Site policies on Trump support

Status
Not open for further replies.
That policy is a tad confusing... It would be extremely helpful if an example of an offending thread/post could be provided for reference.

It's getting chilly in here. brrrrr
 
Last edited:
dannno said:
Can you cite a particular violation of the policy for me?
Click to expand...
How about actual threads saying vote for trump or threads calling for other members to join them in working for and organizing for Trump? That one actually got locked early.
 
openfire said:
That policy is a tad confusing... It would be extremely helpful if an example of an offending thread/post could be provided for reference.

It's getting chilly in here. brrrrr
Click to expand...

I don't see anything confusing about it.

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.
Click to expand...
 
This policy only further confuses the issue.

What constitutes "support"?

Are strategic and tactical considerations now not acceptable if they lead one to conclude that Trump is our best bet here?

Where's the line between the two?

Will this policy be ignored like so many other official policies on RPF? Thinking specifically of the mass ad hominem/strawman pileups of the past few weeks that appear to have invited no sanction, even though they are explicitly and specifically against policy.

If this is a step down the road to political correctness - and it very much appears to be - it's a step in the wrong direction.
 
Bryan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think some clarification on the policy would be good on posting favorable news stories about trump. It is on going where admitted Trump supporters are trying to flood the site with as many favorable news article as they can about Trump. I think this is a blatant attempt to subvert the sites mission statement. What is considered crossing the line?
 
winning-the-contest-kick-back-like-a-boss-meme-24799.jpg
 
It's not my site. You can do whatever you want....but this is the 2016 election forum and barring some crazy set of circumstances the man who shall remain nameless is going to be the nominee.

Even in the Rand Paul forum you had a place to promote him and a "spin chaff" section where all the dirt was discussed.

The Nameless needs to be talked about. If it's not done here people will do it elsewhere....some place where there won't be Liberty people to post contradictory viewpoints.

Liberty should be about personal responsibility, education both toward other people and ones self and the strive to make the world a better place.

But again this isn't my site. I dont pay the bills so you can do whatever you want. It just seems odd that in the promotion of personal liberty and responsibility we would ban people from sharing their opinions and views EVEN if the were contrary to the stated mission.
 
Anti-Neocon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who is doing that? All I've seen people say, and it is my position as well, is what you said in your opening: How about strategic support? If we make use of his candidacy so he serves as our useful idiot, I'm all for it.


invisible said:
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.
Click to expand...

He wasn't asking you that, you did make a statement that is clear to anyone that you found several posts here violated the rules, so much so that you had "lost RPF" and that now they would be cleaned. He asked for your opinion, which you clearly had one and now claim you don't, he didn't ask you to speak for Bryan.
 
Last edited:
dannno said:
Dodging. You claimed we need to "clean up the site".

Can you even find ONE single instance of a violation of the above policy?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



seems if EVERY new thread you start is pro trump... that would count as promotion


thoughtomator said:
This policy only further confuses the issue.

What constitutes "support"?
Click to expand...

Lets remove all confusion then.

I don't know exactly what Bryan constitutes as "support" but my guideline is simple:

post pro trump news piece as a new thread headline at RPF

and you get triple tap rep burn from me and I will pass the information on to all other members so inclined.

end of story.

BURN
 
Last edited:
jbauer said:
It's not my site. You can do whatever you want....but this is the 2016 election forum and barring some crazy set of circumstances the man who shall remain nameless is going to be the nominee.

Even in the Rand Paul forum you had a place to promote him and a "spin chaff" section where all the dirt was discussed.

The Nameless needs to be talked about. If it's not done here people will do it elsewhere....some place where there won't be Liberty people to post contradictory viewpoints.

Liberty should be about personal responsibility, education both toward other people and ones self and the strive to make the world a better place.

But again this isn't my site. I dont pay the bills so you can do whatever you want. It just seems odd that in the promotion of personal liberty and responsibility we would ban people from sharing their opinions and views EVEN if the were contrary to the stated mission.
Click to expand...
Because it is a site with a dedicated goal not a general political discussion forum. 75% of the members, the owners, and the namesakes of these forums do not want Trump anywhere near the whitehouse. Trump supporters have been blatantly attempting to recruit and turn this place into Trump central for months.
 
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.
Click to expand...

The ambiguous part of this, of course, is what of discussions about side benefits that have already occurred, or things that amount to a very good outcome in terms of the site's Mission, as a result of the Trump candidacy? It has been pointed out that there are numerous institutional obstacles blocking the success of Paul-like liberty candidates at the national level. Specifically, the donor class backing and controlling puppets like Bush, Rubio, etc. Or the similarly controlled mainstream media, whose job has been to push the donors' puppets, marginalize all the unapproved candidates, and relentlessly push or shame all parties to conform to a 'mainstream' narrative that promotes a bigger state, or a break with cultural tradition.

I have quoted Ron Paul himself, and Chuck Baldwin, and conservatives like Buchanan and Schafly et al, to confirm their agreement that Trump's presence in the race has disrupted this established order. As in already happened, past tense. This is an already achieved result of his campaign, to have disempowered the donors, crushed the prospects for a Bush III or Rubio I neocon regime, and overcome the MSM's control games. How could this crippling of the anti-liberty racket not be compatible with the site's Mission? Can this real, not theoretical achievement be spoken of freely under this policy? The wording of the policy appears to presume all talk of Trump's value for the liberty cause is hypothetical, which is not accurate.

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.
Click to expand...

