# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul: Im torn on shutdown

## libertarian101

Dear god, Rand is really embarrassing some times. He is still begging Christie to meet with him even though Christie routinely mocks and rejects him. Christie has no respect for Rand what so ever but Rand see him as a god. Does he have any kind of self respect ? If I was Rand, I would be more worried about losing Cruz and Lee than Christie. Even if he disagree with them on the tactic, I don't think Cruz and Lee would be pleased to see Rand doing very little to help them on the filibuster after what they did for him. The reason politicians like Peter King, McCain, Graham and the media loves or tolerates tea partiers like Rubio but hates Cruz and Lee is because Cruz and Lee has stood courageously with Rand many times on civil liberty and foreign policy, including going as far as defying the powerful AIPAC. If Cruz and Lee thinks Rand is too selfish and decide to abandon him, Rand influence in congress will be as insignificant as Ron Paul. Rand is so much focused on Hillary Clinton and being liked by democrats he is in danger of losing the republican base. His outreach to African Americans is good as it is a early strike against racist accusation about civil right stance, however his support for amnesty is political suicide. I think Rand will fall harder than Rubio and lose national primary and his senate seat come 2016, if republican base knew he supports the 6.3 trillion amnesty bill if boarder security is strengthened even though securing the boarder is not enough in combatting illegal immigration as half of illegal immigrant come here legally and overstay their visa. 




> Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday said although he supports Sen. Ted Cruz and the effort to defund Obamacare, he is “torn” over the possibility of a government shutdown and the likelihood Democrats have the votes to beat the Republicans.
> “I’m torn in the sense that I completely support Sen. Cruz and Lee on this, but at the same time I do hear the message of the other side that I don’t want the government to shut down,” the Kentucky Republican told Sean Hannity on his radio show. “And I think it won’t be good for the party if we go through a shutdown — and the Democrats are gleefully rubbing their hands together hoping we go through a shutdown.”
> 
> While Paul said everyone in the Republican caucus is in favor of defunding Obamacare, none of the tactics on hand will actually do away with it.
> “None of these tactics work to get rid of Obamacare,” he said. “I think we’ve done a superb job of drawing attention to Obamacare and how bad it is, but none of these tactics — we are not going to be able to defeat this with the votes we have. The only way we defeat Obamacare is at the ballot box in 2014.”
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2fxAQ3M5e

----------


## AuH20

He's too cozy with Mitch. If this smoke-out plan works, it hurts Mitch and Co. immensely. Bevin would get a big boost.

----------


## Warlord

neg

----------


## Carlybee

We knew pandering to McConnell would be trouble. I think even more so with the division. He is going to have to pick a side.

----------


## Warlord

> We knew pandering to McConnell would be trouble. I think even more so with the division. He is going to have to pick a side.


He isn't pandering to McConnell. Govt shutdown does not poll well and Rand is well aware of that I imagine. There are also other consequences like soldiers not getting paid and how this would look. Rand and the GOP will do everything to avert a shutdown

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

He needs to let the Christie thing go.  He offered an olive branch and Rand should leave it at that.

----------


## rich34

Ugh, Cruz is nothing like Rand on foreign policy, hell he was wanting to go into Syria with 75000 troops until he saw how unpopular it was and slyly changed his position.  This man is like W.  No difference and even has a little Bush running his PAC...   Of course none of the Cruz moles will even address that, gee wonder why?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> He isn't pandering to McConnell. Govt shutdown does not poll well and Rand is well aware of that I imagine. There are also other consequences like soldiers not getting paid and how this would look. Rand and the GOP will do everything to avert a shutdown


It would be very easy to spin a Govt shutdown against the liberty/tea party people in Congress.  It would likely hurt the very best people we have and our potential liberty candidates.  It's a dicey game.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I agree that Rand is being pathetic, but he's doing it for political reasons.  I'm still honestly shaking my head right now, enough of this from now until 2016 and he might lose my vote.  I'm not defending Rand here.  But he does not think Chris Christie is god.  That's just a stupid accusation.  I have no doubt Rand has contempt for Christie.  He's trying to play for party unity, which I really don't support either (I don't care about the GOP) but I doubt Rand actually likes Christie.




