Mark Sanford Loses SC Seat In Primary

[thoughtomator]

Yeah, Tom Davis is good.

Not to interrupt and go on a tangent, but Dave Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign and took out Eric Cantor. His platform was essentially Ron Paul with an America-first twist, including opposition to mass immigration and the US Chamber of Commerce. That was in 2014. That was an indicator, from a position standpoint, of what was going to be successful.

It's time for people here to come to terms with the fact that not only is "open borders" an anti-liberty position, it is an extreme anti-liberty position - every bit as extreme as confessing allegiance to full-blown Communism.

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

 

[angelatc]

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

Either you're wrong, or I'm an open borders proponent.

 

[thoughtomator]

Either you're wrong, or I'm an open borders proponent.

You and Zippy don't count.

 

[Influenza]

It's time for people here to come to terms with the fact that not only is "open borders" an anti-liberty position, it is an extreme anti-liberty position - every bit as extreme as confessing allegiance to full-blown Communism.

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

So you believe there are no legitimate criticisms of Trump, despite the fact that he is dropping bombs at an unprecedented rate, continues to support Saudi Arabia, who, alongside the US, are committing war crimes in Yemen and exporting their salafist ideology across the world. He blindly supports Israel and has elevated many Israel-firsters in his admin. like Haley, Kushner, and Bolton. He ripped up the Iran deal, one of the few decent things obama did. He appointed a torturer to head the CIA and as his Sec. of State. He has not drawn down the empire even a little bit in his first 17 months, (he will probably renege his comments on military exercises with South Korea after his advisers give him a talking to.) He expanded military spending by 151 billion dollars (this INCREASE is way more expensive than evil communist demoncrat Bernie Sanders free college plan.) He has delegated much of his commander in chief responsibilities to the pentagon.

Ahh forget it. I'm just scratching the surface and I'm already tired. You are so so right, the only way you can be against Trump is if you want completely unfettered immigration. Nah, you are either being intentionally disingenuous or are just plain stupid. I await the impending logical fallacies and HILRY WOULDA BEEN WERSE.

 

[thoughtomator]

So you believe there are no legitimate criticisms of Trump,

Strawman right out the gate, you are a dishonest person and will receive no other response from me than to call out that dishonesty. Please go fuck yourself, asshole.

 

[angelatc]

Strawman right out the gate, you are a dishonest person and will receive no other response from me than to call out that dishonesty. Please go fuck yourself, asshole.

It's not really a strawman though, because you said :

...the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

Clearly that's not the case.

 

[Influenza]

Strawman right out the gate, you are a dishonest person and will receive no other response from me than to call out that dishonesty. Please go $#@! yourself, $#@!.

Lmao, you are a fuckin dumbass.

And let's face it - that is the genesis of every single objection to Trump on this board: people who want open borders more than they want the people of America to be free.

Do you know what genesis means? You said that every objection to Trump originates in people wanting open borders, a position you find akin to communism. You clearly do not find those sorts of objections to Trump legitimate, and you said every single objection to Trump stems from that anti-liberty position. Do you have any understanding of the english language? Your idiotic grandstanding just makes you look even more stupid. Get lost retard

 

[thoughtomator]

It's not really a strawman though, because you said :

Clearly that's not the case.

The two statements are not at all inconsistent with each other. On this board in particular, the objections are all but exclusively about open borders.

That is not even closely equivalent to saying there is no legitimate criticisms. They just aren't the reasons why users on this board object to him. They are goal-seeking open borders Marxists and it's no surprise that they are so upset that someone calls out their number, since deception is essential to their trade.

Act like a Marxist, don't act suprised when someone offers you a free helicopter ride.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Libertarians are just happy being losers because they have made it into some kind of virtue. That's why they have faded and will continue to fade. To the rest of y'all who haven't thrown in the towel: Rally behind people like Corey Stewart. He isn't perfect but at least he has balls.

 

[Influenza]

The two statements are not at all inconsistent with each other. On this board in particular, the objections are all but exclusively about open borders.

That is not even closely equivalent to saying there is no legitimate criticisms. They just aren't the reasons why users on this board object to him. They are goal-seeking open borders Marxists and it's no surprise that they are so upset that someone calls out their number, since deception is essential to their trade.

Act like a Marxist, don't act suprised when someone offers you a free helicopter ride.

