Donald Trump speaks to shrunken Atlanta crowd as poll numbers drop

[Peace&Freedom]

Why are the "formal" speeches different from stump speeches?

The formal speeches and policy statements are more about he plans to do, the stump speeches are more about getting votes and dominating the news cycle.

 

[CaptUSA]

The formal speeches and policy statements are more about he plans to do, the stump speeches are more about getting votes and dominating the news cycle.

Oh. Where did you get that memo?

Funny how you can't see you're locked in a confirmation bias loop.

 

[Ender]

Here is Trump highlighting the different sects of Islam, and making the point that not all Muslims are terrorists:

My utter disdain for this boogeyman just increased 1 billion %.

 

[acptulsa]

The formal speeches and policy statements are more about he plans to do, the stump speeches are more about getting votes and dominating the news cycle.

And does anyone announce beforehand whether a particular speech is something we can believe--if he actually says anything specific at all--and which are strictly for bullshitting purposes?

For example, do they post warning signs during the latter warning people to put their hip waders on?

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

 

[RJ Liberty]

For now. And drop the other shoe, to note the same graph you linked to shows Hillary's numbers are also the lowest they've been in 10 months. By your reasoning, she must be tanking, too.

I hope she does tank. But, in fact, she's not at the lowest she's been in ten months: Hillary's currently at 44%, and has repeatedly been in the 43-45% range multiple times, as you'd expect of a major party candidate: in September, October, and December 2015, and also January and May and June of this year.

This is not the situation for Trump: he is at 38%, and hasn't polled this low in 10 months, when the presstitutes started giving him unprecedented coverage.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

And does anyone announce beforehand whether a particular speech is something we can believe--if he actually says anything specific at all--and which are strictly for bullshitting purposes?

For example, do they post warning signs during the latter warning people to put their hip waders on?

Trump has at times flatly stated that the rally rhetoric is mainly about keeping his audience excited, so yes, it was announced beforehand.

But there is nothing liberty about Trump, which is why the media has not minded giving him coverage. Which means this stuff is worthless for liberty candidates, because the media will still never play their part in benefit of liberty candidates.

Stop deifying the establishment (who consist of the donors, their surrogates in the major party leadership, and the media, not just 'coverage'). They are a big obstacle, but they are fallible, have limits, make mistakes, and in the case of the MSM, are in decline. Trump bypassed them using his wealth, the new media, and by being larger than them, which made the media mostly irrelevant, and that is why they ended up having to cover him anyway. Off our knees, they can be beaten. Trump and the outsider trend has simply shown us how.

Which amounts to a different way to sell the same thing, because America First is not anti-war, and Trump is not talking about taking the oil fields away from ISIS because he's non-interventionist.

'Taking the oil fields' is a rally talking point about defunding an enemy to address American priorities, not a neocon systematic, globalist call for more regime change, more Empire or more nation-building. The America first or nationalist meme doesn't have to be innately anti-war. It is just a more positive vehicle for couching non/less interventionism to the masses than the baldly "anti-war" approach is. The latter can attract the 5-10% liberty core, but not reach the majority.

An America first framework also emotionaly counters or neutralizes the demagoguery employed to push the pro-war framework, in a way that the reason-only based presentation of non-interventionism does not. It's certainly turned out to be a better method than the neocon-lite finesse rhetoric approach offered by Rand in actually gaining votes and attracting majority coalitions.

I stand behind the strategic benefits of the anti-establishment trend for liberty exactly as identified, among others. Again, regardless of our view of specific candidates, we should try to learn from successful campaigns what we can, to address the strategic considerations of how to get liberty candidates elected or policies enacted, and not remain in denial that we need to adopt them (or our version of them).

 

[nikcers]

we should try to learn from successful campaigns how to address the strategic considerations of how to get liberty candidates elected or policies enacted, and not remain in denial that we need to adopt them (or our version of them).

