AIPAC speeches discussion - Kasich, Cruz, Trump

[H. E. Panqui]

....rand was/is a real straight-shooter and square-dealer regarding iZrael and its unfortunate 'neighbors'... ...yeah...riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bOeYFUphWo

[phill4paul]

I've always been open to changing my mind, Ron Paul changed my mind quite a bit, I've changed my mind on things since then, the only one's saying I was locked in stone were other people, I never did.

I said from the start I do not like Trump the man, only liked the upheaval his campaign was causing and new discussion taking place that were all but forbidden prior, but people hear what they want to hear.

Ron Paul changed my mind WRT becoming pro-life. I still believe that the morning after pill is acceptable and that abortion for the mothers health is acceptable. Thanks, Ron!

What specifically about Trumps speech caused you to give pause to your position on him? Was there something specific or was it just the fact that he showed up at all to "kiss the ring" so to say?

[phill4paul]

....rand was/is a real straight-shooter and square-dealer regarding iZrael and its unfortunate 'neighbors'... ...yeah...riiiiiiiiiiiiight...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bOeYFUphWo

Never agreed with him on this stance. Ughhh.

[hankrichter12]

Ron Paul changed my mind WRT becoming pro-life. I still believe that the morning after pill is acceptable and that abortion for the mothers health is acceptable. Thanks, Ron!

What specifically about Trumps speech caused you to give pause to your position on him? Was there something specific or was it just the fact that he showed up at all to "kiss the ring" so to say?

Showing up was bad enough, but then just the style of the speech was another thing, it was a "speech", not his usual bombastic nonsense, and he time and again just kept laying it on with the whole "Israel is our brother", "Will be forever" "Palestinians must accept that" "I did this for Jews, I did that for Jews".

So, he wants to broker a deal between two parties when one party has to go in knowing he loves the other side and is their "brother" and blames the entire conflict on the party that is not his "brother" and demands they must be the one to do the lion's share of the conceding. If I were a Palestinian I can't say I'd be too optimistic about my chances in that summit.

I know most all of what he says is BS and showmanship, which is why it bothered me that the one speech he obviously decided to sit down and plan out and rehearse was for AIPAC, and it was all the typical groveling and stroking of Israel, made me sick. Why are our leaders, every last one of them, bowing to 1 little country? It's downright degrading.

[phill4paul]

Showing up was bad enough, but then just the style of the speech was another thing, it was a "speech", not his usual bombastic nonsense, and he time and again just kept laying it on with the whole "Israel is our brother", "Will be forever" "Palestinians must accept that" "I did this for Jews, I did that for Jews".

So, he wants to broker a deal between two parties when one party has to go in knowing he loves the other side and is their "brother" and blames the entire conflict on the party that is not his "brother" and demands they must be the one to do the lion's share of the conceding. If I were a Palestinian I can't say I'd be too optimistic about my chances in that summit.

I know most all of what he says is BS and showmanship, which is why it bothered me that the one speech he obviously decided to sit down and plan out and rehearse was for AIPAC, and it was all the typical groveling and stroking of Israel, made me sick. Why are our leaders, every last one of them, bowing to 1 little country? It's downright degrading.

Admittedly I haven't had the chance to sit down and watch it yet. Spring cleaning the house today, with an occasional moment to sit down and post. I'm going to have to make time as it seems like a very unusual departure from his usual debate/stump speech fare.

[twomp]

So you wanted Rand to criticize Israel and US support for Israel in the midst of a Republican primary?

Why not? Ron Paul did it and he did WAYYYY better than Rand Paul did.

[Mach]

The point is, Rand obviously favors ending foreign aid to Israel (and everywhere else), just like Ron.

He was forced to walk it back under extreme political pressure from the neocons.

Trump either doesn't want to end foreign aid to Israel, or is too much of a puss to even once say he does in public.

Either way, Rand 1, Trump 0.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why not? Ron Paul did it and he did WAYYYY better than Rand Paul did.

In spite of his criticism of the US-Israeli relationship, not because of it.

Ron did better than Rand for basically one reason: 2012 was about the economy, the hawks were in retreat, and the culture war was on the back-burner.

i.e. the opposite of 2016

If everything were pushed back 4 years, and the Rand of 2016 (i.e. the slightly mainstream-ized version of Ron) had run in 2012, he'd have done better than Ron actually did in 2012.

[r3volution 3.0]

[Mach]

Showing up was bad enough, but then just the style of the speech was another thing, it was a "speech", not his usual bombastic nonsense, and he time and again just kept laying it on with the whole "Israel is our brother", "Will be forever" "Palestinians must accept that" "I did this for Jews, I did that for Jews".

