# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  If Rand Paul Becomes President, he will break down the door for the liberty movement.

## AuH20

We've all heard the stereotype. Your philosophy is nice, but it will never win elections. There is a lack of credibility that has been attached to the movement, for both valid and invalid reasons. If Rand Paul can take himself to that next elusive plateau of national prominence, he will have destroyed a stigma and consequently ushered in a wave of liberty minded politicians. Will this wave save the country?????? Probably not. But it will plant the seeds for a new beginning.

----------


## twomp

If Rand Paul stands for the defense of Israel then he is not a part of the Liberty movement. A core belief is no entangling alliance. We got into this mess because we can't seem to keep our noses out of other countries business.

----------


## Brett85

> If Rand Paul stands for the defense of Israel then he is not a part of the Liberty movement. A core belief is no entangling alliance. We got into this mess because we can't seem to keep our noses out of other countries business.


To me, "no entangling alliances" means that we shouldn't be involved in any international treaty that forces us to defend other countries overseas.  I don't know if Washington and Jefferson really meant that under no circumstances at all should we ever intervene overseas.  But, I do share your concern about Rand's recent comment.

----------


## Matt Collins

> If Rand Paul stands for the defense of Israel then he is not a part of the Liberty movement. A core belief is no entangling alliance. We got into this mess because we can't seem to keep our noses out of other countries business.


*


Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -*




-Anti-war grilling of Kerry?

-Bringing up unconstitutional war in Libya?

-Bringing up foreign aid while in Israel?

-Being on TV against drone use this week?

-Getting FOX to cover, ad naseum, not selling arms to Egypt from OUR point of views?

-Pushing foreign aid cuts to Pakistan again to Kerry?
_
-Being the sole vote against Iranian containment language?_


Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about  Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.

----------


## twomp

> *
> 
> 
> Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Anti-war grilling of Kerry?
> ...


Sorry that is all for not if we as a country continue to unequivocally back Israel no matter how much they saber rattle at their neighbors. Our entire debacle in the middle east was born out of our undying love for Israel. It is the reason we are in this mess. The root of the problem.

----------


## Brett85

> *
> 
> 
> Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Anti-war grilling of Kerry?
> ...


I wonder who actually put out this memo first.  Matt, or Jack Hunter?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Sorry that is all for not if we as a country continue to unequivocally back Israel no matter how much they saber rattle at their neighbors. Our entire debacle in the middle east was born out of our undying love for Israel. It is the reason we are in this mess. The root of the problem.


Actually, that isn't true.  There is more than one faction of globalist.  Don't forget people like Brzezinski.  He detests the neocons, but is a major globalist one-worlder.  

So, even after we oust the neocons, we are far from home free.

----------


## twomp

> Actually, that isn't true.  There is more than one faction of globalist.  Don't forget people like Brzezinski.  He detests the neocons, but is a major globalist one-worlder.  
> 
> So, even after we oust the neocons, we are far from home free.


Correct if you are referring to the whole 1 world government and 1 world currency thing. I was more referring to the threat we currently live in where people fly airplanes into our buildings because of our intervention in the middle east. The same threat they use as an excuse to take away our civil liberties aka "The War on Terror."

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about  Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.


Matt, you forget that people are more concerned with words than with actions. Stating a position for aid to be eventually stopped to Israel does not count if you put out a humzinger that calls Israel a major ally of ours. His recent statement would clearly be taken the wrong way by many purists as they don't have the stomach to broaden the base of supporters and only want to have their own little club of irrelevancy. It's like, if he was to become Prez the 1st thing he'd do is attack Iran because of his romantic fantasies about Israel. It's a $#@!ing PR ploy boobs! Get with the damn program and quit whining like little butthurt girls because their Kendoll fell in the toilet.

----------


## twomp

> Matt, you forget that people are more concerned with words than with actions. Stating a position for aid to be eventually stopped to Israel does not count if you put out a humzinger that calls Israel a major ally of ours. His recent statement would clearly be taken the wrong way by many purists as they don't have the stomach to broaden the base of supporters and only want to have their own little club of irrelevancy. It's like, if he was to become Prez the 1st thing he'd do is attack Iran because of his romantic fantasies about Israel. It's a $#@!ing PR ploy boobs! Get with the damn program and quit whining like little butthurt girls because their Kendoll fell in the toilet.


Yes because Rand Paul can do NO WRONG and we should all worship the ground he walks on.

----------


## garyallen59

This is what I expect to read in every Rand Paul thread.

"Rand Paul is a traitor. Rand Paul wants start wars. Rand Paul hates liberty. Rand Paul is stupid. Rand Paul is blah blah blah wah wah pfft pfbblt plbblt pfft."

It's getting old. You sound like children.

Watch the votes, not the words.

Rand is not an enemy.

----------


## kathy88

This is pretty fun to watch.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Yes because Rand Paul can do NO WRONG and we should all worship the ground he walks on.


Not saying he's above reproach it's just that I'm getting sick of people nickel and diming him in his own forum for one. 2ndly, it's frustrating to see intelligent liberty people not seeing the route he's taking to avoid as much dead weight media demagoguery as possible by speaking in terms that the vast majority of the right wing media and the average republican can understand. In addition to education, the only other way to get more people to take the red pill on foreign policy is to inch them closer and closer. In order to do that and not get the Ron treatment, thus nipping your chances to catch on in the bud to most republicans, requires his use of Randcraft to live on to fight another day.

----------


## misean

At this point, after all of the hearings and evaluating his voting record, if you have reservations about Rand Paul's role in the Liberty Movement, it's probably best to throw your support behind Elizabeth Warren or Dennis Kucinich.  Maybe you'll get lucky and Ralph Nader will run.

----------


## KingNothing

> If Rand Paul stands for the defense of Israel then he is not a part of the Liberty movement.


You've got to be kidding me.

----------


## Brett85

> At this point, after all of the hearings and evaluating his voting record, if you have reservations about Rand Paul's role in the Liberty Movement, it's probably best to throw your support behind Elizabeth Warren or Dennis Kucinich.  Maybe you'll get lucky and Ralph Nader will run.


I said my preference would be Pat Buchanan, since he at least supports closing all of the overseas bases and opposes sanctions against Iran.

But, I'm not going to drop my support yet.  I just hope that Rand doesn't move too far away from Ron's foreign policy views.  The main reason I supported Ron originally was because of his foreign policy views.

----------


## torchbearer

the anti-rand people is about to find a face full of $#@! you coming into the next election cycle.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It's a $#@!ing PR ploy boobs!


It's disturbing to see how many of our people can't see through that and think critically to understand what's going on. I thought most of the people around here were smarter than that, but I guess not.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> I said my preference would be Pat Buchanan, since he at least supports closing all of the overseas bases and opposes sanctions against Iran.
> 
> But, I'm not going to drop my support yet.  I just hope that Rand doesn't move too far away from Ron's foreign policy views.  The main reason I supported Ron originally was because of his foreign policy views.


Closing ALL of the overseas bases is stupid from a national security standpoint.

In fact, most of our bases are not imperialism and are welcomed by the host country. The question is whether they are useful are not. Obviously many are a huge waste of money, but we still need bases for military purposes and fueling.

----------


## acptulsa

> If Rand Paul stands for the defense of Israel then he is not a part of the Liberty movement. A core belief is no entangling alliance. We got into this mess because we can't seem to keep our noses out of other countries business.


'We should end aid to Israel but we shouldn't end aid to Israel _first_' isn't what they mean when they say someone is of the 'Israel First' crowd...

----------


## misean

> I said my preference would be Pat Buchanan, since he at least supports closing all of the overseas bases and opposes sanctions against Iran.
> 
> But, I'm not going to drop my support yet.  I just hope that Rand doesn't move too far away from Ron's foreign policy views.  The main reason I supported Ron originally was because of his foreign policy views.


You definitely aren't what I'm talking about when it comes to the anti-Rand Paul group. I went on the Daily Paul site for the first time a couple of months ago when there was a poll about supporting Paul or Kucinich. I was stunned to see how many people HATE Rand Paul and see him as an enemy.  That and a couple of posts here are what I'm talking about.

----------


## kathy88

> It's disturbing to see how many of our people can't see through that and think critically to understand what's going on. I thought most of the people around here were smarter than that, but I guess not.


Calling people stupid again, Matt? How intelligent of you.

----------


## Brett85

> Closing ALL of the overseas bases is stupid from a national security standpoint.
> 
> In fact, most of our bases are not imperialism and are welcomed by the host country. The question is whether they are useful are not. Obviously many are a huge waste of money, but we still need bases for military purposes and fueling.


So now we're getting to the point where we're arguing against Ron Paul's foreign policy vision.

----------


## Brett85

Our foreign bases may be welcomed by the host country, but they aren't necessarily welcomed by the people of these countries.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> Our foreign bases may be welcomed by the host country, but they aren't necessarily welcomed by the people of these countries.


It depends on the country. Some like the protection and jobs.

Not that that should be the purpose of the bases. The point is, you can't expect to get rid of every single last base and still have a top notch national security.

----------


## DylanWaco

> the anti-rand people is about to find a face full of $#@! you coming into the next election cycle.



He's gonna get his ass kicked.  

He may well do better than Ron, but Ron's campaign was run for the benefit of Rand after SC.

In any event there is no way in hell he wins the nomination.

----------


## torchbearer

> He's gonna get his ass kicked. 
> 
> He may well do better than Ron, but Ron's campaign was run for the benefit of Rand after SC.
> 
> In any event there is no way in hell he wins the nomination.



he won't if you go into it expecting to lose.
self-fulfilling prophecy and all.
juzsaying.

----------


## Brett85

> It depends on the country. Some like the protection and jobs.
> 
> Not that that should be the purpose of the bases. The point is, you can't expect to get rid of every single last base and still have a top notch national security.


I guess the way I view it is that if other countries don't have military bases here in the U.S, we shouldn't have military bases in other countries.  I would consider it an attack on our sovereignty if Germany or Japan had military bases here in the United States.  I don't know why citizens of these other countries should view our bases any differently.

I see embassies as being different, since other countries have embassies in the U.S as well, and it's basically just a sign of good will between countries.  But foreign military bases are simply a one way street, where we subsidize the defense of other nations with our bases and don't really receive anything in return.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> It depends on the country. Some like the protection and jobs.
> 
> Not that that should be the purpose of the bases. The point is, you can't expect to get rid of every single last base and still have a top notch national security.


I can only comment about the bases in Italy because I know some locals there but many people don't like these bases in their countries because when the soldiers aren't working they're getting in fights and causing turmoil to the residents in many instances and they roll in packs. And, we have 7 of them there alone. If every country we have many multiple bases in were to shrink the number of installations by ~75%, we'd save lots of money, most of which would be spent back here at home. Bases in this country are the lifeblood of certain localities, so repatriating that capital would do wonders for cash-strapped states and the like. As far as budgetary concerns go, the only way back to fiscal sanity besides drawing down overseas is getting the private job scene rolling again to alleviate the inevitable destruction to the entitlement system.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> He's gonna get his ass kicked.


The only ass kicking going on right now on a national level is with Rand at the helm of it. You can wish whatever you want but that only tells me one thing: when the bulk of the movement is fighting its ass off trying to get him elected, you won't be lifting a finger and/or you'll be intentionally trying to undermine us in which case you'd better find somewhere else to hang out. You either have no vision of success or you choose to be an ostrich.