> He isn't pandering to McConnell. Govt shutdown does not poll well and Rand is well aware of that I imagine. There are also other consequences like soldiers not getting paid and how this would look. Rand and the GOP will do everything to avert a shutdown


Rand is caring too much about "polling numbers" to stick to his guns.  That's a problem.  Ted Cruz, amazingly, is doing better than Rand Paul on this particular issue.




> He needs to let the Christie thing go.  He offered an olive branch and Rand should leave it at that.


Agreed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It would be very easy to spin a Govt shutdown against the liberty/tea party people in Congress.  It would likely hurt the very best people we have and our potential liberty candidates.  It's a dicey game.


I know why he's doing it, but I still don't like it.  Is that a balanced enough answer?

----------


## Warlord

> I agree that Rand is being pathetic, but he's doing it for political reasons.  I'm still honestly shaking my head right now, enough of this from now until 2016 and he might lose my vote.  I'm not defending Rand here.  But he does not think Chris Christie is god.  That's just a stupid accusation.  I have no doubt Rand has contempt for Christie.  He's trying to play for party unity, which I really don't support either (I don't care about the GOP) but I doubt Rand actually likes Christie.
> 
> 
> 
> Rand is caring too much about "polling numbers" to stick to his guns.  That's a problem.  Ted Cruz, amazingly, is doing better than Rand Paul on this particular issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.


But what is Ted Cruz doing? He gave a 20 hour speech. So what?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ugh, Cruz is nothing like Rand on DO, hell he was wanting to go into Syria with 75000 troops until he saw how unpopular it was and slyly changed his position.  This man is like W.  No difference and even has a little Bush running his PAC...   Of course none of the Cruz moles will even address that, few wonder why?


Cruz is doing better than Rand on this one particular, but Rand Paul is still the better candidate by far.  Nothing but a miracle could make me support Cruz in any respect.  This crap is making me once again begin to question whether Rand Paul is worth supporting, however.

What a joke.  Way too often.  Rand needs to step it up and stand on something.  I agree with pretty much every criticism of Rand in this thread, other than the fact that he views Christie as god.  I don't think that.  But I think he's being absolutely spineless here.  Ick.

And he's giving people like Beck a valid excuse to support Cruz over him.  To take a more pro-govt position than Cruz or Lee on anything is a problem.

----------


## ctiger2

Rand needs to realize people are pissed and it's time to smash this political BS. If he $#@! on Mitch right now the GOP establishment would freak and the people of the country would give a big HOORAH!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> But what is Ted Cruz doing? He gave a 20 hour speech. So what?


I despise Ted Cruz.  I'm not a fan of Ted Cruz.  I thought you knew that.

But he's apparently willing to shut down the government, whereas Rand Paul is not.  That makes Ted Cruz better than Rand Paul ON THIS ISSUE.

I'd never, ever vote for a warmonger like Cruz though.  War with Iran being wrong is a MUCH more basic moral issue than the fact that shutting down government is morally right.  At this point its a question of how much of Ron we'll actually get from Rand come 2016.  This thread is honestly making me shake my head.  I thought Rand was better than this.

----------


## Warlord

> Cruz is doing better than Rand on this one particular, but Rand Paul is still the better candidate by far.  Nothing but a miracle could make me support Cruz in any respect.  This crap is making me once again begin to question whether Rand Paul is worth supporting, however.
> 
> What a joke.  Way too often.  Rand needs to step it up and stand on something.  I agree with pretty much every criticism of Rand in this thread, other than the fact that he views Christie as god.  I don't think that.  But I think he's being absolutely spineless here.  Ick.
> 
> And he's giving people like Beck a valid excuse to support Cruz over him.  To take a more pro-govt position than Cruz or Lee on anything is a problem.


Your screeds are pretty insufferable

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'll almost certainly vote for Rand in the general, but at this point, I don't think its worth registering Republican to vote for him in the primary.  

We need someone more libertarian than Rand to run in the primary, even if they have no chance, to force Rand to take more libertarian positions, and to make it easier for him to do so.

----------


## Warlord

> I'll almost certainly vote for Rand in the general, but at this point, I don't think its worth registering Republican to vote for him in the primary.


Guess what FF, sorry to tell you this but no one cares who you'd vote for. Hate to break it to you

----------


## TheTyke

> Dear god, Rand is really embarrassing some times..... I think Rand will fall harder than Rubio and lose national primary _and his senate seat_ come 2016...

