Trump Is Doubling Down On A Losing Strategy

[nikcers]

One of the things I wanted to get across last week but didn't because I got sick was that what we see as Donald Trump's success at the moment was borne out of the Ron Paul 2008/2012 campaigns (I had said before that the campaigns, and the Russian role in them, simply played a part or a role, but now I'm suggesting that it was borne out of the two campaigns). A few people here are right to say that "Ron Paul's base" moved to support Trump, that's because they are the Russian operatives themselves that had spammed Ron Paul back beginning in 2007 and are American nationals who knew that the Russians were doing this (especially those very close to Ron Paul and who make up the staff of the Ron Paul Institute, and I suspect that those who are associated with the Mises Institute, and who also support Trump, might know of the Russian involvement as well).

Maybe its because of where I live, but at least where I live paul bots were real people. Everywhere I would look there were bumper stickers and billboards that say google Ron Paul. It became viral people everywhere were openly discussing foreign policy and the debates were unheard of. You can go back, on reddit and look at the discussions, if they were bots they were way more sophisticated last time around then this time around, you would think after all of these years they would be more intelligent.

I don't see that with Trump, I see there is a large amount of online spam, and schilling, but that has been going on for over a year now, and it is significantly different. When Ron Paul ran people were out there trying to educate people on the federal reserve. There could be this phonenon that people don't want others to know they support Trump, and that's why they do it online because they feel like they are anonymous. I just don't see the parallels in online discussion between the two, actually the bernie bots seemed more "Russian" then the Trump ones.

 

[Danke]

One of the things I wanted to get across last week but didn't because I got sick was that what we see as Donald Trump's success at the moment was borne out of the Ron Paul 2008/2012 campaigns (I had said before that the campaigns, and the Russian role in them, simply played a part or a role, but now I'm suggesting that it was borne out of the two campaigns). A few people here are right to say that "Ron Paul's base" moved to support Trump, that's because they are the Russian operatives themselves that had spammed Ron Paul back beginning in 2007 and are American nationals who knew that the Russians were doing this (especially those very close to Ron Paul and who make up the staff of the Ron Paul Institute, and I suspect that those who are associated with the Mises Institute, and who also support Trump, might know of the Russian involvement as well).

 

[The Rebel Poet]

I am no fan of Bill Clinton, but the man is a freaking genius.
http://time.com/3986747/donald-trump-bill-clinton-phone-call/

“And, that while we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

They must have talked about their grandchildren.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Almost every poll is following the defective metrics previously discussed (undersampled independents, oversampled Democrats, 'registered voters' instead of the more reliable 'likely voters,' no indice as to their real intent to vote, etc), thus the temperament answers cannot be trusted.

End of the day, who is more motivated to turn out to vote against a candidate--somebody who dislikes 'mean things' Trump said, or somebody who doesn't want Hillary to be appointing 3-4 Justices? Somebody who is vain about his wealth, or somebody who bumps off people? A new poll that more accurately reflects the turnout electorate shows Trump is ahead by six points:



http://investmentwatchblog.com/trum...stic-voter-turnout-trump-wins-34-d-33-r-33-i/

That's exactly what they said in 2012. It was bull then and it's bull now.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121106061419/http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

 

[AuH20]

That's exactly what they said in 2012. It was bull then and it's bull now.

https://web.archive.org/web/20121106061419/http://www.unskewedpolls.com/

Romney was a cookiecutter Chamber of Commerce republican. Trump's potential electorate will look different. Already, Trump is outpacing Romney in blacks (12 to 6%), hispanics (27 to 21 %) and blue collar voters.

 

[jmdrake]

“And, that while we don’t make it a practice to discuss the president’s private conversations, we can tell you that the presidential race was not discussed.”

They must have talked about their grandchildren.

They probably talked about wife swapping and Trump declined the offer.

