Rand vs Trump Poll. Who do these forums support?

[LibertyEagle]

I am sure that will bring you great comfort when the Trump Squads are putting you on the cattle cars.

You think you will be more free with Bush, do you?

 

[erowe1]

Once gunny is out of control, he seem to not be able to stop.

Gunny is on the right side here.

LE, and all you other Trump-trolls should start watching your mouths. I have a feeling that the site admins' patience with you all will reach its limit soon.

 

[jj-]

Ron Paul is against law that prohibit us from employing or renting property to people on account of immigration status. That means that, for all intents and purposes, he's for open borders.

There are other mechanisms, for example, tracking people with VISAs and making it a requirement to report, etc.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

You think you will be more free with Bush, do you?

I have never said a single positive thing in my life about Bush. Nice try though. Next time try integrity. It's a lot more difficult, but people will respect you.

 

[AuH20]

I am sure that will bring you great comfort when the Trump Squads are putting you on the cattle cars.

At least, there is wildcard aspect present in Trump that I can't say with 95% of the other candidates. Self-funding tends to lend one independence as opposed to owing favors to the plutocrat of the week. To be honest, given what I know, Trump will not be allowed to be POTUS. FDR said it best when he stated that presidents are selected and not elected.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He said he wasn't.

Sounds like to me, you need to back off, at the very least.

Who do you think you are? Judge, jury and executioner?

I'm the one telling the truth in a sea of lies. For example, your attempt to insinuate that I support Jeb Bush. I'm not the one who needs to back off. If someone telling the truth bothers you that much, then the exit is on the top right of your browser page.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Ron Paul is against laws that prohibit us from employing or renting property to people on account of immigration status. That means that, for all intents and purposes, he's for open borders.

On top of that, he's against deporting illegal immigrants and he's against a wall at the border.

Sure, he opposes birthright citizenship (as do I), and he opposes giving welfare and such things to illegal immigrants (as do I). But these things don't involve sealing the border.

Here's evidence to support erowe's claim about Ron and immigration/borders, question starts at about 57:50:

 

[kahless]

He said he wasn't.

Sounds like to me, you need to back off, at the very least.

Who do you think you are? Judge, jury and executioner?

I guess this is the new winning RPF strategy to keep or win the hearts and minds of supporters into the Rand camp.

I remember the good old days that if someone here disagreed with Rand or Ron on policy people would make the case why it is sound policy or why Ron or Rand are better than candidate X on X policy or why against all odds when the chips are down we should continue to support them.

 

[erowe1]

There are other mechanisms, for example, tracking people with VISAs and making it a requirement to report, etc.

How do you track people with Visas? If you require them to report, how do you know if they're still in the country when they don't? I don't know what mechanisms you might have in mind, but whatever they are, they're not things Ron Paul ever supported.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Gunny is on the right side here.

LE, and all you other Trump-trolls should start watching your mouths. I have a feeling that the site admins' patience with you all will reach its limit soon.

lol. Oooohhhh, I be scared.

Whatsamatter, erowe, your totalitarian streak coming out?

I SAID that I support Rand first. But, if he does not win, or drops out, the way things stand now, I will likely vote for Trump. Things could change. Sorry, but I won't goose step to your demands. Too bad if you don't like it.

 

[jj-]

I guess this is the new winning RPF strategy to keep or win the hearts and minds of supporters into the Rand camp.

I remember the good old days that if someone here disagreed with Rand or Ron on policy people would make the case why it is sound policy or why Ron or Rand are better than candidate X on X policy or why against all odds when the chips are down we should continue to support them.

It's just a few people. Those suffering from TDS are few, though some of the flare-ups are very strong.

 

[jj-]

How do you track people with Visas? If you require them to report, how do you know if they're still in the country when they don't? I don't know what mechanisms you might have in mind, but whatever they are, they're not things Ron Paul ever supported.

If I recall correctly Rand supported that. Rand also supported having a strong mechanism to enforce security at the border. Congress would have had to vote every year, and if conditions weren't met, visas would be stopped being issued or something like that. That's not open border. It reduces immigration.

 

[erowe1]

If I recall correctly Rand supported that.

Supported what?

Rand also supported having a strong mechanism to enforce security at the border. Congress would have had to vote every year, and if conditions weren't met, visas would be stopped being issued or something like that. That's not open border. It reduces immigration.

Issuing fewer visas would only reduce legal immigration, not illegal immigration. But, by allowing people who don't jump through those hoops to continue to live and work here without restriction would simply make them illegal immigrants, rather than legal ones. The borders would be open de facto, even if not de jure (see my phrase above "for all intents and purposes").

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess this is the new winning RPF strategy to keep or win the hearts and minds of supporters into the Rand camp.

I remember the good old days that if someone here disagreed with Rand or Ron on policy people would make the case why it is sound policy or why Ron or Rand are better than candidate X on X policy or why against all odds when the chips are down we should continue to support them.

Considering that the media is reporting Ron Paul's supporters are flooding to Donald Trump, and then using that to attack Rand, yes, the elimination of a primary avenue of attack that the media is using against Rand is helping Rand.

