Should Trump supporters be banned from this forum?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.

That this needs to be broken down on this of all forums is sad.

Out of rep, but I'll +rep eventually.

 

[acptulsa]

When the law specifically says that you can't clean the kitchen, you are out of luck.

That statement is infused with the same sort of liberal 'logic' that saw the Democrats rushing to pass Obamacare so they could turn around and say, 'You may not like it but it's the law of the land, and you have to deal with it.' Is that the type of company you like to keep, Mr. 'Goldwater'?

I notice the politicians back in the 1980s didn't have any trouble getting the laws against bribing politicians repealed...

 

[H. E. Panqui]

acptulsa writes: But please, God, somebody tell Rand Paul that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want jobs,



...if by 'jobs' you are referring to real, honest 'work,' then you are wrong...

...there is plenty of honest 'work'/jobs to be done all around us...one would have to blind, stooooooooooopid, etc., to not see all the undone work/'jobs' to do all around us...

...the REALITY (a harsh mistress for republicrats) is 'that the vast majority of the people recently turning xenophobic just want FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES/TOKENS..same with the 'illegal aliens,' 'legals' and just about everyone else here in 'murka..including you..

......you really should learn some monetary reality (see my fabulous, 'Exposing Republicrat Monetary Ignorance For Dummies' thread)...the fog could lift and your per$pective could improve greatly...

...btw, all the fighting/bickering/finger-pointing around here reminds me of the vicious in-fighting in the dugout/clubhouse of a team on a bad losing streak...but take heart...a few wins and it won't be near as nasty, self-destructive...

 

[LibertyEagle]

I do value that. I want to limit it more than you do, it's pretty clear.

As I recall, you don't want a government at all. Is that the case? If so, that's quite a bit different than advocating a limited constitutional government.

 

[anaconda]

Sorry is the first word of the post? You start apologizing and expect to be persuasive? I'd advise you to watch a bit of this guy named Donald Trump. He doesn't start proposals by apologizing, and he seems quite successful.

Trump says "sorry" twice here (starting at 0:24):

 

[paleocon1]

.........................



This nation not only survived, but thrived, at a time when we were advertising abroad for immigrants. Grew into a world superpower on that, in fact.

.....................................

That time is long past. America has no need for unskilled (except at baby making) and unwilling to learn our ways immigrants from the third world.

 

[staerker]

Letting people flood our borders as they have been, gives absolutely no chance of them assimilating into our culture and principles.

'MURICA

 

[erowe1]

'MURICA

+rep

Great post. American culture? Thanks. But as a Christian I'll pass. And nobody has a right to use my tax money to promote and preserve that culture.

 

[Wilf]

That time is long past. America has no need for unskilled (except at baby making) and unwilling to learn our ways immigrants from the third world.

So you would be for uncontrolled immgration if the immigrants come europe only...check.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Much as it would please me, I had to vote no.

A couple of them should be banned; not for being Trump supporters per se, but for being straight-up spammers, actively working against the site mission.

For the remainder, I have a better penance in mind.

Design a badge to resemble the image below, but with a big T.

There's no box to check to display it, it displays automatically once they cross a certain threshold (e.g. a certain number of pro-Trump threads).

This will be permanent.

So, even after Trumpmania passes, they'll have to live in shame for the rest of their days at RPF, cast out, despised of men.

 

[cajuncocoa]

So you would be for uncontrolled immgration if the immigrants come europe only...check.

You mean you didn't know this was all about skin color?

 

[cajuncocoa]

No, but you constantly try to lead readers away from Ron and Rand's stances, while claiming to support them. Verses someone who says something positive about Trump because of Trump's stance on an issue.

Which one is more damaging? I say someone like you.

Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

 

[acptulsa]

Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

And helping suck the oxygen out of the room, so the rational alternatives to Bush v. Clinton The Sequel never get discussed. And helping Fox play Republicans for suckers by perpetuating the myth that the idiot who throws the most red meat at Republicans can actually win the general election, though that has never in history happened, thereby helping Fox throw the election to the unabashed socialist--for the third disastrous time in a row. And helping the MSM spread the lie that the honest man who votes against all the pork is Establishment because he got off his ass and went to Washington, while they people who buy, lease or rent all the other senators are anti-Establishment because they aren't sitting senators.

Thus sabotaging the whole nation while sanctimoniously sitting around intimating that those who jump into those threads and try to set the record straight (about how a 'successful businessman' might not be the best choice to straighten out the country if he has been to bankruptcy court four freaking times) in our own house ought to be phone banking instead.

 

[klamath]

Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

I do have to say after being gone from this place since last November and then coming back when the campaign started gave me a "WTF happened!" moment. Why were we so hard on poor Cajun and others who had legitimate reasons to be upset with Rand yet have people actively promoting the complete opposite of Ron or Rand in Trump right in the middle of the ACTUAL election?

 

[Jamesiv1]

Banned? No, but I would like to see all the Trump spam quarantined somewhere so that people who come here to decide whether they want to support Paul or not don't get turned off and sent packing to Ted Cruz.

how about mods create an "Anti-Rand" forum set to 'no-index' so the search engines won't find it?

Have sub-forums like "trump truth", "jeb junk, "bernie bullshit" and such like. That way if a trump supporter acts like an ass the mods put their post in the proper place rather than making "we ban all trump supporters" the official forum rule --- which is petty and childish and makes it look like we fear opposing views.

 

[Jamesiv1]

Under that circumstance, when you look for what law to change, you change that one.

If the problem is the existence of some big-government program, then the legislation to fix it is legislation that shrinks that existing big-government program, not legislation that grows some other big-government program, like anti-immigration laws, designed to fix the problems of the first one.

That constant cycle of government-based problems coming from government-based solutions to government-based problems is what got us here.

No matter what the POTUS or potential POTUS says, corporate interests and the elite absolutely love the Mexican and South American immigrants and will NEVER do anything to curb or discourage immigration - whether it's legal or illegal.

Without them, nothing in this country would be cleaned, built, mowed or cooked.

They are doing all the low-wage jobs that whites and blacks don't want to do anymore.

Get used to them. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[Wilf]

You mean you didn't know this was all about skin color?

Maybe ...... Maybe not. I am just not huge fan of scapegoating.

 

[rg17]

Au20 is banned for awhile.

 

[acptulsa]

Au20 is banned for awhile.

Not for any position he may or may not have held, but for speed-spamming.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Is it required that all RPF members support ALL of Ron's and Rand's stances 100% in order to be in compliance with the Mission Statement of this board? I doubt that Bryan would say that's true.

And while you neg-repped and nagged me for over 2 years for legitimately questioning statements that Rand made along the way that were counter to a liberty position, you stand by and do nothing while people on this board openly support another candidate (Donald Trump.) Not only do you stand by and do nothing, you enable them. Seems hypocritical to me.

I would think that openly supporting another candidate while the one whose face and name is on the banner of the board is still in the race may not be against the Mission Statement, it certainly IS counterproductive to what others on this board are trying hard to accomplish. And by propping up Trump, you're enabling those who are hurting Rand. Congratulations.

That was never the issue with you. You would make innuendos about Rand, not backed by facts and when that was pointed out to you, you would just run off and post the very same thing in another thread. You did this CONSTANTLY. And a great deal of the time, you were doing it in RAND's own subforum.

Asking a real question that you really wanted answered was never the question. That was also told you many, many times.