Ok fine, you want to argue strategy. Trumps strategy of sales was great, he convinced the country every single one of us what his platform is, when he really doesn't have a platform. Trump leaves everything on the table, and some people like that. The problem is most peole dont like it. Trump has convinced 70% of voters to hate his platform. This is not a winning strategy, but what we can do is look at the positives that come from it. Dominos said that their crusts suck, Rand Paul says that the republican brand sucks and Trump is dragging it through the mud right now. Rand Paul can blame every single muddy thing on Trump and win in 2020. Thats the only positive, the only positive is sick and tired Hillary is probably not going to last longer than 4 years.

 

[CPUd]

Stop deifying the establishment (who consist of the donors, their surrogates in the major party leadership, and the media, not just 'coverage'). They are a big obstacle, but they are fallible, have limits, make mistakes, and in the case of the MSM, are in decline. Trump bypassed them using his wealth, the new media, and by being larger than them, which made the media mostly irrelevant, and that is why they ended up having to cover him anyway. Off our knees, they can be beaten. Trump and the outsider trend has simply shown us how.



Taking oil fields is a rally talking point about defunding an enemy to address American priorities, not a neocon systematic, globalist call for more regime change, more Empire or more nation-building. The America first or nationalist meme doesn't have to be innately anti-war. It is just a more positive vehicle for couching less interventionism to the masses than the baldly "anti-war" approach is. The latter can attract the 5-10% liberty core, but not reach the majority. It's certainly turned out to be a better method than the neocon-lite finesse rhetoric approach offered by Rand in actually gaining votes and attracting majority coalitions.

I stand behind the strategic benefits of the anti-establishment trend for liberty exactly as identified, among others. Again, regardless of our view of specific candidates, we should try to learn from successful campaigns what we can, to address the strategic considerations of how to get liberty candidates elected or policies enacted, and not remain in denial that we need to adopt them (or our version of them).

There is 0 evidence anything you mention here is actually happening or will happen sometime soon, but there is plenty of evidence that the opposite is happening. You simply can't attach to a liberty movement a candidate who says shit like this:

 

[acptulsa]

This did not happen here. The media gave Trump unprecedented coverage, and made him king. You can fall for their line that they gave him all that coverage because they didn't want him to be king, but they obviously didn't mind, or they'd have given him the Ron Paul treatment. It is well established and well known that the only bad publicity is no publicity at all. So, they lied. As usual.

Stop deifying the establishment (who consist of the donors, their surrogates in the major party leadership, and the media, not just 'coverage').

That really looks like deifying the establishment to you?

They are a big obstacle, but they are fallible, have limits, make mistakes, and in the case of the MSM, are in decline. Trump bypassed them using his wealth, the new media, and by being larger than them, which made the media mostly irrelevant, and that is why they ended up having to cover him anyway. Off our knees, they can be beaten. Trump and the outsider trend has simply shown us how.

Who's deifying the establishment now? And how are we supposed to emulate his success when the whole key to his success was a billion dollars' worth of free publicity from the same MSM which didn't even list Ron Paul's name when he came in second, despite informing the public who came in first, third and fourth?

'Taking the oil fields' is a rally talking point about defunding an enemy to address American priorities, not a neocon systematic, globalist call for more regime change, more Empire or more nation-building.

So, 'making the world safe for democracy' was an excuse for imperialism, designed to make naked aggression palatable to the American public by making it seem as though we were doing people some kind of huge, Christian favor by bombing them and stealing their shit. And now you want me to embrace naked imperialism because Trump doesn't even make any excuses for it?

Except, of course, that we have got to eliminate a terror organization that we created, fund and arm?

 

[moostraks]

For now. And drop the other shoe, to note the same graph you linked to shows Hillary's numbers are also the lowest they've been in 10 months. By your reasoning, she must be tanking, too.



There is a strategic benefit for liberty in defeating the establishment's kingmakers, and deflating its PC culture cops in the media, whose domination has blocked or demonized even a serious discussion of liberty alternatives for decades. Trump has done so. There is a strategic benefit for liberty in finding a way to build a winning coalition in the primaries, or to win at least ONE primary, which has eluded our national liberty candidates. Trump has done so. There is a strategic benefit for liberty in finding the optimal high profile figure, and financial model for a successful alternative candidate to succeed against an elite and in engaging major voting blocs. Again, Trump has done so.

