# Liberty Movement > Defenders of Liberty > Justin Amash Forum >  Justin Amash >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand Paul

## RonPaul25

Yes

----------


## mz10

Cool story brah

----------


## sailingaway

I think this goes in Justin Amash's forum.

----------


## RonPaul25

Probably didn't need to put all the >>>>'s but the point was Rand Paul is not/will not be the next Ron Paul, from what I've seen in the last 2 years, it will be Justin Amash

----------


## itshappening

> Probably didn't need to put all the >>>>'s but the point was Rand Paul is not/will not be the next Ron Paul, from what I've seen in the last 2 years, it will be Justin Amash


Rand is not trying to be the next Ron Paul.  He wants to actually win rather than educate and he probably has one shot at it then will go back to his practice.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

Someone missed the memo.

See below:

----------


## WarAnonymous

Well luckily for everyone in this thread on both sides, they probably won't be sizing up. Rand 16, Amash still a little young and not ready for a run. So I think everyone can get what they want. Rand 16, Amash 24?

----------


## compromise

What are your reasons for this view?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Rand is not trying to be the next Ron Paul.  He wants to actually win rather than educate and he probably has one shot at it then will go back to his practice.


Ron Paul would've won in a fair contest.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Well luckily for everyone in this thread on both sides, they probably won't be sizing up. Rand 16, Amash still a little young and not ready for a run. So I think everyone can get what they want. Rand 16, Amash 24?


I don't believe that Amash is a natural-born citizen.

----------


## supermario21

It's also much easier to have the ideological rigidity in the House, compared to the Senate.

----------


## erowe1

Amash was born in Grand Rapids, so he's definitely a natural-born citizen.

----------


## kathy88

> Rand is not trying to be the next Ron Paul.  He wants to actually win rather than educate and he probably has one shot at it then will go back to his practice.



I'm pretty $#@!ing sick and tired of you taking shots at Ron day in and day out. Why don't you just stop already?

----------


## acptulsa

> I'm pretty $#@!ing sick and tired of you taking shots at Ron day in and day out. Why don't you just stop already?


I generally agree.  But in this case, _someone_ needed to remind all the purists that there's a good reason why Rand doesn't sound just exactly like his father.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I hope that JA continues to build his hardcore independent conservative profile in hopes of him running for Senate in the relative near future. I've had about all I can take of these two dirty dems as my Senators.

----------


## mz10

> I'm pretty $#@!ing sick and tired of you taking shots at Ron day in and day out. Why don't you just stop already?


It is not a shot at Ron. It is a different strategy.

Tom Brady is a Hall of Fame QB (don't even bother disagreeing). But if you put 11 Tom Brady's on the field at once, your team would probably suck. He would be too slow to play RB, too weak to play O-Line. There are different positions, different roles. Same goes for politics. Ron had a specific role, which was to introduce the whole country to the principles of liberty, and introduce it to mainstream dialogue. He is like our QB. Rand's role is different, his job is to move the ball forward. Rand is our wide receiver/running back. Ron threw a pass to Rand and now Rand has to run with it. Get my point?

(I realize sports metaphors only work for a segment of the population. I hope everyone else can still get what I'm talking about.)

----------


## TheGrinch

Irony:




> This is very good. Those of you criticizing Rand need to calm down. Rand is a very principled person that knows how to play the game. That is the only way we can win.





> It seems like everyone is starting their own 2016 thread. Calm the f*^k people.





> I agree with this and it is why I am voting for Romney


So are you jsut a provacatuer, switching sides to whichever is convenient, or is there some other reason you've completely flip-flopped without giving reason to smear Rand since you've shown up for the diviseveness-fest that started in September?

I mean, hell, you claimed to vote for Romney because he was the "lesser of two evils", and now you're starting 3 years early to bash the guy who is at worst the FAR lesser of the evils we have to choose from?

Forgive me if that seems to be either hypocritical or suspicious to me...

