# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Ron Paul: Rand and I agree 99% on the issues

## VoluntaryAmerican

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul

My new signature.

----------


## ZENemy

Titled as found.

----------


## PSYOP

I pray that the many who have jump ship in regards to their support of Rand come back because we are so eternally $#@!ed otherwise come 2016.

----------


## mad cow

If Rand Paul runs for President in 2016,Ron Paul is going to endorse and campaign,hard,for his son.
There are some here who are just going to have to deal with it.

----------


## Havax

Great quote for shoring up Ron Paul followers for Rand, but a bad quote for the mainstream GOP trying to warm up to Rand. Overall, won't make much of a difference.

----------


## compromise

Rand is both 99% the same on substance and 99% different on style from Ron. And that's why he's the best candidate the liberty movement has for the President of the United States.

----------


## cero

yes well glen beck also agreed with Ron 99% of the time, it was just that pesky foreign policy that he didn't like, I'm still not 100% sold on rand's foreign policy
but agree with it 99% of the time

----------


## LibertyEagle

I owe you a +rep, VoluntaryAmerican.  It won't let me give you another one yet.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I pray that the many who have jump ship in regards to their support of Rand come back because we are so eternally $#@!ed otherwise come 2016.


The "many" are vocal but not actually many.  If the 50 million polls conducted on this site are evidence, only 10% of hardcore Ron Paul supporters aren't on board with Rand.  Although Daily Paul may indicate a much higher number.

----------


## TheTyke

This needs to stay at the top! We cannot achieve victory if we fall for division tactics! As Franklin said, "We must hang together or we'll hang separately!"

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

This can't be.  Ron Paul is the most principled politician to ever grace the U.S. Congress in American history, and Rand Paul is a backstabbing neocon sunshine patriot.  All the lefty memes on Facebook and Reddit agree.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Someone sniped a low star rating but is too much of a coward to speak up since daddy has spoken.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

foreign policy isn't a measly 1%....I think your numbers are skewed 




> yes well glen beck also agreed with Ron 99% of the time, it was just that pesky foreign policy that he didn't like, I'm still not 100% sold on rand's foreign policy
> but agree with it 99% of the time

----------


## TheTyke

> Someone sniped a low star rating but is too much of a coward to speak up since daddy has spoken.


Pathetic. Those who constantly seek to divide us against each other and attack Ron/Rand over nothing deserve likewise to be neg repped into oblivion. In the marketplace of ideas, they sell poison.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This can't be.  Ron Paul is the most principled politician to ever grace the U.S. Congress in American history, and Rand Paul is a backstabbing neocon sunshine patriot.  All the lefty memes on Facebook and Reddit agree.


I don't think anybody is being that extreme.  I admit the people who won't vote for Rand are probably being naive, even if I did stupidly flirt with the idea for about 48 hours.  But he's not above criticism, nor is he his dad.  He's what we've got though.  Rand '16.

You can ALL find something to neg rep in there...




> foreign policy isn't a measly 1%....I think your numbers are skewed


Rand is still close, but yeah, its not 1%.  Sanctions are a reasonably big deal.  At least he opposes real wars though (Sorry Ron, Sanctions AREN'T an act of war even though they're as stupid a crap) I'm still gonna vote for Rand.




> Pathetic. Those who constantly seek to divide us against each other and attack Ron/Rand over nothing deserve likewise to be neg repped into oblivion. In the marketplace of ideas, they sell poison.


Neg rep this... Rand Paul isn't as pure as his dad, although I still support him.

I appreciate Ron for being generous to his son, but frankly, he's just being humble here.  He's wrong.

----------


## Michigan11

Freedom Fanatic,

Think of what your saying, that Ron is being humble and wrong about his own son. Your implying his son is greater than his own ideals that he has fought for consistently for decades. If that were so, then your saying Ron is selling out. Your dragging Ron in the mud by your own implications here. I know thats not your intention however.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Freedom Fanatic,
> 
> Think of what your saying, that Ron is being humble and wrong about his own son. Your implying his son is greater than his own ideals that he has fought for consistently for decades. If that were so, then your saying Ron is selling out. Your dragging Ron in the mud by your own implications here. I know thats not your intention however.


