Paul supporters voting for Trump

[nikcers]

Elect uncertainty!

What a wonderful election.

Rand Paul endorses 'entropy'

[scm]

you can't say the same for Trump

That's because he has multiple stances on the same issue. He has ZERO Principals. Voting for him is literally a game of Russian roulette.

[euphemia]

What difference does any of them make? not selling myself out.
Obvoiusly my principals to me have more value to me than yours do to you.
And that's just another difference between "real" RON Paul supporters.

What kind of principles are you talking about?

[Occam's Banana]

because Romney would have bombed China

The only thing Romney would have bombed China with is smack-talk.

The US excels at (directly or indirectly) stomping the $#@! out of places that have no chance of defending themselves (like Libya and Yemen), but when it comes to places that can and would actually fight back (such as Russia and China), I suspect the only thing you'll see from the US is a lot of screeching threats and hissy fits.

[Occam's Banana]

Whens the senate KY debate?

Toady is the debate.

Rand Paul and Jim Gray debate tonight, airing live on CSPAN - 8 pm ET
Officially official thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-CSPAN-8-pm-ET

[nikcers]

That's because he has multiple stances on the same issue. He has ZERO Principals. Voting for him is literally a game of Russian roulette.

I'd argue that Trump's brand of nationalism would be worse against Russia, unless he reverses those stances. Every thing we do in the middle east is anti Russian. Trump just wants to do it better, he doesn't just want to control the price of oil, he wants to take the oil and give it to people who buy it from Russia.

[scm]

What kind of principles are you talking about?

o

I believe in Liberty and I won't vote for anyone that does not too.

THUMP has NOTHING to do with Liberty.

[Cleaner44]

I don't belive there is a difference between them. No matter the vote, Liberty is lost.

There is a difference whether you believe it or not.

I registered as a Republican because Ron Paul suggested it. It is Ron that told us that the best way to affect the system is by working within it. I no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to win the White House, as I did in 2008 and 2012.

I agree with Rand Paul:

[P3ter_Griffin]

Vote or don't vote whatever way you want, it doesn't matter to me.

I don't know or care about your principles as I don't know you or where you were when we were here during both of Ron Paul's campaigns. I don't know if you contributed to the blimp or even remember the blimp. For all I know this is your first election. You do whatever your principles tell you to do... power to you.

You likewise don't know anything about me, don't know about the actions I took in 2007 and beyond, don't know about the money time and energy I contributed.

I certainly don't need to prove that I am a "real" Ron Paul supporter to you.

Anyway, nice job on dodging the simple question.

Muh blimp!!11!!!

If that is the kind of $#@! that tickles your fancy you would make a good politician, Trumpster.

[scm]

There is a difference whether you believe it or not.

Your rightTHUMP admits to hating Liberty.
More war, more patriot act, more NSA, more militarized police, Snowden is a traitor.

I registered as a Republican because Ron Paul suggested it. It is Ron that told us that the best way to affect the system is by working within it. I no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to win the White House, as I did in 2008 and 2012.

Ron Paul ran as a RATpubliCON, because He had to. it was his best way to advance Liberty. He knew he would NEVER win. So, In our 2 party system. The RATs (as opposed to the DEMONS) were the closest party to what he believes in. Ron ran as a RATpubliCON so he could tap the funds, get in the debates, get exposure and expose the system for the corruption it's all about. He did a he l l of a job at it too. You didn't register as a RATpubliCON because "Ron suggested it" you registered because that WAS THE ONLY CHOICE. I've heard all this from Ron in his interviews since 2007. Didn't you? This is what I mean when some people "like" him and some people UNDERSTAND him.

Sounds like he's trashing the RATs in this video


@38seconds, why did he run?


theres more.

I agree with Rand .

Good for you. But Rand is no Ron.

[ProBlue33]

@Cleaner44

I no longer have the luxury of allowing the Democrats to win the White House, as I did in 2008 and 2012.

I wish more Libertarians would acknowledge this. The last two election cycles I applauded those that would not vote for the GOP candidate, especially that traitor Romney.
This round is different, very different, but it would have been the same if Jeb Bush was the nominee, but he isn't.

[vita3]

"For me it is very simple. Clinton can't be allowed to be our president. She is a criminal of the highest order."

Agree 100%

Not many good choices here, but Clinton can't gain power again.

[nikcers]

Good for you. But Rand is no Ron.

I think the argument Rand had until he got hammered at 300 town hall events was that he signed a pledge the establishment made him do it in order to run for president he had to pledge to support the republican nominee. After the nominee was decided he had no choice, what do you want him to do attack the republican nominee like Paul Ryan? Do you guys really think Rand Paul loves Trump after $#@!ting on him the entire year of 2015, or is he running re re-election? Do you Trump supporters really think Rand Paul loves coal more than sliced bread and thinks we can use it forever too?