----------


## kathy88

> It is not a shot at Ron. It is a different strategy.
> 
> Tom Brady is a Hall of Fame QB (don't even bother disagreeing). But if you put 11 Tom Brady's on the field at once, your team would probably suck. He would be too slow to play RB, too weak to play O-Line. There are different positions, different roles. Same goes for politics. Ron had a specific role, which was to introduce the whole country to the principles of liberty, and introduce it to mainstream dialogue. He is like our QB. Rand's role is different, his job is to move the ball forward. Rand is our wide receiver/running back. Ron threw a pass to Rand and now Rand has to run with it. Get my point?
> 
> (I realize sports metaphors only work for a segment of the population. I hope everyone else can still get what I'm talking about.)


No, I'm retarded. And I'm not wrong here. It is unnecessary to state OVER AND OVER ad infinitum ad nauseum that Rand can win, Ron couldn't. These are still the ROn Paul forums, in case people haven't noticed.

----------


## acptulsa

> Forgive me if that seems to be either hypocritical or suspicious to me...


I can't forgive you.  First I'd have to find a way to disagree with you.

This tactic isn't just about divorcing a few of us from the Rand bandwagon.  This is about causing enough doubt in _our_ minds about Rand Paul's integrity to cause liberals dead set on anti-corporatism and peace to doubt whether President Rand Paul would represent _them_ and do what _they_ want done.  Someone thinks he will, of course, or we wouldn't be getting trolled this way...

----------


## mz10

> No, I'm retarded. And I'm not wrong here. It is unnecessary to state OVER AND OVER ad infinitum ad nauseum that Rand can win, Ron couldn't. These are still the ROn Paul forums, in case people haven't noticed.


I think the point is simply to emphasize that Rand couldn't have done what Ron did, and Ron couldn't do what Rand is doing now. Their roles are just different, and equally important.

----------


## TheGrinch

> No, I'm retarded. And I'm not wrong here. It is unnecessary to state OVER AND OVER ad infinitum ad nauseum that Rand can win, Ron couldn't. These are still the ROn Paul forums, in case people haven't noticed.


Sorry kathy, but fact is Ron didn't win. That's not his fault, but it's clear that education can only go so far in convincing America towards the ways of liberty (at least currently)... The jury is still out to me on whether Rand playing to win will result in bringing our ideas to the mainstream, or if it will backfire in watering them down into something else entirely, but we all knew it was a long shot that Ron could win by telling people what they weren't ready to hear... That's not Ron's fault, there are many other reasons why the current environment has led to people rejecting the tougher liberty messages to swallow.

----------


## supermario21

> I hope that JA continues to build his hardcore independent conservative profile in hopes of him running for Senate in the relative near future. I've had about all I can take of these two dirty dems as my Senators.


I think 2020 to take over Levin's seat would be a good opportunity. He doesn't actually poll too poorly against him now for 2014 considering the name ID gap.

----------


## mz10

> Sorry kathy, but fact is Ron didn't win. That's not his fault, but it's clear that education can only go so far in convincing America towards the ways of liberty (at least currently)... The jury is still out to me on whether Rand playing to win will result in bringing our ideas to the mainstream, or if it will backfire in watering them down into something else entirely, but we all knew it was a long shot that Ron could win by telling people what they weren't ready to hear... That's not Ron's fault, there are many other reasons why the current environment has led to people rejecting the tougher liberty messages to swallow.






Mike Rothfeld can explain why the education theory doesn't work. (Warning: long video. I would recommend you watch the whole thing, it's well worth your time)

----------


## kathy88

> Sorry kathy, but fact is Ron didn't win. That's not his fault, but it's clear that education can only go so far in convincing America towards the ways of liberty (at least currently)... The jury is still out to me on whether Rand playing to win will result in bringing our ideas to the mainstream, or if it will backfire in watering them down into something else entirely, but we all knew it was a long shot that Ron could win by telling people what they weren't ready to hear... That's not Ron's fault, there are many other reasons why the current environment has led to people rejecting the tougher liberty messages to swallow.