I acknowledge I might be wrong, and I don't think Ron is lying.  Honestly, I think he's just naturally a humble man and understates himself.  I think half of it is that, and half of it is that Rand is more libertarian than he's showing publicly.

I can't blame the man for wanting to help his son though.  Rand is a pretty darn good candidate, all things considered.  The reality, however, is that he does NOT agree with Ron publicly 99% of the time.  That's just too generous, at least IMO.  I don't think he's purposely telling a lie though.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I don't think anybody is being that extreme.  I admit the people who won't vote for Rand are probably being naive, even if I did stupidly flirt with the idea for about 48 hours.  But he's not above criticism, nor is he his dad.  He's what we've got though.  Rand '16.
> 
> You can ALL find something to neg rep in there...
> 
> 
> 
> Rand is still close, but yeah, its not 1%.  Sanctions are a reasonably big deal.  At least he opposes real wars though (Sorry Ron, Sanctions AREN'T an act of war even though they're as stupid a crap) I'm still gonna vote for Rand.
> 
> 
> ...







> I acknowledge I might be wrong, and I don't think Ron is lying.  Honestly, I think he's just naturally a humble man and understates himself.  I think half of it is that, and half of it is that Rand is more libertarian than he's showing publicly.
> 
> I can't blame the man for wanting to help his son though.  Rand is a pretty darn good candidate, all things considered.  The reality, however, is that he does NOT agree with Ron publicly 99% of the time.  That's just too generous, at least IMO.  I don't think he's purposely telling a lie though.


Hey man and that's like your opinion.

I don't think disagreeing with Rand is a big deal... I disagree with Rand on things. The problem for me is people who have been purposefully personally attacking Rand and dragging his name through the mud... Those people deserve some neg rep IMHO.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hey man and that's like your opinion.
> 
> I don't think disagreeing with Rand is a big deal... I disagree with Rand on things. The problem for me is people who have been purposefully personally attacking Rand and dragging his name through the mud... Those people deserve some neg rep IMO.


I don't know if you hold me in that group or not.  But yeah, what I posted is my opinion and feel free to disagree.  If Ron had said they agreed the majority of the time, I wouldn't object to that at all.  "99%" may well have been a high number for hyperbolic effect as well.  Ron and Rand usually agree, it just seems like more than 1% of the time to me.  Off the top of my head...

Rand is still talking about "Saving" social security, while Ron wants to eventually abolish it entirely.

Rand is in favor of sanctions, Ron Paul is not.

Rand seems like he might be open to military intervention in a few cases (Heritage speech) although this may have been appeasement rhetoric as he did not explicitly state he wanted to attack any given country, Ron Paul is an open, committed noninterventionist.

Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs.  Rand wants to reduce sentences but he does not support legalization, at least not publicly.

Rand Paul supports a lower income tax, Ron Paul supports no income tax at all.

Don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of issues Ron and Rand agree on.  Rand is the best we've got, too.  I just think 99% (Which may well have been hyperbole, humility, or some combination, not a "Lie" as some have accused me of accusing Ron of.  Ron Paul does not lie, ever) is generous.  Rand seems more like an 80% (Right) kind of guy, not a 99% right kind of guy, if you know what I'm saying.  That's not an insult, 80% is still pretty darn good.  How often do you think Rubio or Santorum is right?  A lot less than that, A LOT.  Rand is great.  I just don't think he's quite the same caliber as his dad, even though Ron is extremely humble and will never toot his own horn.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Dude, Ron talked about saving social security too for those who are currently on it and those close to it.  But, he stressed that other things the government did had to be cut in order for this to be possible.

Where I think you are getting confused is between when Ron would mix together his picture of the ideal and what he could actually do in the short term as President.  I think it confused a lot of people.

Rand isn't making that same mistake.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Dude, Ron talked about saving social security too for those who are currently on it and those close to it.  But, he stressed that other things the government did had to be cut in order for this to be possible.