----------


## itshappening

> The only ass kicking going on right now on a national level is with Rand at the helm of it. You can wish whatever you want but that only tells me one thing: when the bulk of the movement is fighting its ass off trying to get him elected, you won't be lifting a finger and/or you'll be intentionally trying to undermine us in which case you'd better find somewhere else to hang out. You either have no vision of success or you choose to be an ostrich.


Yes, we can do without people like DylanWaco.

Please leave and never come back.

For every puritan idiot Rand loses (the kind of people who vote LP in Amash's district) we will gain so many more that Rand is winning over.

----------


## eleganz

Personally, I'm not being hard on Rand for some of his Israel statements because he does have a goal to attain and he is softening the mainstream voting base (and talking heads) up.  You can't just shove 'no entangling alliances' up their ass and tell them to sit on it and like it.  

If any of you have been in local GOP politics (or hell, trying to convert somebody to your political view) you know that wrapping the message in honey goes down far easier than if you were to dress it up like a ticking time bomb.

This is a stretch and a risk, even for me, but when he becomes president, he will have the platform to ease people into a 
no entangling alliances' mentality.  He won't even be able to accomplish it in a full term, he'll have to ease into it for the first term and then drive it home when he has nothing to lose.  Sort of like how Obama is doing with socialism.

----------


## Dick Chaney

Rand is a Zionist... therefore he is not for Liberty.

----------


## 69360

> If Rand Paul stands for the defense of Israel then he is not a part of the Liberty movement. A core belief is no entangling alliance. We got into this mess because we can't seem to keep our noses out of other countries business.


You can NEVER win a GOP primary unless you feign interest in Israel. It's a political reality. Deal with it, it's just talk.

----------


## TheTexan

I don't get the reliance on Rand to save the day.  National politics is a hampster wheel.  Rand is great as a spokesman/mouthpiece (at times..)... but as a solution to our problems?  Not even close.

State/local.  Nullification.  Secession.

Political power comes from _us_, not the Federal Government.  We will continue to fail until we recognize that.  National politics is not the answer.

----------


## kathy88

> Yes, we can do without people like DylanWaco.
> 
> Please leave and never come back.
> 
> For every puritan idiot Rand loses (the kind of people who vote LP in Amash's district) we will gain so many more that Rand is winning over.


That's hardly a Liberty minded statement. Of course, as you've mentioned several times, foreign policy trumps civil liberties which happen to be at the very core of this movement. So why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Rand will have long coattails and bring other liberty candidates along for the ride.  He'll help usher them into Congress and into his administration.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, we can do without people like DylanWaco.
> 
> Please leave and never come back.
> 
> For every puritan idiot Rand loses (the kind of people who vote LP in Amash's district) we will gain so many more that Rand is winning over.


You can kick us to the curb, and it doesn't matter to you if we never come back because you think there are 10,000 Glenn Beck/Mark Levin Republicans for every RonPaul/LP ("puritan idiot") voter that you insult.  But the time will come when Beck, Hannity, and Levin start to separate the wheat from the chaff as the 2016 primaries and caucuses get closer. Maybe you feel differently, but I can't see them falling in love with Rand when Rubio is standing there holding flowers and chocolates.  He's their kind of guy, and Rand will probably be left out in the cold, in spite of the fawning they're doing over him now.  

And to those who ask who is a better candidate for 2016...I'm done with voting for the "lesser of two evils".  If the LP doesn't run someone I can vote for, staying home is still an option.   What difference does it make to you or to Rand?  All of you (and Rand) are making it quite clear that you don't want our vote or our support.  As things stand now, you will probably get what you want from me.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

I'm not so sure. If he wins, the people really running the show will probably collapse the system to blame it on libertarianism. He'd probably just be better off staying in the Senate where he can become extremely powerful and lead the party for a great number of years.

----------


## misean

> I'm not so sure. If he wins, the people really running the show will probably collapse the system to blame it on libertarianism. He'd probably just be better off staying in the Senate where he can become extremely powerful and lead the party for a great number of years.


Who are these people running the show that can collapse the system? George Soros? Illuminati? Lizard people?

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Who are these people running the show that can collapse the system? George Soros? Illuminati? Lizard people?


Are you familiar with the Federal Reserve's monopoly power on the issuance of money and their ability to manipulate interest rates? You probably should familiarize yourself on these facts before you attempt to make a response again.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> You can kick us to the curb, and it doesn't matter to you if we never come back because you think there are 10,000 Glenn Beck/Mark Levin Republicans for every RonPaul/LP ("puritan idiot") voter that you insult.  But the time will come when Beck, Hannity, and Levin start to separate the wheat from the chaff as the 2016 primaries and caucuses get closer. Maybe you feel differently, but I can't see them falling in love with Rand when Rubio is standing there holding flowers and chocolates.  He's their kind of guy, and Rand will probably be left out in the cold, in spite of the fawning they're doing over him now.  
> 
> And to those who ask who is a better candidate for 2016...I'm done with voting for the "lesser of two evils".  If the LP doesn't run someone I can vote for, staying home is still an option.   What difference does it make to you or to Rand?  All of you (and Rand) are making it quite clear that you don't want our vote or our support.  As things stand now, you will probably get what you want from me.


The way I see it is to use these audiences to our benefit and ultimately it's out of our or Rand's control whether the hosts go rogue again. In regards to your statement of trading purists for Beck and Levin conservatives, that mentality only comes up when the purist opportunists bombard Rand at every turn in hopes of fill in the blank. Could be they refuse any cooperation on the restore the GOP front, outright saboteurs or refusal to budge to see and accept Rand's approach to build coalitions with grassroots conservatives. Ron did his work in a different way than Rand does but that obviously dooms one in a GOP primary. In order to change minds so that the Ron approach works on the right, Rand is sticking and moving in hopes that that mindset can be returned to the right from whence it came a la Taft. Nobody in their right mind would want supporters staying home or going elsewhere but at some point the high and mighty attitude evidenced in a minority of Ron supporters tells me those few will bend over backwards doing cartwheels to see to it that Rand fails since they can't stand his MO. Furthermore, seeing all that Rand is doing in a cohesive effort to break ground on getting conservatives, ya know those that typically support war and all the associated atrocities, to back of their aggression by using arguments they can't refute and these same purists still cast him to the wolves is where the problem lies. I consider myself to be a purist that realizes in order to get to purity you can't just snap your finger and hope for the best. Messaging is everything and using different approaches to achieve the long term goal is just adapting, innovating and overcoming. So, don't play victim status, nobody is getting kicked to the curb. It's people actively choosing to keep driving the wedge, not the liberty movement pushing anyone out. When I see someone likening Rand to the Rumsfeld bunch because of some bs comments he makes rather than using the gold standard of a voting record to judge him, that's what is disheartening. And, I dare anyone of these haters (they know who they are) to use the same divisive rhetoric about him here and lay it on Ron or Carol and see how they respond. Would they respond like the haters or would they take the position of all of us stable pro-Rand liberty proponents? I can tell you they would not say that Rand is a disgrace and a sellout that so many of the margin outliers purvey like it's their job. Stop going on the offensive at every turn and stay positive and do your part to further the liberty movement in the way you're best at. But frankly, assuming his record is similar to what it is now down the line and one refuses to get behind him for whatever pitiful reason, that's on you.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm not so sure. If he wins, the people really running the show will probably collapse the system to blame it on libertarianism. He'd probably just be better off staying in the Senate where he can become extremely powerful and lead the party for a great number of years.


THIS ^^^. The ONLY advantage to a Rand Paul POTUS run in 2016 is the additional visibility and "social credibility" that will accrue to those of "our" issues that he decides to promote and advocate. That is no small thing, to be sure.

But I just don't think it's worth losing his seat in the Senate for. We need to stop chasing hopeless & futile "top down" strategies like obsessing over the bright, shiny object of POTUS.

Why the hell should we expose ourselves to the consequences of the idiotic (but widespread) notion that the President is somehow to credit or blame for things like the state of the economy?

As it is, I don't even want some two-faced, mealy-mouthed "free market"  Republican in the White House. That would only serve to discredit us via "guilt by association".

And it would be even worse if a *genuine* free-marketer like  Rand was President - then they would *really* howl about how the free market is to blame for every bad thing that happens.

To hell with POTUS! Seriously! Let the Democrats have it from now until SHTF. Let *them* catch all the flak.

Meanwhile, we should be pursuing a "bottom up" strategy by focusing on the state/local level - taking over state/local parties, pushing things like nullification, sound money & gun rights, etc.

We should work to maintain our positions at the federal level in Congress (Rand, Amash, Massie, Yoho, etc.) and exploit any new opportunities that may arise in that arena.

But beyond that, we should simply ignore the national level - and *especially* POTUS. It's just a mechanical-rabbit chase ...

----------


## Dystopian

There is about a .00002 chance that Rand Paul could ever win the presidency.  I would be really surprised if he got half the votes that Ron did in 2012.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I can only comment about the bases in Italy because I know some locals there but many people don't like these bases in their countries because when the soldiers aren't working they're getting in fights and causing turmoil to the residents in many instances and they roll in packs. And, we have 7 of them there alone. If every country we have many multiple bases in were to shrink the number of installations by ~75%, we'd save lots of money, most of which would be spent back here at home. Bases in this country are the lifeblood of certain localities, so repatriating that capital would do wonders for cash-strapped states and the like. As far as budgetary concerns go, the only way back to fiscal sanity besides drawing down overseas is getting the private job scene rolling again to alleviate the inevitable destruction to the entitlement system.


Military socialism and the communities that spring around it aren't free market or "private job scene," it's direct federal stimulus, as direct as money to Solyndra or any other corporation. Domestic bases should be closed as well.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Military socialism and the communities that spring around it aren't free market or "private job scene," it's direct federal stimulus, as direct as money to Solyndra or any other corporation. Domestic bases should be closed as well.


Right but I was thinking in the short term. As the economy improves we'll need to get these soldiers into the private sector and trim the govt sector to the bone.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Right but I was thinking in the short term. As the economy improves we'll need to get these soldiers into the private sector and trim the govt sector to the bone.


Fair enough, though decommissioning soldiers and military personnel would give a boost to the economy in and of itself. Perhaps not as completely as it happened post-WW2, but an improvement nonetheless.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I would be really surprised if he got half the votes that Ron did in 2012.



ya

----------


## klamath

> ya


Now THAT is a cute eyeroll.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Military socialism [is] direct federal stimulus, as direct as money to Solyndra or any other corporation.


Frederic Bastiat strikes again!

The Disbanding of Troops




> But what you do not see is this. You do not see  that to dismiss a  hundred thousand soldiers is not to do away with a  hundred million of  money, but to return it to the tax-payers. You do  not see that to throw a  hundred thousand workers on the market, is to  throw into it, at the  same moment, the hundred million of money needed  to pay for their labor:  that, consequently, the same act that increases  the supply of hands,  increases also the demand; from which it follows,  that your fear of a  reduction of wages is unfounded. You do not see  that, before the  disbanding as well as after it, there are in the  country a hundred  million of money corresponding with the hundred  thousand men. That the  whole difference consists in this: before the  disbanding, the country  gave the hundred million to the hundred  thousand men for doing nothing;  and that after it, it pays them the  same sum for working. You do not  see, in short, that when a taxpayer  gives his money either to a soldier  in exchange for nothing, or to a  worker in exchange for something, all  the ultimate consequences of the  circulation of this money are the same  in the two cases; only, in the  second case the taxpayer receives  something, in the former he receives  nothing. The result is  a dead  loss to the nation.
> 
> The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test of  progression, which is the touchstone of principles. If, when every  compensation is made, and all interests satisfied, there is a national  profit in increasing the army, why not enroll under its banners the  entire male population of the country?