None of this has anything to do with people taking shots at Ron on his own forums, which was the ONLY point I was trying to make, but everyone else has this "everyone must back Rand" agenda that they sneak into almost every thread related to politics. And you know none of this is directed at you. So instead of people trying to convince me that they are different, which I already know, how about calling out the people who feel the need to bash Ron to inflate Rand, which was the ONLY point I was trying to make here.

----------


## kathy88

> Mike Rothfeld can explain why the education theory doesn't work. (Warning: long video. I would recommend you watch the whole thing, it's well worth your time)


OH FFS. AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  .

----------


## mz10

> OH FFS. AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  .


Too long a video or not a Rothfeld fan?

----------


## TheGrinch

> None of this has anything to do with people taking shots at Ron on his own forums, which was the ONLY point I was trying to make, but everyone else has this "everyone must back Rand" agenda that they sneak into almost every thread related to politics. And you know none of this is directed at you. So instead of people trying to convince me that they are different, which I already know, how about calling out the people who feel the need to bash Ron to inflate Rand, which was the ONLY point I was trying to make here.


Fair enough, I read back on what you were responding to, and I agree it's not fair to just reduce it to ""Rand is trying to win, Ron wasn't" to try to prop up Rand (although I do think it's valid that Ron had to know he wasn't going to win without spoon-feeding the message, to the detriment of real education needed for us to get to this point. In that respect, I think education was far more his prerogative, for good reason).

However, I don't agree with those that say we shouldn't question/criticize what Rand says and does when warranted, and I'll take it even further, that even if I still support him come 2016, I will most likely still argue that he's not doing nearly enough... I certainly don't advocate throwing our principles in the toilet (definitely not foreign policy that drew me to Ron in the first place), but rather to use any gains to show why more drastic measures are still needed.

But like most, I'm still in the "wait and see" camp (albeit trying my best to give him the benefit of the doubt until he loses it)

----------


## EBounding

> Ron Paul would've won in a fair contest.


There's some truth to this, but the fact is Ron got out hustled in Iowa.  From what I understand, Santorum out campaigned Ron and Romney in Iowa.  He should have campaigned just as much as Santorum to win the caucus straw poll.  Then he would be in a better position to place 2nd in SC, which could have led to a brokered convention and maybe him winning a few more states.  Lessons learned.

Back on topic, Justin is not holding back:

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash...35549023279605

----------


## TheGrinch

> There's some truth to this, but the fact is Ron got out hustled in Iowa.  From what I understand, Santorum out campaigned Ron and Romney in Iowa.  He should have campaigned just as much as Santorum to win the caucus straw poll.  Then he would be in a better position to place 2nd in SC, which could have led to a brokered convention and maybe him winning a few more states.  Lessons learned.
> 
> Back on topic, Justin is not holding back:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/justinamash...35549023279605


Ummm, Ron won both the straw poll and the most delegates from the state, but they declared Santorum the winner because he won the beauty contest (which was meaningless). 

From there, the media did everything they could to quash the momentum he got in Iowa, from the newsletters to flat out not even mentioning or including him, even in polls.

----------


## Brett85

Rand Paul-President 2016
Amash-Vice President 2016
Amash-President 2024

----------


## itshappening

> I think 2020 to take over Levin's seat would be a good opportunity. He doesn't actually poll too poorly against him now for 2014 considering the name ID gap.


There's no point in him running for senate - especially in a presidential year - the urban areas of MI are all hardcore Democrat and will put whoever is on the Democrat line in office and he would lose his seat in congress. 

Maybe if he gets bored with Congress he can try a run for governor one day in an off year but personally i'd prefer him to be on the Supreme court!

----------


## itshappening

> No, I'm retarded. And I'm not wrong here. It is unnecessary to state OVER AND OVER ad infinitum ad nauseum that Rand can win, Ron couldn't. These are still the ROn Paul forums, in case people haven't noticed.