Yeah, I know, I disagree with Ron Paul on this too (Even though I totally understand it), but Ron Paul made it clear, in no uncertain terms, and with no real potential to misunderstand, that he *eventually* wanted to get rid of the program.  I may have missed something with Rand, but if I recall correctly he has never said anything like this.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I love Rand, he's great.  On a scale of one to one hundred, if Ron is a 98 (And I wouldn't say he's 100, I don't agree with him on every single issue) Rand is probably more like an 80.  That's not bad, at all.  That's pretty darn good.  I'm behind Rand.  I have a few issues with his policies, but overall I think Rand is going to do more good for our country than bad, by a longshot.  I'm still going to criticize the bad, however, even if Ron Paul is too humble to do so.

----------


## dannno

99%??

Does Rand own bitcoin

----------


## Michigan11

Freedom Fanatic,

Well If you watched Ron in 07' he was speaking pure ideology, of what this country should really be like if we followed the constitution which I would bet everyone here agrees with. In 2011, he began adjusting his message towards a "plan" to get the country back in shape and balance the budget. He adjusted his "speeches" to cast a wider net to increase the numbers. What do you think Rand is now doing following this logic?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah, I know, I disagree with Ron Paul on this too (Even though I totally understand it), but Ron Paul made it clear, in no uncertain terms, and with no real potential to misunderstand, that he *eventually* wanted to get rid of the program.  I may have missed something with Rand, but if I recall correctly he has never said anything like this.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> I love Rand, he's great.  On a scale of one to one hundred, if Ron is a 98 (And I wouldn't say he's 100, I don't agree with him on every single issue) Rand is probably more like an 80.  That's not bad, at all.  That's pretty darn good.  I'm behind Rand.  I have a few issues with his policies, but overall I think Rand is going to do more good for our country than bad, by a longshot.  I'm still going to criticize the bad, however, even if Ron Paul is too humble to do so.


I doubt Rand is going to say that, either.  Because it would scare the $#@! out of a large proportion of the voting public and cause them to run away from him in droves.

What good would that do us?  None.  One step at a time.

----------


## jtstellar

i can almost guarantee that humanity will be that much closer to an era of dark age if this political attempt fails.. the same people with the snob attitude (this guy isn't for me!) will likely be the first to duck head and hide inside a crowd when extra judicial police comes knocking, which is what i find interesting.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I doubt Rand is going to say that, either.  Because it would scare the $#@! out of a large proportion of the voting public and cause them to run away from him in droves.
> 
> What good would that do us?  None.  One step at a time.


I didn't even say he should, I'm just saying he didn't, and therefore I'm assuming he disagrees with Ron on the issue.  You'd be right that he might not actually disagree, but I'm going by what he says.  If he surprises me pleasantly, great.

Until then... I'm still voting for him but I'm not going to exaggerate him to make him look more like his dad than he actually does.  I'm still on your side here, predominately.  I still think electing Rand Paul is a worthwhile goal and one we should pursue.

----------


## devil21

Great statement from Ron there.  I know he's not bullshitting me.

----------


## devil21

> Great quote for shoring up Ron Paul followers for Rand, but a bad quote for the mainstream GOP trying to warm up to Rand. Overall, won't make much of a difference.


Im not so sure Ron is as hated as much as he was a couple years ago.  He's now retired, getting old (as are many of his haters), still can throw out some great points like this interview.  Im seeing a tide change.  "Hating Ron Paul" is getting old as a talking point.  And it should be.  The guy was f'in right about everything!  

Rand is Ron 25 years ago but with political experience, and a potentially VERY formidable money and ground game behind him.  I am so glad to hear Ron say this about Rand.  It confirms what Ive thought all along.  Ron was the lone voice in the woods for so long.  Rand is already front and center.