----------


## Matt Collins

> There is about a .00002 chance that Rand Paul could ever win the presidency.  I would be really surprised if he got half the votes that Ron did in 2012.


You're either intentionally trolling or highly ignorant of the electoral process. BTW, Rand is already polling higher than Ron did in many instances.

----------


## itshappening

> THIS ^^^. The ONLY advantage to a Rand Paul POTUS run in 2016 is the additional visibility and "social credibility" that will accrue to those of "our" issues that he decides to promote and advocate. That is no small thing, to be sure.
> 
> But I just don't think it's worth losing his seat in the Senate for. We need to stop chasing hopeless & futile "top down" strategies like obsessing over the bright, shiny object of POTUS.
> 
> Why the hell should we expose ourselves to the consequences of the idiotic (but widespread) notion that the President is somehow to credit or blame for things like the state of the economy?
> 
> As it is, I don't even want some two-faced, mealy-mouthed "free market"  Republican in the White House. That would only serve to discredit us via "guilt by association".
> 
> And it would be even worse if a *genuine* free-marketer like  Rand was President - then they would *really* howl about how the free market is to blame for every bad thing that happens.
> ...


I dont think Rand wants to be in the Senate for 25 years.  

As for risking the seat he may be able to get Kentucky to change the law for 2016 but we'll see.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I don't get the reliance on Rand to save the day.   National politics is a hampster wheel.  Rand is great as a  spokesman/mouthpiece (at times..)... but as a solution to our problems?   Not even close.
> 
> State/local.  Nullification.  Secession.
> 
> Political power comes from _us_, not the Federal Government.  We  will continue to fail until we recognize that.  National politics is not  the answer.


I tend to agree, but I also agree that a few posts  above me the point was made that many people will ride Rand's coattails  into state and local office. Ron has had an entire slew of people get  elected to state and local offices because of his '08 and '12 runs.

So  yes, I don't see reforming the federal government as a viable long-term  solution on our present course, and we should be focusing on state and  local rejection of the federal leviathan, however if we have viable  victories on the federal level we should take them.

----------


## NOVALibertarian

I don't get the mentality of those who feel that Rand Paul is an enemy.

For starters, look at his voting record and then compare it to the stuff he says.  The stuff he says is just rhetoric so he doesn't get completely ignored like Ron did during the last two election cycles.  I don't know if you Anti-Rand people realize this, but you cannot win elections today without the media (or at least the media which your base watches) giving you somewhat of a fair shake.  Rand knows full well of the media bias against his father and if he follows the same path as his father, he will be ignored and will have no shot at winning the GOP nomination, much less the Presidency.

Right now, Rand is on the right track.  I know some Neo-Cons, who absolutely hate Ron and see him as a joke, start to praise Rand and they see him as a viable candidate in 2016.  Yes, Rand does have a long ways to go before he reaches the "darling" status of Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan but he is on the right track.  Like it or not, Rand will NOT win without the support of the Neo-Cons.  Rand knows this.  These voters, as evident by them hating Ron and liking Rand, are low information voters and don't pay much attention outside of the rhetoric that politicians and the talking heads spew.  Rand's rhetoric might be pissing some people off over here but his voting record (which is the only thing that matters since rhetoric doesn't equal action) is one most of us here are huge fans of.

Get over what Rand says to the media.  The stuff he says on shows like Hannity isn't geared towards us.  It's geared towards the people who he hasn't won over yet.  Most of his father's supporters are already on board for him.  He knows this.  It's the Neo-Cons and others that he needs to win the support of and he won't do that without appealing to them through his rhetoric.

I've said this before, but Rand is a better politician than Ron ever was.  Rand knows how to "play the game", if you will.  If Rand comes out and says something like "If I'm president, I will end all aid to Israel", you might as well not even print a campaign sign to put in your yard.  The GOP talking heads and people like Rubio will use that against him and seeing the vast majority of the GOP are Pro-Israel, being blunt like that would end his campaign before it even began.  Rand NEEDS to speak Pro-Israel rhetoric.  If not, they will label him as just a clone of his father and he will be done before the Iowa Caucus.

Some of you would make awful politicians.  My goodness.  

Rand is on our side.  It's foolish to think Rand is somehow Ron's demon spawn.  Just relax and enjoy the ride.

----------


## matt0611

> I don't get the mentality of those who feel that Rand Paul is an enemy.
> 
> For starters, look at his voting record and then compare it to the stuff he says.  The stuff he says is just rhetoric so he doesn't get completely ignored like Ron did during the last two election cycles.  I don't know if you Anti-Rand people realize this, but you cannot win elections today without the media (or at least the media which your base watches) giving you somewhat of a fair shake.  Rand knows full well of the media bias against his father and if he follows the same path as his father, he will be ignored and will have no shot at winning the GOP nomination, much less the Presidency.
> 
> Right now, Rand is on the right track.  I know some Neo-Cons, who absolutely hate Ron and see him as a joke, start to praise Rand and they see him as a viable candidate in 2016.  Yes, Rand does have a long ways to go before he reaches the "darling" status of Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan but he is on the right track.  Like it or not, Rand will NOT win without the support of the Neo-Cons.  Rand knows this.  These voters, as evident by them hating Ron and liking Rand, are low information voters and don't pay much attention outside of the rhetoric that politicians and the talking heads spew.  Rand's rhetoric might be pissing some people off over here but his voting record (which is the only thing that matters since rhetoric doesn't equal action) is one most of us here are huge fans of.
> 
> Get over what Rand says to the media.  The stuff he says on shows like Hannity isn't geared towards us.  It's geared towards the people who he hasn't won over yet.  Most of his father's supporters are already on board for him.  He knows this.  It's the Neo-Cons and others that he needs to win the support of and he won't do that without appealing to them through his rhetoric.
> 
> I've said this before, but Rand is a better politician than Ron ever was.  Rand knows how to "play the game", if you will.  If Rand comes out and says something like "If I'm president, I will end all aid to Israel", you might as well not even print a campaign sign to put in your yard.  The GOP talking heads and people like Rubio will use that against him and seeing the vast majority of the GOP are Pro-Israel, being blunt like that would end his campaign before it even began.  Rand NEEDS to speak Pro-Israel rhetoric.  If not, they will label him as just a clone of his father and he will be done before the Iowa Caucus.
> ...


100% agreed. 

Rand has always said that declaring war is the domain of congress and not the President anyway.

----------


## NOVALibertarian

Case in point of Rand winning over the Neo-Con, Pro-Israel crowd.  Granted this is one post on Tumblr (and I didn't publish the username for obvious reasons) but it's basically word for word how most Neo-Cons I've met and talked to feel about Rand.

EDIT- If anyone does decide to venture onto Tumblr and search "Rand Paul", prepare to be infuriated by posts from Progressives slandering him.  You might see a few Pro-Rand posts from both the Libertarian and Neo-Con crowd but overall, they hate him.  Most of them are from the Pro-Hilary crowd who are still furious at Rand for daring to question their God-Queen.

----------


## Dystopian

> You're either intentionally trolling or highly ignorant of the electoral process. BTW, Rand is already polling higher than Ron did in many instances.


Yeah, what was Rand up to in that last poll?  4%?  Considering the fact that Ron Paul blazed the trail ahead of him, made the Paul family a household name, and created a massive network of supporters.  I think Rand was waaay behind even Christy.  Yeah that's something special.

There's a reason why odds makers are giving Rand Paul a 1% chance.  But I would argue that even that is too high, there's no way he's even going to have his Hermain Cain 15 minutes in 2016.  Hangers-on like you and Jesse Benton just want to push false hopes to keep the $$$$$$$ coming your way.

----------


## eleganz

> Case in point of Rand winning over the Neo-Con, Pro-Israel crowd.  Granted this is one post on Tumblr (and I didn't publish the username for obvious reasons) but it's basically word for word how most Neo-Cons I've met and talked to feel about Rand.
> 
> EDIT- If anyone does decide to venture onto Tumblr and search "Rand Paul", prepare to be infuriated by posts from Progressives slandering him.  You might see a few Pro-Rand posts from both the Libertarian and Neo-Con crowd but overall, they hate him.  Most of them are from the Pro-Hilary crowd who are still furious at Rand for daring to question their God-Queen.


Exactly, Rand is doing what Ron talked about what he would do to win over the stragglers.

That twitter guy loves Rand for the same reason he hates Ron and he doesn't even know it.  Those are the dupes that are being won over by Rand's magic touch.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Yeah, what was Rand up to in that last poll?  4%?  Considering the fact that Ron Paul blazed the trail ahead of him, made the Paul family a household name, and created a massive network of supporters.  I think Rand was waaay behind even Christy.  Yeah that's something special.
> 
> There's a reason why odds makers are giving Rand Paul a 1% chance.  But I would argue that even that is too high, there's no way he's even going to have his Hermain Cain 15 minutes in 2016.  Hangers-on like you and Jesse Benton just want to push false hopes to keep the $$$$$$$ coming your way.


Trust me, there is no money coming my way, and you don't have a clue about what you are writing about. 

How many campaigns have you won? How many campaigns have you ever even worked for, professional or as a volunteer?

----------


## NOVALibertarian

> Yeah, what was Rand up to in that last poll?  4%?  Considering the fact that Ron Paul blazed the trail ahead of him, made the Paul family a household name, and created a massive network of supporters.  I think Rand was waaay behind even Christy.  Yeah that's something special.
> 
> There's a reason why odds makers are giving Rand Paul a 1% chance.  But I would argue that even that is too high, there's no way he's even going to have his Hermain Cain 15 minutes in 2016.  Hangers-on like you and Jesse Benton just want to push false hopes to keep the $$$$$$$ coming your way.


We have about two and a half more years until the campaigns officially take off for the GOP presidential nomination.  Rand has up until that time and until the Iowa Caucus (whenever that is) to get people onto his side.  Right now, he's doing a damn good job of it.  If he keeps up this strong rhetoric aimed towards Progressives, he will continue to win over the crowd that is necessary to win the nomination.

A lot can change in nearly three years.  I don't know why you're writing Rand off already.

----------


## TheTyke

> We have about two and a half more years until the campaigns officially take off for the GOP presidential nomination.  Rand has up until that time and until the Iowa Caucus (whenever that is) to get people onto his side.  Right now, he's doing a damn good job of it.  If he keeps up this strong rhetoric aimed towards Progressives, he will continue to win over the crowd that is necessary to win the nomination.
> 
> A lot can change in nearly three years.  I don't know why you're writing Rand off already.


You make great points! Besides Rand, which of our liberty candidates is going to ever come near the presidency? Rand is our best chance, and has worked with care and energy to get into that position. But it's going to take our best efforts, combined with his, to seize victory. When I see people working so hard to undermine him, I think those are the people who really want Romney/Rubio/Bush types continuing to be our nominee every election.

----------


## fr33

> Some of you would make awful politicians.  My goodness.


And proud of it.

----------


## DylanWaco

My statement that Rand will get his ass kicked has zero to do with any views I have on Rand.  I thought Ron would get his ass kicked too and by and large that's what happened.  