It's not a knock on Ron but his style is not suited to win statewide office.  He's tried it 4 times and hasn't got very far (TX Senate, LP, 2008 and 2012).  The best he did statewide was 2nd in New Hampshire with 23%.

Rand's last two efforts statewide: 58% and 55%

----------


## acptulsa

Ron Paul challenged America's precepts.  He got their defenses up, too.  You don't challenge someone's precepts without putting them on the defensive.  But he got the job done pretty damned well, all in all, because we kept supporting him and he kept right on campaigning like a thirty-year-old right through the debates.

Sometimes the pioneer raises too many hackles to be embraced.  Now, people are getting time to digest it all and realize that we really would be better off with peace, fiscal rationality and five fewer meddlesome Federal Departments of Everything.  In other words, Ron Paul helped us bulldoze a path through the ideological jungle that American political discourse had become.

Someone is about to walk that path, or claim to.  I don't want it to be Marco Rubio.

Rand Paul is liable to explain libertarian positions in Fox Newspeak so the rank and file can understand him.  What's more, in the Senate he has the power to make compromises that really do more good than harm by wrestling good modifications and other good things into bad bills.  I suppose it's good some of us crucify him for it, because that will convince the Voting Population at Large that he's willing enough to compromise to get something done.

So, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.  If he can achieve some incrementalism in our direction, then what that means to me is _this guy is a key player in the turnaround and we're no longer moving the wrong direction._  That said, and as much as I'd rather avoid the headaches, we cannot leave Rand's voting record unexamined.  After the 2016 primaries we have to be able to say to independent voters, 'Here is why his record proves he's not just Dubya only more erudite.  Just because he can speak Fox Newspeak doesn't mean he believes it.'

So, yeah, let's lambaste the trolls to tender perfection.  But we can't stifle meaningful discussion of Rand's record.  After the primaries will come the 2016 General Election.  We will have to be ready.

----------


## kathy88

> It's not a knock on Ron but his style is not suited to win statewide office.  He's tried it 4 times and hasn't got very far (TX Senate, LP, 2008 and 2012).  The best he did statewide was 2nd in New Hampshire with 23%.
> 
> Rand's last two efforts statewide: 58% and 55%


It's certainly a knock when you bring it to everyone's attention 17 times a day.

----------


## acptulsa

I'd rather listen to Ron's Straight Talk than Rand's Good Things Said in Fox Newspeak eight days a week.  But I can get over it for the nomination.

I don't want to bash either one of them.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Amen tulsa! I do admit that people on here become defensive on both sides of this irrelevant mini-schism over Rand or Ron. As soon as someone calls out Rand in a faithful attempt at holding the line on principles, many in the pro-restore the GOP Rand camp tend to point out that said maneuver isn't what one thinks at face value and peep the voting record. Then the back and forth bickering starts leading to the "Rand is doing it better than Ron" recoil response in terms of building new bridges. Negativity and the trolling of it begets more negativity and then this whole community is digging in their heels on both sides of the perceived issue and the wedge drives deeper. In essence by favoring one over the other we further alienate the "other side" from our side. As a person, I tend to latch onto the latest and greatest that affects my perceived well being and because Rand is front and center, I'm inclined to put him on a pedestal until further notice, did the same with Ron and currently do the same with JAmash and TMass. There's no doubt that all of this wouldn't be possible w/o Doc Holliday but the furthering of that liberty message in the political realm is what seems likely to shape things better for my long term future. Also, I'm chomping at the bit for Ron to get busy on something epic and I'd be supporting that too. Lots of attaboys are coming for Rand because of his imminent involvement with hot button issues and his becoming a heavy hitter in GOP politics. Whether he's perceived as a perfect 100%er or slightly below that, he's the main one right now that is getting all the press and changing the discussion of the role the Fed gov't should be playing in our lives.

