AIPAC speeches discussion - Kasich, Cruz, Trump

[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.

 

[undergroundrr]

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

Does it matter that he would have no mandate for libertarian policies when he reaches office?

 

[ArrestPoliticians]

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.

Its the same logic that tanked Rand. Totally tone deaf. People are pissed off, they don't want a quisling. Rand is not going to out-neocon the neocons. Some of us predicted this as soon as Rand started talking like a Republican. Why be a politician when you can lead a movement?!?!? Ron might be the nominee right now with his harsh rhetoric, a man before his time.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Does it matter that he would have no mandate for libertarian policies when he reaches office?

Therein lies the rub.

If you have the media behind you, you can get away with violating your campaign promises; if not, not.

So we have to assume that our candidates will be held, more or less, to the message they run on.

So, you have to compromise enough to win, but not so much that you wouldn't be able to do anything useful in office.

This may not be possible every cycle.