 

[jmdrake]

It had nothing to do with just playing to the base. The point of the "no regrets" was to ADD a humanizing aspect to his past comments, not reverse them. He realized he can't keep letting the Hillary camp spin his every aside into demonizing him, so he has taken away their phony high ground:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149174780261/trumps-regrets

Good grief! Use some common sense dude, and some proper English while you're at it. Trump didn't say he had "no regrets" in order to "humanize" himself. He said he HAD regrets in order to humanize himself and to play to people other than his base! I had to read through what you wrote several times before responding because you are doing so many mental gymnastic contortions that you are tripping over your own words.

Directly brawling with the establishment's frameworks has been a successful strategy to overcome it, but does draw return fire, whether Trump does it or Paul does it. Trump took punches and delivered punches in this battle---the MSM did not cut him a pass on his comments on McCain, they tried to push him out of the race over them

And in a normal year with proper vetting Trump would have been pushed out of the race for those comments. They were inexcusably stupid and disrespectful to all POWs, not just John McCain. Trump insulating himself by taking such a bombastic position on immigration, and position that really wasn't his but that he adopted after analysis of GOP talk radio chatter to know that was the most important issue for GOP voters, that Trump could literally say anything and get away with it.

apart from the immigration comments, and you know it.

Bullshit. What I know and you would admit if you were being honest is that the only way Trump got away with insulting all POWs is that hardcore anti immigration zealots loved what he said so much on immigration that they were willing to give him a pass on anything else.

In fact, Trump did not "insult every POW ever," and you know it. He questioned specifically whether McCain deserved hero status.

Bullshit! You are just lying your ass off. Trump said he "Preferred the ones that didn't get captured." That was an insult to every POW ever.

given the details of his case (just as people question whether Bergdahl deserves the status, given the details of his case). Not automatically deifying every veteran holding a POW title is not the same thing as having "insulted every POW ever"---and you know it.

Lewrockwell.com is just full of shit and you know it. Trump made the general comment that he preferred "The ones that don't get captured."

Edit: I just read the Lewrockwell.com article you posted. It's not Lewrockwell.com that's full of it. It's you that's full of shit! The article you posted in no way criticized John McCain for anything he did leading up to his becoming a POW or anything he did while being a POW. Instead that article criticized McCain for not doing more to expose the cover up of evidence supporting the theory that U.S. POWs were being kept alive in Vietnam long after the war was over. That is a totally different issue AND YOU KNOW IT! Had Donald Trump said "John McCain is no hero because as senator he covered evidence that other POWs were left behind" that would have been one thing. That would not have been insulting other POWs. Instead Trump attacked McCain for getting captured in the first place. That's inexcusible and unforgivable.


Here is the Trump quote:

“He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

What part of "I like the people who weren't captured" do you not understand? And this has nothing to do with Bergdahl and you know it. Bergdahl has been accused of being a deserter. Nobody disputes the fact that John McCain was shot down while flying over enemy territory. Had Trump said "Well some people question McCains actions after being taken prisoner" that would have been one thing. But instead dumbass Trump attacked McCain for getting captured in the first place. Guess what? If you dodge the draft like Donald Trump did you don't have to worry about getting captured. If you take safe assignments inside the U.S. like George W. Bush did you don't have to risk getting captured. If you fly a military airplane over hostile enemy territory you risk getting captured and only a total asshole would put you down for that.

Adding some humility to the strategy, is not changing the strategy. The dip Trump experienced was the expected drop he was supposed to have following the Democratic convention, plus biased polling that gave Hillary faux momentum. Both are petering out, as judged by the recent LA Times and Zogby etc polls showing Trump slightly ahead, or tied with her. As the polling becomes more focused on likely voters in the coming weeks the tilt to Trump will become more frequent.

Except he didn't drop until he decided to mix it up with the Khans dumbass.

The truth is you are still misreading the policy. To repeat myself: The only 'expedite' aspect of the reform as it stands is these immigrants (by filling out a form that identifies them as having been in the US unlawfully) would not be subject to the 10 year prohibition on illegal migrants from applying for naturalization, under current law. This would "reset" their standing so that they could immediately apply to get in line, but not allow them to cut in that line.

No I'm not "misreading the policy" and you know it. Bringing the "good ones" back in "rapidly" means just that "rapidly." Trump never said anything about putting them in the back of the line. That's just what you are reading into his policy when he never said that.