----------


## spladle

> Mike Rothfeld can explain why the education theory doesn't work. (Warning: long video. I would recommend you watch the whole thing, it's well worth your time)


+rep!

----------


## compromise

> The best he did statewide was 2nd in New Hampshire with 23%.


He's done better than NH 2012.

2008:
23.72% in Idaho

2012:
40.46% in Virginia
36.13% in Maine (possibly even higher, some votes weren't counted)
28.07% in North Dakota
27.15% in Minnesota
25.29% in Vermont
24.81% in Washington
24.00% in Alaska
23.85% in Rhode Island

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Mike Rothfeld can explain why the education theory doesn't work. (Warning: long video. I would recommend you watch the whole thing, it's well worth your time)


I've seen that video a couple of times, and it is very much worth watching. However ...

Rothfeld's points, as correct and important as they are, are limited to the realm of electoral politics. Confining ourselves solely to that realm, Rothfeld _et al._ are correct that the "education" approach does not "work" when judged strictly in terms of electioneering.

But it must also be acknowledged that electoral politics is a lagging indicator - NOT a leading one. Electoral politics is itself part of a larger whole and has a much wider context - one in which the "education" approach *is* absolutely critical and absolutely *does* matter. Some will find engagement with the electoral process to be well-suited to their tastes & temperament. Those people should definitely listen to what Rothfeld has to say (and take it to heart). It is very important and useful information to have in that regard. But it is also very blinkered and ill-considered to dismiss as being of no value or use those approaches (such as "education") which lie outside the bounds of direct engagement with electoral politics (such as "take over the GOP" or GOTV campaigning). There is far more to the Liberty Movement's objectives than just winning elections ...

As Ron Paul has noted on numerous occasions, the promotion and wider adoption of liberty ideas & ideals are absolutely necessary preconditions for the success of the Liberty Movement. Electoral politics is not the only means of spreading our ideas & ideals. In fact (given the nature of politics) it is probably not even the best or most effective means of doing so. When it comes to getting this, that or the other particular liberty candidate elected to this, that or the other particular office, Rothfeld's criticisms of "education" are well made. But the Liberty Movement is not, cannot be and should not be *just* about getting "our" people elected to office.




> Fair enough, I read back on what you were responding to, and I agree it's not fair to just reduce it to ""Rand is trying to win, Ron wasn't" to try to prop up Rand (although I do think it's valid that Ron had to know he wasn't going to win without spoon-feeding the message, to the detriment of real education needed for us to get to this point. In that respect, I think education was far more his prerogative, for good reason).
> 
> However, I don't agree with those that say we shouldn't question/criticize what Rand says and does when warranted, and I'll take it even further, that even if I still support him come 2016, I will most likely still argue that he's not doing nearly enough... I certainly don't advocate throwing our principles in the toilet (definitely not foreign policy that drew me to Ron in the first place), but rather to use any gains to show why more drastic measures are still needed.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheGrinchWhoStoleDC again.

----------


## TheTexan

> he's the main one right now that is getting all the press and changing the discussion of the role the Fed gov't should be playing in our lives.


I hate to burst your bubble but he's not really changing the discussion.  He interrupts the conversation at times (which is nice), but then the discussion just continues like he's not there.

----------


## anaconda

> Rand is not trying to be the next Ron Paul.  He wants to actually win rather than educate and he probably has one shot at it then will go back to his practice.


I guess we have to keep saying this a thousand times every day to implore the Rand haters to grasp for civility and reason. Rand is trying to change the course and direction of a huge and perverse ship. He is not teaching a college class in the nuances of new classical economics vs. Karl Marx. Rand is putting on the gloves to rumble with the big boys.

----------


## sailingaway

But some people in Amash's forum may prefer his style, which I think was the OPs point.

