Posted on 06/14/2015 2:48:41 PM PDT by Isara
We heard the news about Hillary's fake Twitter and Facebook followers and her operatives pretending to be her regular supporters. Is it possible that it also is happening right here on Free Republic Web site?
Free Republic is a premier Conservative site. Most of us know who, among the presidential candidates, is the most Conservative. Our candidate happens to be effective in his campaigning also. Our enemies know that and fear him the most. Naturally, Free Republic is turning into a battleground.
We don't know who they are: other Republican campaign operatives, GOPe, Hillary's camp, Democratic operatives, union thugs, Castro brothers, ISIS, LGBT, ACLU, etc. But they all share one common goal - to take Ted Cruz out. Since trust is Ted Cruz's strong point, they are trying to erode our trust of him.
You may notice that they came in the threads about Ted Cruz in teams, 2 or more at the same time. No matter how much we gave them the facts, these same people went to the next thread and repeated the same misinformation over and over again. This is why I think we are under attack.
Their strategies are:
I've detected that some patterns of their posting were shared among these operatives. Is it possible that there are a few of them pretending to be a lot more, just like Hillary's Twitter and Facebook followers?
“Don’t worry! When your candidate is deemed a threat, he/she will be a target then.”
My candidate is Nobody. Is nobody a threat yet?
Every election year there are trolls and some sleepers that get outed. Nothing new.
Then of course the battles between supporters do get very heated and often leads to banning and people leaving on their own. Usually not trolls but they just post either support for their favorite and usually post negative stuff about the others. Remember Keyes, Paul, Rudy and various others that had very vocal supporters/critics? Again nothing new.
Personally I haven’t decided yet who I will support. I have over a year to decide so I’ll keep filtering out info on all of them and narrow it to 2-3 then go from there.
I think you over estimate the importance of this website, myself. I mean, the days when FR led the Internet are long behind it. Don’t get me wrong, I like the site and find it useful but I don’t think it is the thought leader it once was.
It’s not word games.
You said it plainly.
Now you seem to be refusing to back away from your claim. That’s just silly.
You’re confusing changing the Constitution with violating the Constitution.
Good post. As one of your opponents on this, agree that most of the follks on this side of the argument are old timers. Some names I don’t recognize, but the thing to remember is that there are some FReepers who lurk heavily, but post rarely. It’s usually the case to see them on more controversial topics. I also hear from them via FRmail, which is a whole different universe. An FR within FR.
Being one of the more loquacious folks here, I don’t really get the reluctance to post. But there are a huge number of lurkers. Check the number of views versus posts if you want some idea of magnitude. Usually 10:1 or more.
Noob.
;-)
The presidency should not be a throne. Period.
I have a definite issue with even more foreign worker visas, which Ted Cruz seems to want to expand.
The program takes high-paying American jobs away, and replaces them with super-cheap foreigners who aren't as good but who cost a quarter of what the American cost. I make absolutely no apology over saying that I reject this, that it is a deal breaker, and that it is 100% wrong.
I am an American who favors America. I do not and will not apologize or stand by quietly while others try to advance programs which work against Americans.
If you call that “astro-turfing”, I'm obliged to call you a coward making idols out of men. I have supported Ted Cruz so far, but support is earned, not a right, and depends on adherence to American principles.
Do bears crap in the woods ? —
Oops, for a moment there I thought you asked: Why do bears crap in the woods?
And I am still pondering the answer.
Is Ted Cruz immune from criticism on this forum?
I don't think so. I have pinged Jim Robinson to dozens of my posts that are highly critical of Ted Cruz's positions on H1B visas and the unconstitutional TPA.
I'm still here.
If Jim Robinson thought I was some kind of digital astroturfer, I'd be zotted in a minute.
If you can answer the criticism of Ted Cruz logically without resorting to Ted Cruz's campaign talking points, then I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, quit complaining about something that isn't happening here.
Perhaps you’re the “Digital-Astroturfer.” —
Why does that seem to describe Billy CLINTON?
Well we know LT.Col. Allen West is your preference..you’ve stated as much.
I like West as well. But he’s not running...at least hasn’t given indications he’s interested this time around.
I think it’s completely ridiculous saying folks who think these trade agreements are necessary make them Un-American. We’ve been doing trade agreements for decades....TPP was begun in 2005 and a long time moving... The very same issues we’re having with it now have preveiously been made know... so those putting this together are quite aware of the issues.
An example is if at some point the President of the United States would like to add another country or two, like China....there’s an amendment already issued to prevent that which simply says that Congress must approve; there must be a vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and a vote of the Senate in order to admit a new country.
TPP isn’t out yet ...and there’s still time to work at it when it is.
good summary, laz.
Question though. If we’re having a witch hunt, can I be a witch?
The Senate does not have a constitutional right to a 60 vote cloture vote. Cloture is a parliamentary procedure and can be done away with at any time for any reason.
However the Senate does have a Constitutional OBLIGATION to only allow these trade agreements (documents formerly known as TREATIES) if they get 2/3 of the Senate's approval.
The Senate cannot delegate that power to the house and cannot lower the threshold from 2/3 to a simple majority. They do it all the time, but it is NOT Constitutional. But they don't care about the Constitution. They only care about campaign contributions from big international corporations and Goldman Sachs.
I’ve been around FR since 1998. I’m hacked at Cruz for H1B visas and TPA/TPP. I think he shot himself in the foot, especially with the H1B nonsense. It might be a non-recoverable wound.
I was on FR before Hillary found out about Monica’s dress. Your accusation could be seen as irrational.
We can wait to do this the right way, with transparency, with accountability, with principle, when we have a Conservative as President.
It already is. It is written in the Constitution. 2/3 of 100 = 67. (rounded out)
You shouldn’t
“Me thinks the pot (thread poster) is calling the kettle black. Not to mention how nervy to come right out and declare an endorsed candidate for FR. Not helping their cause much, IMO.”
SHHHHHHHH!
;-)
I understand that. You are preaching to the choir. Like I said, that is why I was arguing that point days ago.
But for that to happen we would have to have a President and a Congress that actually follows the law and reads all of bills they pass.
That might be asking for too much...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.