[r3volution 3.0]

Do you guys really think Rand Paul loves Trump after $#@!ting on him the entire year of 2015

The dumb ones really think that.

The less dumb ones think we're dumb enough to be persuaded of that.

[satchelmcqueen]

in all honesty, I am pretty sure that if Trump didn't diss Ron Paul then Ron Paul would have endorsed Trump.

nope. ron isnt petty with that kind of thing. trump is no where near ron on understanding things. thats why ron wont endorse him.

[Cleaner44]

@<u><a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=6780" target="_blank">Cleaner44</a></u>



I wish more Libertarians would acknowledge this. The last two election cycles I applauded those that would not vote for the GOP candidate, especially that traitor Romney.
This round is different, very different, but it would have been the same if Jeb Bush was the nominee, but he isn't.

In 2008 and 2012 I wanted the GOP to lose so that they would stop offering up neocons like Bush. That goal has been accomplished, even if it did result in a very non-libertarian former liberal authoritarian candidate. I was really hoping that Rand would build on what Ron started and he would win, but obviously that didn't happen.

In 2016 I am looking at the Libertarian party and shaking my head that they have drifted so far away from what they are supposed to stand for. After Bob Barr and now Johnson/Weld I can only hope that they retool in 2020, but sadly they will probably get worse for a while. I certainly don't want to encourage them to nominate Gary Johnson or someone like him yet again. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they nominated Mitt Romney in 2020.

I am very much looking forward to Hillary Clinton losing, collecting on my bets and watching the liberals stumble around with their brand badly exposed as corrupt and rigged.

It is a small win against statism and Republican statism will be making a comeback, but at least it won't be under the control of the neocons.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Another two time Paul vote for Trump. This is the first time I'm voting for the GOP nominee, and didn't in 2008/2012 after Ron lost the primaries.

For me, it boils down to this: Hillary is a known quality at this point, and it's all bad. Trump is a spin at the wheel.

He's also the only one to break through the GOP establishment since Goldwater or possibly Reagan, 1980. That's powerful. They clearly wanted Jeb, Rubio, or Kasich, and then tried to settle for Cruz. Trump beat them all and forced them to heel.

I'm afraid there may not be an opportunity like this again for decades. If Trump loses, the GOP will be pushing damned hard to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. I won't be surprised if they roll out a Superdelegate system or some similar guard to prevent populist, paleocon, or liberty candidates from ever making it through in the future.

I'm also sold on the demographic argument. We are going to have a near permanent Democratic firewall if the Obama-Hillary immigration policy continues. Then we can forget all about warring on the GOP. It won't matter who runs if the Dems have a 270+ lock on states to easily elect future Presidents.

Finally, Hillary is a demon and her victory will cement one more political dynasty that will continue to taint future elections. You can go ahead and bet on Chelsea coming back in 10-20 years. But there were still a few idiots who supported Jeb, despite W. flaming out just eight years ago.

[GunnyFreedom]

I find it hard to believe a real Ron Paul supporter will take Trump over voting for principals, especially with Dr. Paul saying how horrible he is.

Then again I still find it hard to believe a reality TV star and a person under FBI investigation are the top 2 candidates.

Ehh, if someone says they are going to vote Trump because they fear Hillary will instigate a nuclear holocaust, well, there is some evidence to back up that line of reasoning, so I don't really have any judgement for that. WW3 would suck. Nuclear winter would suck even more. So, if that is their thought process I do not begrudge them of it.


It is, however, when people try blowing smoke up my tailpipe and whizzing on my leg and calling it rain that I start to take umbrage. And quite a lot of that goes on around here, or at least it has been.

[yinzer38]

I'm also sold on the demographic argument. We are going to have a near permanent Democratic firewall if the Obama-Hillary immigration policy continues. Then we can forget all about warring on the GOP. It won't matter who runs if the Dems have a 270+ lock on states to easily elect future Presidents.

We're going to have a near permanent Democratic firewall (I'm assuming you're referring to non-white voters) regardless of who is elected this year (or any year to come) if the stances of the two major parties remain the same. Even if America's borders were clamped down and a freeze was placed on the naturalization of new citizens, the demographic trajectory of this country won't deviate from where it has been heading - the Hispanic vote alone will only continue to grow rapidly (this year 27 million Hispanics will be eligible to vote) just based on who is here already. The Republican party has known this for years - see their "autopsy report" from the past presidential election which advocates for minority outreach and diversifying the party. With each election cycle the Republicans' usual base of older white voters shinks as the Democrats swell their ranks with more and more minority and younger voters. As Trump is driving away minority support for the GOP in droves, I don't know how voting for Trump can do anything to dismantle your "Democratic firewall." Rand Paul's minority outreach was heavily criticized as pandering, but that's the only way forward for the GOP. We'll have taco trucks on every corner regardless of who's elected.