Given how Rand has positioned himself he has no excuse not to win Iowa.  If he wins Iowa I will increase his odds from less than 10 percent, to less than 20 percent.  But ultimately he is caught in a bad position that would be difficult for anyone to get out of.  He will either have to run to GOP "center" quickly (and by center I don't mean raise taxes, I mean bomb foreigners) or pray to god that the base of his father will stay united behind him and/or actually turn out to vote in representative numbers this time.  The safer bet is on branding himself as a less bellicose Republican, but one still willing to spend like hell on the military and rain down death on Muslims if they don't do what we say and/or get out of line.  The problem is every step he moves in that direction he loses more and more of the activist base.  You can make up the lost money by hanging out with Mitch McConnell, but you can't make up the lost energy.  The Randians can claim that the anti-Rand crowd are a small minority but as he gains establishment Republicans, he loses more and more of the liberty base (if you want to argue he's discarding radicals in favor of integrating "moderates" that's fine, but let's not pretend he isn't losing people at the core all the time - he is).  

This would all be a great track for Rand - if he was the only game in town.  But he won't be.  And the GOP will be itching to get in on the identity politics/minority train.  Rand's only hope is no minority with tea party support in the primary and/or a field that is NOT crowded.  The more crowded the field the more screwed he is.  I believe it will be a crowded field.  And I think he has virtually no chance of winning the nomination.

The fact that I won't vote for him has zero to do with my thoughts on any of that.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I dont think Rand wants to be in the Senate for 25 years.


Based on what? Why wouldn't he? He's already one of the preeminent members of the Senate, and he's only in his first term.

Even assuming that his driving purpose and burning ambition has been to become President ASAP (and putting aside the question of whether that is a good thing), it would consume 14 years at the very least (6 in the Senate, 8 in the White House). And that's asuming he won POTUS on his first bid. That's just not going to happen. The Establishment and TPTB will not let him. And if by some miracle he did actually win, it would be a disaster. Everything that goes wrong - from the economy, to foreign relations, to domestic policy, etc. - will be used to discredit him, his policies and his principles. Pro-establishment partisans from both the "left" AND the "right" would be howling bloody murder.

Furthermore, anything of real importance for the causes of liberty and significantly limited government that President Rand Paul might be able to accomplish would just be overturned or undone by his successors. There are not enough of "our" people - especially not at the federal level - to provide the necessary backing. We just don't have the numbers yet. We are getting WAY ahead of ourselves by going for POTUS before instead of after we build the necessary foundations. We just are not there yet. That sucks, but it's a fact - and we ignore it at our peril.

As I noted before, the ONLY thing a Rand Paul POTUS run will do for us is provide a short-term increase in the visisbility and credibility of the issues he runs on. That is a very good thing, but as good as it is, it just isn't worth losing his seat in the Senate.




> As for risking the seat he may be able to get Kentucky to change the law for 2016 but we'll see.


If so, that would be a transparently self-serving and extremely foolish thing for him to do. It would go a long way to confirming the notion that he's only in it for attention, prestige, ambition, power, etc.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> My statement that Rand will get his ass kicked has zero to do with any views I have on Rand.  I thought Ron would get his ass kicked too and by and large that's what happened.  
> 
> Given how Rand has positioned himself he has no excuse not to win Iowa.  If he wins Iowa I will increase his odds from less than 10 percent, to less than 20 percent.  But ultimately *he is caught in a bad position that would be difficult for anyone to get out of.  He will either have to run to GOP "center" quickly (and by center I don't mean raise taxes, I mean bomb foreigners) or pray to god that the base of his father will stay united behind him and/or actually turn out to vote in representative numbers this time.  The safer bet is on branding himself as a less bellicose Republican, but one still willing to spend like hell on the military and rain down death on Muslims if they don't do what we say and/or get out of line.  The problem is every step he moves in that direction he loses more and more of the activist base.  You can make up the lost money by hanging out with Mitch McConnell, but you can't make up the lost energy.  The Randians can claim that the anti-Rand crowd are a small minority but as he gains establishment Republicans, he loses more and more of the liberty base (if you want to argue he's discarding radicals in favor of integrating "moderates" that's fine, but let's not pretend he isn't losing people at the core all the time - he is).* 
> 
> This would all be a great track for Rand - if he was the only game in town.  But he won't be.  And the GOP will be itching to get in on the identity politics/minority train.  Rand's only hope is no minority with tea party support in the primary and/or a field that is NOT crowded.  The more crowded the field the more screwed he is.  I believe it will be a crowded field.  And I think he has virtually no chance of winning the nomination.
> 
> The fact that I won't vote for him has zero to do with my thoughts on any of that.


I don't understand why Rand's apologists don't see this.

----------


## dinosaur

> Originally Posted by DylanWaco:
> The problem is every step he moves in that direction he loses more and more of the activist base. You can make up the lost money by hanging out with Mitch McConnell, but you can't make up the lost energy.


The sad thing is Rand can take the exact same positon as Ron on something, but sell it differently, and people on both sides (us and them) can't see it.

Ron was never anti-Israel, but people beleived that he was because they reacted emtionally to certain hot-button words.  Rand will not start an unconstitutional war, but people on our side now believe that he would because of his hot-button words.

We need them to win, and we need be better than they are and analyze the rhetoric.

----------


## dinosaur

> I don't understand why Rand's apologists don't see this.


Nice word, but apologist means defender and does not imply that any apologies have been made for him.  I will gladly take that label.

And I do see that we need to not lose the base, that is why I am trying to explain the difference between rhetoric and action.  If you see it also, why do you go out of your way to always proclaim the "Rand is a sell out" position, even in situations where you offer no good argument for why, and are just expressing "concerns"?  You are constantly concerned, constanly on the negative side, and yet now claim that you have not made up your mind.  I, personally, have a hard time believing that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Nice word, but apologist means defender and does not imply that any apologies have been made for him.  I will gladly take that label.
> 
> And I do see that we need to not lose the base, that is why I am trying to explain the difference between rhetoric and action.  If you see it also, why do you go out of your way to always proclaim the "Rand is a sell out position, even when you have no good argument and are just expressing "concerns"?


Explained simply, rhetoric and actions need to be consistent for credibility.

----------


## dinosaur

> Explained simply, rhetoric and actions need to be consistent for credibility.


And his are, aren't they?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And his are, aren't they?


Rand's?  His supporters say "no"...they say he's playing politics with his rhetoric. All I have are his words, and if his actions are consistent with them, we can expect to continue joining ourselves to Israel's hip.

----------


## Matt Collins

> My statement that Rand will get his ass kicked has zero to do with any views I have on Rand.  I thought Ron would get his ass kicked too and by and large that's what happened.


Not hardly, Ron was about to win Iowa, and came in second in NH. That's no small feat, and he had more delegates to the RNC than any other candidate. We are on the upswing, we are winning, we are trending up. This is not instant gratification, this is a multi-cycle effort which will last years and likely decades.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Explained simply, rhetoric and actions need to be consistent for credibility.


Not for those who are able to read in-between the lines and understand what's really going on behind the scenes.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Not for those who are able to read in-between the lines and understand what's really going on behind the scenes.


Unfortunately, some people are either incapable of that or simply refuse to see the writing on the wall.

----------


## NOVALibertarian

> Rand's?  His supporters say "no"...they say he's playing politics with his rhetoric. All I have are his words, and if his actions are consistent with them, we can expect to continue joining ourselves to Israel's hip.


His actions aren't consistent with his rhetoric and that is a good thing.  His rhetoric is *specifically designed and directed* for the Neo-Con base who watch shows like Hannity daily.  Those people mostly make their decisions based on soundbytes and that is what Rand is doing.  On the other hand, his voting record is something most of us can be proud of but yet we fall for his rhetoric just like the un-informed voters did with the rhetoric from the likes of Obama and Romney.  I thought we payed close attention to voting records here, seeing as we love to bash people like Paul Ryan for his awful voting record.  If we pay such close attention to other people's voting record, why can't some people pay attention to Rand's as well and see that he has almost the same views on issues that Ron Paul had while he was in Congress?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> His actions aren't consistent with his rhetoric and that is a good thing.  His rhetoric is *specifically designed and directed* for the Neo-Con base who watch shows like Hannity daily.  Those people mostly make their decisions based on soundbytes and that is what Rand is doing.  On the other hand, his voting record is something most of us can be proud of but yet we fall for his rhetoric just like the un-informed voters did with the rhetoric from the likes of Obama and Romney.  I thought we payed close attention to voting records here, seeing as we love to bash people like Paul Ryan for his awful voting record.  If we pay such close attention to other people's voting record, why can't some people pay attention to Rand's as well and see that he has almost the same views on issues that Ron Paul had while he was in Congress?


Agreed but these folks either know what his record is and don't give a flying fart or they're willfully ignorant in which case they're drift wood. Some of these margin surfers seek to penalize him directly because he doesn't have Ron's style and no nonsense talk despite similar end goals. Rand is busting his ass for the liberty movement and people do their damnedest to keep changing the goal posts. Anytime the guy opens his mouth there is a mini witch hunt started in hopes of dragging it into full-on epidemic mode.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Not for those who are able to read in-between the lines and understand what's really going on behind the scenes.


This is literally the same argument used by the conspiracy theorists your "side" so often dismiss as lunatics.

----------


## DylanWaco

When people criticize Rand's voting record they are told they are being extremists, or unfair, or he had to vote a certain way, or it is just procedural, or the new gimmick of "Ron did worse!"  

When people criticize his rhetoric people say "watch the votes."  

Apparently you can't criticize his rhetoric or his votes without being an impediment to liberty.  You have to be all in with Rand, or at best temper your criticisms so much that they are meaningless.  It's the exact same mentality the Obama cultists have and the themes are basically the same as well - "Rand is the best we can do" or "Rand doesn't really believe this stuff, it's all a super secret conspiracy.  Trust him, he's a liar...for us!"  These are exactly the same things you hear from the Obama cultists all the time to rationalize areas where they disagree with him.  

Having said that the reason rhetoric DOES matter is because some of us believe this is still about advancing ideas and a philosophy and rightly or wrongly Rand is seen as the driver of that by many, because that's the way he was sold to many of us.  When his rhetoric does not match what we believe that philosophy should be we see it as a failing.  Is that wrong? In a sense yes, because Rand isn't a teacher, he's a politician and is primary concerned with power as our resident C4L talking point maestros so often point out.  But in another way no, because people rightfully believe they were sold a bill of good by people in the upper reaches of the electoral arm of the liberty movement and some people think power politics is innately distasteful and disgusting.

----------


## grizzums

> Matt, you forget that people are more concerned with words than with actions. Stating a position for aid to be eventually stopped to Israel does not count if you put out a humzinger that calls Israel a major ally of ours. His recent statement would clearly be taken the wrong way by many purists as they don't have the stomach to broaden the base of supporters and only want to have their own little club of irrelevancy. It's like, if he was to become Prez the 1st thing he'd do is attack Iran because of his romantic fantasies about Israel. It's a $#@!ing PR ploy boobs! Get with the damn program and quit whining like little butthurt girls because their Kendoll fell in the toilet.


Couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Unfortunately, some people are either incapable of that or simply refuse to see the writing on the wall.


They're gossip mongers wishing to stir the pot.