There is a strategic benefit for liberty in successfully presenting a substantially non/less interventionist foreign policy to a mass audience, and Trump has done so, by couching the subject in terms of a positive voters emotionally grasp (America first stance), instead of a negative (being 'anti-war') that most voters do not emotionally grasp. So that's four benefits, among others that could be listed, that Trump has already accomplished. His candidacy has given us an example, and roadmap as to how to accomplish overcoming these critical deficits blocking the electoral success of liberty candidates going forward. Irrespective of one's opinion about Trump, we should at least agree on, or be focusing on, such strategic benefits as part of the mix in fielding our candidates.

You mean the pro-Republican turnout who were mobilized to vote against Trump?

Cute. Expand on it.

You don't believe that the choice of who was murdered was intentional?

 

[silverhandorder]

You don't believe that the choice of who was murdered was intentional?

You said Trump thinks this is a domestic hate crime. Now back that up.

 

[acptulsa]

You said Trump thinks this is a domestic hate crime. Now back that up.

Why don't you back that up? Because I saw CPUd say that he (CPUd) considers it an domestic hate crime, which seems reasonable considering it's an American going ballistic on gays and his dad intimated that he was a homophobe. But I didn't see moostraks say anything of the sort.

Or are you such a collectivist that you consider anyone who doesn't cuck for Trump as hard as you do to be part of some kind of Borg Collective?

 

[silverhandorder]

Why don't you back that up? Because I saw CPUd say that he (CPUd) considers it an domestic hate crime, which seems reasonable considering it's an American going ballistic on gays and his dad intimated that he was a homophobe. But I didn't see moostraks say anything of the sort.

Or are you such a collectivist that you consider anyone who doesn't cuck for Trump as hard as you do to be part of some kind of Borg Collective?

So let's get this down on paper. You, CPUd and maybe moostraks all believe the significant part of the massacre is that it is a domestic hate crime. Let's ignore that moostraks claimed Trump believes that.

Now in CPUd's case he is a former Hillary supporter so I can see how he has a hard on for her in the closet. But it also makes it clear where the two of you sit also. There is nothing wrong in being a hopeless lefty just admit it. You don't care about anything other than looking presidential and playing nice with people like Hillary and your friends who support Bernie.

 

[acptulsa]

So let's get this down on paper. You, CPUd and maybe moostraks all believe the significant part of the massacre is that it is a domestic hate crime. Let's ignore that moostraks claimed Trump believes that.

Now in CPUd's case he is a former Hillary supporter so I can see how he has a hard on for her in the closet. But it also makes it clear where the two of you sit also. There is nothing wrong in being a hopeless lefty just admit it. You don't care about anything other than looking presidential and playing nice with people like Hillary and your friends who support Bernie.

Well, let's see. The perp was a native-born American. So, it was domestic. Now we get to dive into the brain of this guy who hung around in gay bars, played gay in documentaries, and was the son of a fundamentalist who was also a CIA asset, and determine if he really called the cops from a bathroom in the middle of a shooting spree (where he was allegedly acting alone and where witnesses said the gunman was guarding the door the whole time) to throw the credit to ISIS, whether ISIS is or is not in the habit of claiming credit for the things it engineers in advance so everyone knows for sure they engineered them, and whether (assuming all of the prior) that his main motivation was latency and fundamentalist homophobic self-loathing, or hatred of what we're doing to the nation of which his father likes to run for the presidency.

Or both, which is in fact Trump's stated position.

And this makes anyone who asks these questions a 'leftist'. Even though whether he hates gays or hates his native America is pretty irrelevant to whether this was motivated by hate.

Mighty critical thinking there.

Now. Care to do any more collectivizing as a substitute for thinking? Because, you know, I never realized that questioning authority was a 'leftist' thing to do. In fact, I thought 'leftists' sent people to Siberian gulags for questioning authority.