So, he wants to broker a deal between two parties when one party has to go in knowing he loves the other side and is their "brother" and blames the entire conflict on the party that is not his "brother" and demands they must be the one to do the lion's share of the conceding. If I were a Palestinian I can't say I'd be too optimistic about my chances in that summit.

I know most all of what he says is BS and showmanship, which is why it bothered me that the one speech he obviously decided to sit down and plan out and rehearse was for AIPAC, and it was all the typical groveling and stroking of Israel, made me sick. Why are our leaders, every last one of them, bowing to 1 little country? It's downright degrading.

Same here, but like it or not, any candidate that speaks about Israel in a negative manner will not be elected.... gotta get your foot in the door before you can change anything.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6176903

[Mach]

I understand, wasn't a one side or the other, just a both sucked up comparison.... that was my only problem with Rand, but was hoping that he too was just scoring points during an election.

[r3volution 3.0]

I understand, wasn't a one side or the other, just a both sucked up comparison.... that was my only problem with Rand, but was hoping that he too was just scoring points during an election.

Except Trump wasn't in office or running for any office when he made this ad for Netanyahu.

Unlike Rand, he was under no political pressure to appease AIPAC.

He did it willingly.

[Mach]

Well, for business..........

[hankrichter12]

Same here, but like it or not, any candidate that speaks about Israel in a negative manner will not be elected.... gotta get your foot in the door before you can change anything.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6176903

Not so sure that theory would hold these days, most other candidates this is true of because they need the money from the big donors, Trump doesn't.

At any rate I'm not suggesting he had to come out full on saying "America is going to start looking out for America, Israel is a cancer and has to fend for itself" - but he didn't have to get down on the floor and shine their shoes with his tongue either.

[Mach]

Self Financing - good point.

Not so sure that theory would hold these days, most other candidates this is true of because they need the money from the big donors, Trump doesn't.

At any rate I'm not suggesting he had to come out full on saying "America is going to start looking out for America, Israel is a cancer and has to fend for itself" - but he didn't have to get down on the floor and shine their shoes with his tongue either.

Not defending, I was shuttering when I even heard he was going there at all and was afraid of the potential ass kissing, so, I know, still have a ways to go, a good 7 months, who knows what will happen by then, I think the closer we get the more we'll see his real goals, somewhere down the line he has to sit down and give some real interviews and get some hard questions, he can only get away with one-liners for so long.

One of the things I like the best is his no policing the world foreign policy... we'll see.

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, for business..........

I take it you already see the problem with that argument (excuse), so I won't belabor the point..

[Cleaner44]

If hank is serious one must be careful not to turn a learning moment into an "I told you so." Some have invested themselves in Trump and sometimes that lends towards a deaf ear if others nay-say. I have been guilty of this in the past myself and an "I told you so" only caused me to dig my heels in deeper. Again, if hank is serious, I applaud him for his ability to reflect upon new developments.

I think it is very hard to predict what Trump will do as president because he is all over the map with positions. I am taking a wait and see approach because I don't think we know where he really stands. He is running this campaign masterfully and he will win. What he will do with that is anybody's guess. He might be neutral with Israel or he might do the exact same things that all of our other presidents have done.

Right now Trump is selling himself to the public and appearing at AIPAC is part of his sales job. He has already beaten his GOP competitors and next he will beat Hilary. What he will do once he closes the sale is the important question. I think only time will really tell us.

[erowe1]

Why not? Ron Paul did it and he did WAYYYY better than Rand Paul did.

What specifically are you referring to?

I remember Ron Paul speaking positively about Israel and explaining how US practice of noninterventionism was in Israel's best interest. But I don't remember him criticizing them during his presidential campaign.

[erowe1]

Is there supposed to be something wrong with this?

[Mach]

Is there supposed to be something wrong with this?

You do nothing but float around trying to start trouble.... if you must know, he is kissing butt.


Edit..... here try just reading through the thread and then you'll see how foolish you look trying to start $#@! all the time.

I understand, wasn't a one side or the other, just a both sucked up comparison.... that was my only problem with Rand, but was hoping that he too was just scoring points during an election.

[CPUd]

[r3volution 3.0]

All reality TV characters together.

[Rad]

It seems to me your logic goes something like this:

If you don't compromise your values, you are running an educational campaign.
If you are running an educational campaign, you can't win.

While Trump has no values to compromise, he is showing that there is a third way of running a campaign: a "combative campaign". Rather than stay in brainy abstract land of the "pure educational campaign" or suck up to the establishment, he is defining his campaign by what he isn't (namely part of the establishment).

