Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
And... has he? Can you give any examples?
Anti-establishment and contrarian are not the same thing.
You're doing the same. You say he's anti-establishment because... he is. This is contrary to evidence such as the assortment of establishment policy advisers he selected, his VP pick, the type of people who supported him (before he lit his campaign on fire), nearly everything that comes out of his mouth, etc. etc.
Maybe it will be easier if you focus on the facts and try to take this argument out of context because you seem to have some firmly held belief system that is holding you back.
Hillary is so unpopular within her own party that democrats aren't voting for her, they are voting against the Republican nominee. You don't understand this basic fact, that's your problem.
Trump is a pied piper who is splitting the GOP vote; giving the GOPe a plausible reason to support the Hillary, or at least not support him. He also is less repulsive to the largest voting block in America, ill-informed independents. TeamClinton wanted someone easily portrayed as more repulsive than Hillary, and they got one.
Don't let others get you down. Not naysayers, not pretenders, not appeasers, not opportunists; none of em.
What others do pales beside what YOU do.
Press on! - The r3VOLution continues...
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
~ C.Coolidge
Bill Clinton also denied having sex with that woman. Here's the source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...5e2_story.html
Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.
So it's confirmed that Clinton "encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party" right before Trump announced he was run for president. Put 2 and 2 together and if you didn't learn math under Common Core you might get 4.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
This. And it's not just democrat voters. It's independents as well. Gary Johnson is pulling more from Hillary than he is from Trump. If those people had somebody to vote for on the GOP side this would be a different race. If not for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would have the worst approval rating of a presidential candidate ever.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
I guarantee you there is no "Grab em by the pussy" tape for Ben Carson. Ben Carson also didn't donate to Hillary Clinton. Ben Carson also did not have a phone call from Bill Clinton weeks before announcing he would run for president encouraging him to "take a more active role in the republican party." I've already spelled all of this out earlier in the thread. Please read.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Yeah I can't imagine how people (assuming P&F isn't a shill or sock puppet) that witnessed how Ron and supporters were treated don't see the extreme cognitive dissonance in comparison to how Trump was treated. As if the media's solution to offsetting Trump's billionaire ability to self-fund a campaign was to give him as much air time as he could handle and then some, so he didn't have to pay out of pocket to show how serious he was about winning. SNL host spots on NBC always go to the candidates that the establishment doesn't want to promote.
Trump holds a much higher ability to be believed as the loser to Clinton, regardless of what the TRUE voting numbers would show. That is the key. It must be believable that Clinton wins. It would be much harder to believe, en masse, that Rand or Kasich or even Cruz lost to Hillary, when you compare the relative amounts of dirt and the relative dislike of the candidates in general. As others stated, Trump was the only GOP candidate that could be disliked more than Clinton (though Bush would have been close for obvious reasons). Rand would have smashed her in a fair contest and TPTB knew that.
Last edited by devil21; 10-24-2016 at 02:29 PM.
"Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul
"We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book
I don't know, try asking some Bernie Sanders supporters. Do you think that Clinton came into the 2016 election with no preparation?
This is ridiculous. If there had been no Trump, we would have gotten someone like Jeb or Rubio. Establishment candidates who would have done very little different in action than Clinton. Would this have been preferable in your eyes? And don't tell me Rand. Rand was too busy shooting himself in each of his feet.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
You see Trump as anti-establishment. I don't. CaptUSA says it well above, "The unifying factor of "the establishment" is that they covet power above all else. You'll know a true anti-establishment candidate by his desire to cede government power back to the people. Sound like Trump?! Didn't think so."
I see a lecherous lout; an authoritarian gasbag; a power mad used building salesman of the elite.
And as far as the other choices, one could ask in the words of a Trump Train engineer, "What difference does it make"?
Last edited by ronpaulhawaii; 10-24-2016 at 07:50 PM.
Don't let others get you down. Not naysayers, not pretenders, not appeasers, not opportunists; none of em.
What others do pales beside what YOU do.
Press on! - The r3VOLution continues...
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
~ C.Coolidge
This might help to explain that phenomenon.
Article and link reposted for convenience:
http://www.emory.edu/news/Releases/P...138113163.htmlRelease date: Jan. 24, 2006
Contact: Beverly Cox Clark at 404-712-8780 or beverly.clark@emory.edu
Emory Study Lights Up the Political Brain
When it comes to forming opinions and making judgments on hot political issues, partisans of both parties don't let facts get in the way of their decision-making, according to a new Emory University study. The research sheds light on why staunch Democrats and Republicans can hear the same information, but walk away with opposite conclusions.
The investigators used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to study a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the three months prior to the U.S. Presidential election of 2004. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate. During the task, the subjects underwent fMRI to see what parts of their brain were active. What the researchers found was striking.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," says Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led the study. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Westen and his colleagues will present their findings at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Jan. 28.
Once partisans had come to completely biased conclusions — essentially finding ways to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted — not only did circuits that mediate negative emotions like sadness and disgust turn off, but subjects got a blast of activation in circuits involved in reward — similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix, Westen explains.