 

[moostraks]

You said Trump thinks this is a domestic hate crime. Now back that up.

I asked whether you disagree with Trump that the choice of target in Orlando was intentional. Do you or don't you?

Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT community. They have been through something that nobody could ever experience. This is a very dark moment in America’s history. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens, because of their sexual orientation.

hate crime
NOUN
a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.

 

[moostraks]

So let's get this down on paper. You, CPUd and maybe moostraks all believe the significant part of the massacre is that it is a domestic hate crime. Let's ignore that moostraks claimed Trump believes that.

Now in CPUd's case he is a former Hillary supporter so I can see how he has a hard on for her in the closet. But it also makes it clear where the two of you sit also. There is nothing wrong in being a hopeless lefty just admit it. You don't care about anything other than looking presidential and playing nice with people like Hillary and your friends who support Bernie.

Here's the definition for

do·mes·tic
[dəˈmestik]
ADJECTIVE
of or relating to the running of a home or to family relations:
"domestic chores" · [more]
synonyms: family · home · household
existing or occurring inside a particular country; not foreign or international:
"the current state of US domestic affairs"
synonyms: national · home · internal

My point to you was to the hate crime angle, Trump's delusions of a campaign and arguments of domestic are a distraction. Shooter is a U.S. citizen who murdered his fellow citizens in their own country, seems to qualify for domestic per the definition.

Signs of lacking a rebuttal are namecalling and stating lies about those you disagree with to obfuscate the discussion.

 

[silverhandorder]

I am going to assume you think this was a domestic hate crime. I don't know why else you would jump in to argue. (edit: acptulsa)

I am also going to ignore that first paragraph completely because I have a different view on what happened and I am not interested in rehashing it here.

What I will do is expand on why I think you, CPUd and moostraks are left leaning.

When a terrorist attack happens. The significant part is the terrorist attack and not the fact that the killer hated gays and that the attack happened in a gay club. Even domestic part is not as important as the terrorist part. To draw attention away from the terrorist aspect is to do disservice to your own country and to the people who believe you. This weakens our response to the said attack.

To claim on a liberty forum that this was a domestic hate crime you stand out. The people who use this language are Obama and Hillary and their supporters.

Why is terrorist aspect more significant than domestic or the hate aspects. First and foremost there is no denial that this was a terrorist attack. He pledged loyalty to ISIS, he went to SA on pilgrimage, they found him with Islamic literature, he was talking about Muslim countries being bombed. If you going to kill 49 people you are going to tell the world why you are doing this. You are not going to be politically correct when you are committing atrocities. He has no reason to hide whether he hates gays or not.

I think the gay aspect is a bonus since Islamists also hate gays. So he was getting 2 for 1. Commit a terrorist attack and also kill people you hate the most. Domestic makes it worse than foreign. Foreign you can beef up borders, you can tell foreigners apart and etc. Domestic means it is much harder to prevent it again. edit: So to expand more when Trump hammers at the fact that democrats and you can't say radical Islam and calls him an afghan he does not dispute the domestic part. What he is doing is saying "Look wtf you let in here!"

 

[Peace&Freedom]

That really looks like deifying the establishment to you?

The establishment did not see his success coming and did not want him, thus they completely ridiculed him at first, dismissed him as a fad in the middle, and has fought like mad to undo his pending nomination at the end. Your response to this spectacular failure of the elite and the media has been to say it was a master plan of theirs to make him the nominee. That is a complete misreading of the entire year, as it paints their errors as an exercise in their infallible power to achieve exactly what they wanted. That is deifying the establishment.

Who's deifying the establishment now? And how are we supposed to emulate his success when the whole key to his success was a billion dollars' worth of free publicity from the same MSM which didn't even list Ron Paul's name when he came in second, despite informing the public who came in first, third and fourth?