Oh I see - these comments are actually just projection on your part. Your position on immigration is one of the few things you have in common with Trump - and the only thing you feel capable to justify from a liberty perspective. I know most of you trumptards avoid threads about Trump's foreign policy, except for the handful of occasions where he said something non-interventionist, and therefore you don't see the very common foreign-policy based objections to Trump. So I guess your comments could be coming from a place of cognitive dissonance and ignorance as opposed to dishonesty. Sorry I didn't see that earlier

 

[RonZeplin]

Amnesty Don - Open Borders Globalist scum

You and Zippy don't count.

You' re wrong, many oppose Trump because he's a reconquista who refuses to enforce the law and deport illegal aliens. He's running Sanctuary Nation USA for illegal aliens.

"Build the Wall" translates into - Amnesty for invaders.

 

[eleganz]

Yeah, Tom Davis is good.



Not to interrupt and go on a tangent, but Dave Brat ran an anti-establishment campaign and took out Eric Cantor. His platform was essentially Ron Paul with an America-first twist, including opposition to mass immigration and the US Chamber of Commerce. That was in 2014. That was an indicator, from a position standpoint, of what was going to be successful.

Can anybody here explain, to what degree, is a anti-immigration message, a successful one?


PaleoLibertarian or Brian4Liberty, let us know how much more anti-immigration Rand Paul had to be, over Trump, to take the nomination?

 

[angelatc]

The two statements are not at all inconsistent with each other. On this board in particular, the objections are all but exclusively about open borders..

I think that you see the boards through a different filter than I do, apparently.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Oh Please, this is such flawed reasoning, save the high horse all knowing political operative bullsht. Rand didn't read the writing on the wall because nobody could see it, neither could you.

Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in.

You're only claiming to now because you've experienced it the successful way Trump did it, guess what? We all experienced it. Its so easy to say that Rand (or any candidate) should've been more like Trump before Trump himself even entered the race. The only way to be the anti-Trump was to NOT act like Trump.

I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump.

I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy.

By your logic, Cruz and Carson's time as the anti-Trump was pure genius and good political "strategy", because good strategy automatically equals success right?

Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.

No, Cruz and Carson were LUCKY. Everybody who has witnessed the primaries in the past knows that voters and media flirt with a flavor of the week, they spend some time at the top of the polls and whenever the voters get bored or they were successfully attacked, the next one comes up. 2012 Santorum got LUCKY and in a sense Bachmann, Gingrich and Ron also got LUCKY, or did you think Ron Paul actually had 21% of the republican party as his base? lol, gtfo~

Of course there's flavors of the month, but there's also branding and strategy. Rand had poor branding and bad strategy, so he had no opportunity to be a flavor of the month. He was a "different kind of Republican", "a true conservative", "a Detroit Republican" and "libertarianish". He was all over the place and totally failed to capitalize on the cachet he built since being elected or the movement his father built.

Rand ran a good traditional campaign, which at one point he was considered a top tier candidate having spent some time at the TOP of the polls before Trump entered.

Rand started strong and I was initially optimistic. He then started floundering quickly which was obvious to everyone but overly-optimistic posters on RPF.

If you're so good at reading the writing on the wall, run a campaign and show us all how its done. Its that easy right? read and run. Go for it boy

I think I would be good at it, but I don't have the connections or the desire. And it's not easy. I've actually studied this stuff. Machiavelli, de Jouvenel, Mosca, Moldbug. One could spend a lifetime studying power.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Can anybody here explain, to what degree, is a anti-immigration message, a successful one?


PaleoLibertarian or Brian4Liberty, let us know how much more anti-immigration Rand Paul had to be, over Trump, to take the nomination?

I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.

Rand either misread GOP base's dislike for Obama or did not want to capitalize on it; Trump on the other fully focussed on it.

 

[devil21]

He was the 7th best member of Congress, does anyone know how good she is?

AIPAC lackey, MIC stooge. Same ol'

eta: The lessons here are that in order for a libertarian to win in a Republican field, the libertarian has to wrap his/her views in a media-inspired package. Be the biggest Trumptard on the planet while threading in libertarian ideals in your platform. Don't attack sheeple voter's "sacred cows". Most voters are MSM swallowing sheep and that's probably not going to change, though support for Trump is a mile wide by an inch deep (as are most voters grasp of candidates and issues). People like Arrington win because they do it while threading in neocon ideals. One that considers running for GOP office should start considering whether the same semi-chameleon strategy can work for libertarians as well. My opinions on Trump are well known here but if I was running for a GOP office I'd be a Trumptard. A Trumptard that threads in sound money, Constitutional rights, strong defense (not offense), 2A support, etc. If there's one thing we've learned over the years it's that attacking the media-created "sacred cows" isn't a winning electoral strategy.