"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," says Westen. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."
During the study, the partisans were given 18 sets of stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target (Bush or Kerry). The first statement was followed by a second statement that documented a clear contradiction between the target's words and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was dishonest or pandering.
Next, partisans were asked to consider the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the person's words and deeds were contradictory. Finally, they were presented with an exculpatory statement that might explain away the apparent contradiction, and asked to reconsider and again rate the extent to which the target's words and deeds were contradictory.
Behavioral data showed a pattern of emotionally biased reasoning: partisans denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate that they had no difficulty detecting in the opposing candidate. Importantly, in both their behavioral and neural responses, Republicans and Democrats did not differ in the way they responded to contradictions for the neutral control targets, such as Hanks, but Democrats responded to Kerry as Republicans responded to Bush.
While reasoning about apparent contradictions for their own candidate, partisans showed activations throughout the orbital frontal cortex, indicating emotional processing and presumably emotion regulation strategies. There also were activations in areas of the brain associated with the experience of unpleasant emotions, the processing of emotion and conflict, and judgments of forgiveness and moral accountability.
Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments likely occur outside of awareness, and are distinct from normal reasoning processes when emotion is not so heavily engaged, says Westen.
The investigators hypothesize that emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. "The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen says.
The study has potentially wide implications, from politics to business, and demonstrates that emotional bias can play a strong role in decision-making, Westen says. "Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen says.
Coauthors of the study include Pavel Blagov and Stephan Hamann of the Emory Department of Psychology, and Keith Harenski and Clint Kilts of the Emory Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.
And, for the record, it doesn't apply only to Trump supporters, although they do seem to be the ones predominantly exhibiting it currently.
Chris
"Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon
"...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul
No, I cited points of uncontested fact (most billionaires/media are not supporting him, Wikileaks reveals no establishment-wide collusion to back him, etc). Whereas you cited points subject to interpretation (for example, since securing the nomination, he has tried to incorporate what establishment people or rhetoric he could as a party unity gesture, while keeping the basic substance of his different agenda intact). Ron and Rand made like gestures, or even some candidate endorsements of the establishment kind, thus doing so by itself means nothing. Coloring the facts with the same baseless contention, is not the same as presenting facts that back up the contention.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Is it possible that people that don't believe the claim that Trump is there working for the political elites to hand Hillary the election, may not support Trump?
Based on this thread, it seems anyone that does not believe the narrative that Trump is in the bag for Clinton, has to be a Trump shill, no exceptions. This is being used to discredit opinions regarding this issue by simply labeling people Trumptards or Trump minions or whatever they are calling them and taking away all argumentative power they may have by these means. Whether or not this is effective is up to the reader.
Maybe many of the people taking this stance on the debate in this thread are indeed for Trump, but I'm also willing to bet that there are plenty on these boards that aren't on Trumps side and also don't believe Trump was a key member and present in some manner while these plans were being orchestrated. By merely pointing this out, I too, probably risk being called out for being a Trump supporter. We'll see.
Maybe your reading comprehension is negatively affected by your emotional investment? Because a shyt ton of people, such as myself, do not believe that Trump is part of a conspiracy to elect Hillary, and yet nobody here has ever accused me of being a Trump supporter.
Not this election cycle. This was the year of the anti establishment candidate. It took a whole lot of cheating for Hillary to off Sanders and even then I'm not sure she would have won without the superdelegates making her inevitable. Jeb never stood spit of a chance. And much of Trump's support would have gone to Cruz or Rand. Hell Ben freaking Carson was leading the pack at one point.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
"Fact"
Of course they haven't. The only thing Wikileaks has is Clinton and the DNC's emails. In order to read things about Trump, you'd been the GOP's emails, and guess what: Russia won't be targeting those with Trump as the GOP nominee. Even if they did, Wikileaks wouldn't host or release them. Feel free to spend some time thinking about the reasons behind that. Do you think the GOP's servers are magically super secure?
Bull$#@!. I'm not playing the game where Trump supporters selectively interpret everything that comes out of his mouth in the most un-intuitive way possible in order to give him a pass on everything that he says. Let's talk about just a small subset of the utter nonsense that has dribbled from Trump's mouth since he began campaigning.
Remember the 30k troops on the ground in Syria?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ground-take-o/“They have great money because they have oil. They have much oil,” Mr. Trump said via phone on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Any place where they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil. Because what you’re doing is you’re cutting off a big portion of their money source.”
...
“And in order to do that, you would have to put boots. I would knock the hell out of ‘em, but I’d put a ring around it, and I’d take the oil for our country,” he said. “I’d just take the oil.”
Remember when he said that he government should just print its way out of debt?
tl;dr: Trump says the government should sell tons of debt and then when that $#@!s up the economy, then the government can buy it back and profit as a result. And if the economy totally crashes, well then you won't have to pay it all off anyway. Win/win“People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government,” Trump told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on “New Day.” “First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?”Trump said he would center his approach on debt buybacks if and when interest rates go up.