Still got it backwards. Trump's success is what generated and sustained the coverage, not the reverse. That success was based on capitalizing on the public being fed up with the insiders, and the constant PC caving of milquetoast Republicans. His wealth, plus thirty years of positive celebrity branding, and his ability to consistently generate real news (even if by flap) made him non-dependent on the media, or their approval. By his having shown us the full model for succeeding, we can modify the formula by fielding wealthy-ish liberty candidates with an alpha bent, who have the resolve to fully confront the elite's dogmatic statist framing of issues on government and the cultural war.

So, 'making the world safe for democracy' was an excuse for imperialism, designed to make naked aggression palatable to the American public by making it seem as though we were doing people some kind of huge, Christian favor by bombing them and stealing their $#@!. And now you want me to embrace naked imperialism because Trump doesn't even make any excuses for it?

Except, of course, that we have got to eliminate a terror organization that we created, fund and arm?

You really are not paying attention. The trajectory of Trump's emerging policy on ISIS is about defunding them, not imperialism. Below the surface, as pointed out earlier with the Antiwar.com quotes, Trump appears to be aware that the Obama/Hillary policy was to fund ISIS and other "rebels" in their ongoing quest to remove Assad, and play Sunni radicals against the Shiites in the Mideast. Invading and bombing Syria has been the current Administration's intended goal of conquest, that Trump has opposed.

One of Trump's advisers is former DIA head Gen. Michael Snyder Flynn, who opposed this very policy of regime change and imperialism. But this gets too complex to fit into a stump speech. So at rallies, he talks about defunding ISIS by taking the oil fields from them, while in office he'll defund ISIS by purging the State Department and Pentagon of the regime changers, and stopping payment on the checks and supplies going to them from the US government. But the policy remains fixed on defunding ISIS, not more Mideast conquest.

 

[acptulsa]

When a terrorist attack happens. The significant part is the terrorist attack and not the fact that the killer hated gays and that the attack happened in a gay club. Even domestic part is not as important as the terrorist part. To draw attention away from the terrorist aspect is to do disservice to your own country and to the people who believe you. This weakens our response to the said attack.

So, to examine all parts of the incident and discuss it openly like free men is treason. So far so... good...?

To claim on a liberty forum that this was a domestic hate crime you stand out. The people who use this language are Obama and Hillary and their supporters.

So we need to avoid using any words liberals use for fear, apparently, of not only appearing to the stupid to be them, but to limit our own thought processes in order to avoid thinking like them...

Why is terrorist aspect more significant than domestic or the hate aspects. First and foremost there is no denial that this was a terrorist attack. He pledged loyalty to ISIS, he went to SA on pilgrimage, they found him with Islamic literature, he was talking about Muslim countries being bombed. If you going to kill 49 people you are going to tell the world why you are doing this. You are not going to be politically correct when you are committing atrocities. He has no reason to hide whether he hates gays or not.

So, you open the paragraph promising to say why one aspect of this is more important than the others, then don't. And instead you say that someone who could well be a gay son of a fundamentalist from a country which stones gays has no reason to hide to hide his latencies and the frustrations they cause him...

I think the gay aspect is a bonus since Islamists also hate gays. So he was getting 2 for 1. Commit a terrorist attack and also kill people you hate the most. Domestic makes it worse than foreign. Foreign you can beef up borders, you can tell foreigners apart and etc. Domestic means it is much harder to prevent it again.

And that's why anyone who explores the complexities of the case, and actually listens to Trump when he says the homosexual aspect of it is significant, is someone you must label 'leftist' and must pick a fight with before you even look to see if you disagree with them or not.

Well, then.

I'm not convinced. I think you want to restrict my free speech by trying to demonize me for my vocabulary because if this was just a guy frustrated by his own latencies snapping and going postal, and crediting ISIS to salve his conscience for it, you can't use it as an excuse to call for bombing brown people. Whereas if we just lay all the blame on ISIS and demonize anyone who doesn't, we do get to bomb brown people.

Which is neocon thinking. But Trump isn't a neocon.

Why is it every time I talk to a Trump supporter I wind up following them around and around while they chase their own tails?