don't post these threads to help Hillary.

Of course you do. You hate Trump and are a pro-Hillary shill. Everyone knows it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Of course you do. You hate Trump and are a pro-Hillary shill. Everyone knows it.

No, despite Trumpkins continually making that assertion, all of the Trump critics here (with the possible exception of Zippy, who IIRC actually is a Democrat) are motivated by his radically anti-libertarian record and agenda. You really shouldn't be surprised to find that libertarians on a libertarian forum don't like anti-libertarian candidates.

[erowe1]

Of course you do. You hate Trump and are a pro-Hillary shill. Everyone knows it.

Can you find anything pro-Hillary he's posted?

Hating Trump just means he fits right in here. Do you like Trump or something?

[nikcers]

Of course you do. You hate Trump and are a pro-Hillary shill. Everyone knows it.

Trump is a pro Hillary shill, you should delete your account.

[Cleaner44]

No, despite Trumpkins continually making that assertion, all of the Trump critics here (with the possible exception of Zippy, who IIRC actually is a Democrat) are motivated by his radically anti-libertarian record and agenda. You really shouldn't be surprised to find that libertarians on a libertarian forum don't like anti-libertarian candidates.

So why are his threads always tearing down the anti-libertarian candidate Trump and never the anti-libertarian candidate Clinton?

[r3volution 3.0]

So why are his threads always tearing down the anti-libertarian candidate Trump and never the anti-libertarian candidate Clinton?

Because no one here is posting pro-Clinton comments; everyone here already knows she's horrible: no need to beat a dead horse.

Whereas, we have dozens and dozens of pro-Trump comments every day, which need refuting.

[AuH20]

So why are his threads always tearing down the anti-libertarian candidate Trump and never the anti-libertarian candidate Clinton?

Good question. I think it's partially envy because Trump stomped on Rand.

[Antischism]

Why do you post them?

Why don't you treat Hillary in the same way as Trump?

It's really simple to understand if you would engage your brain a little bit. Sorry if I'm being rude with the way I'm responding to you, but it gets tiresome. The simple reason is that there's an active base of Trump supporters — on Ron Paul Forums, no less — while the same is not true of Hillary. People are free to post anti-Hillary threads, though that just preaches to the choir. It's not difficult to grasp.

[AuH20]

It's really simple to understand if you would engage your brain a little bit. Sorry if I'm being rude with the way I'm responding to you, but it gets tiresome. The simple reason is that there's an active base of Trump supporters — on Ron Paul Forums, no less — while the same is not true of Hillary. People are free to post anti-Hillary threads, though that just preaches to the choir. It's not difficult to grasp.

It's much 'worse' than that my friend. This forum may be an outlier.

http://rare.us/story/why-did-the-new...-donald-trump/

[r3volution 3.0]

It's much 'worse' than that my friend. This forum may be an outlier.

http://rare.us/story/why-did-the-new...-donald-trump/

You seem positively giddy about the damage Trump is doing to the liberty movement.

[AuH20]

You seem positively giddy about the damage Trump is doing to the liberty movement.

I'm more giddy about the damage that he's doing to the phony two party system. I have nothing against the liberty movement, aside from some fringe elements that cozy up with the neoliberals.

[Antischism]

It's much 'worse' than that my friend. This forum may be an outlier.

http://rare.us/story/why-did-the-new...-donald-trump/

All that says to me is Ron Paul had a lot of non-libertarian supporters. We saw that a lot of former Ron Paul supporters were also aboard the Bernie Sanders train. These individuals are probably looking for an "anti-establishment" candidate, regardless of their actual positions. Make no mistake, it's great that people are fed up with the duopoly, but Trump certainly isn't the answer. It's also a huge mistake to associate the liberty movement with an authoritarian.

[CPUd]

Of course you do. You hate Trump and are a pro-Hillary shill. Everyone knows it.

False on both counts. I don't hate Trump, and I certainly don't support Clinton.

[openfire]

False on both counts. I don't hate Trump, and I certainly don't support Clinton.

