Rand vs Trump Poll. Who do these forums support?

[acptulsa]

Why, yes. Yes, the media will say anything. Like for instance, they'll say the guy who openly admits to buying influence and hosting the Clintons at his wedding could possibly be against the NWO. What I don't get is how someone who has clearly seen how little coverage someone who actually is gets from the media could believe that of someone who gets coverage 24/7.

At least AuH2O admits Trump won't keep any of his promises. He just wants the powers that be to know exactly how many people hate them, and seems to think they can't add up the numbers generated by their controlled opposition (namely Trump and Sanders) and Rand Paul.

I thought this was worth a comment. I guess not.

It's true. If Rand had owned illegal immigration as a campaign issue early, the Trump surge would be a fraction of what it is now. It's pretty clear why he didn't; he's absolutely terrified of being called racist. He's got to find his backbone, or he has no chance.

Oh, sure, what better way to remain the GOP candidate with the best numbers against the opposition in the general election than to 'grow enough backbone' to take advice from the stormfronters?

Right. Got news. That may look like 'growing a backbone' to you, but to the rest of the world that looks like abandoning all his principles for a possible short term gain in the nomination race, and destroying all his brain cells in the bargain.

 

[AuH20]

I guarantee it is NOT. A sure way of getting Bernie sanders elected it to run trump.

Go up to my post #178 and click on the Washington Times link. Scroll down and see who is comfortably leading the 'Somewhat Conservative' and 'Moderate/Liberal Republican' Categories.

 

[klamath]

I'll just leave this out there. Stop believing the lies about Trumps' support. It is very broad.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lling-best-among-liberal-and-modera/?page=all

I don't much pay attention to the Washington times anymore. Decades ago I followed. They try and create they own reality. Always acting like they had the smoking gun that was going to destroy Clinton. Never happened and I quit following their hype.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Oh, sure, what better way to remain the GOP candidate with the best numbers against the opposition in the general election than to 'grow enough backbone' to take advice from the stormfronters?

Right. Got news. That may look like 'growing a backbone' to you, but to the rest of the world that looks like abandoning all his principles for a possible short term gain in the nomination race, and destroying all his brain cells in the bargain.

It doesn't matter how he polls against the opposition if the base doesn't nominate him. How is it "abandoning all his principles", you little nothing of a man? He proposed legislation to stop anchor-babies from being citizens. How many people know that? He wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, since you're an idiot.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It doesn't matter how he polls against the opposition if the base doesn't nominate him. How is it "abandoning all his principles", you little nothing of a man? He proposed legislation to stop anchor-babies from being citizens. How many people know that? He wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively. I wouldn't expect you to understand this, since you're an idiot.

Rand "wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively." So instead of going out and publicizing Rand's positions more effectively on his behalf, like we did for Ron Paul, the strategy is to disparage Paul and promote Trump? How does that make any sense?

 

[AuH20]

I don't much pay attention to the Washington times anymore. Decades ago I followed. They try and create they own reality. Always acting like they had the smoking gun that was going to destroy Clinton. Never happened and I quit following their hype.

That's fine and dandy, but do you really think they tailored their methodology to favor Donald Trump? In fact, the Washington Post, a publication that is hostile to Trump, did a survey on Trump supporters and found them to be much younger than originally estimated. A new paradigm is at work in these uncertain times. People care less about political correctness and are more concerned about bold results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-base-just-the-tea-party-reborn-not-exactly/

Trump fans are slightly more likely to be 18 to 39 than non-Trump fans.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Rand "wouldn't have to change any of his opinions, he's just have to publicize certain positions more effectively." So instead of going out and publicizing Rand's positions more effectively on his behalf, like we did for Ron Paul, the strategy is to disparage Paul and promote Trump? How does that make any sense?

I'm not doing that. I haven't made more than five or six posts on Trump since he announced. I appreciate that Trump had the balls to bring up immigration, and it's fun to see him tell the PC cops to go fuck themselves, but I'm not on board with him. I don't think he's in it for the long haul, and even if he got elected, President Trump would likely not resemble candidate Trump all that closely.

 

[AuH20]

I'm not doing that. I haven't made more than five or six posts on Trump since he announced. I appreciate that Trump had the balls to bring up immigration, and it's fun to see him tell the PC cops to go fuck themselves, but I'm not on board with him. I don't think he's in it for the long haul, and even if he got elected, President Trump would likely not resemble candidate Trump all that closely.

He would be forced to make concessions like Reagan. Rand would be forced to make concessions as well.