 

[CPUd]

Yea, Trump lost his ass with the vets and active military for attacking the Khans, plus the whole Purple Heart debacle.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Good grief! Use some common sense dude, and some proper English while you're at it. Trump didn't say he had "no regrets" in order to "humanize" himself. He said he HAD regrets in order to humanize himself and to play to people other than his base! I had to read through what you wrote several times before responding because you are doing so many mental gymnastic contortions that you are tripping over your own words.

For the sake of your blood pressure, I have corrected the line to say "regrets" statement, instead of "no regrets." I stand by the rest, and it still makes perfect sense.

Bull$#@!. What I know and you would admit if you were being honest is that the only way Trump got away with insulting all POWs is that hardcore anti immigration zealots loved what he said so much on immigration that they were willing to give him a pass on anything else...

Bull$#@!! You are just lying your ass off. Trump said he "Preferred the ones that didn't get captured." That was an insult to every POW ever...

Lewrockwell.com is just full of $#@! and you know it. Trump made the general comment that he preferred "The ones that don't get captured."

What I know is your omni-sniping attitude towards Trump is increasingly distorting your considerable intelligence, to the point of virtual cursing and calling people dishonest or liars if they disagree with you. The fact remains that Trump was asked about McCain while he was talking about something else, so the comment he made was an aside with reference to McCain, not all POWs, "and you know it." Other POWs have questioned McCain's hero status, so are they insulting all POWs too? Please.

Given Trump's reputation for imprecise language, and his known objections to Bergdahl, his comment is best understood to mean "I like people that don't get themselves captured." The existing evidence on Mac, noted by LRC and non-LRC sources, points to a 'he UN-heroically blundered himself into prisoner status' scenario, and later even cooperated with the enemy. Pointing out his later record on covering up real, unrescued POWs simply re-emphasizes that the original heroic narrative about him is likely manufactured (LRC has posted articles on both shaky ends of McCain's career).

No I'm not "misreading the policy" and you know it. Bringing the "good ones" back in "rapidly" means just that "rapidly." Trump never said anything about putting them in the back of the line. That's just what you are reading into his policy when he never said that.

Yes, you're still misreading it, and you the one are reading a precision into his interview comments that is unlike Trump, "and you know it." His comments phrase the reforms in light of campaign needs to emphasize a kindler gentler tone. Whereas the campaign's last policy statement on the issue doubled down on building the wall, and even sketched out a plan for how Mexico would be paying for it. The substance has not changed.

 

[jmdrake]

For the sake of your blood pressure, I have corrected the line to say "regrets" statement, instead of "no regrets." I stand by the rest, and it still makes perfect sense.



What I know is your omni-sniping attitude towards Trump is increasingly distorting your considerable intelligence, to the point of virtual cursing and calling people dishonest or liars if they disagree with you. The fact remains that Trump was asked about McCain while he was talking about something else, so the comment he made was an aside with reference to McCain, not all POWs, "and you know it." Other POWs have questioned McCain's hero status, so are they insulting all POWs too? Please.

Given Trump's reputation for imprecise language, and his known objections to Bergdahl, his comment is best understood to mean "I like people that don't get themselves captured." The existing evidence on Mac, noted by LRC and non-LRC sources, points to a 'he UN-heroically blundered himself into prisoner status' scenario, and later even cooperated with the enemy. Pointing out his later record on covering up real POWs simply re-emphasizes that the original heroic narrative about him is likely manufactured (LRC has posted articles on both shaky ends of McCain's career).



Yes, you're still misreading it, and you the one are reading a precision into his interview comments that is unlike Trump, "and you know it." His comments phrase the reforms in light of campaign needs to emphasize a kindler gentler tone. Whereas the campaign's last policy statement on the issue doubled down on building the wall, and even sketched out a plan for how Mexico would be paying for it. The substance has not changed.

1) Trump, using his "Art of the Deal" tactics, was as "bombastic" as possible on issues like immigration specifically to play to the GOP base. Even Stephan Molyneux, someone who largely supports Trump even though he can't vote in U.S. elections, pointed out that Trump's immigration strategy came from careful market research. If you don't understand that you're just delusional.

