Site policies on Trump support

[phill4paul]

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"?

Opine away with citations....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491718-Campaign-Evaluation-Ted-Cruz-(POTUS)

 

[klamath]

1916 Stalin dodged
1914 Hitler dodged
1904 Mussolini dodged

Good points

 

[Peace&Freedom]

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.

I think the truth is settled, as per the quotes from Ron, Baldwin and many others confirming Trump has been disrupting the system, which helps the mission. Are we only to recognize such victories when "our" guys directly accomplish them? Trump will probably not be the last person to succeed in strategically helping the movement, when our selected "real" liberty candidate does not. Are we going to demonize them all, or create policies against them all?

 

[undergroundrr]

Thanks for this policy clarification.

I can ascertain no benefit to the liberty movement from Trump's activities from his birth until now. He has managed to co-opt a significant portion of the liberty movement and to that extent lead those duped profoundly off mission. The effect he will have during a general election campaign and as President would further be horrifically damaging to the liberty movement.

 

[thoughtomator]

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?

It appears that the answer is definitively "no".

RPF has descended into cultism. If it doesn't align with dogma, it doesn't count.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the culture of political correctness.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the GOP to reconsider the wisdom of interventionism.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who put an end to the Bush political dynasty.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully tapped into the actual will of the people, which we're kind of supposed to respect if we are serious about the whole elections/self-government thing.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who is successfully busting up the establishment and exposing their players at every turn.

But they will close their ears and ignore actual changed realities in our favor because they don't agree with his motives.


Guys, we had the first crack at this, and the second and third shots also. Pretty much since 2006 onwards this country has been brimming with anti-establishment fervor that was ready to fuel a successful Presidential run. Ron had two shots at it, and Rand had a clear lead and a clear field for a year and folded before anyone but Iowa got to vote.

Just consider the implications of that decision. Rand had been positioning himself to be the "acceptable to the establishment style libertarian". If he were still in the race after Iowa, there have been multiple chances for him to present himself as the responsible alternative to Trump.

Where is he? The indisputable fact: There is no liberty candidate in the race.

It's time to face up to these realities. All the website policies in the world don't do a thing to change those realities. Our menu items are now: 1) Yet Another Protest Vote; or 2) express a preference between the remaining selections.


It's interesting how the membership has divided on this issue. The risk-takers are all willing to go with Trump - for the sole purpose of moving to break up the establishment, something as in the examples above has actually been happening in real time - while the ones who want to play it safe are de facto preferring Clinton, even though she is by far the more dangerous of the two because she's been planning for this for decades and has already started multiple wars and in particular loves to piss off Russia, while Trump has done none of that.

There's also another group of libertarians who are net favorable to Trump in these circumstances, and that's people who actually worked the campaigns and the party structures from the inside and got the butt end of all the dirty tricks - party, government, media - now being employed to destroy him. Swallowing those tactics now validates post-facto the use of those tactics against us - it says we don't mind the dirty tricks when we like the outcome. It would be total hypocrisy. Bad when corporate media used to destroy Paul, good when corporate media used to destroy Trump.


The scoring of Trump based in no small part on the swallowing whole of said corporate propaganda, and done in literal terms, completely misses the point. He's basically a stand-up comedian being successful by treating the political system realistically - as the joke that it is. It may well be that in the degenerate state of modern America, this is the only kind of person who could bust up the establishment.

I believe that a libertarian in good conscience is thus compelled to prefer Trump to Clinton. There's nothing wrong with helping 3rd parties grow, but if you want to participate in the actual choice that's being made by the electorate in November, it's going to be one or the other. I trust the downside of Clinton being the greater (you can google things like "Clinton Downside Legacy" for a taste) is self-evident to anyone over the age of 20.


If that's a policy violation, well then - see ya, I guess. Good luck in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Will we be banning any admitted trolls like Zippyjuan who continually fight against liberty on a daily basis?

 

[Chester Copperpot]

From my observances its seems that Ron Paul people who are inclined to pick one of the current candidates go for Trump, whereas Tea Party members who never liked Ron particularly seem to go for Ted Cruz. Like Tom Woods would say, Im anti-anti trump

 

[William Tell]

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.

I think some people have hopes that things will change in certain ways. How will they in reality? who knows.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Thanks for this policy clarification.

I can ascertain no benefit to the liberty movement from Trump's activities from his birth until now. He has managed to co-opt a significant portion of the liberty movement and to that extent lead those duped profoundly off mission. The effect he will have during a general election campaign and as President would further be horrifically damaging to the liberty movement.

You could be right. Danger is definitely a concern of any Trump administration.. Maybe if he becomes a tyrannical president, it will be the catalyst for congress to finally find its balls and start taking power away from the executive.

