Rand's first blow to Trump lands hard

[carlton]

No. Are you retarded enough to believe Trump is "working for Clinton"?



No. Are you retarded enough to believe Trump is "working for Clinton"?

Nope I don't. Your posts are not much negative on Trump. Am I to assume you support Paul as your first choice? If so, why do you post so negatively about him while singing Trump's praises despite the fact that he is not your first choice.

 

[CPUd]

Coke now owns Dr. Pepper

ETA: sorta

 

[klamath]

Nope I don't. Your posts are not much negative on Trump. Am I to assume you support Paul as your first choice? If so, why do you post so negatively about him while singing Trump's praises despite the fact that he is not your first choice.

Catching on I see.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Define "so many." It's a relatively small number compared to his overall numbers. Just because he found that certain Mexicans were the best people for certain jobs and/or to maximize his profits, that doesn't mean he can't also be concerned with the overall incentive structure and the effect on the country.

Several thousand. You can talk comparative statistics, but his language on this topic has been fairly mealy-mouthed, when in reality the guy hires anyone who makes him money. Since money is his religion, why should I believe that he cares about the incentive structure when it would be to his monetary advantage to have all the cheap labor. If the guy is only interested spur of the moment profit, what does he care about how the country is affected? I'm sorry, he's either amoral or he's a crusader, you can't have it both ways.

His primary goal has been to make money. I didn't say he's never been amoral in the way he went about it. He greases the wheels when he needs to, or else he doesn't make money. Politicians blackmail businesses. It's pay to play.

Which politicians has Rand Paul greased again? And assuming that you could come up with one, would it compare to Trump's exploits in this department?

If I know the best shady lawyer to use to get a speeding ticket thrown out, and I use him; does that mean I support the speed limit? Does that mean I support checkpoints? Does that mean I support speeding cameras? Does that make me part of the establishment?

Bad analogy, but hypothetically speaking, if you operate this way, why is it incumbent upon me to trust you when you say you are making a principled stand on any of these issues if you've gotten thousands upon thousands of speeding tickets thrown out and have turned a couple of people into quadriplegics in the process? It's one thing to oppose laws and engage in resistance against them, it's another thing to make a financial killing by manipulating bankruptcy laws and our crony capitalist system and then expect people to trust you when you claim to oppose what you've contributed to hand over fist.

Or am I just a guy who doesn't want to pay a speeding ticket? Is the only way to prove I'm not establishment is to lose to the government every time?

When you're flashing your millions and your hot model wife in everybody's face and then yammer about understanding the little guy, people are naturally skeptical. I'm fine with Trump making his fortune, I'm not fine with him using it to buy an election, especially at the likely behest of the Clintons, whom I hate with an absolute passion.

This has been stipulated by morons. Trump has called for Hillary to go to prison multiple times.

Which will probably never happen, so who gives a f&ck? I could say Hillary should be in prison and then still vote for her without anybody knowing it, despite my long time association with them.

Clinton wants to run against Bush, and not against anyone else. It neutralizes the dynasty criticism. The Clintons and Bushes are much closer than the Clintons and Trump have ever been. Clintons & Bushes have been running dirty criminal/"intelliegence" operations together for 30 years and they've openly called each other family.

Jeb Bush says that Clinton was to blame for Benghazi. So I should disbelieve him but believe Trump wants her in prison simply because you say so? Sorry, not going to happen. Trump had a very nice phone call with Bill Clinton before running, that pretty much kills the rest of this malarkey about Trump and Clinton being at odds.

And those common financial benefactors (the establishment) hate everything Trump is doing in this campaign.

Do they?

 

[hells_unicorn]

Nope I don't. Your posts are not much negative on Trump. Am I to assume you support Paul as your first choice? If so, why do you post so negatively about him while singing Trump's praises despite the fact that he is not your first choice.

I've always accepted the possibility that Trump isn't doing this for the Clintons and is simply helping them by accident, but I think I'm right on this. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that Trump is his choice de facto given his rhetoric, even if he insists otherwise when asked. He's been down on Rand quite heavily since Trump entered the race, and the more I talk to not just him, but also JJ, David Sadler and the rest, the more I'm convinced that this odd devotion they have for Trump is less about policy and more about admiring a guy who is acting like a testosterone infused lunatic because it affirms some sort of "rite of manhood", because nothing they use to defend him makes any rational sense whatsoever.

 

[klamath]

Several thousand. You can talk comparative statistics, but his language on this topic has been fairly mealy-mouthed, when in reality the guy hires anyone who makes him money. Since money is his religion, why should I believe that he cares about the incentive structure when it would be to his monetary advantage to have all the cheap labor. If the guy is only interested spur of the moment profit, what does he care about how the country is affected? I'm sorry, he's either amoral or he's a crusader, you can't have it both ways.

Which politicians has Rand Paul greased again? And assuming that you could come up with one, would it compare to Trump's exploits in this department?



Bad analogy, but hypothetically speaking, if you operate this way, why is it incumbent upon me to trust you when you say you are making a principled stand on any of these issues if you've gotten thousands upon thousands of speeding tickets thrown out and have turned a couple of people into quadriplegics in the process? It's one thing to oppose laws and engage in resistance against them, it's another thing to make a financial killing by manipulating bankruptcy laws and our crony capitalist system and then expect people to trust you when you claim to oppose what you've contributed to hand over fist.



When you're flashing your millions and your hot model wife in everybody's face and then yammer about understanding the little guy, people are naturally skeptical. I'm fine with Trump making his fortune, I'm not fine with him using it to buy an election, especially at the likely behest of the Clintons, whom I hate with an absolute passion.



Which will probably never happen, so who gives a f&ck? I could say Hillary should be in prison and then still vote for her without anybody knowing it, despite my long time association with them.