2) Trump's "regret" speech is an obvious ploy to reach out to independents who were considering him but largely turned against him after he jumped the shark with respect to the Khans. Attacking a Gold Star family in the general election was just stupid. He should have let surrogates do that if it was to be done at all. The smart thing would have been to not do it at all. And comparing the sacrifice of losing your son to Trumps "sacrifice" of "creating jobs" was just asinine. Trump didn't "create jobs" as a patriotic duty. He created jobs to make money. That's a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't at all a sacrifice.

3) Trump saying "I prefer the ones that don't get captured" was an insult to all POWs period. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply not thinking straight. The plain language of the statement insults all POWs. "I prefer the ones that don't get captured?" Well...why? What's great about not getting captured? Any sane soldier would prefer not to get captured. And John McCain, for all his faults, is sane. Bergdhal might have indeed been nuts, I don't know. But there is no honest comparison between him and McCain and you know it.

4) Trump said he would bring back the "good illegals" rapidly. Your belief that he means "send them to the back of the line" is just wishful thinking on your part as he never said that and that is incompatible with bringing them back "rapidly"

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Trump saying "I prefer the ones that don't get captured" was an insult to all POWs period. Anyone who doesn't understand that is simply not thinking straight. The plain language of the statement insults all POWs. "I prefer the ones that don't get captured?" Well...why? What's great about not getting captured? Any sane soldier would prefer not to get captured. And John McCain, for all his faults, is sane. Bergdhal might have indeed been nuts, I don't know. But there is no honest comparison between him and McCain and you know it.

The context of Trump's remark was about McCain, period. McCain was near last in his class at West Point, crashed his planes frequently, and so his career needed constant protection by his admiral father. If you are not competent and your record resembles less Captain America, but more like Captain Parmenter of F-Troop, are you a hero? Again, the full record (review the articles cited) indicates he blundered his way into becoming a POW, and from there betrayed other POWs. Incompetence is not heroism. There is room to debate this alternative view of McCain, but not to deny the case for the counter view exists.

There is no comparison between Bergdahl and McCain because the media and cover-up operation keeps telling us not to make one---only to declare one is crazy, and the other is a hero. Trump (heroically) did not buy the mainstream establishment line, and said so, even standing his ground when the MSM deflected the issue by framing it as if he had attacked all POWs. Fighting, even glancingly, those narratives is part of the solution to disrupting the establishment's power. You accept the narrative, and that's part of the problem.

Trump said he would bring back the "good illegals" rapidly. Your belief that he means "send them to the back of the line" is just wishful thinking on your part as he never said that and that is incompatible with bringing them back "rapidly"

Trump never said "good illegals" means "they can cut in line" either, so by your standard you are the one putting words in Trump's mouth. Not subjecting the illegals to a 10 year penalty under current law would defacto make their processing to return "rapid," but not with regard to going ahead of the rest of the immigrants who are being processed. His campaign rhetoric is shifting to emphasize deporting the criminal or "bad illegals," while describing the rest more positively, but the policy statement on the Trump website remains the same, only more filled in as to its details.

 

[jmdrake]

The context of Trump's remark was about McCain, period. McCain was near last in his class at West Point, crashed his planes frequently, and so his career needed constant protection by his admiral father. If you are not competent and your record resembles less Captain America, but more like Captain Parmenter of F-Troop, are you a hero? Again, the full record (review the articles cited) indicates he blundered his way into becoming a POW, and from there betrayed other POWs. Incompetence is not heroism. There is room to debate this alternative view of McCain, but not to deny the case for the counter view exists.

I read the articles you cited and you are flat out lying about them. The Lew Rockwell article did not at all lay any blame on John McCain for being captured. Yes John McCain did "break" and give a confession recording, but the article pointed out that many men would have broken under those circumstances. You have lost all credibility now on this issue by making claims about the very articles you are posting that simply aren't there. Furthermore the "context" does not at all change the damning nature of the statement no matter how much you wish to pretend it did. Trump could have said "John McCain isn't a hero because he cracked under pressure." Instead Trump said "I prefer the ones that don't get captured." But Trump himself was a draft dodger! Even if we were to accept your lie that the article you posted claimed it was John McCain's fault for getting captured that still puts McCain a cut above Trump for being willing to go in the first place.