----------


## phill4paul

The government will not be "shutdown." It WILL NOT HAPPEN.  BOTH parties benefit from it's operation and lose with it's failure. Social Security will be payed. Those in the military will still get their paychecks. This is all donkey drool. Theater.

----------


## phill4paul

> Guess what FF, sorry to tell you this but no one cares who you'd vote for. Hate to break it to you


neg

----------


## libertarian101

> Ugh, Cruz is nothing like Rand on DO, hell he was wanting to go into Syria with 75000 troops until he saw how unpopular it was and slyly changed his position.  This man is like W.  No difference and even has a little Bush running his PAC...   Of course none of the Cruz moles will even address that, few wonder why?


He was the first one to oppose Syria intervention after the chemical weapon allegation 2 days before Rand and any poll was done. Who is the little Bush who is running his PAC ?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Guess what FF, sorry to tell you this but no one cares who you'd vote for. Hate to break it to you


While purist libertarians may be a minority in all of this, I'm not the only one who's ticked.  

The vast majority of the "liberty movement" are Ted Cruz whores.  I think its funny that you're calling me a troll for my criticisms, and a lot of people here think you're a troll because of your views on Cruz.

I get that nobody cares who I personally would vote for.  Even still, I am making it known that I am not content with Rand constantly trying to play the political game rather than growing a spine and standing on SOMETHING.

----------


## AuH20

> We knew pandering to McConnell would be trouble. I think even more so with the division. He is going to have to pick a side.


Nothing is free in this world. Rand traded his allegiance for a spot on the foreign relations committee and contact with top-flight GOP donors. His hands are tied sadly.

----------


## Warlord

> While purist libertarians may be a minority in all of this, I'm not the only one who's ticked.  
> 
> The vast majority of the "liberty movement" are Ted Cruz whores.  I think its funny that you're calling me a troll for my criticisms, and a lot of people here think you're a troll because of your views on Cruz.
> 
> I get that nobody cares who I personally would vote for.  Even still, I am making it known that I am not content with Rand constantly trying to play the political game rather than growing a spine and standing on SOMETHING.


The whole world does not revolve around your vote

----------


## libertarian101

> I'll almost certainly vote for Rand in the general, but at this point, I don't think its worth registering Republican to vote for him in the primary.  
> 
> We need someone more libertarian than Rand to run in the primary, even if they have no chance, to force Rand to take more libertarian positions, and to make it easier for him to do so.


There is no better and trustworthy candidate than Rand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

The game is so pointlessly rigged there's no real point in trying to play.  Stand on principle, let God give us his blessings, or not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The whole world does not revolve around your vote


I know.  Rand will benefit politically from this.  Which is exactly what ticks me off so much about it.

That something benefits you politically doesn't make it right.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There is no better and trustworthy candidate than Rand.


Yet he's so squishy on issues than this.

Rand is the best of the bunch, but still so aggravating sometimes.  He's not his dad.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> While purist libertarians may be a minority in all of this, I'm not the only one who's ticked.  
> 
> The vast majority of the "liberty movement" are Ted Cruz whores.  I think its funny that you're calling me a troll for my criticisms, and a lot of people here think you're a troll because of your views on Cruz.
> 
> I get that nobody cares who I personally would vote for.  Even still, I am making it known that I am not content with Rand constantly trying to play the political game rather than growing a spine and standing on SOMETHING.


He has taken a stand on a wide variety of things.  But, much to some's chagrin around here, he is also cognizant of strategy.

Rand has done more than anyone in decades to actually change Republicans' stances on issues and move them towards less and less government.

You prefer Ron's approach, and I understand that, but you must also know that it wasn't successful in reaching many Republicans.  Rand, however, explains many of the same subjects in a different way that leaves Republicans lapping it up.  So, my question to you is, can you see past your own self to what is actually working to changing the hearts and minds of those we must reach?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He has taken a stand on a wide variety of things.  But, much to some's chagrin around here, he is also cognizant of strategy.
> 
> Rand has done more than anyone in decades to actually change Republicans' stances on issues and move them towards less and less government.


Warlord kind of ticked me off, but yes, I agree with you.  Rand Paul has taken a stance on a lot of issues.  And I wouldn't call him spineless in general.  I just think he's being spineless here.  And considering Ted Cruz and Mike Lee actually are standing on this one, its a particularly aggravating case of spinelessness.  It was one thing on the non-binding Iranian resolution where he would have stood alone, its another thing here when his wing of the party is pretty clearly in favor of government shutdown, yet he falters.