This sounds like the personality quirk of Trump being "alpha" is being cited as anti-liberty. Are all manifestations of an "alpha" personality "predatory?" Can a "alpha" personality be accepted as a communication vehicle for the liberty message? Or is the real issue that his "alpha male" nature is too different from Ron or Rand Paul's humbler and gentler public demeanor, that it offends the genteel sensibilities of some supporters here?

I see the same syndrome of hostile reception, whenever a liberty figure in the movement (Adam Kokesh, Alex Jones, etc) with a different personality than either Paul is suggested as a future national candidate. Is the policy about disapproving Trump ultimately because he conflicts with the liberty Mission, or because he conflicts with the personality cult surrounding the Pauls? And do some people's support for the liberty Mission simply begin with the Pauls, and end with the Pauls? If so, that would explain why there has been little or no energy exhibited to support liberty candidates or figures (no matter how consistent in their views) if they are personally too different than Ron or Rand.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so very much, Bryan.

Bryan said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Peace&Freedom said:
The ambiguous part of this, of course, is what of discussions about side benefits that have already occurred, or things that amount to a very good outcome in terms of the site's Mission, as a result of the Trump candidacy? It has been pointed out that there are numerous institutional obstacles blocking the success of Paul-like liberty candidates at the national level. Specifically, the donor class backing and controlling puppets like Bush, Rubio, etc. Or the similarly controlled mainstream media, whose job has been to push the donors' puppets, marginalize all the unapproved candidates, and relentlessly push or shame all parties to conform to a 'mainstream' narrative that promotes a bigger state, or a break with cultural tradition.

I have quoted Ron Paul himself, and Chuck Baldwin, and conservatives like Buchanan and Schafly et al, to confirm their agreement that Trump's presence in the race has disrupted this established order. As in already happened, past tense. This is an already achieved result of his campaign, to have disempowered the donors, crushed the prospects for a Bush III or Rubio I neocon regime, and overcome the MSM's control games. How could this crippling of the anti-liberty racket not be compatible with the site's Mission? Can this real, not theoretical achievement be spoken of freely under this policy. The wording of the policy appears to presumes all talk of Trump's value for the liberty cause is hypothetical, which is not accurate.



This sounds like the personality quirk of Trump being "alpha" is being cited as anti-liberty. Are all manifestations of an "alpha" personality "predatory?" Can a "alpha" personality be accepted as a communication vehicle for the liberty message? Or is the real issue that his "alpha male" nature is too different from Ron or Rand Paul's humbler and gentler public demeanor, that it offends the genteel sensibilities of some supporters here?

I see the same syndrome of hostile reception, whenever a liberty figure in the movement (Adam Kokesh, Alex Jones, etc) with a different personality than either Paul is suggested as a future national candidate. Is the policy about disapproving Trump ultimately because he conflicts with the liberty Mission, or because he conflicts with the personality cult surrounding the Pauls?
Click to expand...
This. Get it.
 
Peace&Freedom said:
I see the same syndrome of hostile reception, whenever a liberty figure in the movement (Adam Kokesh, Alex Jones, etc) with a different personality than either Paul is suggested as a future national candidate. Is the policy about disapproving Trump ultimately because he conflicts with the liberty Mission, or because he conflicts with the personality cult surrounding the Pauls?
Click to expand...

(adam and alex both have fairly strong pro liberty positions)^(alpha male) = a little intense but good for the cause

(trump has fairly strong anti liberty postions)^(alpha male) = intensely bad for the cause
 
presence said:
(adam and alex both have fairly strong pro liberty positions)^(alpha male) = a little intense but good for the cause

(trump has fairly strong anti liberty postions)^(alpha male) = intensely bad for the cause
Click to expand...

I believe The alpha male is part was put in because huge amounts of people are pushing trump for this very reason and no other. I don't believe him to be an alpha male even. Alpha males don't dodge the draft and then ask others to kill innocent families.
 
klamath said:
I believe The alpha male is part was put in because huge amounts of people are pushing trump for this very reason and no other. I don't believe him to be an alpha male even. Alpha males don't dodge the draft and then ask others to kill innocent families.
Click to expand...

1916 Stalin dodged
1914 Hitler dodged
1904 Mussolini dodged
 
Last edited:
klamath said:
This. Get it.
Click to expand...

No, you missed the rest, the other dynamics suggest the main issue causing his rejection around here is his personality. Trump has concretely achieved (past tense) more things for the Mission than Rand has in this cycle, in terms of taking on the anti-liberty institutional obstacles. Can he get some strategic credit for that, at least?
 
Peace&Freedom said:
No, you missed the rest, the other dynamics suggest the main issue causing his rejection around here is his personality. Trump has concretely achieved (past tense) more things for the Mission than Rand has in this cycle, in terms of taking on the anti-liberty institutional obstacles. Can he get some strategic credit for that, at least?
Click to expand...
The issue is settled. There was a long thread for these kinds of posts. For the record I and many other don't think Trump has done anything but harm the mission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
President Donald Trump Signs Pardons for 23 Pro-Life Americans
Replies
1
Views
193
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
jct74
Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Endorses Trump: ‘Best Candidate for Libertarians’
Replies
8
Views
841
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Anti Federalist
Trump rides garbage truck from WI airport to rally site
2
Replies
21
Views
4K
Okie RP fan
Okie RP fan
jmdrake
Daughter of NFL legend Jim Brown endorses Donald Trump.
Replies
1
Views
586
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
CaptUSA
Trump is Creating a Sovereign Wealth Fund
Replies
15
Views
1K
unknown
unknown
Back
Top