[CPUd]

All that says to me is Ron Paul had a lot of non-libertarian supporters. We saw that a lot of former Ron Paul supporters were also aboard the Bernie Sanders train. These individuals are probably looking for an "anti-establishment" candidate, regardless of their actual positions. Make no mistake, it's great that people are fed up with the duopoly, but Trump certainly isn't the answer. It's also a huge mistake to associate the liberty movement with an authoritarian.

Trump is the establishment's answer to people who want to support an anti-establishment candidate.

[openfire]

Trump is the establishment's answer to people who want to support an anti-establishment candidate.

That was clearly Ted "Goldman Sachs" Cruz.

[CPUd]

That was clearly Ted "Goldman Sachs" Cruz.

Goldman Sachs runs multiple candidates every election:
Trump Tells Donors He Wants Mnuchin for Treasury, Fortune Says

[silverhandorder]

Goldman Sachs runs multiple candidates every election:
Trump Tells Donors He Wants Mnuchin for Treasury, Fortune Says

Candidate vs secretary....

[Occam's Banana]

Goldman Sachs runs multiple candidates every election:
Trump Tells Donors He Wants Mnuchin for Treasury, Fortune Says

Candidate vs secretary....

I'm sure that's a hair Goldman Sachs is more than happy to split ... (just like they did with Bush/Paulson ...)

[Peace&Freedom]

No, despite Trumpkins continually making that assertion, all of the Trump critics here (with the possible exception of Zippy, who IIRC actually is a Democrat) are motivated by his radically anti-libertarian record and agenda. You really shouldn't be surprised to find that libertarians on a libertarian forum don't like anti-libertarian candidates.

I do not accuse the Trump critics of all being Hillary shills (though granted, case by case, a few might be). What I do suggest is that most of them have been divisively self-serving in describing themselves as the exclusive "true libertarians," or in laughably over-selling Trump as having a "radically anti-libertarian record and agenda." It has been pointed out time and again that he has in fact many net anti-statist positions, that his candidacy has strategically benefited the liberty movement, and has many leading libertarians supporting him.

The trouble is not only that the critics have been unreasonable, by not accepting that libertarians do reasonably disagree over Trump, but have also avoided acknowledging the same benefits concerning the anti-establishment trend, even when Trump is excluded from the discussion. This is the clearest sign that the real issue is they do not want to advance the movement by applying the lessons learned across 2007 to present. They don't want to because of 1) their inability or unwillingness to build winning voting coalitions beyond the 5-10% liberty base, and 2) they don't want to effectively confront the institutional barriers set up by the special interest run establishment, who control the major parties and media.

The Paul movement has become divided because, post Paul, there is no agreement over, or ability to acknowledge, how to address the other, above two dynamics. Recognizing that the anti-elite or outsider trends in general, and Trump in particular, have been more successful for liberty on both strategic fronts is not something they want to face, because applying that to running more consistently pro-liberty candidates means we have to admit the approach of the Pauls was UNsuccessful, or insufficient. They just want to evaluate people based on their being near 100% correct on the issues, even if they can't win a primary, into perpetuity.

That approach is inadequate for those of us who want to see policy changes for liberty in our lifetime. We're willing to support somebody imperfect in demeanor who's closer to an alpha "William Wallace" to help get us there. Ultimately, we will have to incorporate more dynamics than merely scoring people on their positions to field successful contenders, and to forego relying on only one model of candidate, in order to further the liberty mission.

[CPUd]

I do not accuse the Trump critics of all being Hillary shills (though granted, case by case, a few might be). What I do suggest is that most of them have been divisively self-serving in describing themselves as the exclusive "true libertarians," or in laughably over-selling Trump as having a "radically anti-libertarian record and agenda." It has been pointed out time and again that he has in fact many net anti-statist positions, that his candidacy has strategically benefited the liberty movement, and has many leading libertarians supporting him.

The trouble is not only that the critics have been unreasonable, by not accepting that libertarians do reasonably disagree over Trump, but have also avoided acknowledging the same benefits concerning the anti-establishment trend, even when Trump is excluded from the discussion. This is the clearest sign that the real issue is they do not want to advance the movement by applying the lessons learned across 2007 to present. They don't want to because of 1) their inability or unwillingness to build winning voting coalitions beyond the 5-10% liberty base, and 2) they don't want to effectively confront the institutional barriers set up by the special interest run establishment, who control the major parties and media.