There is no comparison between Bergdahl and McCain because the media and cover-up operation keeps telling us not to make one---only to declare one is crazy, and the other is a hero. Trump (heroically) did not buy the mainstream establishment line, and said so. Fighting, even glancingly, those narratives are part of the solution to disrupting the establishment's power. You accept the narrative, and that's part of the problem.

Bullshit. You have yet to post any alternative media source that compares Bergdahl, who is accused of being a deserter, to McCain, you even you have only accused of being "incompetent" and without a single source. Next!

Trump never said "good illegals" means "they can cut in line" either, so by your standard you are the one putting words in Trump's mouth.

Another convenient lie and this time against me. I never said "good illegals" means "they can cut in line." I said BRINGING THEM BACK RAPIDLY MEANS THEY CAN CUT IN LINE! Otherwise how is Trump going to bring them back "rapidly?" Again, keyword is RAPIDLY! Get that through your head before attempting a reply.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You have yet to post any alternative media source that compares Bergdahl, who is accused of being a deserter, to McCain, you even you have only accused of being "incompetent" and without a single source. Next!

...McCain had acted as though he was determined to show all those who were inclined to think the worst of him that they were right. As he wrote in his book Faith of My Fathers, “I did not enjoy the reputation of a serious pilot or an up-and-coming junior officer.”

His record as a midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy was dismal. He piled up demerits left and right for breaking the rules, and barely passed his schoolwork, graduating 894th in a class of 899.

That might have been checked off to youthful rebellion. Plenty of kids spent their college years partying but then sobered up after they were slapped in the face by the reality of making it in the outside world. But after he left Annapolis, McCain continued to show the same attitude that had almost got him kicked out of the naval academy.

He barely passed flight school. And then he crashed two airplanes and damaged a third.

The first crash took place during advanced flight training at Corpus Christi, Texas. According to McCain, the engine stalled while he was practicing landings. The plane fell into the water of the bay just off the airfield and knocked him unconscious. McCain woke up and somehow managed to get out of the cockpit and escaped serious injury. Investigators reported that they started the recovered engine without any problem, and their report left open the possibility of pilot error.

The next accident took place in Spain while McCain was assigned to an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea. He tried to fly his propeller-driven A-1 fighter-bomber under a row of pylon-supported electric power lines. This was a “hotdogging” stunt by U.S. pilots in Europe that had caused outrage. McCain’s plane hit and damaged the lines so badly that thousands of people lost power.

“My daredevil clowning had cut off electricity to a great many Spanish homes,” McCain wrote later, “and created a small international incident.”

In 1965, McCain flew a navy airplane to Philadelphia to attend the Army-Navy football game. On the way back to his base in Norfolk, Virginia, the plane’s engine quit, he said, so he bailed out. The plane crashed and was destroyed.

In the U.S. Navy, for a pilot to crash one plane was pushing it. To crash two often resulted in an official investigation to determine if he should be taken off flight status. How McCain got away with crashing two airplanes and smashing power lines in Spain was a mystery, although other pilots thought it had to do with his family connections.

...By his own admission, then, McCain failed to follow instructions in combat. He did not try to evade the missile. Moreover, the pilots who were flying near him, one of them with a handheld camera, said he was not hit by a SAM. He had flown too low and was brought down by a barrage of antiaircraft fire. Since a SAM exploded in a bright orange fireball visible for miles around, it was unlikely that they had called it wrong. And since official navy records listed John McCain as downed by AAA fire, they were puzzled by why he later insisted in his political campaigns that it was a SAM.

As other pilots saw it, John McCain, quite simply, had got himself shot down.