Jeb Bush says that Clinton was to blame for Benghazi. So I should disbelieve him but believe Trump wants her in prison simply because you say so? Sorry, not going to happen. Trump had a very nice phone call with Bill Clinton before running, that pretty much kills the rest of this malarkey about Trump and Clinton being at odds.



Do they?

Waste of finger energy but good non the less.

 

[phill4paul]

A hit, a very palpable hit!

 

[CPUd]

I've always accepted the possibility that Trump isn't doing this for the Clintons and is simply helping them by accident, but I think I'm right on this. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that Trump is his choice de facto given his rhetoric, even if he insists otherwise when asked. He's been down on Rand quite heavily since Trump entered the race, and the more I talk to not just him, but also JJ, David Sadler and the rest, the more I'm convinced that this odd devotion they have for Trump is less about policy and more about admiring a guy who is acting like a testosterone infused lunatic because it affirms some sort of "rite of manhood", because nothing they use to defend him makes any rational sense whatsoever.

I think they are more anti-Rand than pro-Trump. Just today, when the Trump took his first major blow, there is already one of them humping for Cruz, LOL.

 

[jj-]

I think they are more anti-Rand than pro-Trump. Just today, when the Trump took his first major blow, there is already one of them humping for Cruz, LOL.

What a complete idiot you are. If I see anyone making a good argument in favor of the Kentucky clerk, I would post about that. It doesn't at all mean I'm supporting Cruz. Cruz made an excellent point that the logical consequence of demanding Davis' resignation is that Obama should resign.

Also, Trump didn't take any blow today by the way as far as I know, which makes your post even more stupid.

 

[jkr]

Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
No. Are you retarded enough to believe Trump is "working for Clinton"?

Why is it retarded to believe that?

BECAUSE HE IS WORKING WITH HIM!

 

[acptulsa]

Uh-huh. Did the Coke and Pepsi campaigns bankrupt each other and allow for the third competitor to gain first place in market share? Because that is the other poster's Trump-Bush scenario which I was responding to. Your analogy is a failure and you are a moron.

You're trying to say that having fifteen other candidates in the race, so neither Bush nor Trump is able to secure the nomination prior to the convention, is good for either one of them?

And you're calling me a moron because I don't see it?

Seriously?

 

[carlton]

What a complete idiot you are. If I see anyone making a good argument in favor of the Kentucky clerk, I would post about that. It doesn't at all mean I'm supporting Cruz. Cruz made an excellent point that the logical consequence of demanding Davis' resignation is that Obama should resign.

Also, Trump didn't take any blow today by the way as far as I know, which makes your post even more stupid.

What do you think of Rand's position on that story? Seems he is taking a position that is close to Cruz's.

 

[CPUd]

What a complete idiot you are. If I see anyone making a good argument in favor of the Kentucky clerk, I would post about that. It doesn't at all mean I'm supporting Cruz. Cruz made an excellent point that the logical consequence of demanding Davis' resignation is that Obama should resign.

Also, Trump didn't take any blow today by the way as far as I know, which makes your post even more stupid.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[jj-]

What do you think of Rand's position on that story? Seems he is taking a position that is close to Cruz's.

I did read it, but wasn't memorable. There wasn't one point made that caught my attention like Cruz's analogy with Obama ignoring the law.

 

[carlton]

I did read it, but wasn't memorable. There wasn't one point made that caught my attention like Cruz's analogy with Obama ignoring the law.

I remember it, he says that she shouldn't be jailed for exercising her freedom of religion.

 

[jj-]

I remember it, he says that she shouldn't be jailed for exercising her freedom of religion.

Yes, not a point I heard for the first time, so it didn't catch my attention.

 

[William R]

Another huge mistake Rand has made is attacking Trump. Trump and Carson are riding high because they're viewed as outsiders. Rand should have been attacking establishment front runner Jeb Bush. The mood of the Republican electorate right now is the establishment is enemy number one!! So by attacking Trump the biggest outsider Rand now comes across as an establishment insider trying to help Bush. .

I'm surprised he hasn't figured this out yet. Rick Perry called Trump a cancer on conservatism and he's all but vanished. Rand is close to vanishing.

 

[Valli6]

Rand to discuss loyalty pledge with Hannity tonight (9/3)

Rand will be on Hannity's show tonight to discuss this.

THURSDAY ON 'HANNITY'
The RNC is asking presidential candidates to sign a loyalty pledge. Sen. Rand Paul reacts…
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/

 

[erowe1]

Another huge mistake Rand has made is attacking Trump.

No way.

Trump is by far the most liberal Republican in the race. And he's at the top of the polls. He needs to be called out on that.

Yes, Rand needs to run as the anti-establishment standard bearer. But in order to do that he needs to knock Trump of that perch.

I agree that Rand's attacks on Trump shouldn't revolve around party loyalty, though. They should be issues-based.

 

[acptulsa]

Another huge mistake Rand has made is attacking Trump.

More of this spam?

So, the overt establishment candidate is more of a threat to us than the covert establishment spy? So, Bush actually needs help failing spectacularly? So there are actually people stupid enough that showing them how Rand Paul filibustered the PATRIOT Act into the dustbin of history won't convince them that he's no friend of a Bush?

Hardly.

I agree that Rand's attacks on Trump shouldn't revolve around party loyalty, though. They should be issues-based.

Sounds good. He has raised quite a number of other issues. Good ones. But none of those resulted in an opportunity to point cameras and microphones at Trump. This gave the media no choice; this loyalty oath is clearly newsworthy.

But I'm glad the blow that Rand used to knock Christie out of the thing was very policy-based, and a Constitutional issue besides.