----------


## compromise

> I don't know if you hold me in that group or not.  But yeah, what I posted is my opinion and feel free to disagree.  If Ron had said they agreed the majority of the time, I wouldn't object to that at all.  "99%" may well have been a high number for hyperbolic effect as well.  Ron and Rand usually agree, it just seems like more than 1% of the time to me.  Off the top of my head...
> 
> Rand is still talking about "Saving" social security, while Ron wants to eventually abolish it entirely.
> 
> Rand is in favor of sanctions, Ron Paul is not.
> 
> Rand seems like he might be open to military intervention in a few cases (Heritage speech) although this may have been appeasement rhetoric as he did not explicitly state he wanted to attack any given country, Ron Paul is an open, committed noninterventionist.
> 
> Ron Paul wants to legalize drugs.  Rand wants to reduce sentences but he does not support legalization, at least not publicly.
> ...


Good luck achieving all these Ron things without going through the Rand phase first. Unless of course you're dumb enough to think a libertarian revolution will work.

----------


## jtstellar

> Good luck achieving all these Ron things without going through the Rand phase first. Unless of course you're dumb enough to think a libertarian revolution will work.


ya seriously, judging from the post-boston reaction with people strip naked waving american flag etc, people looting the street during chaos.. if recent events haven't given people a pause in thinking starting some kind of government overthrow is the best solution, i don't know what ever will.  you're just gonna let a bunch of cockroaches under the rock come out of the woodwork and start ruling this lawless land.  it won't turn into some anarchist paradise

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

You won't see the dividers chiming into this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Good luck achieving all these Ron things without going through the Rand phase first. Unless of course you're dumb enough to think a libertarian revolution will work.


Didn't say it was.  I'm just saying there are some significant differences.  I think that adds up to 1%.

Well, I guess Bastiat's The Law doesn't consider me a divider, since I did post several times in this thread.

----------


## EBounding

Can we sticky/bold this thread at the very top of this forum?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Why do we want to put a hyperbolic mistake into permanent memory?

In all seriousness, the rabid Rand haters are a little bit annoying but the "Rand is exactly like his dad" people are a little annoying as well.

----------


## MaxPower

> Yeah, I know, I disagree with Ron Paul on this too (Even though I totally understand it), but Ron Paul made it clear, in no uncertain terms, and with no real potential to misunderstand, that he *eventually* wanted to get rid of the program.  I may have missed something with Rand, but if I recall correctly he has never said anything like this.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> I love Rand, he's great.  On a scale of one to one hundred, if Ron is a 98 (And I wouldn't say he's 100, I don't agree with him on every single issue) Rand is probably more like an 80.  That's not bad, at all.  That's pretty darn good.  I'm behind Rand.  I have a few issues with his policies, but overall I think Rand is going to do more good for our country than bad, by a longshot.  I'm still going to criticize the bad, however, even if Ron Paul is too humble to do so.


One distinction that needs to be made here is that between an _academic_ position and an _operative_ position. In terms of their publicly-espoused _academic_ positions, there is substantial daylight between Ron and Rand Paul; in terms of their _operative_ positions, there is barely any. Let me explain:

As I use the term, a position is "academic" when it is unrelated to any immediate policy-making issues, and simply expresses a "What-if?" or "In your ideal world..." scenario. Ron Paul's belief that Social Security should eventually be abolished is such a position; he supports preserving Social Security (albeit with some cutbacks/alterations to make it less financially destructive) _for the time being,_ as he did during his campaign. A President Ron Paul would not have overseen the abolition of Social Security, but only tweaks to the system (perhaps an increased retirement age, the beginnings of an opt-out program for youth, etc.). Since he doesn't believe it should be abolished for some decades yet, he would not have a hand in directly seeing such a thing done, and it is thus ultimately irrelevant to his actual, operative policy-making career.

It is true, then, that Rand Paul does not advance the academic argument that Social Security should ultimately be abolished (I think he does _believe_ it should be abolished, as he strongly implied in public TV appearances back in the 1990s when he was head of Kentucky Taxpayers United, but will not publicly say so because it would be electorally harmful to him), but his operative position-- meaning _what he actually intends to do in office,_ is little to no different from his father's.

