** The Official Unofficial Debate Thread - Sept 26, 2016 **

[Ender]

Ron Paul was "He Who Must Not Be Named," while Donald Trump is "He Who Must Constantly Be Named."

Ya think?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I see Trump being kept front and center in the GOP by the media/Establishment by decrying the things that brought him supporters. They just Blacked Ron Out.

I see an establishment who at first mistakenly blew off Trump as a passing amusement, then realized too late he was a threat to both Jeb and Hillary. Trump kept HIMSELF front and center, as he couldn't be blacked out because of his ability to self-fund his primary campaign, and his 30 years of branding in the culture made him too compellingly high profile a figure to suppress. In this fashion he has provided a solution to the establishment's marginalization of alternative candidates that could not be overcome by the Pauls, and one that we should be thankful for.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I see an establishment who at first mistakenly blew off Trump as a passing amusement, then realized too late he was a threat to both Jeb and Hillary. Trump kept HIMSELF front and center, as he couldn't be blacked out because of his ability to self-fund his primary campaign, and his 30 years of branding in the culture made him too compellingly high profile a figure to suppress. In this fashion he has provided a solution to the establishment's marginalization of alternative candidates that could not be overcome by the Pauls, and one that we should be thankful for.

Thankful, why? Because Trump was able to barge in with his celebrity means suddenly Thomas Massie will be able to do the same?

 

[phill4paul]

I see an establishment who at first mistakenly blew off Trump as a passing amusement, then realized too late he was a threat to both Jeb and Hillary. Trump kept HIMSELF front and center, as he couldn't be blacked out because of his ability to self-fund his primary campaign, and his 30 years of branding in the culture made him too compellingly high profile a figure to suppress. In this fashion he has provided a solution to the establishment's marginalization of alternative candidates that could not be overcome by the Pauls, and one that we should be thankful for.

So..he's nothing like the Paul's. I agree. Do you really think that the fact that he has been kept front and center by a media that we all know is corporat/Establishment controlled is HIS doing? The media simply Blacked Paul Out. Remember that? They could have done the same to Trump, but did they? Why did they not? His branding and money means squat. If they wanted to Black him out they could have. And fuck no, I'm not thankful for his buffoonery in the least. He's not an alternative candidate. He's making a mockery of actual ones like Ron Paul. He's a want to be. At the least a beneficiary of a Hillary presidency that he may well deliver.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I see an establishment who at first mistakenly blew off Trump as a passing amusement, then realized too late he was a threat to both Jeb and Hillary. Trump kept HIMSELF front and center, as he couldn't be blacked out because of his ability to self-fund his primary campaign, and his 30 years of branding in the culture made him too compellingly high profile a figure to suppress. In this fashion he has provided a solution to the establishment's marginalization of alternative candidates that could not be overcome by the Pauls, and one that we should be thankful for.

Agree, but I would add that Trump was the only one to successfully exploit the concerns of a good portion of the GOP. This has been building, and was ripe for exploitation. Immigration, job losses, stagnant wages, destruction of the middle class were issues waiting for someone to champion. Trump talked the talk, but I don't believe for a minute he is sincere, and he would not do anything to solve them.

Sanders caught that same wave on the left, and although he was fairly sincere, all of his "solutions" are counter-productive.

Don't know that "thankful" would be the appropriate word for enjoying the freak-out by the establishment, neocons and the progressive left about Trump. I believe that "schadenfreude" would be more descriptive.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No, Trump had to prove that he should be taken seriously. Anyone could see from a mile away that the moderator would be biased. If Trump wasn't prepared for that reality, then he was even more underprepared than I thought he would be. The fact is, Hillary was rehearsed. She played her hand well and Donald took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Your approach to the debate is mainly issue or argument focused, instead of attentive to other factors. Again, the end game is winning the election, not to show one was better prepared to debate. Trump was trying to look rational enough to win in November, not to win points for one evening.

