Rand vs Trump Poll. Who do these forums support?

[LibertyEagle]

Please keep it on topic. RP was never about to win the nomination with or without Rule changes.

No, but the rule changes are STILL IN EFFECT. That is the point.

 

[staerker]

Rand. The mods aren't turning a blind eye, there hasn't been this much discussion here for quite some time.

More than likely. Breitbart is in good company.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The rule change is crappy, it disenfranchises grassroots party activists and centralizes power to the RNC, but it DOES NOT permit the RNC to overrule the results of State Primaries/Caucuses. What it does that has people freaked out is 1) prevent a brokered convention 2) prevent delegates from pledging a candidate to 'stealth' into the convention, and 3) lets the candidate to whom the delegates are pledged replace unknown delegates with people they know.

It's crap because we already had rules and laws about delegates voting against their pledge, and lots of grassroots conservatives would pledge a candidate they did not like in order to attend the convention and have an impact on the platform etc.

The whole idea that these new rules would allow tje RNC to just willy-nilly wave their hand and overrule the primary/caucus process is, and always was paranoia.

I I was a delegate to the 2012 RNC convention and I went over the rules chance letter by letter before voting against them.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!

 

[William Tell]

The rule change is crappy, it disenfranchises grassroots party activists and centralizes power to the RNC, but it DOES NOT permit the RNC to overrule the results of State Primaries/Caucuses. What it does that has people freaked out is 1) prevent a brokered convention 2) prevent delegates from pledging a candidate to 'stealth' into the convention, and 3) lets the candidate to whom the delegates are pledged replace unknown delegates with people they know.

It's crap because we already had rules and laws about delegates voting against their pledge, and lots of grassroots conservatives would pledge a candidate they did not like in order to attend the convention and have an impact on the platform etc.

The whole idea that these new rules would allow tje RNC to just willy-nilly wave their hand and overrule the primary/caucus process is, and always was paranoia.

I I was a delegate to the 2012 RNC convention and I went over the rules chance letter by letter before voting against them.

Interesting, in what way? What happens now if no one goes into the convention with enough delegates to win outright?

 

[kahless]

Rand should pledge to support the Republican nominee...unless it's Donald Trump! That'll make some news right there!

If he did that then Rand would be considered just another establishment shill that is intent on supporting the planned coronation of Jeb Bush.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Ridiculous poll question is ridiculous.

Trump would not know freedom and liberty if he tripped over it.

He's just a loudmouthed demogogue that happened to start spouting off some things that people want to hear.

This post said it all.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I guarantee as soon as Trump drops out, these people will be on here pumping Cruz or the LP candidate like they did in 2012. They got off the Randwagon long ago, if they were ever on it.

I will never be on the Cruz bandwagon.

I may be on the LP bandwagon if Rand is out...not interested in sticking with the eventual GOP nominee if it isn't Rand. If (God forbid) it happens this way, I know Rand will have to endorse said GOP nominee, but that doesn't mean *I* have to.

 

[jkob]

Rand is still the closest to my beliefs, how optimistic or not about our prospects i dunno

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I will never be on the Cruz bandwagon.

I may be on the LP bandwagon if Rand is out...not interested in sticking with the eventual GOP nominee if it isn't Rand. If (God forbid) it happens this way, I know Rand will have to endorse said GOP nominee, but that doesn't mean *I* have to.

That's kind of the whole point behind our movement, and why I want to kick people in the head for whining about Ron or Rand's endorsements. The people who actually LIKE Ron and Rand wouldn't pay attention to an endorsement if Jesus Christ Himself came down out of heaven and made it. Therefore endorsements are, for the purposes of our movement, COMPLETELY irrelevant except for political gamesmanship.

Because of this, I think people who get angry about Ron and Rand's endorsements are shallow of thought.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

If he did that then Rand would be considered just another establishment shill that is intent on supporting the planned coronation of Jeb Bush.

I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.