The Civil Rights Act issue is a similar case; where Ron Paul openly states that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act on constitutional and libertarian grounds, Rand first danced around the subject and tried to gently discuss the property-rights and State-power issues it raised, then retreated to a full-blown, caveat-free endorsement of the law. This could be counted as a significant distinction between the two, except that it is, again, _strictly academic_; the Civil Rights Act just plain isn't subject to a live debate. Operatively, their positions on the Civil Rights Act are irrelevant, because the Civil Rights Act is not on the table for amendment or repeal and absolutely will not be at any time in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, when it comes to laws in the same logical vein being introduced today (laws which invoke one social-justice concern or another in order to justify the government's further commandeering the autonomous authority of private individuals over their own persons and property), Rand will do the same thing as his father (see, for example, his vote against the VAWA), meaning that _operatively_, they are the same or nearly the same on Civil Rights/federal-authority-over-private-business issues.

When it comes to their operative positions, Rand would be in 95% or greater agreement with Ron Paul; it is only their academic positions which significantly diverge. And while I certainly prefer a fellow like Ron Paul who will tell the absolute truth about what he believes about every issue, right down to acknowledging some highly-controversial position about a hypothetical "What-if?" or "If-I-had-been-there" scenario, I do think it is much more pragmatically important that a candidate's actual, operative positions align with the goals of the liberty movement than that he cites the correct hypothetical behaviors or ideals.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> One distinction that needs to be made here is that between an _academic_ position and an _operative_ position. In terms of their publicly-espoused _academic_ positions, there is substantial daylight between Ron and Rand Paul; in terms of their _operative_ positions, there is barely any. Let me explain:
> 
> As I use the term, a position is "academic" when it is unrelated to any immediate policy-making issues, and simply expresses a "What-if?" or "In your ideal world..." scenario. Ron Paul's belief that Social Security should eventually be abolished is such a position; he supports preserving Social Security (albeit with some cutbacks/alterations to make it less financially destructive) _for the time being,_ as he did during his campaign. A President Ron Paul would not have overseen the abolition of Social Security, but only tweaks to the system (perhaps an increased retirement age, the beginnings of an opt-out program for youth, etc.). Since he doesn't believe it should be abolished for some decades yet, he would not have a hand in directly seeing such a thing done, and it is thus ultimately irrelevant to his actual, operative policy-making career.
> 
> It is true, then, that Rand Paul does not advance the academic argument that Social Security should ultimately be abolished (I think he does _believe_ it should be abolished, as he strongly implied in public TV appearances back in the 1990s when he was head of Kentucky Taxpayers United, but will not publicly say so because it would be electorally harmful to him), but his operative position-- meaning _what he actually intends to do in office,_ is little to no different from his father's.
> 
> The Civil Rights Act issue is a similar case; where Ron Paul openly states that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act on constitutional and libertarian grounds, Rand first danced around the subject and tried to gently discuss the property-rights and State-power issues it raised, then retreated to a full-blown, caveat-free endorsement of the law. This could be counted as a significant distinction between the two, except that it is, again, _strictly academic_; the Civil Rights Act just plain isn't subject to a live debate. Operatively, their positions on the Civil Rights Act are irrelevant, because the Civil Rights Act is not on the table for amendment or repeal and absolutely will not be at any time in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, when it comes to laws in the same logical vein being introduced today (laws which invoke one social-justice concern or another in order to justify the government's further commandeering the autonomous authority of private individuals over their own persons and property), Rand will do the same thing as his father (see, for example, his vote against the VAWA), meaning that _operatively_, they are the same or nearly the same on Civil Rights/federal-authority-over-private-business issues.
> 
> When it comes to their operative positions, Rand would be in 95% or greater agreement with Ron Paul; it is only their academic positions which significantly diverge. And while I certainly prefer a fellow like Ron Paul who will tell the absolute truth about what he believes about every issue, right down to acknowledging some highly-controversial position about a hypothetical "What-if?" or "If-I-had-been-there" scenario, I do think it is much more pragmatically important that a candidate's actual, operative positions align with the goals of the liberty movement than that he cites the correct hypothetical behaviors or ideals.