[parocks]

Spoke with 2 local Paul supporters who are going to pull lever for D Trump.

Got to think he is going to get a large percentage of Paul fans compared to 2012 with Mitt Romney

Definitely. But that is not a surprise at all. There were 2012 Ron Paul county coordinators who were with Trump when Rand was still an option.

Ron Paul supporters weren't all Libertarians by any means.

Ron Paul said "Things Suck - and here are solutions"
Donald Trump says "Things Suck - and here are solutions"

The solutions are different. But they both are saying that things suck to people who think that things suck.

[Ender]

how am I bashing ron paul?

Says you:

in all honesty, I am pretty sure that if Trump didn't diss Ron Paul then Ron Paul would have endorsed Trump.

Sounds like you think RP is as spoiled a brat as Trump.

[parocks]

@Cleaner44



I wish more Libertarians would acknowledge this. The last two election cycles I applauded those that would not vote for the GOP candidate, especially that traitor Romney.
This round is different, very different, but it would have been the same if Jeb Bush was the nominee, but he isn't.

I didn't vote for Romney in 2012. I wrote in Ron Paul in 2012.

My position for over a year has been No More Clintons, No More Bushes.

Voting for Trump.

[parocks]

Vote or don't vote whatever way you want, it doesn't matter to me.

I don't know or care about your principles as I don't know you or where you were when we were here during both of Ron Paul's campaigns. I don't know if you contributed to the blimp or even remember the blimp. For all I know this is your first election. You do whatever your principles tell you to do... power to you.

You likewise don't know anything about me, don't know about the actions I took in 2007 and beyond, don't know about the money time and energy I contributed.

I certainly don't need to prove that I am a "real" Ron Paul supporter to you.

Anyway, nice job on dodging the simple question.

It's amazing how 2015s can attack 2007s for not being a real Ron Paul supporter.

I have a lot of trouble believing, at all, that 2015s here, especially those who aren't supporting Trump, especially those using a "no difference" argument, aren't paid trolls. It's clear that paid trolls are all over the place.

[bunklocoempire]

in all honesty, I am pretty sure that if Trump didn't diss Ron Paul then Ron Paul would have endorsed Trump.

Dr. Paul lives his faith balls to the wall. Pettiness is not consistent with his excellent bed side manner.

Please check out Ron Paul Liberty Report, and see how he views non-liberty-friendly folks. He views them as being sick, and needing a large dose of liberty.

[harikaried]

I'm afraid there may not be an opportunity like this again for decades. If Trump loses, the GOP will be pushing damned hard to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. I won't be surprised if they roll out a Superdelegate system or some similar guard to prevent populist, paleocon, or liberty candidates from ever making it through in the future.

Even if Trump wins, wouldn't the GOP want to have more control over the primary outcome for their selected candidate? Similarly, if Trump wins or loses, wouldn't the political elites try harder to cover up their tracks and prevent someone like Trump or Paul from getting anywhere close? At least this cycle, Wikileaks and Trump have been able to show more people how corporate media is a player in the corruption.

I suppose another way to look at it is would a Trump presidency cause enough disruption to help Paul short term and/or long term?

[H. E. Panqui]

Who do you want to see people vote for?

(castle, johnson, stein, etc...or not voting at all is ok with me...but i have terrible contempt for people who still vote for these stinking republicans and democrats....)

[scm]

I think the argument Rand had until he got hammered at 300 town hall events was that he signed a pledge the establishment made him do it in order to run for president he had to pledge to support the republican nominee. After the nominee was decided he had no choice, what do you want him to do attack the republican nominee like Paul Ryan? Do you guys really think Rand Paul loves Trump after $#@!ting on him the entire year of 2015, or is he running re re-election? Do you Trump supporters really think Rand Paul loves coal more than sliced bread and thinks we can use it forever too?

I don't belive it had anything to do with him running for president. Rand made a pledge to support "the nominee". I wouldn't of (that's called principles) Also, I don't support THUMP, at all.

[scm]

Donald Trump says "Things Suck - and here are solutions.

Yes, thump says "I have solutionS, I'll pick one once I'm president"

[vita3]

If Hillary WINS NH the Free State movement is a total failure.

[GunnyFreedom]

Even if Trump wins, wouldn't the GOP want to have more control over the primary outcome for their selected candidate? Similarly, if Trump wins or loses, wouldn't the political elites try harder to cover up their tracks and prevent someone like Trump or Paul from getting anywhere close? At least this cycle, Wikileaks and Trump have been able to show more people how corporate media is a player in the corruption.

I suppose another way to look at it is would a Trump presidency cause enough disruption to help Paul short term and/or long term?

It's possible that it could help, assuming that Trump will "burn it all down," leaving a cleared field for 2020 or 2024. I do not believe that is a fair assumption to make, however. I do not see how replacing an oligarchy puppet with an actual oligarch will have any negative effect at all on the processes of tyranny.