----------


## awake

A man of war will never sit on a throne of peace, and a man of peace will never sit in a throne of war. Rand has good positions on a lot of things, however, it will be a constant wear on him to maintain them. The forces aligned against him will stop him out no matter what. Rand needs to get bad people to trust him and this takes "compromise", which really means compromising your positions and principles.

No undercover police officer, no matter how pure in principle, has ever rose to become the leader of any drug cartel, let alone convince the cartel to dissolve and pursue more gainful employment. This is not to say that good things can't come of political en devour, lets just be real about some thing: the Luke Skywalker destroying the Death star through its garbage chute scenario is not going to happen.

----------


## DrHendricks

I think we have to take a step back and look at the strategies that the two Paul's have used for change. Ron Paul is my definition of a perfect idealist. He knows where his principles are and exactly what drastic and immediate changes need to occur. And while I stand 100% behind him, that method of blunt truth and immediate change in terms of foreign policy, monetary policy, social policy is not palatable to the American electorate. Rand on the other hand is using the Progressive method of incremental change but in the opposite direction, towards freedom. In order to get the statist momentum of the last 150 years turned around, he is going to introduce small imperfect changes: cut foreign aid to our enemies (and not allies), defend Israel in the event of an attack on Israel (but NO pre-emptive strikes), and legalization of industrial hemp (but leaving marijuana up to the states). We've tried the Ron Paul idealist, all change upfront method. It's time to give Rand his chance to try his incrementalism strategy. Now I know our debt is unsustainable, our economy is in shambles, and our foreign policy is bankrupting us which could mean that it doesn't matter whether a statist or liberty person gets elected if the whole ship is going down regardless. But, I firmly believe that we've given the all-or-nothing strategy our best attempt, and it's time to try something different. Are Rand's plans perfectly liberty-based? No, but at least he's one of our own and has a plan. But, I do agree with some of you that some of Rand's positions are confusing. He needs to sit down with his advisers and hammer out exactly what his policies are so that he can stick to them for the next four years. I know we would all rather wake up to a United States of America tomorrow that followed the constitution perfectly, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Rand is our best bet on the architect to rebuild this country and I urge you to save your inner Don Quixote for another day.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> I think we have to take a step back and look at the strategies that the two Paul's have used for change. Ron Paul is my definition of a perfect idealist. He knows where his principles are and exactly what drastic and immediate changes need to occur. And while I stand 100% behind him, that method of blunt truth and immediate change in terms of foreign policy, monetary policy, social policy is not palatable to the American electorate. Rand on the other hand is using the Progressive method of incremental change but in the opposite direction, towards freedom. In order to get the statist momentum of the last 150 years turned around, he is going to introduce small imperfect changes: cut foreign aid to our enemies (and not allies), defend Israel in the event of an attack on Israel (but NO pre-emptive strikes), and legalization of industrial hemp (but leaving marijuana up to the states). We've tried the Ron Paul idealist, all change upfront method. It's time to give Rand his chance to try his incrementalism strategy. Now I know our debt is unsustainable, our economy is in shambles, and our foreign policy is bankrupting us which could mean that it doesn't matter whether a statist or liberty person gets elected if the whole ship is going down regardless. But, I firmly believe that we've given the all-or-nothing strategy our best attempt, and it's time to try something different. Are Rand's plans perfectly liberty-based? No, but at least he's one of our own and has a plan. But, I do agree with some of you that some of Rand's positions are confusing. He needs to sit down with his advisers and hammer out exactly what his policies are so that he can stick to them for the next four years. I know we would all rather wake up to a United States of America tomorrow that followed the constitution perfectly, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Rand is our best bet on the architect to rebuild this country and I urge you to save your inner Don Quixote for another day.


You think gradualism is a new idea? Really? I offer you William Lloyd Garrison:




> Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice


His purist abolitionist stance on slavery was just stupid. He should have advocated that they only receive 7 lashes instead of 9, or merely that people could only own x amount of slaves.

If we aren't going to defend and stand up for our ideals, how can we expect anyone who doesn't share those goals to take them seriously?

----------


## TheTexan

> I think we have to take a step back and look at the strategies that the two Paul's have used for change. Ron Paul is my definition of a perfect idealist. He knows where his principles are and exactly what drastic and immediate changes need to occur. And while I stand 100% behind him, that method of blunt truth and immediate change in terms of foreign policy, monetary policy, social policy is not palatable to the American electorate. Rand on the other hand is using the Progressive method of incremental change but in the opposite direction, towards freedom. In order to get the statist momentum of the last 150 years turned around, he is going to introduce small imperfect changes: cut foreign aid to our enemies (and not allies), defend Israel in the event of an attack on Israel (but NO pre-emptive strikes), and legalization of industrial hemp (but leaving marijuana up to the states). We've tried the Ron Paul idealist, all change upfront method. *It's time to give Rand his chance to try his incrementalism strategy.* Now I know our debt is unsustainable, our economy is in shambles, and our foreign policy is bankrupting us which could mean that it doesn't matter whether a statist or liberty person gets elected if the whole ship is going down regardless. But, I firmly believe that we've given the all-or-nothing strategy our best attempt, and it's time to try something different. Are Rand's plans perfectly liberty-based? No, but at least he's one of our own and has a plan. But, I do agree with some of you that some of Rand's positions are confusing. He needs to sit down with his advisers and hammer out exactly what his policies are so that he can stick to them for the next four years. I know we would all rather wake up to a United States of America tomorrow that followed the constitution perfectly, but Rome wasn't built in a day. *Rand is our best bet on the architect to rebuild this country* and I urge you to save your inner Don Quixote for another day.


You can't rebuild tyranny.  You can separate from it, or conquer it, but you can't rebuild it.  This has been proven time and time again throughout history.

----------


## jcannon98188

> the anti-rand people is about to find a face full of $#@! you coming into the next election cycle.


I am saving this post to shove it in your face when Rand DOESN'T win in 2016.

----------


## fr33

> Agreed but these folks either know what his record is and don't give a flying fart or they're willfully ignorant in which case they're drift wood. Some of these margin surfers seek to penalize him directly because he doesn't have Ron's style and no nonsense talk despite similar end goals. Rand is busting his ass for the liberty movement and people do their damnedest to keep changing the goal posts. Anytime the guy opens his mouth there is a mini witch hunt started in hopes of dragging it into full-on epidemic mode.


Here's what I think your ultra-descriptive attack is based on. Not only this one but another topic where you were bashing the LP. If you don't succeed substantially then you have in fact been aiding and giving legitimacy to the GOP the enemy of liberty while the principled lp'ers were right.

I'm not saying that's going to happen but I am saying you don't know if that's going to happen.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Here's what I think your ultra-descriptive attack is based on. Not only this one but another topic where you were bashing the LP. If you don't succeed substantially then you have in fact been aiding and giving legitimacy to the GOP the enemy of liberty while the principled lp'ers were right.
> 
> I'm not saying that's going to happen but I am saying you don't know if that's going to happen.


I'd offer to you that Ron's first GOP run resulted in a mass reawakening that led to uprising of the Tea Party and sparked extreme interest in fiscal matters. This last run was sort of a vindication of him that he wasn't still an obscure nobody w/ a cult base. As we stayed involved, we elected more liberty folk to the Congress than ever before as well as having more successes in reshaping certain state and local parties, which will undoubtedly continue. We're building a momentum driving up liberty on the republican charts that was never before possible, certainly the LP's abysmal status for decades should speak for itself. I don't have a problem with the LP in and of itself but when they tamper with our liberty candidate's races, you can't expect me to be wide-eyed and bushy tailed.

----------


## DrHendricks

> You think gradualism is a new idea? Really? I offer you William Lloyd Garrison:
> 
> His purist abolitionist stance on slavery was just stupid. He should have advocated that they only receive 7 lashes instead of 9, or merely that people could only own x amount of slaves.
> 
> If we aren't going to defend and stand up for our ideals, how can we expect anyone who doesn't share those goals to take them seriously?


I believe if you had read my statement, you would have read that I said Rand was using the Progressive method of incrementalism. How you inferred that it meant that incrementalism was a brand new strategy on Rand's part, I can not explain. 

I never once stated that we abandoned our ideals. That was what drew us to Ron and why we will continue to need purists to speak for and guide the movement. However, with these ideals we need a vision and a plan. To expect a gold standard, a non-interventionist foreign policy, and a surplus budget tomorrow is immature. But to expect an audit of the federal reserve, a cutback on foreign aid to our enemies, and spending cuts are real changes that we can acquire in the short term. We know what the end-game is, but we can't get a checkmate in a single move. I strongly believe Rand has a plan on short term policy changes that can get us to our long term goals of real liberty. It's easy to throw in the towel and say incrementalism has never been used in a liberty minded way. The abolitionist you refer to, William Lloyd Garrison, burned a copy of the Constitution because he believe slavery tainted and ruined the whole thing. I believe the Constitution to be the one of the greatest documents of liberty ever conceived and I will do everything in my power to see it followed correctly. Ideals can only be utilized if you know how to achieve their ends. I'll leave you with the words of Sydney J. Harris: 

"“An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run.” "

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

So I just read this article, completely unrelated to the subject matter, but Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, talking about what the GOP needs to do and it struck a tone of what Ron Paul managed to do at his rallies versus your average GOP lineup of mostly white males.  He said the GOP doesn't have to modify, but modernize.




> “They have to learn how to use new technologies to connect with voters like online and social media. They have to learn how to reach non-traditional constituencies like single and younger women, young people, Hispanics, Asians, and other minorities by finding messages that connect with those voters. And they have to go out there and ask for that vote.”


http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/ra...n=widgetphase1

And looking at the demographic turnout at most of Paul's rallies, a point he kept making, he got that mixed crowd where as Romney and Ryan catered to the average GOP stereotype that pervades the party today. We already know Rand Paul is pretty prominent on social media and he can only go up from there, but connecting with those non-traditional constituencies by speaking to them, but not alienating the still larger GOP base, is key to doing anything before considering the Presidential run.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> So I just read this article, completely unrelated to the subject matter, but Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, talking about what the GOP needs to do and it struck a tone of what Ron Paul managed to do at his rallies versus your average GOP lineup of mostly white males.  He said the GOP doesn't have to modify, but modernize.
> 
> http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/ra...n=widgetphase1
> 
> And looking at the demographic turnout at most of Paul's rallies, a point he kept making, he got that mixed crowd where as Romney and Ryan catered to the average GOP stereotype that pervades the party today. We already know Rand Paul is pretty prominent on social media and he can only go up from there, but connecting with those non-traditional constituencies by speaking to them, but not alienating the still larger GOP base, is key to doing anything before considering the Presidential run.


Overall sound, but Rand is ruining things on the RON Paul movement end by making continual compromising noises. From a complete pragmatist point of view, it will be worth it if Rand gets elected in 2016, and makes Ron his Secretary of State. It's still HIGHLY irritating to see him make one neocon gesture after another, well past the point where Rand has any need to further cower to them.

----------


## dinosaur

> Overall sound, but Rand is ruining things on the RON Paul movement end by making continual compromising noises. From a complete pragmatist point of view, it will be worth it if Rand gets elected in 2016, and makes Ron his Secretary of State. It's still HIGHLY irritating to see him make one neocon gesture after another, well past the point where Rand has any need to further cower to them.