You've got a point here, and +1 for effort.

I'll admit I'm not completely happy with Ron Paul's position on social security either, I think that's one area that he's not aggressive enough on.  Basically every hardcore libertarian on LRC recognizes that the programs is a ponzi scheme and suggests that it should IMMEDIATELY be destroyed, even those who are currently relying on it.  I understand, of course, that and why Ron Paul is incredibly compassionate.  I do genuinely wonder how he would defend the idea of taking money from young people who will never be able to collect from the system in order to shore it up.  With Ron Paul's spending cuts it MIGHT be possible to sustain the system, but shouldn't we be massively cutting taxes instead of taking more money to sustain an unconstitutional program?  Then again, I would never have even gotten to the point where I'm at on this if it weren't for Paul.  Ron Paul is also way more radical than anyone else in politics on the issue.  So while I think his "Compassion" is misplaced here, it would also take a real jerk to be willing to tell people what really needs to happen, and Ron Paul is not that person.  he's not capable of being a jerk.


As for everything else, you're right that the only thing that's being debated now is whether or not we should expand the state even further.  There's no real debate about cutting anything.  Rand has pushed the envelope here a little, but not enough.  I'm still going to vote for him.  What else am I going to do?  But I'm not 100% satisified.

Ron Paul may well have been thinking along the lines of what you said when he said what he said.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You won't see the dividers chiming into this thread.


As one of the so-called "dividers" (aka "Rand-haters") on this board, I can't resist a challenge (although it is never my intention to "divide"...and I don't *hate* anyone.  Not even you, BTL)


As for Ron's statement above, I expect him to say that.  Rand is his son.  And while I think they are closer in their opinions than Ron is with (example) Rick Santorum (LOL), and even though Rand may be the best U. S. Senator and the best GOP candidate who will run in 2016,  I think the difference between them  is a little more than 1%.  

Ron is being a gentleman and a statesman....as usual.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I think the difference between them  is a little more than 1%.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> As one of the so-called "dividers" (aka "Rand-haters") on this board, I can't resist a challenge (although it is never my intention to "divide"...and I don't *hate* anyone.  Not even you, BTL)
> 
> 
> As for Ron's statement above, I expect him to say that.  Rand is his son.  And while I think they are closer in their opinions than Ron is with (example) Rick Santorum (LOL), and even though Rand may be the best U. S. Senator and the best GOP candidate who will run in 2016,  I think the difference between them  is a little more than 1%.  
> 
> Ron is being a gentleman and a statesman....as usual.


+1 for being a better person than I am...  I hate a LOT of people in US politics.  I have a hard time not hating those who support theft and even murder on a grand scale.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Can we sticky/bold this thread at the very top of this forum?


Let's.

----------


## torchbearer

anyone who has been to or ran a local liberty meeting will know, that out of the 100 activist that show up, there are usually two people there to cause hatred and division.
same applies to the forum.
just use ignore, and it is as if they were not even there.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> anyone who has been to or ran a local liberty meeting will know, that out of the 100 activist that show up, there are usually two people there to cause hatred and division.
> same applies to the forum.
> just use ignore, and it is as if they were not even there.


it works for me!

----------


## green73

Anybody who believes this 99% statement is smoking something. I suppose I just "attacked" Ron Paul. So be it.

----------


## torchbearer

> it works for me!


and the best part of it, it requires no aggression or banning.
you don't want to hear a particular radio station- don't tune into it.
this forum is great, because you can personalize what you read.

----------


## torchbearer

> Anybody who believes this 99% statement is smoking something. I suppose I just "attacked" Ron Paul. So be it.


I guess you just called the man a liar.
In some places, to do so without evidence, is considered an act of aggression.
though, in some places, to make $#@! up and throw it around as fact is common... and well, here is the internet.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Anybody who believes this 99% statement is smoking something. I suppose I just "attacked" Ron Paul. So be it.


Interesting fun fact, didn't know Ron smoked anything.

