Trump Fans Float Rand Paul As Their Top VP Pick

[EugenBvB]

Not calling you to task, just answering the question about failure to convince people to reject Trump.

Have we never heard insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

Exactly. So why continue the arrogance (still prominent in your last comment, IMO) then ask why are we failing to convince people? If you start a discussion in attack mode, talking down to your victim, you're not going to get very far advancing a message.

Did not Rand Paul just lose the nomination by following your very advice?

In part, yes. The same could be said for Ron four years ago. But you're not running for office, you're trying to educate/convince. Ron was running to spread the word, not win an election (IMO), and I think he had pretty good success doing that while still remaining a respectful person.

some lurker

Yep. You could possibly think of me as an impartial observer of the Trump back-and-forth here over the past several months.

 

[nikcers]

Yep. You could possibly think of me as an impartial observer of the Trump back-and-forth here over the past several months.

From the outside we might seem bitter, and we might seem to bicker. It's because either people don't listen when we have explained to them the error of their ways, or they flat out ignore parts of your argument and talk over and steer the conversation into a different direction. From the outside looking in, you have a 40 second attention span and your right it's just like the primary.

You have reasonable liberty arguments and then 20 threads about how Trumps speech is non intervention, when he just did a speech before that to Aipac that he said was more important than the debates, that wasn't broadcasted on prime time tv and talked about. Where he said he would take care of the Iranian problem Israel has funding islamic terrorism.

 

[William Tell]

Lets just put this here:

But but but but but but but.... [insert excuse such as but not limited to: Trump is smart and says different things to earn votes and isn't an insider politician]

 

[acptulsa]

Not calling you to task, just answering the question about failure to convince people to reject Trump.

You expect a lot of me, to assume I can overcome a trillion dollars worth of free publicity and about a trillion watts of broadcast power all by my little lonesome.

Exactly. So why continue the arrogance (still prominent in your last comment, IMO) then ask why are we failing to convince people? If you start a discussion in attack mode, talking down to your victim, you're not going to get very far advancing a message.

Hm. So, I should respond to arrogance, and people talking down to me because I don't buy every little thing the media shoves down our throats, with...?

And what you're doing here is not an attack because...?

In part, yes. The same could be said for Ron four years ago. But you're not running for office, you're trying to educate/convince. Ron was running to spread the word, not win an election (IMO), and I think he had pretty good success doing that while still remaining a respectful person.

Well, since you were kind enough to ask, and didn't get presumptuous (a form of arrogance) enough to make an assumption about me, no. I am not interested in another educational campaign. I want the LP to run to win.

And if they win twenty percent of the vote, I will consider it a win, because then people will spend the next four years taking the LP seriously.

And who is talking down to whom now...?

Yep. You could possibly think of me as an impartial observer of the Trump back-and-forth here over the past several months.

I possibly could. But as long as you accuse me of faults Trump supporters tend to share, and faults that you share, I'm not likely to.

You see, at the end of the day, Trump is obnoxious, the way the media has given him about fifty times more coverage than anyone else is obnoxious, and he has fans all over the internet being obnoxious. And those fans are on a roll--they know not to where, but on a roll nonetheless--so they are unreachable. Which leaves the great, unheard, overwhelming majority of Americans. And they're sick of the whole thing. Sick and tired of it.

And if I can win fans among them by fighting fire with fire, I'm going to do so. And I'm not going to let anyone talk me out of it.

 

[Dary]

I thought it was the delegates who determine the VP nominee.

From what I've always understood, the Presidential Nominee can "suggest" who they would prefer to run with them, but it is the delegates who vote for and determine who the VP nominee will be.

I could be wrong about this, but if I'm not, then the delegates could vote for whomever they want. If they want Rand Paul, then they should put their money where there mouth is and get him nominated for the spot.

He could always reject the nomination or win if he wanted.

 

[CPUd]

You can't concede that some Trump supporters debate. The guy near the end of the RP video on the front page is a case in point.

Trump supporters bloviate. Insulting.

Your results are unimpeachable. Arrogant.

I did and am expecting replies like this. Unfortunately.