I hardly see it as cowering, more like educating.  He is talking to them in a language that they can understand.  We don't like the sound of that language because it is not our language.  The fact that it is not our language is exactly the point.  He is TRANSLATING the liberty message and moving the ball down the field.

----------


## kathy88

> I hardly see it as cowering, more like educating.  He is talking to them in a language that they can understand.  We don't like the sound of that language because it is not our language.  The fact that it is not our language is exactly the point.  He is TRANSLATING the liberty message and moving the ball down the field.


The Liberty message does not translate to Neoconspeak.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The Liberty message does not translate to Neoconspeak.


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

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I hardly see it as cowering, more like educating.  He is talking to them in a language that they can understand.  We don't like the sound of that language because it is not our language.  The fact that it is not our language is exactly the point.  He is TRANSLATING the liberty message and moving the ball down the field.


Precisely.  Rand is doing exactly what is needed to be done to move the ball down the field.

The Ron Paul movement is a small one, and a volatile one.  It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a segment of the movement that is ready to tar and feather any politician who dares deviate from their perceived definition of libertarian purism.  So, Rand, as a politician who is looking to advance his agenda and bring about substantive change in the way our federal government functions, would have to assess the situation at hand: does he pander to a small minority of the voters who are extremely volatile or does he just state what he believes, and act in the manner in which he sees fit to grow his own following?  The answer seems pretty simple to me.

----------


## dinosaur

> The Liberty message does not translate to Neoconspeak.


How well do you know the Glenn Beck and Rush audience?  I've been surrounded by these types all of my life, and they are with us in wanting small government and wanting an america first foreign policy.  They are with us, but fall for the lies.  Rand is trying to reclaim what should have been Ron's natural base.

We are now rejecting the message for the same reasons that they rejected Ron's message.  We are rejecting the message because it sounds like neocon speak.  They rejected it because it sounded like liberal speak.  C'mon, we have to be better than they are.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> We are now rejecting the message for the same reasons that they rejected Ron's message.  We are rejecting the message because it sounds like neocon speak.  They rejected it because it sounded like liberal speak.  C'mon, we have to be better than they are.


Agreed.

Part of the problem is that many people on here have no idea what a neo-con is.  They think that neo-cons are anyone who disagrees with Ron Paul on FP, which is completely false.  The fact is that most mainstream GOP voters are not Wilsonian in their FP views (aka neo-con), but are Jacksonian.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am saving this post to shove it in your face when Rand DOESN'T win in 2016.


And you can say that you helped (him lose).  Congratulations.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> How well do you know the Glenn Beck and Rush audience?  I've been surrounded by these types all of my life, and they are with us in wanting small government and wanting an america first foreign policy.  They are with us, but fall for the lies.  Rand is trying to reclaim what should have been Ron's natural base.
> 
> We are now rejecting the message for the same reasons that they rejected Ron's message.  We are rejecting the message because it sounds like neocon speak.  They rejected it because it sounded like liberal speak.  C'mon, we have to be better than they are.


I absolutely and totally agree with this.

----------


## Superfly

It's unfortunate that Rand has to try to water-down the message of Liberty for the accepting of the masses. It seems clear in the short term that this is the strategy he must use in order to gain favor with people who aren't ready to accept it but I'm not entirely sure that's the right approach.

For the same reasons that Ron tries to articulate, Liberty is a popular concept. As free individuals, I truly believe everyone has the innate desire to be free deep within. However, also inside every person is the creeping desire for security which clouds reason and paves the way for violence and aggression. 

I feel like Rand is trying to pacify the lesser side of people, their desire for security, with the way he frames issues even though he is ultimately working toward the correct end (Liberty). However, I'm not sure he needs to do this. People have an intrinsic desire to be free. It's not easy and there will always be people overcome with insecurity (hence wanting security) that they will fight Liberty, but I also believe wholeheartedly that the message of Liberty is enough in and of itself without need for watering down or filtering.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> How well do you know the Glenn Beck and Rush audience?  I've been surrounded by these types all of my life, and they are with us in wanting small government and wanting an america first foreign policy.  They are with us, but fall for the lies.  Rand is trying to reclaim what should have been Ron's natural base.
> 
> We are now rejecting the message for the same reasons that they rejected Ron's message.  We are rejecting the message because it sounds like neocon speak.  They rejected it because it sounded like liberal speak.  C'mon, we have to be better than they are.


Oh my God, are you serious?   I'm sorry, but I guess I didn't receive the Rand Paul Secret Decoder Ring. Can you please explain to me how Rand's own words "any attack on Israel should be considered an attack on the United States" is anything remotely like his Dad's views on U.S./Israel foreign policy?




> *Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel?*
> 
> *Ron Paul:* We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy.
> 
> This is not just about Israel, by the way, this is about how we should conduct ourselves with other countries around the world. 
> 
> *Newsmax: But Israel is not like other countries. We have a large Jewish population in America. What do you say to those who criticize your policy toward Israel?*
> 
> *Ron Paul: I think that some not only misunderstand the American Constitution and the role we should have in the world, they also misunderstand Zionism. Part of the original idea of Zionism, as I understand it, was that there should be Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance. Today, America doesn’t want anyone to be self-reliant. We want to rule the world and be the saviors of the world and we are going broke in the process.
> ...




http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/p...#ixzz2JNLCW82r

----------


## dinosaur

> It's unfortunate that Rand has to try to water-down the message of Liberty for the accepting of the masses. It seems clear in the short term that this is the strategy he must use in order to gain favor with people who aren't ready to accept it but I'm not entirely sure that's the right approach.
> 
> For the same reasons that Ron tries to articulate, Liberty is a popular concept. As free individuals, I truly believe everyone has the innate desire to be free deep within. However, also inside every person is the creeping desire for security which clouds reason and paves the way for violence and aggression. 
> 
> I feel like Rand is trying to pacify the lesser side of people, their desire for security, with the way he frames issues even though he is ultimately working toward the correct end (Liberty). However, I'm not sure he needs to do this. People have an intrinsic desire to be free. It's not easy and there will always be people overcome with insecurity (hence wanting security) that they will fight Liberty, but I also believe wholeheartedly that the message of Liberty is enough in and of itself without need for watering down or filtering.


Mostly it is about the press, everything gets filtered through them.  He absolutely cannot give them food for a frenzy, because they will use is to scare large segments of people away from the message.  Once they get scared, it is very hard to reach them with logic.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Overall sound, but Rand is ruining things on the RON Paul movement end by making continual compromising noises. From a complete pragmatist point of view, it will be worth it if Rand gets elected in 2016, and makes Ron his Secretary of State. It's still HIGHLY irritating to see him make one *neocon gesture* after another, well past the point where Rand has any need to further cower to them.


You know, it sure would help our cause if people would stop incorrectly using the term NEOCON.  Especially our own guys who should know better.

----------


## dinosaur

> Oh my God, are you serious?   I'm sorry, but I guess I didn't receive the Rand Paul Secret Decoder Ring. Can you please explain to me how Rand's own words "any attack on Israel should be considered an attack on the United States" is anything remotely like his Dad's views on U.S./Israel foreign policy?
> 
> 
> [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]


Both say that Israel is a friend.  Both say that they should be more independent.  Both say they would not usurp congressional power and start wars.  Both would execute any war that congress voted on. Different words, same result.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh my God, are you serious?   I'm sorry, but I guess I didn't receive the Rand Paul Secret Decoder Ring. Can you please explain to me how Rand's own words "any attack on Israel should be considered an attack on the United States" is anything remotely like his Dad's views on U.S./Israel foreign policy?


When Ron was asked if he would defend Israel if she was attacked, EVEN RON paused and most assuredly did NOT commit to the U.S. doing nothing.

As far as what you quoted goes, Rand has said much the same.

----------


## DylanWaco

> a cutback on foreign aid to our enemies, and spending cuts are real changes that we can acquire in the short term. 
>  "


I'm not sure meaningful spending cuts are all that likely and it is very arguable that a cutback on foreign aid specific to "our enemies" (whatever that means) will be used as a front end justification for further diplomatic tensions, saber rattling and war.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Both say that Israel is a friend.  Both say that they should be more independent.  Both say they would not usurp congressional power and start wars.  Both would execute any war that congress voted on. Different words, same result.


Both you and I occupy space.  Both of us breathe.  Both of us have heartbeats.  Both of us are carbon based life forms.

Clearly there is no difference between us

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When Ron was asked if he would defend Israel if she was attacked, EVEN RON paused and most assuredly did NOT commit to the U.S. doing nothing.
> 
> As far as what you quoted goes, Rand has said much the same.


Of course...we have allies.  No problem.  But that's not equivalent to saying an attack on them should be viewed as an attack on the U.S.  Ron wins again.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Of course...we have allies.  No problem.  But that's not equivalent to saying an attack on them should be viewed as an attack on the U.S.  Ron wins again.


Ron isn't running, Cajun.  Deal with it.

Do you not realize that Ron would have conducted a war that Congress declared?  He stated such.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You know, it sure would help our cause if people would stop incorrectly using the term NEOCON.  Especially our own guys who should know better.


If it walks like a duck....here's what everyone's favorite Rand Paul spokesman has to say about neoconservatism.  Please feel free to educate us on how this differentiates from what Rand proposed with his "Israel attack=U.S. attack" comment


*Whats a Neoconservative?*

By JACK HUNTER  June 23, 2011





> My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term neoconservative means. A lot of people dont know, he said. As usual, Dad was right. Though decades old, the mainstream use of the word neoconservative is relatively new. I mentally filed away my fathers suggestion agreeing that a laymans explanation of neoconservative might be helpful when the time was right. The time is rightas the American intervention in Libya has drawn a clearer line between neoconservatives and conventional Republicans than any event in recent memory.
> 
> The neocons believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great powerthrough vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the worlds top authority.
> 
> Critics say the US cannot afford to be the worlds policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we mustand that we will cease to be America if we dont. Writes_Boston Globe_ neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job. Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the worlds policeman because we are the best policeman.
> 
> Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the worlds top cop should be flashing its Sherriffs badge more forcefully in Libyaand everywhere else. _New York Times_ columnist Ross Douthat explains:
> 
> Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy His maiden Senate speech was a paean to national greatness, whose peroration invoked John F. Kennedy and insisted that America remain the watchman on the wall of world freedom.
> ...


http://www.theamericanconservative.c...oconservative/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron isn't running, Cajun.  Deal with it.


Unfortunately.  Nice rebuttal though.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> If it walks like a duck....


List the major tenants of neo-conservative foreign policy.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> List the major tenants of neo-conservative foreign policy.


I've since added an article to the post.  Go read it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

Once again, I must bow out of this discussion having been alerted to the fact that it is taking place in Rand's subforum.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I've since added an article to the post.  Go read it.


I have read that before, and re-read it.  If you think that Rand is using "neocon" language then you have a reading comprehension problem.

Rand is appealing to the Jacksonians, not to the Wilsonians.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have read that before, and re-read it.  If you think that Rand is using "neocon" language then you have a reading comprehension problem.
> 
> Rand is appealing to the Jacksonians, not to the Wilsonians.





> Once again, I must bow out of this discussion having been alerted to the fact that it is taking place in Rand's subforum.