----------


## familydog

For the record, it _is_ possible to criticize Rand Paul, the political process and government in general based on principles of liberty and being left the hell alone. I don't need nor want Ron Paul to tell me how to think. This is a non-issue.

----------


## Liberty74

I can hear the establishment and neocons now, "Rand is crazy and an isolationist." Then Fox News and the top five neocon radio talk show hosts will repeat the memo just like they did with Ron after he rose to the top in Iowa. I remember it very clearly. Ron had no chance they said. Bam he is at the top. Then the nuclear attacks started by Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly and wait for it - Levin. It was orchestrated no doubt from the powers to be at the top. No way in hell they were independent in their attacks against Ron back in Dec 2011. 

I wish someone in the Liberty movement would have to the BALLS to run Independent. Remember, about 40% of the voters identify themselves as such.

----------


## ican'tvote

If there are shady figures who control the media, running Independent wouldn't increase our chances at all.

----------


## Warlord

> I can hear the establishment and neocons now, "Rand is crazy and an isolationist." Then Fox News and the top five neocon radio talk show hosts will repeat the memo just like they did with Ron after he rose to the top in Iowa. I remember it very clearly. Ron had no chance they said. Bam he is at the top. Then the nuclear attacks started by Rush, Hannity, Beck, O'Reilly and wait for it - Levin. It was orchestrated no doubt from the powers to be at the top. No way in hell they were independent in their attacks against Ron back in Dec 2011. 
> 
> I wish someone in the Liberty movement would have to the BALLS to run Independent. Remember, about 40% of the voters identify themselves as such.


This kind of thing won't work. 

Rand's plan seems to be to have it wrapped up long before the actual race. 

If he keeps visiting Iowa, NH, SC and NV enough times, spending time with the activists and volunteers, making sure they're signed up with his PAC organization and kept in the loop, speaking to local parties, making contacts with the media then it's possible he will have it wrapped up long before Jan 2016 and the debates/campaign will just be going through the motions. Rand will have dedicated activist buy-in and all the contacts in local media to negate any of the ranting morons on national tv and radio. They're not going to be able to move the herd in these small tiny states in a small tiny primary (or caucus) whatever they say because Rand will be very visible to this select group of voters as his ads will be running on tv there, radio, newspaper, mailers, activists knocking on doors, phone banks and so on.  There's nothing the national media can do to stop this kind of "in state" campaign.

All Rand needs at a minimum I think is fair coverage on FOX news because that's what the electorate he's trying to reach will likely watch in the evening and he seems to be getting on with Hannity and even O'Reilly did a good interview with him so I'm not too concerned. I dont think they will turn on him and ban him from the station. This would be illogical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I doubt Rand is going to say that, either.  Because it would scare the $#@! out of a large proportion of the voting public and cause them to run away from him in droves.
> 
> What good would that do us?  None.  One step at a time.


I wanted to bring this up again because I'm curious what Rand is trying to do...

I don't see why increasing the age is smart at all.  I don't see how it benefits ANYTHING, except for the program itself, which no libertarian would want.
If you can't get rid of it, at least drive the age DOWN until it can't sustain itself.  Hasten its death, don't delay it.





> Anybody who believes this 99% statement is smoking something. I suppose I just "attacked" Ron Paul. So be it.


I honestly don't believe the statement, but why do you think Ron Paul said it?



> I guess you just called the man a liar.
> In some places, to do so without evidence, is considered an act of aggression.


I THINK Ron Paul would agree, if nothing else, that what Green posted should be protected free speech...



