Site policies on Trump support

[Bryan]

.









This thread has been superseded by this one:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...t-Guidelines-for-2016-Presidential-Candidates




The first draft of the policy is below, which has been updated. This should not be used:

The site has concluded an initial assessment of Donald Trumps campaign, thanks in part to the many site members who contributed to the analysis. This assessment consists of many components including an adherence to a liberty platform, opponents that have a likelihood of winning, and more.

The result of the assessment was not favorable, and as a result, the Donald Trump campaign is not seen as an effort that promotes our Mission.


As a result of this analysis…

The following is Not Acceptable:
- Any effort to promote Donald Trump’s campaign is not within the site Guidelines, per “No promoting agendas that counter our Mission”. This includes efforts to rally other supporters, attempting to convert members, sharing information that would only be important for Trump supporters and the like.

The following will have Limited Acceptance:
- General supportive statements of Donald Trump should be limited and pertained to an ongoing discussion. Supportive statements include offering praise, making favorable comparisons to other candidates and the like.

The following will continue to be Acceptable within standard site limits for all candidates:
- Critical analysis, either favorable or not, about a specific policy that a candidate holds.
- Discussion on the pros and cons of the campaign tactics used by a candidate.
- Election news on any candidate.
- Declarations of support for any candidate.

This thread was used by the site to aid in the assessment:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491719-Campaign-Evaluation-Donald-Trump-(POTUS)


Analysis Notes
The applied analysis goes well beyond a simple libertarian “purity test” as we understand the potential value of supporting an imperfect candidate who can still be of value to our Mission; our analysis shows there are reasons why Trump should not be supported at any level. The sites final determination is a result of some of Trumps extreme positions against liberty, his power and influence, his predatory alpha-style tactics and his drive to get his way, which in total, is a potentially dangerous combination with the office of the presidency.

Of course, it is impossible to predict what Trumps behavior and actions will be once in the White House, and speculation of any specific wrong-doing would be fruitless, but the concerns are enough for us to withhold any support for Trump as some form of “defense candidate”, supporting the lessor of two evils or hoping for some side benefit from him winning the presidency.

It is understood that some people may not share this concern and still see value in supporting Trump in some capacity, this is understood. While we can amicably agree on differences we do not want to be responsible for supporting what may prove to be a very bad outcome that was reasonably perceivable up front.

 

[afwjam]

Thanks.

 

[RJ Liberty]

Thanks very much.

 

[invisible]

Many thanks, Bryan. Also many thanks to those who contributed to the evaluation effort. Now comes the difficult part: enforcement, and cleaning up the mess that has been made of this place. Hopefully we can finally have RPF back now!

edit: Can this be made into a sticky?

 

[dannno]

Many thanks, Bryan. Also many thanks to those who contributed to the evaluation effort. Now comes the difficult part: enforcement, and cleaning up the mess that has been made of this place. Hopefully we can finally have RPF back now!

edit: Can this be made into a sticky?

Can you cite a particular violation of the policy for me?

 

[invisible]

Can you cite a particular violation of the policy for me?

It's not my place to do that, I'll leave that up to Bryan and the mods to judge what is now a violation and what is not.

 

[dannno]

It's not my place to do that, I'll leave that up to Bryan and the mods to judge what is now a violation and what is not.

Dodging. You claimed we need to "clean up the site".

Can you even find ONE single instance of a violation of the above policy?

 

[openfire]

Can you cite a particular violation of the policy for me?

^ this

 

[invisible]

Dodging. You claimed we need to "clean up the site".

Can you even find ONE single instance of a violation of the above policy?

Damn right, it's a dodge. It's not my place to judge violations, as I am not a mod or the site administrator. Offering my opinion (which I am not alone in holding) that a mess needs to be cleaned up, is not any sort of offer to interpret a new policy that has not been applied and tested yet. When Bryan and the mods start enforcing the new policy, then we'll all get to see how it will work, and what exactly does and does not constitute a violation. Asking me to do so, is grossly unfair. Your question is best directed at Bryan or the mods, not me.

 

[dannno]

Damn right, it's a dodge. It's not my place to judge violations, as I am not a mod or the site administrator. Offering my opinion (which I am not alone in holding) that a mess needs to be cleaned up, is not any sort of offer to interpret a new policy that has not been applied and tested yet. When Bryan and the mods start enforcing the new policy, then we'll all get to see how it will work, and what exactly does and does not constitute a violation. Asking me to do so, is grossly unfair. Your question is best directed at Bryan or the mods, not me.

I guess I am asking how you think things will change, if at all. Not that I think they are bad as they are.. The Trump discussions are always met with spirited rebuttal.

 

[invisible]

I guess I am asking how you think things will change, if at all.

I really don't know. The only way we'll all find out is to see how Bryan and the mods apply and enforce the new policy. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't say what will or won't happen, or how the new policy will be interpreted or enforced.

 

[Bryan]

FYI, some old threads may get locked if bumped but there won't be any sort of post ex facto action against members.

This thread will be stickied soon.

 

[dannno]

I really don't know. The only way we'll all find out is to see how Bryan and the mods apply and enforce the new policy. I'm not a mind reader, so I can't say what will or won't happen, or how the new policy will be interpreted or enforced.

