Site policies on Trump support

[cajuncocoa]

I scanned through most of those you posted. On each of those the OP posted a title, link and description from leading MSM sources on the topic of the front-runner in the 2016 Candidates forum.

Again it is the 2016 Candidates forum which Trump is a candidate. The information is relevant to strategy. If Bryan and the mods did not want other candidates discussed then they should not have had a 2016 Candidates forum listing the candidates to be discussed.

The only legitimate beef you have is the few threads created recently that actively promote him. Over the last 9 months there were no such threads but rather the ones I described as well as ones posting outright lies on other candidates which many of us took issue with. Since if you are going to attack another candidate it should be done legitimately since we lose all credibility when we are making stuff up here.

I'm not surprised that you would jump in to deny this. You and AuH20 were the first 2 obvious Trump supporters on this site....LE following close behind. To AuH20's credit, he's the only one who will admit it, and I guess that's why he's no longer with us. The rest of you have somehow been successful at fooling those who aren't involved in day-to-day interactions with you. I'm not sure why you're embarrassed or reluctant to admit you've been supporting and promoting a candidate you obviously plan to vote for (I've never been shy about telling anyone and everyone how I feel about Ron Paul) but maybe you have your reasons. Those links prove to anyone who can read that this has been going on long before Rand suspended his campaign.

 

[Smitty]

It's gone beyond the point of trying to change their minds. It crossed that line about 6 months ago.

You might have more success if there was a viable alternative.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not surprised that you would jump in to deny this. You and AuH20 were the first 2 obvious Trump supporters on this site....LE following close behind.

You are full of shit, Cocoa. I hadn't been here for quite awhile and was lurking one day and saw what appeared to be a lynch mob harassing Kahless. I knew the guys involved, so I thought if I chimed in and said he was my 2nd choice too, that they would lay off of Kahless for daring to say the same thing. Nope. All this did was give them another target. Frankly, I couldn't believe they were allowed to get away with what they were doing. It was pretty shocking.

To AuH20's credit, he's the only one who will admit it, and I guess that's why he's no longer with us.

He was banned. And he should have been.

The rest of you have somehow been successful at fooling those who aren't involved in day-to-day interactions with you. I'm not sure why you're embarrassed or reluctant to admit you've been supporting and promoting a candidate you obviously plan to vote for (I've never been shy about telling anyone and everyone how I feel about Ron Paul) but maybe you have your reasons. Those links prove to anyone who can read that this has been going on long before Rand suspended his campaign.

This is one of those times when you should really keep your mouth shut, as you are making a fool of yourself, Cocoa. I, for one, supported Rand; in his Senate campaign and in his Presidential run. It's beyond laughable that you would suggest otherwise. You may not recall as well, because during much of this time you were running around here lobbing bombs at Rand. A fact that some of us have not forgotten.

NOTE: I didn't check all of your links, but the ones I did, I believe were after Rand was shut out of the debates the 2nd and last time. The writing was on the wall. It would have been better if they had not though, I agree, until Rand was out a few days later. But, they were posted in the Presidential Candidates forum, weren't they? So they were compartmentalized.

Regardless, Bryan owns this forum, so what he wants, goes.

 

[kahless]

The very first thread is entitled "Voting for Trump to Watch the World Burn," and the OP reads as follows:

It is not representative of the majority of threads discussing Trump and also like I said except for recently since Rand dropped out.

Again these threads are only in the 2016 Candidates forum where Trump is listed as a candidate. There are many forum categories on RPF, this outrage over a discussion of the front runner in that forum is ridiculous. What you and others are advocating is suppression of speech in a liberty forum.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Dang. Y'all have a serious case of the Mondays, huh.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It is not representative of the majority of threads discussing Trump and also like I said except for recently since Rand dropped out.

Again these threads are only in the 2016 Candidates forum where Trump is listed as a candidate. There are many forum categories on RPF, this outrage over a discussion of the front runner in that forum is ridiculous. What you and others are advocating is suppression of speech in a liberty forum.

Don't let them piss you off. That's what their goal is.

The important thing is to adhere to what Bryan wants now; it's his forum, so whatever he wants is law.

 

[cajuncocoa]

NOTE: I didn't check all of your links, but the ones I did, I believe were after Rand was shut out of the debates the 2nd and last time. The writing was on the wall. It would have been better if they had not though, I agree, until Rand was out a few days later. But, they were posted in the Presidential Candidates forum, weren't they? So they were compartmentalized.

You might have noticed that some of the links were clearly labeled August, September, and November 2015. But OK. Whatever.

Regardless, Bryan owns this forum, so what he wants, goes.

This is really all that matters.

 

[Smitty]

He was banned. And he should have been.

Why was he banned?

 

[LibertyEagle]

This is really all that matters.

Yes, and you are not his spokesperson so how about you buzz off.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Why was he banned?

You will need to ask those who banned him for the definitive answer.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes, and you are not his spokesperson so how about you buzz off.

I'm not acting as his spokesperson any more than you are. Why don't you buzz off?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm not acting as his spokesperson any more than you are. Why don't you buzz off?

I had, until you vomited some lies about me in one of your posts.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I had, until you vomited some lies about me in one of your posts.

I don't think I lied about you, but I'm tempted to ask you how it feels.

 

[squirl22]

If you can't have pro-Trump threads, why is it ok to have anti-Trump threads. There's one right now titled something like "Why I can't support Trump" or some such thing..that should be banned.

 

[CPUd]

If you can't have pro-Trump threads, why is it ok to have anti-Trump threads. There's one right now titled something like "Why I can't support Trump" or some such thing..that should be banned.

Read Bryan's comments in this thread. It's not about pro/anti Trump.

 

[ProBlue33]

Was promotion of John McCain or Barack Obama tolerated in 07-08?

Actually to be honest my personal response after Ron was out in 08, was hell no to McCain which meant Obama at the time seemed like a better choice.
I was attacked for voicing that opinion for sure, but there didn't seem to be bans being handed out, the forum seemed to be self-moding with members sending the most active shills packing.
12 was hell no to Mitt after what he did to Ron. For the record I never voted for any of them in the generals after my guy was out. I won't vote for Trump, but I support his endeavor to crush the neocons for good. And that is why I want to discuss it without being battered by the purists on RPF at every turn. I am not going to tell anybody to vote for Trump either. And if it comes down to Hillary verses Trump I think we will see the natural progression of the Ron Paul people gravitating to Trump over Hillary, if they are being strategic, and not idealogical about it. It is their choice, and I understand and respect it.

 

[Origanalist]

Read Bryan's comments in this thread. It's not about pro/anti Trump.

That seems to be a bridge too far for a lot of people. Reading the actual statement is too much, comprehending it totally impossible.

 

[Smitty]

. we will see the natural progression of the Ron Paul people gravitating to Trump .

Actually, it's already occurred,..a long time ago, in fact.

 

[CPUd]

If they're "gravitating to Trump", they're not really "Ron Paul people"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?492515-Ron-Paul-Sorry-Trump-s-Not-Really-An-Outsider

 

[Smitty]

If they're "gravitating to Trump", they're not really "Ron Paul people"

The majority of Ron Paul's base wasn't libertarian.