This counter view---that Trump performed as he did to 1) avoid 'bad optics' traps designed to hurt him regardless of what he did, and 2) to reserve his fire for the follow-up debates, where the negatives of being more aggressive will not nearly be as big a factor---is backed up by prior behavior of the campaign, and analysis by several observers of his "rope-a-dope" approach. By letting Hillary be on offense, she can't play the "he unfairly beat up on a woman" card from the outset. And by giving her the floor in the first debate to run through all her arsenal of tricks, he's betting she'll run out of gas in the debates going forward. Both Bob Wenzel, Scott "Dilbert' Adams, and even Michael Moore concur on the latter point:

http://www.targetliberty.com/2016/09/why-donald-trump-will-destroy-hillary.html
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151007796236/i-score-the-first-debate
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollyw...re-donald-trump-won-first-presidential-debate

This is exactly parallel to how, for example, Trump let Team Clinton burn through a hundred million in cash during the summer, thereby wasting money running ads before the months where voters make up their minds, so he could fight the ad war with her in the fall, when the spending and ground game actually counts. He's likewise saved his fire or 'axe' for the later debates, instead of wasting his ammo in the first round.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Thankful, why? Because Trump was able to barge in with his celebrity means suddenly Thomas Massie will be able to do the same?

So..he's nothing like the Paul's. I agree. Do you really think that the fact that he has been kept front and center by a media that we all know is corporat/Establishment controlled is HIS doing? The media simply Blacked Paul Out. Remember that? They could have done the same to Trump, but did they? Why did they not? His branding and money means squat. If they wanted to Black him out they could have. And $#@! no, I'm not thankful for his buffoonery in the least. He's not an alternative candidate. He's making a mockery of actual ones like Ron Paul. He's a want to be. At the least a beneficiary of a Hillary presidency that he may well deliver.

What it means is Massie, or whoever else our real, consistent liberty candidate is will need to have the ability to bypass the blackout factor. They couldn't block out a super famous person who could self-fund, from Perot to the Donald. Whether one supports Trump or not, or views him as an alternative or not, the fact remains he had the ability to get around that obstacle, and to put together a winning vote coalition. Yes, we need to be thankful a case example exists for how to do so.

A major party nomination will not be handed to our liberty candidates, they will be fought and marginalized ferociously. We can bemoan the institutional obstacle all we want, but we still have to have a credible plan to deal with it. We will NOT overcome it by running the same exact one-dimensional candidate as before, who is right on the issues, but has no effective means of defeating the blackout or winning primaries.

 

[Danke]

I don't even understand the whole birther thing in light on this 2016 election season. Ted Cruz was ruled eligible for president because his mother was a US citizen when he was born in Canada. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, how is his situation any different to Cruz's?

I believe one state said he could be on the (primary?) ballot. There was nothing about his eligibility to be president.

 

[CPUd]

What it means is Massie, or whoever else our real, consistent liberty candidate is will need to have the ability to bypass the blackout factor. They couldn't block out a super famous person who could self-fund, from Perot or the Donald. Whether one supports Trump or not, or views him as an alternative or not, the fact remains he had the ability to get around that obstacle, and to put together a winning vote coalition. Yes, we need to be thankful a case example exists for how to do so.

A major party nomination will not be handed to our liberty candidates, they will be fought and marginalized ferociously. We can bemoan the institutional obstacle all we want, but we still have to have a credible plan to deal with it. We will NOT overcome it by running the same exact one-dimensional candidate as before, who is right on the issues, but has no effective means of defeating the blackout or winning primaries.

Why would a liberty candidate want to build a vote coalition with authoritarians?

 

[AZJoe]

..

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why would a liberty candidate want to build a vote coalition with authoritarians?

Putting aside our disagreement over Trump, WHAT IS YOUR EFFECTIVE PLAN for how a true national liberty candidate can defeat the establishment blackout or win in the primaries? Are you really saying you have no idea, or in fact, no desire to see our candidate bother to win over any voter blocs, because you regard everybody outside the liberty base as authoritarians? Do you just want to commit the movement to running educational campaigns (only within the GOP, not the LP) forever more, while America burns?

 

[H. E. Panqui]

Putting aside our disagreement over Trump, WHAT IS YOUR EFFECTIVE PLAN for how a true national liberty candidate can defeat the establishment blackout or win in the primaries? Are you really saying you have no idea, or in fact, no desire to see our candidate bother to win over any voter blocs, because you regard everybody outside the liberty base as authoritarians? Do you just want to commit the movement to running educational campaigns (only within the GOP, not the LP) forever more, while America burns?