Actually, you said:

Now comes the difficult part: enforcement, and cleaning up the mess that has been made of this place. Hopefully we can finally have RPF back now!

It sounds like you think that it will be difficult to enforce, there will be a mess to clean up and currently a mess exists here. You infer that we have lost RPF and this will now finally change.

Now you are saying you don't have an opinion about how things will change?

Very interesting.

 

[invisible]

Actually, you said:



It sounds like you think that it will be difficult to enforce, there will be a mess to clean up and currently a mess exists here. You infer that we have lost RPF and this will now finally change.

Now you are saying you don't have an opinion about how things will change?

Very interesting.

None of what I said offered an opinion on how things will change. Nor did it infer or imply any opinion on how I think anything will change. Again, your concern is best directed to Bryan and the mods, not me. I'm not a mind reader, nor do I have a crystal ball.

 

[Peace Piper]

The site has concluded an initial assessment of Donald Trumps campaign, thanks in part to the many site members who contributed to the analysis. This assessment consists of many components including an adherence to a liberty platform, opponents that have a likelihood of winning, and more.

The result of the assessment was not favorable, and as a result, the Donald Trump campaign is not seen as an effort that promotes our Mission.

Thanks for the clarification.

Just curious, does a candidate who is a Canadian born neo-con warmonger that claims to follow the Constitution "promote the mission"?

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Was his Mother a Canadian at the time he was born? Some people say she was a registered voter and therefore was a Canadian. Should be easy for one of the many lawsuits to get to the bottom of this. And if the clowns in the Republican party give the nomination to this sleazebag there will be even more lawsuits. Apparently the Constitution is only important when some people think it's important. And when a Canadian neo-con warmonger/liar wants to slick his way into the presidency, it's not so important, obviously.

Would you let this creep drive your daughter home from school?

Analysis Notes

The applied analysis goes well beyond a simple libertarian “purity test” as we understand the potential value of supporting an imperfect candidate who can still be of value to our Mission; our analysis shows there are reasons why Trump should not be supported at any level. The sites final determination is a result of some of Trumps extreme positions against liberty, his power and influence, his predatory alpha-style tactics and his drive to get his way, which in total, is a potentially dangerous combination with the office of the presidency.

Unless the buffoons in the Republican party decide to steal the nomination from Donald Trump the choice is:

Clinton

or

Trump

Have fun.

 

[dannno]

None of what I said offered an opinion on how things will change. Nor did it infer or imply any opinion on how I think anything will change. Again, your concern is best directed to Bryan and the mods, not me. I'm not a mind reader, nor do I have a crystal ball.

I'm sorry, but your first post was your opinion that there would be broad changes and now you are saying you don't have an opinion but it is clearly right there in the first post. Huge contradiction.. you can't even find one instance of anything that would have changed had this been the policy since Trump began his campaign.

I would posit that more than 99.8% of the discussion by members has been within the guidelines. I don't think there will be great effort in enforcing the new policy, because almost none of the discussion in the past has fallen into the category of discussion that is not allowed in the new guidelines. I don't agree that 'we' lost RPF in the first place and so I was using this line of reasoning to critique your original comment.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

How about strategic support? If we make use of his candidacy so he serves as our useful idiot, I'm all for it.

But I see posters here actually following him down the authoritarian rabbit hole, and trying to drag other people down there with them. Obviously that is harmful to the health of these forums as a device for promoting liberty.

 

[invisible]

I'm sorry, but your first post was your opinion that there would be broad changes and now you are saying you don't have an opinion. Huge contradiction.. you can't even find one instance of anything that would have changed had this been the policy since Trump began his campaign.

I would posit that 99.8% of what has gone on is within the guidelines. I don't think there will be great effort in enforcing the new policy, because almost none of the discussion in the past has fallen into the category of discussion that is not allowed in the new guidelines. I don't agree that 'we' lost RPF in the first place and so I was using this line of reasoning to critique your original comment if you haven't caught on.

You're welcome to critique my comment all you'd like, and you're welcome to disagree with me (nobody ever agrees with everybody all the time). Just don't ask me what Bryan and the mods will do, as I am not them.

 

[dannno]

Just curious, does a candidate who is a Canadian born neo-con warmonger that claims to follow the Constitution "promote the mission"?

Does snuffaluffagus "promote the mission"? Who cares? It doesn't matter, is anybody promoting the Ted Cruz campaign here?

Some people give supportive reasoning for voting for him and declare their support, but that reflects fine according to the above guidelines. Nobody is trying to get people to make phone calls for Ted Cruz and wouldn't be done unless it was a secret squirrel campaign to make him look bad or something. Nobody is soliciting donations or organizing efforts to help his campaign in any form.

 

[dannno]

You're welcome to critique my comment all you'd like, and you're welcome to disagree with me (nobody ever agrees with everybody all the time). Just don't ask me what Bryan and the mods will do, as I am not them.

The irony is how much you are reminding me of Donald Trump..

Can't you imagine him saying, "The changes here will be great, I don't know what they will be exactly, but the changes will be tremendous.. It is going to take a lot of hard work and dedication, but we will put in the work and make those changes. We are going to make this forum great again, you watch!"