 

[Anti Federalist]

For me, it boils down to endorsing crap, even if nobody pays attention to it, and the taint, the scum line, that leaves behind.

Not many people pay attention to Scroogle ads either, but that does not assuage my disappointment at Ron shilling and huckstering for Porter Stansberry.

I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

gunny writes: Therefore endorsements are, for the purposes of our movement, COMPLETELY irrelevant except for political gamesmanship.



...i don't think so...it's an indicator of political philosophy, values,..

...for example, anyone 'endorsing' mitt stinking romney is worthy more of my contempt than my vote...

...of course there is no 'perfect candidate' except me and you...any everyone has their own level of tolerance, tastes/preferences...and good! for you for being so tolerant...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

gunny writes: Therefore endorsements are, for the purposes of our movement, COMPLETELY irrelevant except for political gamesmanship.



...i don't think so...it's an indicator of political philosophy, values,..

...for example, anyone 'endorsing' mitt stinking romney is worthy more of my contempt than my vote...

...of course there is no 'perfect candidate' except me and you...any everyone has their own level of tolerance, tastes/preferences...and good! for you for being so tolerant...

I am 1000% intolerant when it comes to principle. When it comes to the political crap one has to do to be viable in a world full of blithering idiots, I do not care one whit. I could not possibly care less if I tried, or if I were dead.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

For me, it boils down to endorsing crap, even if nobody pays attention to it, and the taint, the scum line, that leaves behind.

Not many people pay attention to Scroogle ads either, but that does not assuage my disappointment at Ron shilling and huckstering for Porter Stansberry.

I'm far more disappointed in Ron's Porter Stansberry ads than any endorsements by either Ron or Rand. People are, by and large, idiots. Whatever one has to do keep their head above water in a world drowning with blithering idiots, I just do not care.

 

[acptulsa]

Interesting, in what way? What happens now if no one goes into the convention with enough delegates to win outright?

If 2012 was any indication, the teleprompter will take over the convention and tell the world who the nominee is.

And that is almost certainly why there are seventeen candidates in the race.

 

[kahless]

I do not know of any principle-centered member of the liberty movement, anywhere in America, who gives a damn about endorsements. I do not understand all of this angst over Paul endorsements. Establishmentarian voters vote according to endorsements, liberty movement activists do NOT. Establishmentarian voters wouldn't vote for a Paul if hell froze over. There are non-liberty independants who would vote for Rand, but only 5% of THOSE pay attention to endorsements either.

So you end up (doing the math) with something like only 3% of those who support Rand Paul who would even be influenced by an endorsement anyway. If Rand made 20%, that's 3% OF 20%, or roughly six tenths of one percent of the primary electorate, being two tenths of one percent of the general electorate, who would even bother to consider the endorsement, much less actually follow it. If half of those who consider the endorsement followed it, that would make one tenth of one percent of the vote on election day.

Why in the actual fk do people get so bent out of shape over 0.1% of the vote? That translates to one half of one electoral college vote. Seriously people.

In the context we are discussing, it IS an endorsement of values if Rand refuses to endorse the nominee if it is Trump but will endorse if it is Jeb Bush.

 

[erowe1]

...for example, anyone 'endorsing' mitt stinking romney is worthy more of my contempt than my vote...

Romney's no worse than Trump.

 

[DisneyFan]

Is it amusing to see Trump make the GOP establishment go crazy?

Definitely.

Is that a reason to becomes one of his voters and supporters?

Definitely not.

I do not see how anyone who is either a libertarian or a moderate/conservative with a libertarian streak could waste time supporting someone like Trump when a good candidate like Rand is available. Paul isn't running the best campaign ever, but his views are pretty good and he has an actual record in the Senate that suggests he will follow through on what he believes. Trump has nothing but his mouth. And that mouth has expressed a million different positions over the years. No thanks.

 

[jj-]

A lot of people criticized Alex Jones, yet this election season revealed that he is a lot more connected to political reality than many of his critics here.