..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If it walks like a duck....here's what everyone's favorite Rand Paul spokesman has to say about neoconservatism.  Please feel free to educate us on how this differentiates from what Rand proposed with his "Israel attack=U.S. attack" comment


As much as you are tongue-wagging, I would have thought you already knew what a neocon was.  Have you not even read Ron's rather famous article about it?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

Do you honestly believe Rand Paul is a frickin' Trotskyite?  REALLY?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As much as you are tongue-wagging, I would have thought you already knew what a neocon was.  Have you not even read Ron's rather famous article about it?
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html





> Once again, I must bow out of this discussion having been alerted to the fact that it is taking place in Rand's subforum.


..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Once again, I must bow out of this discussion having been alerted to the fact that it is taking place in Rand's subforum.


What's the difference?  You will just continue trolling in another area of the forum.  It is getting really damn old too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If it walks like a duck....here's what everyone's favorite Rand Paul spokesman has to say about neoconservatism.  Please feel free to educate us on how this differentiates from what Rand proposed with his "Israel attack=U.S. attack" comment
> 
> 
> *What’s a Neoconservative?*
> 
> By JACK HUNTER • June 23, 2011
> 
> 
> http://www.theamericanconservative.c...oconservative/





> List the major tenants of neo-conservative foreign policy.





> I've since added an article to the post.  Go read it.





> I have read that before, and re-read it.  If you think that Rand is using "neocon" language then you have a reading comprehension problem.
> 
> Rand is appealing to the Jacksonians, not to the Wilsonians.





> As much as you are tongue-wagging, I would have thought you already knew what a neocon was.  Have you not even read Ron's rather famous article about it?
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html
> 
> Do you honestly believe Rand Paul is a frickin' Trotskyite?  REALLY?


started a new thread in Hot Topics
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...60#post4843860

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> It's disturbing to see how many of our people can't see through that and think critically to understand what's going on. I thought most of the people around here were smarter than that, but I guess not.


Randpaulforums is not a representative sample, Matt.  90% of the liberty people I speak with in real life support Rand.  Some are skeptical, but I would estimate only 5% are anti-Rand.  The Rand haters are drawn to randpaulforums like moths to a flame.  They can't resist.  Don't let it get to you.

----------


## kathy88

> Randpaulforums is not a representative sample, Matt.  90% of the liberty people I speak with in real life support Rand.  Some are skeptical, but I would estimate only 5% are anti-Rand.  The Rand haters are drawn to randpaulforums like moths to a flame.  They can't resist.  Don't let it get to you.


I think I can speak for a lot of us when I say I don't hate Rand, nor am I anti-Rand. To listen to Collins et. al, it appears that the "master plan" here is for Rand to speak in a manner which attracts the establishment conservative republican voter, even though he's really a Liberty guy. 

Someone gets lied to. Us, or them? If them, is that okay, if the end result is we get the liberty guy elected? Not to me.

----------


## klamath

> Randpaulforums is not a representative sample, Matt.  90% of the liberty people I speak with in real life support Rand.  Some are skeptical, but I would estimate only 5% are anti-Rand.  The Rand haters are drawn to randpaulforums like moths to a flame.  They can't resist.  Don't let it get to you.


They are even worse on daily Paul. They actually voted for Kucinich over Rand, when they did a poll.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think I can speak for a lot of us when I say I don't hate Rand, nor am I anti-Rand. To listen to Collins et. al, it appears that the "master plan" here is for Rand to speak in a manner which attracts the establishment conservative republican voter, even though he's really a Liberty guy. 
> 
> Someone gets lied to. Us, or them? If them, is that okay, if the end result is we get the liberty guy elected? Not to me.


That's my concern as well, Kathy...I hope Rand's supporters would come to realize that's what all this is about. From the Romney endorsement forward.  +rep

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I think I can speak for a lot of us when I say I don't hate Rand, nor am I anti-Rand. To listen to Collins et. al, it appears that the "master plan" here is for Rand to speak in a manner which attracts the establishment conservative republican voter, even though he's really a Liberty guy. 
> 
> Someone gets lied to. Us, or them? If them, is that okay, if the end result is we get the liberty guy elected? Not to me.


I don't feel like I'm being lied to.  I try to be empathetic and ask the question, "if my top priority was to win the presidency, would I be willing to say what Rand is saying?"  I find that the answer is almost always the affirmative.  The difference between his actions and words is so stark and the words of his family regarding whats in his heart so comforting, that it becomes very easy to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

If tempering the message to appeal to conservatives is lying, so be it.  It is lying because he tells half truths.  His role is not that of his father though, and I would rather have a lying Rand in the presidency than another Ron continually on the outside.  The Rand haters/doubters either doubt what the content of his character and his true philosophy is or they would rather lose honestly than "play the game".

I for one applaud Rand for being the sacrificial lamb willing to bridge the divide.  Toeing the line like he does is incredibly difficult and he does it with finesse.  If electoral politics is going to be a medium through which we advance the cause, we need to embrace our best chance of success.  Criticize his missteps, but don't sabotage the mission.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> They are even worse on daily Paul. They actually voted for Kucinich over Rand, when they did a poll.


Easily explained even if I would stay home before voting for Dennis...for many libertarians, non-aggression trumps all else.  DK has been consistently anti-war while Rand is (at least) pandering to those who support defending Israel at all costs.

----------


## klamath

> Easily explained even if I would stay home before voting for Dennis...for many libertarians, non-aggression trumps all else.  DK has been consistently anti-war while Rand is (at least) pandering to those who support defending Israel at all costs.


Yeaw it is easily explained why DU and huffington posts don't vote for Rand or Ron too.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Yeaw it is easily explained why DU and huffington posts don't vote for Rand or Ron too.


Because they aren't non-interventionists, but partisan democrats?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Someone gets lied to. Us, or them? If them, is that okay, if the end result is we get the liberty guy elected? Not to me.


I'd rather Ron Paul win the presidency by pretending to be a neocon, than have Obama/Romney/McCain in the White House.

If the establishment can lie to obtain political power, why can't "we"?

----------


## klamath

> Because they aren't non-interventionists, but partisan democrats?


 because they have different ideas, Duh.

----------


## dinosaur

> Because they aren't non-interventionists, but partisan democrats?


Because they are scared of rhetoric that doesn't sound liberal.  They have no idea what the substance of the positions are.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeaw it is easily explained why DU and huffington posts don't vote for Rand or Ron too.


How would you know they didn't vote for Ron?  Sure, some don't vote at all because they feel the political system is corrupt; of course that means they wouldn't actually vote for DK either (unlike those at DU who regularly supported him).

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> They are even worse on daily Paul. They actually voted for Kucinich over Rand, when they did a poll.


Actually,  I surmise they didn't.  The Daily Paul poll was highly suspect, and not because of the results so much as the number of votes.  Only about the same ten people were commenting on that poll's thread, yet it had this huge amount of votes.  Every time I refreshed the poll, it had another 25 votes, in mere seconds.

Sorry, but that poll was spammed.  It was one of those polls in which you can clear your cookies and vote as many times as your heart desires.  Unlike RonPaulForums poll, where you have to be a member and only get one vote, and clearing cookies doesn't allow you to vote twice or more.

Now maybe the results were ultimately accurate, maybe more on Daily Paul support Kucinich than Rand Paul.  But that poll was garbage.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'd rather Ron Paul win the presidency by pretending to be a neocon, than have Obama/Romney/McCain in the White House.
> 
> If the establishment can lie to obtain political power, why can't "we"?


If George W. Bush preemptively starts a war, why can't we? Slippery slope is slippery.

----------


## dinosaur

When has Rand lied?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> If George W. Bush preemptively starts a war, why can't we? Slippery slope is slippery.


False equivocation.  Words do not equal actions.  Words can not violate the right to conscience, life, liberty, or property.  Actions can.  Argument rejected.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> False equivocation.  Words do not equal actions.  Words can not violate the right to conscience, life, liberty, or property.  Actions can.  Argument rejected.


It's a slippery slope.  If one gets comfortable with lying, who knows where that could lead?

----------


## Dick Chaney

No he won't, ahhahahahah. He sucked Israels dick last week, he's shown exactly where his loyalty lies. The Republican Party will crash, and a fake neo-libertarian party will rise and nothing will change. It was Ron Paul in 2012 or bust.

----------


## dinosaur

> It's a slippery slope.  If one gets comfortable with lying, who knows where that could lead?


Please tell us when Rand has lied.  One can not prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the accuser.  Why should I believe that Rand is a liar?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Please tell us when Rand has lied.  One can not prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the accuser.  Why should I believe that Rand is a liar?


I didn't say he did.  My post was in response to this:




> I'd rather Ron Paul win the presidency by pretending to be a neocon, than have Obama/Romney/McCain in the White House.
> 
> *If the establishment can lie to obtain political power, why can't "we"?*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Please tell us when Rand has lied.  One can not prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the accuser.  Why should I believe that Rand is a liar?


Here's the thing though:  is Rand really going to take the U.S. to war if Israel is attacked?  If not, he lied last week. (Please don't say Israel won't get attacked....neither of us has a crystal ball).  I don't even want to entertain what it may mean if he _wasn't_ lying.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Get the f*** out of Rand's subforum, Cajun.  Go troll elsewhere.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Here's the thing though:  is Rand really going to take the U.S. to war if Israel is attacked?  If not, he lied last week. (Please don't say Israel won't get attacked....neither of us has a crystal ball).  I don't even want to entertain what it may mean if he _wasn't_ lying.


Didn't he say that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on America?  He didn't say he would consider it so.  This is one of those half truths.  He wants it to appear to the right wing that it his opinion, but he is misleading through semantics.  It's the position of Congress and he is communicating how he thinks it would play out not his own position.  I feel confident that he would defer to Congress in all matters of war, including anything Israel related.  It's truly unfortunate that he has to pander to the AIPAC/Israel-first crowd, but I don't think its realistic to believe he could win the GOP nomination without doing so.

----------


## dinosaur

> Here's the thing though:  is Rand really going to take the U.S. to war if Israel is attacked?  If not, he lied last week. (Please don't say Israel won't get attacked....neither of us has a crystal ball).  I don't even want to entertain what it may mean if he _wasn't_ lying.


He said that he would consider it an attack on the US.  He also said that he, as president, would not usurp congressional power to declare wars.  He is clearly saying that he considers them to be an ally and would be outraged if they were attacked.  He is also clearly saying that as president he would not personally start wars.  I don't think that he is lying about any of that.

----------


## dinosaur

> Didn't he say that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on America?  He didn't say he would consider it so.  This is one of those half truths.  He wants it to appear to the right wing that it his opinion, but he is misleading through semantics.  It's the position of Congress and he is communicating how he thinks it would play out not his own position.  I feel confident that he would defer to Congress in all matters of war, including anything Israel related.  It's truly unfortunate that he has to pander to the AIPAC/Israel-first crowd, but I don't think its realistic to believe he could win the GOP nomination without doing so.


He is calling the bluff of the Bush Cheney crowd.  None of these wars are about Israel, and he is trying to provide example of what a true pro-Israel stance would look like.  If they were about Israel, we wouldn't be arming and destabilizing the middle east.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He said that he would consider it an attack on the US.  He also said that he, as president, would not usurp congressional power to declare wars.  He is clearly saying that he considers them to be an ally and would be outraged if they were attacked.  He is also clearly saying that as president he would not personally start wars.  I don't think that he is lying about any of that.


So, if the U.S. was attacked, would President Rand go to Congress for a declaration?  I would imagine he would (I would want him to!)  If attacking Israel=attacking the U.S., should I expect that President Rand would go to Congress for a declaration?  There's my problem.