 

[Origanalist]

It appears that the answer is definitively "no".

RPF has descended into cultism. If it doesn't align with dogma, it doesn't count.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the culture of political correctness.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the GOP to reconsider the wisdom of interventionism.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who put an end to the Bush political dynasty.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully tapped into the actual will of the people, which we're kind of supposed to respect if we are serious about the whole elections/self-government thing.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who is successfully busting up the establishment and exposing their players at every turn.

But they will close their ears and ignore actual changed realities in our favor because they don't agree with his motives.


Guys, we had the first crack at this, and the second and third shots also. Pretty much since 2006 onwards this country has been brimming with anti-establishment fervor that was ready to fuel a successful Presidential run. Ron had two shots at it, and Rand had a clear lead and a clear field for a year and folded before anyone but Iowa got to vote.

Just consider the implications of that decision. Rand had been positioning himself to be the "acceptable to the establishment style libertarian". If he were still in the race after Iowa, there have been multiple chances for him to present himself as the responsible alternative to Trump.

Where is he? The indisputable fact: There is no liberty candidate in the race.

It's time to face up to these realities. All the website policies in the world don't do a thing to change those realities. Our menu items are now: 1) Yet Another Protest Vote; or 2) express a preference between the remaining selections.


It's interesting how the membership has divided on this issue. The risk-takers are all willing to go with Trump - for the sole purpose of moving to break up the establishment, something as in the examples above has actually been happening in real time - while the ones who want to play it safe are de facto preferring Clinton, even though she is by far the more dangerous of the two because she's been planning for this for decades and has already started multiple wars and in particular loves to piss off Russia, while Trump has done none of that.

There's also another group of libertarians who are net favorable to Trump in these circumstances, and that's people who actually worked the campaigns and the party structures from the inside and got the butt end of all the dirty tricks - party, government, media - now being employed to destroy him. Swallowing those tactics now validates post-facto the use of those tactics against us - it says we don't mind the dirty tricks when we like the outcome. It would be total hypocrisy. Bad when corporate media used to destroy Paul, good when corporate media used to destroy Trump.


The scoring of Trump based in no small part on the swallowing whole of said corporate propaganda, and done in literal terms, completely misses the point. He's basically a stand-up comedian being successful by treating the political system realistically - as the joke that it is. It may well be that in the degenerate state of modern America, this is the only kind of person who could bust up the establishment.

I believe that a libertarian in good conscience is thus compelled to prefer Trump to Clinton. There's nothing wrong with helping 3rd parties grow, but if you want to participate in the actual choice that's being made by the electorate in November, it's going to be one or the other. I trust the downside of Clinton being the greater (you can google things like "Clinton Downside Legacy" for a taste) is self-evident to anyone over the age of 20.


If that's a policy violation, well then - see ya, I guess. Good luck in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here.

So, you don't like the new policy?

 

[William Tell]

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?

Nothing. People have turned out for Trump, and voted for establishment candidates on down-ticket races. This has been the worse year for liberty I have ever seen electorally in my state since I became involved. It disgusts me. Hypothetical ideas of how Trump could help has been proven wrong. The only one his run will help is himself, if any. He hasn't woken people up, he has sung anti establishment people back to sleep.

 

[hankrichter12]

It appears that the answer is definitively "no".

RPF has descended into cultism. If it doesn't align with dogma, it doesn't count.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the culture of political correctness.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the GOP to reconsider the wisdom of interventionism.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who put an end to the Bush political dynasty.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully tapped into the actual will of the people, which we're kind of supposed to respect if we are serious about the whole elections/self-government thing.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who is successfully busting up the establishment and exposing their players at every turn.

But they will close their ears and ignore actual changed realities in our favor because they don't agree with his motives.


Guys, we had the first crack at this, and the second and third shots also. Pretty much since 2006 onwards this country has been brimming with anti-establishment fervor that was ready to fuel a successful Presidential run. Ron had two shots at it, and Rand had a clear lead and a clear field for a year and folded before anyone but Iowa got to vote.

Just consider the implications of that decision. Rand had been positioning himself to be the "acceptable to the establishment style libertarian". If he were still in the race after Iowa, there have been multiple chances for him to present himself as the responsible alternative to Trump.

Where is he? The indisputable fact: There is no liberty candidate in the race.

It's time to face up to these realities. All the website policies in the world don't do a thing to change those realities. Our menu items are now: 1) Yet Another Protest Vote; or 2) express a preference between the remaining selections.