But yes, he's stood on a lot of issues.  I'm not trying to suggest that he doesn't stand on anything at all.  I exaggerated because Warlord kind of ticked me off, and this situation is kind of ticking me off (namely, seeing the one senator I actually like fail.)

----------


## libertarian101

> Yet he's so squishy on issues than this.
> 
> Rand is the best of the bunch, but still so aggravating sometimes.  He's not his dad.


 What is your main grievance against Rand ? apart from his 6.3 trillion amnesty support , he is sound on most thing in my opinion.

----------


## rich34

> I'll almost certainly vote for Rand in the general, but at this point, I don't think its worth registering Republican to vote for him in the primary.  
> 
> We need someone more libertarian than Rand to run in the primary, even if they have no chance, to force Rand to take more libertarian positions, and to make it easier for him to do so.


Oh BS, Teddy is doing thus cause he's a self serving opportunistic $#@!.  Him actually being allowed to talk for this long with Reid's blessing makes this even more questionable.  I bet your Ass Rand wouldn't have been given this speaking time.  But with ties to the Bush family and Goldman Sachs I reckon you get preferred treatment.  Anyone wanna talk about the Cruz connections with Bush and Goldman Sachs?  Didn't think so...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> What is your main grievance against Rand ? apart from his 6.3 trillion amnesty support , he is sound on most thing in my opinion.


Oh gawd, he's not in favor of amnesty.  The precursor is for the border to be secured, which he knows they will never do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is your main grievance against Rand ? apart from his 6.3 trillion amnesty support , he is sound on most thing in my opinion.


Would you mind if I PM you?  I'd really rather not do this publicly, because I like Rand 80% of the time, starting a thread on this would be way more negative than I want to be (And get me a bunch of stupid accusations of "Rand Hater") and I don't want to hijack this thread (Which, incidentally, does discuss one of my issues with Rand.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh BS, Teddy is doing thus cause he's a self serving opportunistic $#@!.  Him actually being allowed to talk for this long with Reid's blessing makes this even more questionable.  I bet your Ass Rand wouldn't have been given this speaking time.  But with ties to the Bush family and Goldman Sachs I reckon you get preferred treatment.  Anyone wanna talk about the Cruz connections with Bush and Goldman Sachs?  Didn't think so...


Wow, you guys are calling ME a Cruz supporter.  What a joke.  Search my posts from TODAY please.  I all but outright said that Ted Cruz supporters aren't really part of the liberty movement.  And that STILL isn't anti-Cruz enough for you?  Lol.

I'm not a mindless caricature, I give credit where credit is due, even if I hate the individual that happens to be doing something that I like.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You prefer Ron's approach, and I understand that, but you must also know that it wasn't successful in reaching many Republicans. Rand, however, explains many of the same subjects in a different way that leaves Republicans lapping it up. So, my question to you is, can you see past your own self to what is actually working to changing the hearts and minds of those we must reach?


I just noticed you edited your post.  The problem is that if Rand compromises too much, we won't actually gain much by electing him.  And its not just that he's explaining things a different way.  For instance, I know Rand never refers to the "American Empire" like Ron did.  I'm not going to grill Rand on terminology.  Its possible to spread liberty using different terminology, and I'm OK with that.

The problem is when Rand's different terminology leads to compromise on an actual issue of substance.  I'll never support that.  I still support Rand, mind you, but I won't support him on the issues where he's wrong.  

Honestly, as a Christian, there's a lot of deontology involved in this for me as well.  I speak out for liberty because I believe its morally right, I educate because I believe its morally right.  I don't really think its actually going to change anything.  Honestly, I think we'd need another 1776 to actually fix anything at this point, and I don't think that's going to happen for so many reasons.

As I said, I was a little too harsh at first.  I was put on the defensive, and I went a little further than I would have went otherwise.  I do believe Rand is being spineless here, but I don't believe he is spineless in general.

----------


## klamath

God, people are putting way to much importance to all this. This happens every year and people don't pay attention unless the government gets shut down and they start feeling the pinch.  By next year nobody will remember any of this.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I know why he's doing it, but I still don't like it.  Is that a balanced enough answer?