(assuming the votes even matter....)

 

[eleganz]

Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in.


I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump.

I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy.



Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.


Of course there's flavors of the month, but there's also branding and strategy. Rand had poor branding and bad strategy, so he had no opportunity to be a flavor of the month. He was a "different kind of Republican", "a true conservative", "a Detroit Republican" and "libertarianish". He was all over the place and totally failed to capitalize on the cachet he built since being elected or the movement his father built.


Rand started strong and I was initially optimistic. He then started floundering quickly which was obvious to everyone but overly-optimistic posters on RPF.


I think I would be good at it, but I don't have the connections or the desire. And it's not easy. I've actually studied this stuff. Machiavelli, de Jouvenel, Mosca, Moldbug. One could spend a lifetime studying power.

Rubio, someone who everyone knew was soft on immigration, softer than Rand, spent plenty of time outside of the single digits.


The only person that has benefitted from being hardline on immigration was Trump and it was because he didn't give AF. Nobody was as crazy as him, he made building a wall seem sane.


Anyway, if you were right, you'd be a making a ton of money winning GOP campaigns.

 

[eleganz]

Except I was talking about the problems of Rand's campaign at the time when most others on RPF were calling me overly worried or even a saboteur. In fact, I think among the peanut gallery, whistling through the graveyard, unwilling to accept the trouble that Rand's campaign was clearly in.


I never once said that Rand should act like Trump. That would have been ridiculous and struck a totally false note. The only person who benefited from acting like Trump in 2016 was Trump.

I did say that Rand should make immigration as a major component of his campaign and emphasize his opposition to birthright citizenship. That would have helped and I was saying that since I joined RPF, long before Trump even announced his candidacy.



Cruz appealed to Reagan "conservatives" and Rubio appealed to neocons. They knew who their audience was. Rand didn't. He had one foot in the liberty movement, the other foot in the mainstream GOP and failed to really connect to either camp. It was bad strategy. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it's true.


Of course there's flavors of the month, but there's also branding and strategy. Rand had poor branding and bad strategy, so he had no opportunity to be a flavor of the month. He was a "different kind of Republican", "a true conservative", "a Detroit Republican" and "libertarianish". He was all over the place and totally failed to capitalize on the cachet he built since being elected or the movement his father built.


Rand started strong and I was initially optimistic. He then started floundering quickly which was obvious to everyone but overly-optimistic posters on RPF.


I think I would be good at it, but I don't have the connections or the desire. And it's not easy. I've actually studied this stuff. Machiavelli, de Jouvenel, Mosca, Moldbug. One could spend a lifetime studying power.

Rubio, someone who everyone knew was soft on immigration, softer than Rand, spent plenty of time outside of the single digits.


The only person that has benefitted from being hardline on immigration was Trump and it was because he didn't give AF. Nobody was as crazy as him, he made building a wall seem sane.

Despite everything you just said, Rand had the potential to win the primary. Rand was a top tier candidate, everybody knew it, apparently except you did not because you seem to have wiped from your memory all of his top tier status that even the MSM admitted. Then Trump entered the race and ruined everybody's plans.

Anyway, if you were right, you'd be a making a ton of money winning GOP campaigns.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Can anybody here explain, to what degree, is a anti-immigration message, a successful one?

PaleoLibertarian or Brian4Liberty, let us know how much more anti-immigration Rand Paul had to be, over Trump, to take the nomination?

Trump came out and said there are rapists and murderers. That is as extreme as you can get. That was an emotional appeal. Emotional appeals are often the most successful. Cause, effect, actions and consequences are not so effective. Logic loses in politics.

I've said this in the very thread we're posting in but, I guess you missed it; Rand could not have won the nomination. It wouldn't have mattered what he did. Rand couldn't beat Trump. Nobody did and nobody could. He could have gotten out of single digits.

Agree completely. Trump was going to win, Rand could not win no matter what he did. The media and DNC wanted Trump to win. Rand could have done better but...

In hindsight, Rand played it as well as he possibly could. He now has more influence than the majority of Senators. His initial attack on Trump, while not good for polling numbers or his chance to duke it out till the end of a long and bloody primary (like Cruz did), turned out to be a good move as Senator Paul. Trump respects someone who stands up to him. He also respect someone who will then put it in the past and work together on mutual goals. Rand is doing a great job.

Mark Sanford was an example of how not to play it (from a political standpoint).