> This kind of thing won't work. 
> 
> Rand's plan seems to be to have it wrapped up long before the actual race. 
> 
> If he keeps visiting Iowa, NH, SC and NV enough times, spending time with the activists and volunteers, making sure they're signed up with his PAC organization and kept in the loop, speaking to local parties, making contacts with the media then it's possible he will have it wrapped up long before Jan 2016 and the debates/campaign will just be going through the motions. Rand will have dedicated activist buy-in and all the contacts in local media to negate any of the ranting morons on national tv and radio. They're not going to be able to move the herd in these small tiny states in a small tiny primary (or caucus) whatever they say because Rand will be very visible to this select group of voters as his ads will be running on tv there, radio, newspaper, mailers, activists knocking on doors, phone banks and so on.  There's nothing the national media can do to stop this kind of "in state" campaign.
> 
> All Rand needs at a minimum I think is fair coverage on FOX news because that's what the electorate he's trying to reach will likely watch in the evening and he seems to be getting on with Hannity and even O'Reilly did a good interview with him so I'm not too concerned. I dont think they will turn on him and ban him from the station. This would be illogical.


The point isn't to win, its to ensure that the Republicans can never win again.  Revenge.

----------


## torchbearer

> I honestly don't believe the statement, but why do you think Ron Paul said it?
> 
> 
> I THINK Ron Paul would agree, if nothing else, that what Green posted should be protected free speech...
> 
> 
> .


your statement in defense is basically: "ron supports my right to call him a liar with no proof".
which means, you don't really object to the idea that you are in fact calling ron a liar with no proof.
perhaps you can provide some false witness then?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> your statement in defense is basically: "ron supports my right to call him a liar with no proof".
> which means, you don't really object to the idea that you are in fact calling ron a liar with no proof.
> perhaps you can provide some false witness then?


You've misconstructed my post. 

 I didn't feel like repeating what I've already said about this.  So I didn't go over my reasons that Ron Paul was incorrect on this again, since I had already done so in the past.  I did, however, want to ask green why he thought Ron Paul made the comment, because I was curious of his reasoning.  

I then quoted a DIFFERENT post which said something along the lines of "Lying about people is a criminal offense in some cases."  By saying Ron Paul would support his right to do that, I was simply showing that "Criminal offense in some countries" is really irrelevant, and it doesn't matter to the discussion.

----------


## TheTyke

Torchbearer is pretty much correct. Best case, you're saying Ron is mistaken about his own son who he's spent a lifetime with (I find it questionable that you have superior credentials)... worse case, calling the most honest and straightforward man in politics a liar. Really trying too hard, lol.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Anybody who believes this 99% statement is smoking something. I suppose I just "attacked" Ron Paul. So be it.


Yes, you just basically claimed Ron Paul is either knowingly lying or "smoking something."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Torchbearer is pretty much correct. Best case, you're saying Ron is mistaken about his own son who he's spent a lifetime with (I find it questionable that you have superior credentials)... worse case, calling the most honest and straightforward man in politics a liar. Really trying too hard, lol.


I didn't call Ron Paul a liar.  I was responding to this post:




> I guess you just called the man a liar.
> In some places, to do so without evidence, is considered an act of aggression.


I said that Ron would support someone's right to lie about him... ie he wouldn't support this line of logic.

I did not say that Ron was a liar.  That would clearly be ridiculous.  I think he made a poorly worded comment that essentially meant "I don't want to sit here and talk about where I differ with my son, let's just stick to ideas."  99% does still feel like an exaggeration although it depends on how exactly you define it.  When it comes to things that are actually voted on, rather than theory, its probably closer to accurate.

----------


## TheTyke

Of course he *really* meant 10%... 99% was obviously a slip of the tongue.  Only in your mind does Ron not mean what he says.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Ok. Good to hear this from him.

----------


## devil21

> Ok. Good to hear this from him.


Spread the video.

----------


## Warhorse

> If Rand Paul runs for President in 2016,Ron Paul is going to endorse and campaign,hard,for his son.
> There are some here who are just going to have to deal with it.


This Warhorse seems to notice that and is simply being more politically tactful, that and and Ron are othewise almost identical on issues.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> No way in hell am I voting for Rand anymore


You and everyone else who registered here in 2013, it feels like.

(And no, Warlord is not someone who registered in 2013...)

----------


## rich34

It's to bad and unfortunate that some around here can't see this fact, but oh well I reckon.  Maybe in time Rand can enlighten the ones the game he's playing.  And yes, it sucks the game has to be played, but in order to win that office it HAS to be played...

----------

