Rand's first blow to Trump lands hard

[hells_unicorn]

He won't self-destruct. But now that they have him on this pledge, the RNC will get a lot bolder about attacking him. Expect anti-Trump PACs (not-so) covertly backed by the RNC & its donors to open fire on Trump in a big way soon. That may drive his numbers down some.

I don't think he'll self-destruct on his own per say, I'm more expecting him to overreact to said attacks. I have no doubt that Bush's people are already prepping for WWIII, and I'm looking forward to seeing Trump's wild response, which he will likely aim directly at Bush. My guess is that this will be just like Howard Dean vs. Dick Gephardt back in 2004 in Iowa, where they literally destroyed each other with negative ads and paved the way for Kerry to run away with it.

 

[acptulsa]

But now that they have him on this pledge, the RNC will get a lot bolder about attacking him. Expect anti-Trump PACs (not-so) covertly backed by the RNC & its donors to open fire on Trump in a big way soon. That may drive his numbers down some.

I'm still at a loss to explain how people think the only guy who gets 24/7 nonstop coverage in the media is somehow at odds with any part of The Establishment.

I'd like to think The Establishment is that fractured. But the only thing I've seen to suggest that is this silly-assed soap opera they'e broadcasting. And I've seen more believable plots spun by telenovella makers and the WWE.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I'm still at a loss .

Clueless people often are.

 

[Kotin]

honestly, if we can come back from this, it might have been beneficial to get the cross-hairs off of Rand as I believe he would be getting a load of negative ad buys if he was higher at the moment..

 

[hells_unicorn]

Clueless people often are.

This is part of the reason why I've been wont to distance myself from conspiracy theorist thought, because it is a very easy road to delusional thinking. I spent a painful 45 minutes watch hosts on Fox News gush all over Trump and being impressed by his principled bluster and I'm pretty well convinced that Trump is about as anti-establishment as Bush and Clinton.

If you want clueless, you might want to take a look in the mirror. I'm not saying that there isn't a conspiracy afoot, but I'd be less inclined to side with someone who suddenly became anti-establishment about 5 minutes before declaring himself a candidate.

honestly, if we can come back from this, it might have been beneficial to get the cross-hairs off of Rand as I believe he would be getting a load of negative ad buys if he was higher at the moment..

Honestly, I was cool with Trump breaking into the lead this early for this very reason, but I stopped being so the minute I saw some of our own people buying into his nonsense. It may still work to our advantage if Trump forces Jeb's PACs to drain away all their money on him, but turning into Trump supporters would be just as bad as siding with Jeb, albeit for somewhat different reasons.

 

[thoughtomator]

The beginning of the end for Trump. Now he's backtracked on something he made a major deal out of just weeks ago. His whole mojo as the unbeatable alpha male is now kaput. Look how happy he looks holding up that pledge with the wrong date on it.

 

[hells_unicorn]

The beginning of the end for Trump. Now he's backtracked on something he made a major deal out of just weeks ago. His whole mojo as the unbeatable alpha male is now kaput. Look how happy he looks holding up that pledge with the wrong date on it.

lol I just noticed after you mentioned it that Trump put the wrong month on the pledge. Is he stupid or was that supposed to be a joke?

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

someone who suddenly became anti-establishment about 5 minutes before declaring himself a candidate.

This is a clueless statement. Trump has been speaking out against the elite program to deindustrialize and unemploy America for almost 30 years, not for five minutes.

if Trump forces Jeb's PACs to drain away all their money on him

Well, genius, how could this even be possible if both of these candidates are the choices of the establishment? Didn't you just say they were working together?

 

[hells_unicorn]

This is a clueless statement. Trump has been speaking out against the elite program to deindustrialize and unemploy America for almost 30 years, not for five minutes.

Oh bullshit. What's he doing hiring so many Mexicans and bragging about it if he actually cares about the employment of native-borns in this country? What's he doing palling around with the Clintons when Bill was the one who enacted NAFTA?

Well, genius, how could this even be possible if both of these candidates are the choices of the establishment? Didn't you just say they were working together?

I don't know, maybe there's more than one wing in the establishment, just like there are 2 political parties? Trump is not working with Bush, he's working with Clinton, that's been pretty well stipulated. The Republican and Democratic party have common financial benefactors, and you can pretty well fill in the blanks on the rest of it. The fact that Trump was a benefactor/pimp rather than a politician/whore does not exempt him from being part of the broader establishment. The fact that I have to explain this to someone who has been a member of this forum for 8 years is pretty damned depressing actually.

 

[acptulsa]

Well, genius, how could this even be possible if both of these candidates are the choices of the establishment? Didn't you just say they were working together?

For the same reason that, back in the eighties, Ford and Chevy began a campaign of mentioning each other in their light truck ads, and Coke and Pepsi of mentioning each other in their ads. Because the first two figured they'd be better off if everyone forgot Dodge and Jeep existed, and the latter two figured they'd be better off if everyone forgot that Royal Crown and Dr. Pepper existed.

No charge, Einstein. Clues are free today.

 

[nikcers]

This is a clueless statement. Trump has been speaking out against the elite program to deindustrialize and unemploy America for almost 30 years, not for five minutes.



Well, genius, how could this even be possible if both of these candidates are the choices of the establishment? Didn't you just say they were working together?

ANTI establishment for 30 years endorses establishment democrat candidate in 2007.

2007 Donald Trump said, “Hillary’s always surrounded herself with very good people. I think Hillary would do a good job,”

He also endorsed netanyahu more recently.

​

 

[thoughtomator]

lol I just noticed after you mentioned it that Trump put the wrong month on the pledge. Is he stupid or was that supposed to be a joke?

I interpret it as it being his intention to make it not legally binding.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

What's he doing hiring so many Mexicans and bragging about it if he actually cares about the employment of native-borns

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.

What's he doing palling around with the Clintons when Bill was the one who enacted NAFTA? . . . The fact that Trump was a benefactor/pimp rather than a politician/whore does not exempt him from being part of the broader establishment.

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.

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?

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?

Trump is not working with Bush, he's working with Clinton, that's been pretty well stipulated.

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

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.

The fact that I have to explain this to someone who has been a member of this forum for 8 years is pretty damned depressing.

The Republican and Democratic party have common financial benefactors

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

 

[carlton]

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.



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.

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?

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?



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

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.

The fact that I have to explain this to someone who has been a member of this forum for 8 years is pretty damned depressing.



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

Do you support Trump as your first choice?

 

[CPUd]

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.



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.

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?

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?



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

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.

The fact that I have to explain this to someone who has been a member of this forum for 8 years is pretty damned depressing.



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

Also, do you pledge to support the GOP nominee?

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

For the same reason that, back in the eighties,... Coke and Pepsi of mentioning each other in their ads..o figured they'd be better off if everyone forgot that Royal Crown and Dr. Pepper existed. .

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.

 

[carlton]

Also, do you pledge to support the GOP nominee?

No one but Paul as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Do you support Trump as your first choice?

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

Also, do you pledge to support the GOP nominee?

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

 

[erowe1]

I didn't see the debate. But how exactly is this good for Rand? Is it in Rand's interest to be seen as the face of the pro-loyalty-pledge faction?

 

[erowe1]

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



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

Why is it retarded to believe that?