 

[kahless]

I don't agree with Rand on 100% everything either. That doesn't mean I'm going to camp out on his forums and promote his opponents. There is a reason the media is claiming that Ron Paul people are abandoning Rand in favor of Trump, and that reason is you. You want to spam Trump? Fine. Do it somewhere other than RonPaulForums.

That is simply not true at least for me. Show me where I have done that?

There is a reason the media is claiming that Ron Paul people are abandoning Rand in favor of Trump, and that reason is you.

ROFL, yeah right I am sure there was Drudge headline with sirens that read RAND LOST KAHLESS!

 

[acptulsa]

Go up to my post #178 and click on the Washington Times link. Scroll down and see who is comfortably leading the 'Somewhat Conservative' and 'Moderate/Liberal Republican' Categories.

Why would we do that when there are plenty of polls who actually ask people if they'd vote (given the matchup) for Paul or Clinton? Because by speculating in a bizarre manner on what 'moderate' has come to mean, you figure you can obfuscate the truth--which is Paul does best and Trump does worst against her?

It doesn't matter how he polls against the opposition if the base doesn't nominate him.

Yes, we know. And we know that the Establishment knows. And we know that's why you paid shills are here, too.

That's fine and dandy, but do you really think they tailored their methodology to favor Donald Trump? In fact, the Washington Post, a publication that is hostile to Trump, did a survey on Trump supporters and found them to be much younger than originally estimated. A new paradigm is at work in these uncertain times. People care less about political correctness and are more concerned about bold results.

Last I heard, his strongest demographic was middle schoolers. Still don't know why I should care what the children think, unless it's because so many Republicans think like children.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Yes, we know. And we know that the Establishment knows. And we know that's why you paid shills are here, too.

I was consistently praising Rand before his campaign started to falter. If he gets it back on track, I'll be praising him again. Unlike you, I'm not some sycophant who will laud everything he does, regardless of how good it is. You are a paranoid moron who understands absolutely nothing. Dunning-Kruger personified.

 

[LibertyEagle]

That is happening now, but you are not seeing it because you kinda like Trump.

Here, you are ASKING for me to say something positive about Trump. You are ASKING FOR IT. Do you realize that?

Your strategy needs an adjustment, klamath. You are attempting to pick a fight with someone who said she was going to vote for Rand.

Bad plan you have there.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That is simply not true at least for me. Show me where I have done that?



ROFL, yeah right I am sure there was Drudge headline with sirens that read

RAND LOST KAHLESS!

What an ego on you. Now if you want to promote Trump, the exit is at the top right of your screen.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

He would be forced to make concessions like Reagan. Rand would be forced to make concessions as well.

Actually, Reagan would be a perfect comparison for Trump. A lifelong modern US liberal who became conservative when it was opportunistic to become so.

Reagan didn't make concessions from his candidacy while in office. His record as governor was absolutely abysmal. He lied while campaigning in order to garner support and get elected. Just as Trump is doing now.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm not doing that. I haven't made more than five or six posts on Trump since he announced. I appreciate that Trump had the balls to bring up immigration, and it's fun to see him tell the PC cops to go fuck themselves, but I'm not on board with him. I don't think he's in it for the long haul, and even if he got elected, President Trump would likely not resemble candidate Trump all that closely.

You are not one of the 5 Trumpsters I was thinking about. I have reasons other than Trump to consider you non-credible.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What an ego on you. Now if you want to promote Trump, the exit is at the top right of your screen.

lol. You're the one with the ego.

He told you that what you were implying was NOT TRUE. Man, you get an A+ in defamation of character.

That is simply not true at least for me. Show me where I have done that?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

lol. You're the one with the ego.

He told you that what you were implying was NOT TRUE. Man, you get an A+ in defamation of character.

Do you think I support Jeb Bush, yes or no? This is not a hard question to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

Do you believe that I support Jeb Bush or not?

 

[LibertyEagle]

You are not one of the 5 Trumpsters I was thinking about. I have reasons other than Trump to consider you non-credible.

What a fantastic way of winning someone over, Gunny.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Do you think I support Jeb Bush, yes or no? This is not a hard question to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

Do you believe that I support Jeb Bush or not?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Do you think I support Jeb Bush, yes or no? This is not a hard question to answer. Why are you avoiding it?

Do you believe that I support Jeb Bush or not?

OPEN YOUR DAMN EARS. i NEVER SAID YOU DID.

It's your paranoid delusional behavior. Do you honestly believe you are helping Rand? If I had just come to this forum or was looking on, I would want to get the hell away from your crazy behavior and anyone you claim to support.