----------


## Brett85

Why are there so many libertarians who like Amash better than Rand?  Their positions on the issues seem almost identical to me.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It is unnecessary to state OVER AND OVER ad infinitum ad nauseum that Rand can win, Ron couldn't. These are still the ROn Paul forums, in case people haven't noticed.


*You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kathy88 again.




*

----------


## TomtheTinker

> It is not a shot at Ron. It is a different strategy.
> 
> Tom Brady is a Hall of Fame QB (don't even bother disagreeing). But if you put 11 Tom Brady's on the field at once, your team would probably suck. He would be too slow to play RB, too weak to play O-Line. There are different positions, different roles. Same goes for politics. Ron had a specific role, which was to introduce the whole country to the principlesof liberty, and introduce it to mainstream dialogue. He is like our QB. Rand's role is different, his job is to move the ball forward. Rand is our wide receiver/running back. Ron threw a pass to Rand and now Rand has to run with it. Get my point?
> 
> (I realize sports metaphors only work for a segment of the population. I hope everyone else can still get what I'm talking about.)


Peyton>Brady

----------


## Canderson

> They're faux libertarians trying to ruin the liberty movement by promoting as its leader someone who isn't a natural-born citizen.  Look it up.  Amash is a Syrian, not an American, which is why he also hates Israel.


Don't be an idiot. Next you'll be saying Obama was born in Kenya. Amash was born and raised in Michigan. I think some don't like Rand because he's making open plays for social conservatives and defense hawks. This probably needs to be done for short term wins, but may prove problematic as it reduces the liberty movements cross party appeal. Rand Paul, who won't be speaking out against the war on drugs beyond reductions in punishments for weed, and who will probably have a much more anti-gay marriage rhetoric, will likely see much less democratic crossover than his father. As a Rand supporter, even I have to admit he is distancing from the hardcore libertarians to try and gain Republican support, and it is coming dangerously close to turning the Liberty movement into something partisan.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand Paul, who won't be speaking out against the war on drugs beyond reductions in punishments for weed.


I think he's at least said that it should be a state issue, that the states should have the right to legalize marijuana if they want to.

----------


## Brett85

And he's also said that gay marriage should be entirely a state issue.

----------


## compromise

> They're faux libertarians trying to ruin the liberty movement by promoting as its leader someone who isn't a natural-born citizen.  Look it up.  Amash is a Syrian, not an American, which is why he also hates Israel.


Amash hates Israel?




> The United States has a long and strategically important history of strong foreign relations with Israel. As a member of Congress, I will work to continue and strengthen this relationship.





> Israel is our closest friend in a very troubled region. Our national defense benefits from Israel's ability to defend itself and to serve as a check against neighboring authoritarian regimes and extremists. Assisting with training and the development of Israel's military capacity allows the U.S. to take a less interventionist role in the region.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Don't be an idiot. Next you'll be saying Obama was born in Kenya. Amash was born and raised in Michigan. I think some don't like Rand because he's making open plays for social conservatives and defense hawks. This probably needs to be done for short term wins, but may prove problematic as it reduces the liberty movements cross party appeal. Rand Paul, who won't be speaking out against the war on drugs beyond reductions in punishments for weed, and who will probably have a much more anti-gay marriage rhetoric, will likely see much less democratic crossover than his father. As a Rand supporter, even I have to admit he is distancing from the hardcore libertarians to try and gain Republican support, and it is coming dangerously close to turning the Liberty movement into something partisan.


To the contrary, I think what is turning the liberty movement into something partisan is everyone here who is only focusing on differences (moreso in tactics than ideology) and not our commonalities, and acting like the entire movement hinges on the views of just one man that you're either with or against. It's becoming very partisan over one candidate, one hypothetical race 3 years away, and it saddens me...

----------


## ican'tvote

> They're faux libertarians trying to ruin the liberty movement by promoting as its leader someone who isn't a natural-born citizen.  Look it up.  Amash is a Syrian, not an American, which is why he also hates Israel.