----------


## sailingaway

> Ignoring everything else, if Rand Paul did the exact same thing in Canada, would you say he was *[acting impropertly]*?  It's funny how anyone saying anything about Israel other than they're monsters can cause some to say that, but it's only ever Israel that provokes the response.


No one ever would say that with Canada.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yeaw it is easily explained why DU and huffington posts don't vote for Rand or Ron too.


Actually, Robin Koerner who started Blue Republicans was a columnest there, and Laura someone, a columnist there, was for Ron as well.  Heck, Joan Walsh was campaigning for Ron.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> No one ever would say that with Canada.


Right, because the U.S. defending Canada if they're attacked goes without saying to most.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Remember when he was questioning John Kerry, he said, "*I* don't think the Constitution give that kind of latitude" referring to the President ever having the authority to commit acts of war not expressly authorized by Congress.  His words are very carefully chosen (except the worse tragedy since 9/11 remark); so it was with the Israel comments.  

He said, "We should announce to the world that an attack on Israel..."  Fine.  Those are just words.  Draw attention to the big stick.  I think his address on foreign policy tomorrow will be very telling.  In the delicate game of keeping the libertarian base in tow and pandering to the right wing, err on the side of whichever is more important to victory.

----------


## sailingaway

> Actually,  I surmise they didn't.  The Daily Paul poll was highly suspect, and not because of the results so much as the number of votes.  Only about the same ten people were commenting on that poll's thread, yet it had this huge amount of votes.  Every time I refreshed the poll, it had another 25 votes, in mere seconds.
> 
> Sorry, but that poll was spammed.  It was one of those polls in which you can clear your cookies and vote as many times as your heart desires.  Unlike RonPaulForums poll, where you have to be a member and only get one vote, and clearing cookies doesn't allow you to vote twice or more.
> 
> Now maybe the results were ultimately accurate, maybe more on Daily Paul support Kucinich than Rand Paul.  But that poll was garbage.


Internet polls poll not only who is interested in the question, but only those who are interested in taking a poll on the subject.  Many don't even vote.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> No he won't, ahhahahahah. He sucked Israels dick last week, he's shown exactly where his loyalty lies.


Ignoring everything else, if Rand Paul did the exact same thing in Canada, would you say he was "sucking Canada's dick"? It's funny how anyone saying anything about Israel other than they're monsters can cause some to say that, but it's only ever Israel that provokes the response.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Get the f*** out of Rand's subforum, Cajun.  Go troll elsewhere.





> This is Rand's subforum.  Sailing, please take your fellow travelers elsewhere to bash Rand.  Thank you.





> Folks, there has already been one split off thread.  Constructive disagreement to a point is OK, saying the candidate's forum whose this is is 'sucking a country's dick' goes beyond that by a fair distance.  i will delete this post after I have deleted that one, but cut it out.


When did asking legitimate questions and having a discussion become bashing?  I get it; I'm not supposed to be in  Rand's subforum.  Excuse me, but I tend to use the "new posts" feature of the board and don't always notice which subforum the thead is in as I mostly just look at the thread titles.  Good grief.

----------


## dinosaur

> So, if the U.S. was attacked, would President Rand go to Congress for a declaration?  I would imagine he would (I would want him to!)  If attacking Israel=attacking the U.S., should I expect that President Rand would go to Congress for a declaration?  There's my problem.


It is bluff, cajun.  He is trying to stop the spending and empire-building so that we will be in a position of strenth again.  From a position of strength, we wouldn't have to worry about an attack. His first priority would be America, because he believes that our debt is our greatest national security threat.  My money is on him arguing this point of view if war drums were beating. If war could not be avoided, my guess is that he would argue in favor of a limited, defineable victory and get us the hell out as soon as possible.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It is bluff, cajun.  He is trying to stop the spending and empire-building so that we will be in a position of strenth again.  From a position of strength, we wouldn't have to worry about an attack. His first priority would be America, because he believes that our debt is our greatest national security threat.  My money is on him arguing this point of view if war drums were beating. If war could not be avoided, my guess is that he would argue in favor of a limited, defineable victory and get us the hell out as soon as possible.


I would appreciate it if people would stop replying to my posts in Rand's subforum.  If you wish for me to have a conversation with you about something said here, please click the little (")+ button and take the post to Hot Topics.  Thank you.

----------


## dinosaur

> When did asking legitimate questions and having a discussion become bashing?  I get it; I'm not supposed to be in  Rand's subforum.  Excuse me, but I tend to use the "new posts" feature of the board and don't always notice which subforum the thead is in as I mostly just look at the thread titles.  Good grief.


When did constantly arguing in favor of Rand being a jerk become bashing?  Hmmm

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Cajuncocoa, I would like to say that you are welcome in this subforum and I reject the calls of my fellow Rand supporters to have you leave.  Just because you are so often wrong about Rand shouldn't mean you are allowed to voice your opinion.  It's like allowing racism in private business.  It's not a bad thing to have the misguided expose themselves.  In fact, I think the more you discredit yourself with blatant antagonism towards Rand, the less meaningful your valid criticisms become.  Keep it up.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> When did constantly arguing in favor of Rand being a jerk become bashing?  Hmmm


I would appreciate it if people would stop replying to my posts in Rand's subforum. If you wish for me to have a conversation with you about something said here, please click the little (")+ button and take the post to Hot Topics. Thank you.

While you're there, you can provide a link to the post where I called Rand a jerk.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cajuncocoa, I would like to say that you are welcome in this subforum and I reject the calls of my fellow Rand supporters to have you leave.  Just because you are so often wrong about Rand shouldn't mean you are allowed to voice your opinion.  It's like allowing racism in private business.  It's not a bad thing to have the misguided expose themselves.  In fact, I think the more you discredit yourself with blatant antagonism towards Rand, the less meaningful your valid criticisms become.  Keep it up.


If you want to discuss this with me, please take it to Hot Topics.  There are those who are itching to have me banned for posting in Rand's subforum and it was not my desire to give them what they want.

----------


## sailingaway

> Anyone know where my post that read...
> 
> 
> went to?  It's still quoted by SailingAway, but the post itself is gone.


Yes, it hardly helps to delete a post if the posts still quoting that post continue to contain it.  Sometimes I delete the whole post if it had no other purpose, otherwise I try to retain a point that didn't go to just refuting the part I am deleting to begin with.  This is a long thread, and I was interrupted in the middle of trying to delete all references to that post.

----------


## sailingaway

> Right, because the U.S. defending Canada if they're attacked goes without saying to most.



Due to our own interest.  Saying we would serve our own interest if either were attacked wouldn't have started this firestorm.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, it hardly helps to delete a post if the posts still quoting that post continue to contain it.  Sometimes I delete the whole post if it had no other purpose, otherwise I try to retain a point that didn't go to just refuting the part I am deleting to begin with.  This is a long thread, and I was interrupted in the middle of trying to delete all references to that post.



I think I've been through the whole thread and don't see the original Dick Cheney comment I was deleting references to. If someone sees it please report it and I will delete it.  That is over the top.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

It's amusing to me to see the hysteria that boils over from some people here. The comments I see from progressive blogs about Rand rival that of the few flat earthers around here at times.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It's amusing to me to see the hysteria that boils over from some people here. The comments I see from progressive blogs about Rand rival that of the few flat earthers around here at times.


Replied in Hot Topics thread.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Replied in Hot Topics thread.


That's cool, I prefer to uphold my dignity by operating in open view.

----------


## Andyc3020

Honest question-

Do you think Rand is trying to convince the liberty movement he is one of us?

Or,

Do you think Rand is trying to convince neocons that he is one of them?

Who would you rather be fooled?

----------


## Matt Collins

> To listen to Collins et. al, it appears that the  "master plan" here is for Rand to speak in a manner which attracts the  establishment conservative republican voter, even though he's really a  Liberty guy. 
> 
> Someone gets lied to. Us, or them? If them, is that okay, if the end  result is we get the liberty guy elected? Not to me.


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Speaking in someone's language to them doesn't equate to lying. It's not what gets said as much as how it's said.

----------


## Matt Collins

> It's unfortunate that Rand has to try to water-down the message of Liberty for the accepting of the masses.


You must be new to the political process. You have to talk about what people want to talk about, and you have to do it in a way that won't turn them off. That is, if you want to win an election.

----------


## phill4paul

> You must be new to the political process. You have to talk about what people want to talk about, and you have to do it in a way that won't turn them off. That is, if you want to win an election.


  Hear that Superfly? You're a neophyte. Hell, teh Collins has been in politics for at least two centuries. For a small fee he will teach you an online course. LOLOLOL.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's cool, I prefer to uphold my dignity by operating in open view.


And I'm upholding mine by cooperating with the wishes of board management.

----------


## phill4paul

> You must be new to the political process. You have to talk about what people want to talk about, and you have to do it in a way that won't turn them off. That is, if you want to win an election.


  Between '08 and '12 we saw a ground swell for Ron Paul. He made gains that absolutely no talking head could/would have given him credit for.

  He did that by speaking Constitutional truth. He never pandered. 

  Did he win the election? No. Did he make the GOP $#@! their pants in '12. Yes. Yes he did.

  In four years time.

  And if Ron were a younger man. Running again in '16 we wouldn't  be having this discussion about Rand.

  Would we?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> And I'm upholding mine by cooperating with the wishes of board management.


+rep from Mr. Winnertarian

----------


## phill4paul

> Except when a moderator gives them cover.


 Moderators are not needed in non organizational threads unless there are unwarranted personal attacks.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Between '08 and '12 we saw a ground swell for Ron Paul. He made gains that absolutely no talking head could/would have given him credit for.


"He went from winning zero state primaries in 2008 to zero state primaries in 2012!"

----------


## Superfly

> You must be new to the political process. You have to talk about what people want to talk about, and you have to do it in a way that won't turn them off. That is, if you want to win an election.


Musta missed the part where I said "It's unfortunate..."
Not, "ARGH WHY DOES RAND THE TRAITOR TALK LIKE THAT...!!!"
I like Rand, and I get it, it's just unforunate.

----------


## Superfly

> Hear that Superfly? You're a neophyte. Hell, teh Collins has been in politics for at least two centuries. For a small fee he will teach you an online course. LOLOLOL.


Then I could name drop that I know Collins!

----------


## robert68

> False equivocation.  Words do not equal actions.  Words can not violate the right to conscience, life, liberty, or property.  Actions can.  Argument rejected.


Words cause actions when theres a chain of causation. Those at the top of a chain of command are the ones most responsible for actions taken due to orders given. Heads of state certainly fit that category.

----------


## sailingaway

> Moderators are not needed in non organizational threads unless there are unwarranted personal attacks.


actually, that post went over the line in Rand's forum and I deleted it, and the one you quoted, since it quoted the one I deleted.  Substantive discussion is one thing, but just dragging down the candidate the forum is for with attacks is different.  There is a grey area, but that seemed past that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> When did asking legitimate questions and having a discussion become bashing?  I get it; I'm not supposed to be in  Rand's subforum.  Excuse me, but I tend to use the "new posts" feature of the board and don't always notice which subforum the thead is in as I mostly just look at the thread titles.  Good grief.


You are long past asking "questions" about Rand.  You hate him.  You have made that perfectly clear.  So, I would recommend to you that before you make a "comment" about Rand in the future, you check what subforum you are making it in.

----------