“I said if we can buy back government debt at a discount, in other words, if interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount — if we are liquid enough as a country, we should do that,” Trump said. “In other words, we can buy back debt at a discount.”
...
Trump had kicked up a firestorm in economic and political circles when, in an interview last Friday on CNBC, the presumptive Republican nominee seemed to suggest that rather than pay its outstanding national debt in full, the country could renegotiate.
Asked if the U.S. needs to pay its debt in full or if it could negotiate a partial repayment, Trump said: “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”
http://fox6now.com/2016/05/09/donald...int-the-money/
On the topic of the national debt, what about the Federal Reserve?
Here he is in May:
May 5, 2016:
“I am a low interest-rate person. If we raise interest rates and if the dollar starts getting too strong, we’re going to have some very major problems.”
“Now, if inflation starts coming in—and we don’t see any signs of that, but—if inflation starts coming in, that’s a different story. Then you have to go up and you have to slow things down. But right now I am for low interest rates, and I think we keep them low, and we have to compete.”Here he is in September:May 18:
Mr. Trump said he was “not an enemy” of Ms. Yellen, adding, “I’m not a person who thinks Janet Yellen is doing a bad job.”
“I happen to be a low-interest-rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head, which can happen at some point.” He said an inflation spike “doesn’t seem like it’s happening any time soon.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/...-janet-yellen/Sept. 5:
Asked about a potential rate increase in September, Mr. Trump said: “They’re keeping the rates down so that everything else doesn’t go down. We have a very false economy.”
“At some point the rates are going to have to change. The only thing that is strong is the artificial stock market.”
Sept. 12:
“The people that were hurt the worst are people that saved their money all their lives and thought they would live off their interests and those people are getting just absolutely creamed….The interest rates are kept down by President Obama. I have no doubt that that’s the reason they are being kept down.”
“It’s a tremendous problem for the country and we are talking about rates that are practically at zero.
Please explain this shift to me. Please explain how this is not a used car salesman of an establishmentarian who is desperately seeking to appear non- or anti-establishment during the death throes of his campaign.
Please give me one example of any time when Ron or Rand said anything similar to the above.
Thanks for the insight. I'm glad you have evaded receiving the label thus far, although I was mostly referring to being labeled within this thread which you can find in the statement you quoted.
Why don't you weigh in with your thoughts about the topic then and see what the response is? I'm only seeing a few responses by you in this thread, 3 of which are insults that have little to do with the subject.
trump is winningover sander's voters by in drove.
You know, if the guys I watch on youtube from Nation of Islam love trump...
It's pointless arguing with you on this, because Trump is going to win, and blow your stupid theory straight out of the water.
wikileaks, not wikihacks. And right now, wikileaks is just one man's emails. The source is thought to be Seth Rich, a 27 year old DNC staffer, who was shot four times in the back earlier this year. Wikileaks has also tweeted they might reveal their source. They have never revealed their source before.Do you think the GOP's servers are magically super secure?
Last edited by UWDude; 10-24-2016 at 08:19 PM.
Ummmmm.... RON PAUL !!!
BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"
Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist
Use an internet archive site like THIS ONE
to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.
The fact that Hillary specifically wanted and promoted Trump during the Primary because her campaign staff believed that he would be the easiest to beat? I agree with this 100%, and I have for a long time. This has now been largely confirmed by Wikileaks. I do not understand why anyone (aside from emotionally invested Trump supporters) would think otherwise. Seems pretty obvious to me.
More misdirection and strawmen. The Wikileaks documents would have included smoking gun admissions about Trump's involvement as a plant (e.g., emails to and from Trump staff confirming their collusion) and other such proof, just as they have about nearly everything else. If such an arrangement ever existed or remained in place, it would have been evidenced in the Clinton and DNC communications. The fact that it is not, shows the arrangement does not exist. Changing the subject to your presumption that "other emails" from RNC would have shown it is an interpretation on your part, not what the evidence at hand indicates. So I stand by the point that my case was based on the facts, yours on interpretation.
And citing Trump's inconsistencies on positions is irrelevant, as the point of discussion was over his choices regarding staffing and GOP alliances since getting nominated. I cut Trump the same slack as Rand over various compromising gestures he has made (especially the unconsidered remarks he makes at rallies or interviews), while overall sticking to his own non-establishment agenda, as shown by his "Gettysburg" address summarizing his true policy platform.
What is it about Trump bashers and their attempts to pathologize those who disagree with them? Aren't they aware that this petty penchant for "correcting" others may be a mark of OCD?
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 11-04-2016 at 02:55 PM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
I think that is likely true. But, that isn't all that some around here blathered. They accused Trump of being a willing part of it and that, I have not seen proof of. Hillary's camp also thought Carson or Cruz would be easy to beat. However, they didn't bargain for Trump actually being the force that he is. Trump wants to win and while it is still a long shot, it is a possibility.
Last edited by LibertyEagle; 11-04-2016 at 10:32 AM.
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
Connect With Us