What you see on here is not just about Trump, it is just the latest incarnation of an ongoing grudge about things that happened years ago. Some people use Trump to carry that grudge, but they have also attracted real Trump supporters who (in general) share a nasty disposition- when they are challenged, they see it as a threat and lash out. This site is very tolerant of Trump supporters; in fact, while they only make up about 10% of the active membership here, 75% of the membership say they would not want to see them unilaterally banned:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?480422-Should-Trump-supporters-be-banned-from-this-forum

Promotion of Trump's campaign (ex: rallying support) is not allowed on RPFs, so discussions on the topic are centered around "why not?". Many of them attempt to argue from emotion and make numerous baseless claims, they do not take it well when this is pointed out to them. Some have occasionally engaged in valid discussion, but have failed to make a strong case for the Trump campaign being anything but potentially destructive to liberty and the RPFs mission. The thread where this determination was made can be seen here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?491719-Campaign-Evaluation-Donald-Trump-(POTUS)

Note that the policy on Trump is not set in stone- anyone can go in that thread and potentially convince Bryan to make changes to the policy.

 

[CPUd]

I thought it was the delegates who determine the VP nominee.

From what I've always understood, the Presidential Nominee can "suggest" who they would prefer to run with them, but it is the delegates who vote for and determine who the VP nominee will be.

I could be wrong about this, but if I'm not, then the delegates could vote for whomever they want. If they want Rand Paul, then they should put their money where there mouth is and get him nominated for the spot.

He could always reject the nomination or win if he wanted.

There is a formal balloting process that has been occasionally used, but modern conventions have usually gone with the nominee's choice and nominated the VP by acclamation.

 

[Dary]

So the delegates DO have the final say so.

Even if they didn't, they could change the rules making it their decision.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Ok, I just might have to modify my car again to say "Rand Paul for Vice President"...

 

[Zippyjuan]

There is a formal balloting process that has been occasionally used, but modern conventions have usually gone with the nominee's choice and nominated the VP by acclamation.

Vice President used to go to the second highest vote getter in the electoral college. That could mean President and Vice President from different parties.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

Under the system the framers created, the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be president. The one coming in second would be vice president.

In the election of 1800, however, the constitutional system for electing presidents broke down, as both Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes. This impasse threw the contest into the House of Representatives, where for thirty-five separate ballots, neither candidate was able to gain a majority. When the stalemate was finally broken, the House elected Jefferson president, thus making Aaron Burr our third vice president. Within four years of this deadlocked election, Congress had passed, and the necessary number of states had ratified, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, instituting the present system wherein electors cast separate ballots for president and for vice president.

 

[CPUd]

Vice President used to go to the second highest vote getter in the electoral college. That could mean President and Vice President from different parties.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

Aware of that. We're talking about the modern system.

 

[RandallFan]

Trump only insulted Rand's appearance not policy.

 

[Murray N Rothbard]

They might offer it but I don't think he would accept. No one with any kind of political future would join Trump and be associated with him losing. In November he's going to become the scapegoat for the next 4 years.

 

[Zippyjuan]

They might offer it but I don't think he would accept. No one with any kind of political future would join Trump and be associated with him losing. In November he's going to become the scapegoat for the next 4 years.

Nobody thought he had a chance at the Republican Party nomination. To write him off would be foolish.

 

[nikcers]

Nobody thought he had a chance at the Republican Party nomination. To write him off would be foolish.

Yeah nobody thought Mitt Romney had a chance in the primary, or the general election. To write him off would be foolish guys.

 

[RonPaulMall]

The Alt-Right hates Ron Paul and Rand and view them as "cuckservatives".

Not true. The alt-right is extremely fond of Ron Paul. See this famous alt-right Trump video for proof (Ron makes his heroic appearance at 3:50):



And the only version of Rand they dislike is the bizarro 2016 version. Rand Paul circa 2010-2014 they liked just fine.

 

[Danke]

Monica for VP.

http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/World/2016/05/09/22631559.html

 

[LibertyEagle]

Many of them attempt to argue from emotion and make numerous baseless claims, they do not take it well when this is pointed out to them.

Pretty hilarious, considering if anyone would peruse your posting history, you have started more Trump threads than any other member of this forum. Not to mention posted a plethora of baseless claims, refusing to back down when the actual interview was placed in front of your face which proved you wrong. Not to forget the latest penchant of posting nonsensical picture after nonsensical picture.

 

[CPUd]

Pretty hilarious, considering if anyone would peruse your posting history, you have started more Trump threads than any other member of this forum. Not to mention posted a plethora of baseless claims, refusing to back down when the actual interview was placed in front of your face which proved you wrong. Not to forget the latest penchant of posting nonsensical picture after nonsensical picture.

If you would rather me post Trump quotes, I can do that, too. I can do that all day long.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you would rather me post Trump quotes, I can do that, too. I can do that all day long.

And you have. But, rarely do you source the entire interview or speech from which your quote was taken, so that it can be viewed in context.