Amash is a natural born citizen.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> They're faux libertarians trying to ruin the liberty movement by promoting as its leader someone who isn't a natural-born citizen.  Look it up.  Amash is a Syrian, not an American, which is why he also hates Israel.


Wow. He was born in Grand Rapids, MI, he is an American, and he doesn't hate Israel. WTF is your damage?

----------


## Pisces

I don't think Amash's ancestry is Syrian. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that his parents were Palestinian Christians.

----------


## acptulsa

> I don't think Amash's ancestry is Syrian. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that his parents were Palestinian Christians.


Which explains his passion.  One would expect a persecuted Christian to have a home in the Land of the Free.

----------


## Pisces

> Which explains his passion.  One would expect a persecuted Christian to have a home in the Land of the Free.


I agree. I think it also explains why he seems to have a more balanced position on the whole Israel/Palestinian controversy than might be expected of someone whose parents are Middle Eastern, whether Arab or Jew. I'm sure he's heard from his parents that there is evil on both sides. The Israelis have the upper hand right now so they are more able to oppress the Palestinians but I imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, the Palestinians would be just as bad. 

One thing I prefer Justin on as opposed to Rand is that he is more open about his faith in his tweeting and on Facebook. At Easter, he doesn't just tweet some generic Happy Easter message, he says "Happy Easter, Christ is risen."(I'm slightly paraphrasing.) I don't think this means that Justin is a better Christian but he seems more confortable with it and it just comes across as being a big part of who he is as a person. I know that at least half the forums will probably disagree with me on this. It isn't a huge issue but I like knowing he's not afraid to be politically incorrect about expressing his faith.

----------


## Brett85

I think it would be great to have Justin as Rand's VP nominee if he wins the GOP nomination in 2016.  I think he would really help with the youth vote and would be a fresh face for the GOP.  He's also from a swing state which would help.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Geez guys, I was just joking.  

And cajuncocoa what's your problem?  I've got 4 neg reps total and all are from you.  I don't neg rep ppl back cause I'm not a bitter person, but that's just over the top.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Geez guys, I was just joking.  
> 
> And cajuncocoa what's your problem?  I've got 4 neg reps total and all are from you.  I don't neg rep ppl back cause I'm not a bitter person, but that's just over the top.


My problem is that you're spreading lies about Amash in his own subforum.  You do know that's frowned upon around here, don't you?  Heck, you can't even disagree with Rand in his subforum!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Geez guys, I was just joking.  
> 
> And cajuncocoa what's your problem?  I've got 4 neg reps total and all are from you.  I don't neg rep ppl back cause I'm not a bitter person, but that's just over the top.


Hard to tell tone from text so I apologize. It should be pretty obvious that anyone _here_ would know what you previously said about Amash is not the truth and could probably tell you were just joking/stating the typical BS pundit talking points. Haven't really read your posts so I just assumed you were serious. (After all, you'd probably be surprised at some of the brain dead trolls that pop-up here every now and again)

----------


## sailingaway

> My problem is that you're spreading lies about Amash in his own subforum.  You do know that's frowned upon around here, don't you?  Heck, you can't even disagree with Rand in his subforum!


If I had seen the post being discussed, I would have made that clear. It definitely goes for Amash in his own forum as well.  But it isn't 'can't disagree', it is can't just attack or merely snipe at people, nor derail threads when people are trying to get stuff done. generally a candidate gets deference in their forum.

----------


## Canderson

> To the contrary, I think what is turning the liberty movement into something partisan is everyone here who is only focusing on differences (moreso in tactics than ideology) and not our commonalities, and acting like the entire movement hinges on the views of just one man that you're either with or against. It's becoming very partisan over one candidate, one hypothetical race 3 years away, and it saddens me...


You have to admit though, Rand is winning over social conservatives and even some defense hawks, and while those of us who mourned the demagoguery of our positions during Ron's time in the primary may see this as positive. We must also realize it is destroying his ability to be as attractive to the youth and democrats as his father.

----------