You people want to discuss Trump in peace, go find a Donald Trump forum and leave Rand's and Ron's forums aloneI promise you that I have no interest in darkening the login prompt of a Trump forum so you will not have to deal with me there.

The media is using the lunatic fringe from this very site to attack Rand Paul by claiming that Ron Paul's base has abandoned Rand for Trump. By refuting that nonsense, I am denying the media ammunition to use against Rand.

 

[acptulsa]

I SAID that I support Rand first. But, if he does not win, or drops out, the way things stand now, I will likely vote for Trump. Things could change. Sorry, but I won't goose step to your demands. Too bad if you don't like it.

If he loses what?

You won't be able to vote for Trump in the general. Obviously the only way Trump will run ass an independent is if Rand wins the nomination, and last I heard Texas has a sore loser law.

So what does Rand have to lose to cause you to abandon all those principles you used to vow to stand by unto death, and jump for the perceived lesser of evils?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Here's evidence to support erowe's claim about Ron and immigration/borders, question starts at about 57:50:

Sorry, Ron Paul is even good with deporting the illegals when you run into them. Such as if they come for benefits, or they get caught in some other manner. He just thinks to say you're going to import them all would be impossible, because we don't know where they are.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If he loses what?

The Republican nomination.

You won't be able to vote for Trump in the general. Obviously the only way Trump will run ass an independent is if Rand wins the nomination, and last I heard Texas has a sore loser law.

Last time I checked, Trump was ahead by leaps and bounds. Like I said, we shall see what happens. I will be voting for Rand in the primary, unless he drops out before then.

So what does Rand have to lose to cause you to abandon all those principles you used to vow to stand by unto death, and jump for the perceived lesser of evils?

I'm not abandoning anything. I will vote for Rand as long as he is still in it. I hope he wins the nomination. But, if he doesn't and Trump wins the Republican nomination, the way things stand now, I will likely vote for him in the General.

Look, Acptulsa, I very strongly believe that we don't have very much longer. If our economy collapses, we will be ushered into world government. So, if Trump could improve the trade deals, it would give us more time to get things in place in the states and locally. I do not think we are going to beat the forces who are intentionally destroying our country, from the federal level. In fact, I think our only chance is at the local and state level, to be honest.

 

[klamath]

Hey guys, I'll give you another target, to get you off of Kahless' back.

I support Rand first, but if he doesn't make it, the way things stand right now, I will be voting for Trump. Why, you ask? I fully realize he is far from ideal and could be a total POS, but I *know* Bush will be. So, none of that for me. I also have eyes and know that if we don't do squat to stop the illegal invasion of our country and at the very least, swing the sucky trade deals more to our favor post haste, our nation is complete TOAST!! Now, I would prefer to just end all entitlements, first for the illegals and get us out of the UN, the WTO, the IMF and ALL of the trade deals from Nafta on up, but guess what, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. I don't think we have much time left. So, even if Trump keeps the wars going and all the other crappy stuff, if he even did one positive thing, it would be one helluva lot better than the crap we have been getting for quite some time by both R and D establishment figures.

Attack at your leisure. I have a thick skin. Nor, do I give a shit what you think.

NOTE: All you guys having fits over anyone who doesn't just foam at the mouth about Trump, tell me, what are you doing posting here, when you could be dialing your little fingers off, assisting Rand's campaign? He has a calling program, you know. Don't you think that would be a better way to spend your time?

I really can't believe you of all people are missing the point. Nobody cares what your second choice is. If Rand doesn't make it I will never vote for trump but I might vote for Carson, Cruz of Kasich. As long as Rand is running I will support him and shout down people trying to promote ANY other candidate over Rand. If I quit supporting Rand I will do the honorable thing and leave and find a place that supports the candidate I pick. I won't try and stay at a place that started in support of the Pauls and still supports the Pauls by 96 percent and pick fights and try and destroy the efforts of the 96% that are trying to help Paul.
Last year a number of us and I believe you were in with us gave Cocco cajan and others a lot of hell for having major disagreements with Rand on his and these forums. A year later I come back and a number of those that giving Cocco cajan hell are bashing Rand and waving Trump banners.
DonaldTrumpforums.com I believe is open to anyone that wants to start a support forum for him.

 

[jj-]

Issuing fewer visas would only reduce legal immigration, not illegal immigration. But, by allowing people who don't jump through those hoops to continue to live and work here without restriction would simply make them illegal immigrants, rather than legal ones. The borders would be open de facto, even if not de jure (see my phrase above "for all intents and purposes").

That reduces immigration because some foreigners don't like being in the country illegally. So there is at least one intent for which it's not open borders, that of allowing everybody who want to be in the country in a legal manner.

 

[erowe1]

Sorry, Ron Paul is even good with deporting the illegals when you run into them. Such as if they come for benefits, or they get caught in some other manner.

And when they don't come for benefits, then what?

"Some other manner" such as what? Ron Paul wants to get rid of all the means the government has for knowing who the illegal immigrants are, where they are, or that they're in the USA at all. Like I said, I'm all for not giving them welfare benefits too. But that won't do anything to stop illegal immigration by anyone who comes here and works without getting welfare. For these people, for all intents and purposes, the border would be open.