The Paul movement has become divided because, post Paul, there is no agreement over, or ability to acknowledge, how to address the other, above two dynamics. Recognizing that the anti-elite or outsider trends in general, and Trump in particular, have been more successful for liberty on both strategic fronts is not something they want to face, because applying that to running more consistently pro-liberty candidates means we have to admit the approach of the Pauls was UNsuccessful, or insufficient. They just want to evaluate people based on their being near 100% correct on the issues, even if they can't win a primary, into perpetuity.

That approach is inadequate for those of us who want to see policy changes for liberty in our lifetime. We're willing to support somebody imperfect in demeanor who's closer to an alpha "William Wallace" to help get us there. Ultimately, we will have to incorporate more dynamics than merely scoring people on their positions to field successful contenders, and to forego relying on only one model of candidate, in order to further the liberty mission.

There is little to no value in building a coalition with Trump and his supporters, and I believe it will ultimately be destructive to the mission of RPFs. If you believe otherwise, you need to make your case here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-(POTUS)

There has always been a plan to build coalitions with different groups, like Constitutional conservatives, libertarians, independents and even some "establishment" groups. The groundwork that was laid out in Ron 2012 was for that purpose; Ron taught us there was a "right" way to win, and showed how it could be done. It goes against everything the Trump campaign is about- he and his supporters' behavior in the last week alone should be enough to make that clear. They have built a coalition with the party elites and alienated the grassroots, they have bought so far into the hype that they are now viewing those on the right as leftists. Ron 2012 showed there is no left or right, just up and down.

[Jamesiv1]

I predicted this back in '03

[Peace&Freedom]

There is little to no value in building a coalition with Trump and his supporters, and I believe it will ultimately be destructive to the mission of RPFs. If you believe otherwise, you need to make your case here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Trump-(POTUS)

No I don't, as the liberty mission and movement does not revolve around RPF, or the Pauls, as they are just subsets of it. I was relating the larger truth about where the grassroots needs to go to make progress, not redecorating the chairs on a policy statement. With all due respect to Ron Paul, he didn't win in 2012. The movement needs a strategic component, as well as candidates who have mostly great positions. Otherwise it has merely moved the LP's "educational campaign" concept into a corner of the GOP, and not much else.

We can't win elections with just the 5% base, or without disrupting the establishment, so we either seek to fight that fight and build winning coalitions to get to 51%, or we don't make progress. Can we do so in an overall more pro-liberty way than Trump did? Of course, or at least probably. But being in denial about the need to do so, will lead to the same defeats as experienced in 2008. 2012, and 2016.

[CPUd]

No I don't, as the liberty mission and movement does not revolve around RPF, or the Pauls, as they are just subsets of it. I was relating the larger truth about where the grassroots needs to go to make progress, not redecorating the chairs on a policy statement. With all due respect to Ron Paul, he didn't win in 2012. The movement needs a strategic component, as well as candidates who have mostly great positions. Otherwise it has merely moved the LP's "educational campaign" concept into a corner of the GOP, and not much else.

We can't win elections with just the 5% base, or without disrupting the establishment, so we either seek to fight that fight and build winning coalitions to get to 51%, or we don't make progress. Can we do so in an overall more pro-liberty way than Trump did? Of course, or at least probably. But being in denial about the need to do so, will lead to the same defeats as experienced in 2008. 2012, and 2016.

You seem to be in disagreement with the site policy, Bryan has provided a framework to resolve disagreements of this nature. Instead, you refuse to use that framework.

[silverhandorder]

You seem to be in disagreement with the site policy, Bryan has provided a framework to resolve disagreements of this nature. Instead, you refuse to use that framework.

That is one of the most retarded replies I read in a while. We can speak our mind here in any way you like. Have a problem with that? Too bad Brian owns the forum.

Brian can have his pet project and we can choose or not choose to support it or participate.