There is the option of a sort of impure educational campaign that intersects with a combative campaign. Rather than always taking the low road and picking fights like Trump does, you become a fighter and put your gloves on for liberty. You talk about what utter failures the other candidates have caused by turning their backs to liberty. You don't hold anything back. You gain the attention of the audience yet support liberty.

r3volution 3.0, why can't we have this?

I think a fantasy trojan horse (Rand) did worse than an educational candidate. Everything is tied up together, our civil liberties, Empire, economy, or do you think Chalmers Johnson is full of crap? https://youtu.be/Q2CCs-x9q9U

Why can't we have a candidate like this? "Lawrence Wilkerson foretells the demise of the United States Empire:" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRM07KcQKuE

[r3volution 3.0]

r3volution 3.0, why can't we have this?

Well, sure, we can have that.

But I don't know that it would work any better than a soft-spoken campaign.

I don't think voters are rejecting our candidates because they're not yelling enough.

I think they're rejecting our candidates because they don't want libertarianism.

Hence the need for the Trojan horse.

I'm not for or against more combative rhetoric in itself; sometimes that might help, other times not.

Maye Rand should have been more combative in certain situations, I don't know.

All I know is that you can't run a purist campaign (combative or otherwise) if the goal is to win.

[Rad]

Well, sure, we can have that.

But I don't know that it would work any better than a soft-spoken campaign.

I don't think voters are rejecting our candidates because they're not yelling enough.

I think they're rejecting our candidates because they don't want libertarianism.

Hence the need for the Trojan horse.

I'm not for or against more combative rhetoric; sometimes that might help, other times not.

But I am against a purist campaign, if the goal is to win.

How can we get the neocons to let a trojan horse into their camp willingly? Where would we find such a creature to pull it off, especially this day and age of social media? Are there any examples where this worked? If they are a trojan horse then how would we know? It would be a happy accident that they were a trojan horse.

I think they are rejecting the candidates because they want the American dream and someone to tell'em who screwed them, what needs to happen for it to be brought. The people are being educated everyday by the people who dupe them.

[erowe1]

You do nothing but float around trying to start trouble.... if you must know, he is kissing butt.


Edit..... here try just reading through the thread and then you'll see how foolish you look trying to start $#@! all the time.

I'm not the one causing trouble here. You're trying to smear Rand. And you can't even answer me. Is there anything wrong with him praying at the Western Wall? Why do you think he's trying to kiss anybody's butt. I have prayed there, and I wasn't kissing anybody's butt. I was just doing what lots of Christian and Jewish tourists in Israel do.

[r3volution 3.0]

How can we get the neocons to let a trojan horse into their camp willingly?

We can't.

As I said earlier, it's not the media or the party leaders that we're tying to fool, it's the voters.

We do this by not saying/doing things which would allow the media/party to portray us to the voters as kooky, radical, etc.

Of course, they'll still try to portray us that way, but it'll be harder if we don't give them material to work with.

Where would we find such a creature to pull it off, especially this day and age of social media? Are there any examples where this worked? If they are a trojan horse then how would we know? It would be a happy accident that they were a trojan horse.

Virtually all politicians are Trojan horses, or wolves in sheep's clothing, to switch metaphors.

This is easy when you have the media/party behind you.

We need to be sheep in wolve's clothing, and we need to do it without media/party support.

A tall order, but I see no viable alternative.

You're never going to educate voters to the point that they really support libertarianism, not when our enemies control 99% of the media.

So, we have to appear to be something that they would support, if we're going to get their votes.

[Antischism]

[Rad]

We can't.

As I said earlier, it's not the media or the party leaders that we're tying to fool, it's the voters.

We do this by not saying/doing things which would allow the media/party to portray us to the voters as kooky, radical, etc.

Of course, they'll still try to portray us that way, but it'll be harder if we don't give them material to work with.



Virtually all politicians are Trojan horses, or wolves in sheep's clothing, to switch metaphors.

This is easy when you have the media/party behind you.

We need to be sheep in wolve's clothing, and we need to do it without media/party support.

A tall order, but I see no viable alternative.

You're never going to educate voters to the point that they really support libertarianism, not when our enemies control 99% of the media.

So, we have to appear to be something that they would support, if we're going to get their votes.

Trump is put in a poor light and he is winning. When has someone who was not a tool for the powers that be get into office by being a wolf in sheep's clothing? How would you even groom someone for that? Someone without history that could out them. Where are they? How about next election season we have an unapologetic straight talker that seeks to end the empire and reform the United States economy, transition out of the welfare state, and a wolf in sheep's clothing and see which one does better?

How about political assassination? If all the competition met an accident then well guess who wins? That is an option too which has a higher chance of working than pretending to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[misterx]

It's so sad that you have to grovel to a foreign country to become PUSA.