But McCain also made another error in the next four to six seconds after he was hit. He failed to use the proper procedure he had been taught for ejecting. As a result, he injured himself critically, breaking both arms and his right leg.

http://www.pythiapress.com/wartales/McCain-Shootdown.htm

As I said, Captain Parmenter. I didn't say Bergdahl was a deserter, which he may not be (all facts considered) in comparing him to McCain. The point was that both of them became POWs under similar (but separable) questionable circumstances, and their behavior under that status is questionable, with one deemed not a hero while the other deemed a hero. Trump did not automatically deem McCain untouchable from being questioned, or bow to a war party icon, and that's why there was a row over the matter.

You have now made clear that this context doesn't matter, you'll still smear Trump as "attacking all POWs" anyway. Trump provided more context in comments he made later that week: “People that fought hard and weren’t captured and went through a lot, they get no credit. Nobody even talks about them. They’re like forgotten, and I think that’s a shame, if you want to know the truth.” Call that what you will, but that's not attacking all POWs. That's merely Trump asking why one guy gets 28 medals for flying 23 missions, far eclipsing his fellow pilots from the same ship, while infantrymen who put in 1000's of hours facing much more continuous peril got nothing.

Another convenient lie and this time against me. I never said "good illegals" means "they can cut in line." I said BRINGING THEM BACK RAPIDLY MEANS THEY CAN CUT IN LINE! Otherwise how is Trump going to bring them back "rapidly?" Again, keyword is RAPIDLY! Get that through your head before attempting a reply.

Another unfortunate confusion of characterization with evidence. Your take on "rapidly" is an INTERPRETATION, not what Trump actually said. I already stated what bringing them back "rapidly" means, which is based on the actual proposal. You want the Trump plan to mean what you are demonizing it to mean, not what the policy says, and not what the campaign has repeatedly said this week, namely that the policy hasn't changed.

 

[RandallFan]

Women & people who didn't serve are offended that the grief of McCain & Khan is superior.

McCain would have been better off not serving and getting less people killed.

 

[jmdrake]

http://www.pythiapress.com/wartales/McCain-Shootdown.htm

As I said, Captain Parmenter. I didn't say Bergdahl was a deserter, which he may not be (all facts considered) in comparing him to McCain. The point was that both of them became POWs under similar (but separable) questionable circumstances, and their behavior under that status is questionable, with one deemed not a hero while the other deemed a hero. Trump did not automatically deem McCain untouchable from being questioned, or bow to a war party icon, and that's why there was a row over the matter.

You have now made clear that this context doesn't matter, you'll still smear Trump as "attacking all POWs" anyway. Trump provided more context in comments he made later that week: “People that fought hard and weren’t captured and went through a lot, they get no credit. Nobody even talks about them. They’re like forgotten, and I think that’s a shame, if you want to know the truth.” Call that what you will, but that's not attacking all POWs. That's merely Trump asking why one guy gets 28 medals for flying 23 missions, far eclipsing his fellow pilots from the same ship, while infantrymen who put in 1000's of hours facing much more continuous peril got nothing.



Another unfortunate confusion of characterization with evidence. Your take on "rapidly" is an INTERPRETATION, not what Trump actually said. I already stated what bringing them back "rapidly" means, which is based on the actual proposal. You want the Trump plan to mean what you are demonizing it to mean, not what the policy says, and not what the campaign has repeatedly said this week, namely that the policy hasn't changed.

You and other Trumpaholics are a bucket of laughs. You must be Egyptian because you come from de-Nile. Again, Trump didn't say "McCain isn't a hero because he got shot down for being stupid." He said "I prefer those who didn't get captured." Further accidents from hotdogging doesn't mean you "just got yourself shot down" in combat but keep telling yourself that.

And for your prevarication on Trumps touchback amnesty, you know today Trump said Obama is already "Getting rid of lots of people" and he (Trump) is going to "do the same thing?" Explain that one oh great Trump defender. Trump has even backed away from touchback amnesty to full throated amnesty. Man you've been had. Sucka!

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You and other Trumpaholics are a bucket of laughs. You must be Egyptian because you come from de-Nile. Again, Trump didn't say "McCain isn't a hero because he got shot down for being stupid." He said "I prefer those who didn't get captured." Further accidents from hotdogging doesn't mean you "just got yourself shot down" in combat but keep telling yourself that.