...we live in a country/world of monetary ignorance/monetary ignoramuses...incredible as it sounds, apparently not a stinking one of these republicans and democrats have any honest understandings of the hideous origin and nature of even one 'dollar'...despite their gaping holes frequently working as to the illion 'dollar' economy...how about starting here: FIND SOME CANDIDATES WHO UNDERSTAND AND CAN/WILL SPEAK ABOUT THIS FRAUDULENT GODDAMNED INSANE MONETARY ORDER UNDER WHICH WE ARE EN$LAVED!!..

...unfortunately, the puppet-ma$ter$ do the 'candidate planning'...and apparently anyone with any honest idea$ is quickly eliminated from consideration...

...jerry voorhis, steve zarlenga, bill still..

 

[AZJoe]

 

[Ender]

As always, Ben Swann is:

ON. THE. NOSE.

Thanks!

 

[CPUd]

Putting aside our disagreement over Trump, WHAT IS YOUR EFFECTIVE PLAN for how a true national liberty candidate can defeat the establishment blackout or win in the primaries? Are you really saying you have no idea, or in fact, no desire to see our candidate bother to win over any voter blocs, because you regard everybody outside the liberty base as authoritarians? Do you just want to commit the movement to running educational campaigns (only within the GOP, not the LP) forever more, while America burns?

No, Trump supporters are authoritarians. For a liberty candidate to attract them, it would require the candidate to run as an authoritarian.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No, Trump supporters are authoritarians. For a liberty candidate to attract them, it would require the candidate to run as an authoritarian.

So, just to be clear, and to insure you don't evade the point yet again---you really ARE saying you have no desire to see our candidates bother to win over any voter blocs, because you regard everybody outside the liberty base as authoritarians?

 

[CPUd]

So, just to be clear, and to insure you don't evade the point yet again---you really ARE saying you have no desire to see our candidates bother to win over any voter blocs, because you regard everybody outside the liberty base as authoritarians?

No there are quite a few to build coalitions with, like conservatives and some center-left who align with issues like police brutality. Authoritarians, I don't see how that would work, because they want a police state and massive increases of the MIC.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No there are quite a few to build coalitions with, like conservatives and some center-left who align with issues like police brutality. Authoritarians, I don't see how that would work, because they want a police state and massive increases of the MIC.

Coalitions are built to only a minor extent directly on issue agreement, and to a larger extent (the extent that translates into winning majorities) on emotional agreement (does the other faction like you, trust you, bond with you, respect you, are grateful you are an ally, and feel you think the same of them). That's how the populist coalition Trump has forged 'works,' whereas the Pauls never developed any such emotional alliance with any broader Republican voting bloc.

Treating most of them with utter contempt by demonizing them as thoroughly authoritarian, is a negative vibe they easily picked up, causing most of the rank and file to shun our candidates. Since the populist, nationalist, socon and anti-establishment sentiments in the GOP are the richest veins from which to build those emotional bonds, those are the dynamics we should be seeking to build a coalition with. Wholesale dismissing them as authoritarians is the fastest way to turn them off.

 

[CaptUSA]

Coalitions are built to only a minor extent directly on issue agreement, and to a larger extent (the extent that translates into winning majorities) on emotional agreement (does the other faction like you, trust you, bond with you, respect you, are grateful you are an ally, and feel you think the same of them). That's how the populist coalition Trump has forged 'works,' whereas the Pauls never developed any such emotional alliance with any broader Republican voting bloc.

Oh please... Trump's political career was created because the media gave him billion$$ in free ads. It had nothing to do with issues or appealing to "blocs". If they had said the name Ron Paul as many times as they say Trump, he would be sailing to victory in his re-election bid.

 

[silverhandorder]

Oh please... Trump's political career was created because the media gave him billion$$ in free ads. It had nothing to do with issues or appealing to "blocs". If they had said the name Ron Paul as many times as they say Trump, he would be sailing to victory in his re-election bid.

If that is the delusion you want to sell your self I don't mind.