It's interesting how the membership has divided on this issue. The risk-takers are all willing to go with Trump - for the sole purpose of moving to break up the establishment, something as in the examples above has actually been happening in real time - while the ones who want to play it safe are de facto preferring Clinton, even though she is by far the more dangerous of the two because she's been planning for this for decades and has already started multiple wars and in particular loves to piss off Russia, while Trump has done none of that.

There's also another group of libertarians who are net favorable to Trump in these circumstances, and that's people who actually worked the campaigns and the party structures from the inside and got the butt end of all the dirty tricks - party, government, media - now being employed to destroy him. Swallowing those tactics now validates post-facto the use of those tactics against us - it says we don't mind the dirty tricks when we like the outcome. It would be total hypocrisy. Bad when corporate media used to destroy Paul, good when corporate media used to destroy Trump.


The scoring of Trump based in no small part on the swallowing whole of said corporate propaganda, and done in literal terms, completely misses the point. He's basically a stand-up comedian being successful by treating the political system realistically - as the joke that it is. It may well be that in the degenerate state of modern America, this is the only kind of person who could bust up the establishment.

I believe that a libertarian in good conscience is thus compelled to prefer Trump to Clinton. There's nothing wrong with helping 3rd parties grow, but if you want to participate in the actual choice that's being made by the electorate in November, it's going to be one or the other. I trust the downside of Clinton being the greater (you can google things like "Clinton Downside Legacy" for a taste) is self-evident to anyone over the age of 20.


If that's a policy violation, well then - see ya, I guess. Good luck in whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here.

Great Post. People here are reminding me of leftists when it comes to business. They focus more on motives as opposed to results. It's like someone can invent a cure for a disease which saves millions of lives and creates thousands of jobs.......but they only did it for profit and to get rich so let's attack that person.

Trump has moved so many conversations in the right direction most notably as you said on FP, and further he has just made it possible all around to have conversations on any number of topics that were all but forbidden a year ago...........but he's only doing it because he's an ego maniac and not because he's a lover of liberty, so it has to be condemned.

You could be right. Danger is definitely a concern of any Trump administration.. Maybe if he becomes a tyrannical president, it will be the catalyst for congress to finally find its balls and start taking power away from the executive.

That's another thing I'm hoping for.

 

[William Tell]

Great Post. People here are reminding me of leftists when it comes to business. They focus more on motives as opposed to results. It's like someone can invent a cure for a disease which saves millions of lives and creates thousands of jobs.......but they only did it for profit and to get rich so let's attack that person.

Trump has moved so many conversations in the right direction most notably as you said on FP, and further he has just made it possible all around to have conversations on any number of topics that were all but forbidden a year ago...........but he's only doing it because he's an ego maniac and not because he's a lover of liberty, so it has to be condemned.

 

[Smitty]

RPF joins the establishment.

 

[ProBlue33]

So going forward am I allowed to post massive anti-Hillary stuff, or is that too going to been seen as shilling for Trump, if it is, then you guys are lost to the dark side, sad really.

 

[presence]

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the culture of political correctness.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully challenged the GOP to reconsider the wisdom of interventionism.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who put an end to the Bush political dynasty.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who successfully tapped into the actual will of the people, which we're kind of supposed to respect if we are serious about the whole elections/self-government thing.

Never mind that it's Trump, not Rand or Ron, who is successfully busting up the establishment and exposing their players at every turn.

wtf is this? promotion of trump? in thread by site owner disallowing promotion of trump?



burn

 

[Origanalist]

Is there going to be a time limit set on the temper tantrum period? A time out maybe?

 

[fcreature]

RPF joins the establishment.

RPF institutes a policy consistent with it's overall mission statement and is somehow joining the establishment? Is RPF part of the establishment now because the establishment is also anti-trump? Do I really have to explain the faulty logic with that conclusion?

I suppose Ron Paul is part of the establishment as well. So is Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and many of our other closest allies.

Perhaps this would never have been an issue if it were not for the blatant pro-trump trolling going on here. You have a few members here with the sole purpose of promoting Trump. Then you have a core group of you who were egging it on. Don't try to deny it.

So what is your problem with the new rules? Seems like the discussion of Trump is still allowed within acceptable parameters. Looks to me like these rules were designed to simply ban the trolling & infiltration that has been going on. Not sure why anyone here would have an issue with that.

 

[Smitty]

RPF institutes a policy consistent with it's overall mission .

When the mission of RPF overlaps with the agenda of the establishment it's time for some introspection.

Especially when the mission includes the limiting of opinion.

 

[Wilf]

So going forward am I allowed to post massive anti-Hillary stuff, or is that too going to been seen as shilling for Trump, if it is, then you guys are lost to the dark side, sad really.

Well, if pro-Trump did not falsely accused the anti-Trump have being "leftist"; this would have not been a problem.