And for your prevarication on Trumps touchback amnesty, you know today Trump said Obama is already "Getting rid of lots of people" and he (Trump) is going to "do the same thing?" Explain that one oh great Trump defender. Trump has even backed away from touchback amnesty to full throated amnesty. Man you've been had. Sucka!

So I've gone from "having no credibility" to being a barrel of laughs, well at least that's progress. Now you indicate that citing the facts surrounding his capture doesn't matter---hilarious. McCain's F-Troop flying history led to the incident that got himself shot down, which led to his capture. This supports my view of Trump's hero-questioning aside to mean "I prefer those who didn't get themselves captured," which Trump confirmed by his subsequent comment that same week. Had he made the same exact comments about Bergdahl, there would have been no controversy---the flap was squarely over his attacking McCain. All of which you deny, and are projecting your denial onto me.

What Trump means by "do the same thing" is not clear to me, other than getting rid of lots of people (which sounds like the opposite of keeping lots of people, or amnesty). When Trump and his campaign specifically declare it means "we support full amnesty" then get back to me, and not before. I'm outta this exchange, "and you know it."

 

[vonMises]

Maybe its because of where I live, but at least where I live paul bots were real people. Everywhere I would look there were bumper stickers and billboards that say google Ron Paul. It became viral people everywhere were openly discussing foreign policy and the debates were unheard of. You can go back, on reddit and look at the discussions, if they were bots they were way more sophisticated last time around then this time around, you would think after all of these years they would be more intelligent.

I don't see that with Trump, I see there is a large amount of online spam, and schilling, but that has been going on for over a year now, and it is significantly different. When Ron Paul ran people were out there trying to educate people on the federal reserve. There could be this phonenon that people don't want others to know they support Trump, and that's why they do it online because they feel like they are anonymous. I just don't see the parallels in online discussion between the two, actually the bernie bots seemed more "Russian" then the Trump ones.

Sorry for not getting back to you and still not getting back to you. I'm suffering from acetaldehyde poisoning, and apart from my individual experience with it, I think hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering from it as well, but I have a greater sensitivity to acetaldehyde, and thus worse symptoms. This poisoning comes from our use of ethanol in gasoline and we are essentially sedating ourselves to death. I'll create a thread about acetaldehyde poisoning some time later, and as it comes to the things I've anticipated, this is threat number 1, followed by what I now suspect to be a conspiracy by gold bugs, survivalists and by both right and left leaning anarchists, and a few other groups in trying to collapse the US government and the world as we know it. Close Ron Paul confidants like Lew Rockwell and Daniel McAdams (who might actually be a socialist and statist) would make sense in this suspicion of mine...

 

[vonMises]

There were 5 Russian operatives/bots that I observed in that ISIS/Trump thread I created (I suspected a 6th person and need to spend at least a couple of hours reading him to confirm or deny the suspicion), and I need to very much answer the questions raised in that thread still, but in seeing just the extent of the Russian bots on RPF it raised a new suspicion of mine that I've investigated to some extent now, and it may look like our own (and I don't mean the Russians here), have very much betrayed us and our government (the Russians here are not even guilty of that as they still support Ron Paul in some manner...and may come to like the US, or even the US government in some way). If this suspicion turns out correct, Hilary, Bush, Obama, et. al. are saints compared to the scum that readily identify among us and call us friends.

 

[Danke]

 

[vonMises]

That there might be a conspiracy of libertarians to undermine the US government lacks much evidence at the moment, but it may turn out correct as I investigate it. It would explain for example the statements and behavior of men like Lew Rockwell who is pro-Putin, pro-Russian, and pro-state-as-long-as-it's-not-here. Back then, the subversives were Marxists, communists, and whoever was like them, but now they could be our very own. And men like Rockwell may actually have Donald's ear if he ever becomes President, and enough of an influence where he unknowingly implements policies that pave the collapse of the United States government. Doing such will surely kill tens of millions of Americans but will bring anarcho-capitalism in our lifetimes, right?