Rand is thinking longterm, 2014 midterms and 2016 and keeping in mind the long odds.  We're 99.9% likely to lose against Obamacare.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand is thinking longterm, 2014 midterms and 2016 and keeping in mind the long odds.  We're 99.9% likely to lose against Obamacare.


If we were only going to fight for things we actually had a chance to win, we might as well start campaigning for the establishment already.

Liberty IS an uphill battle.

----------


## RabbitMan

So why again did Cruz speak for 20 hours?  I don't see a point in supporting a Government Shutdown.  I was listening to CSPAN radio this morning and unfortunately was nodding my head in agreement with an Iowa Democrat who spoke after Cruz about how ridiculous the political theatre was.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> If we were only going to fight for things we actually had a chance to win, we might as well start campaigning for the establishment already.
> 
> Liberty IS an uphill battle.


You think so captain obvious?

----------


## specsaregood

> He needs to let the Christie thing go.  He offered an olive branch and Rand should leave it at that.


He was asked about it; its not like he brought it up.  What do you think he should have said in response to the question?

Also, you are aware that Rand and Christie were both at a small gathering in NY at the same time, just this past Monday night, right?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> So why again did Cruz speak for 20 hours?  I don't see a point in supporting a Government Shutdown.  I was listening to CSPAN radio this morning and unfortunately was nodding my head in agreement with an Iowa Democrat who spoke after Cruz about how ridiculous the political theatre was.


He's trying to sway public support.

----------


## lib3rtarian

Rand is REALLY screwing up and waffling here, and if you look at the conservative sites, they all feel Rand is with the establishment on this, despite him coming on the floor. Trying to pander to the liberals is going to cost him the conservatives. Seeing some of you deniers keep singing hallelujah to Rand, it feels like I am transported back to the waning days of Ron's campaign where some of you idiots still thought he was going to win with flying colors. Jesus. Some of you are worse than Obamabots.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> He was asked about it; its not like he brought it up.  What do you think he should have said in response to the question?
> 
> Also, you are aware that Rand and Christie were both at a small gathering in NY at the same time, just this past Monday night, right?


The whole offering him a beer thing just looks weak after a while, especially after Christie diss'ed him on it.  Move on, stop talking about Fat Bastard already.

----------


## specsaregood

> The whole offering him a beer thing just looks weak after a while, especially after Christie diss'ed him on it.  Move on, stop talking about Fat Bastard already.


So next time a talking head asks him about it; your suggestion is that instead of making a friendly remark about having a beer or bourbon; his response should be, _"I'm not gonna talk about that fat bastard anymore, ask me about something else."?_

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> So next time a talking head asks him about it; your suggestion is that instead of making a friendly remark about having a beer or bourbon; his response should be, _"I'm not gonna talk about that fat bastard anymore, ask me about something else."?_


Hmmmm...

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> So next time a talking head asks him about it; your suggestion is that instead of making a friendly remark about having a beer or bourbon; his response should be, _"I'm not gonna talk about that fat bastard anymore, ask me about something else."?_


I read that in Rand's voice and laughed.

----------


## TheTyke

If folks actually listened to him, you'd know he's not supporting a government shutdown. That is 100% establishment spin... just like the "catastrophic sequester" was. They're supporting defunding Obamacare. I wish we'd stop echoing their talking points.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand is REALLY screwing up and waffling here, and if you look at the conservative sites, they all feel Rand is with the establishment on this, despite him coming on the floor.


Yeah, I just hope those people are only a tiny part of the overall Republican electorate.  They yelled and screamed about Romney, and he still won the GOP nomination fairly easily.

----------


## Warlord

> Yeah, I just hope those people are only a tiny part of the overall Republican electorate.  They yelled and screamed about Romney, and he still won the GOP nomination fairly easily.


The commenters on those sites have zero influence

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If we were only going to fight for things we actually had a chance to win, we might as well start campaigning for the establishment already.
> 
> Liberty IS an uphill battle.


And if you want to be successful, it is crucial to use strategy and choose one's battles.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I'm afraid that Rand is attaching himself to people who are going to hurt him in the long run, similar to Ron.

This thing with McConnell is not good, I'm afraid his talking points are coming from there.  He needs to sit down with, or get on the phone with, Cruz and talk this out.  

Cruz, I think, understands senate procedure better than Rand and Rand could use some education on the subject. _edit: Cruz is thinking like a lawyer here._

----------


## Brett85

> The commenters on those sites have zero influence


Yeah, and it just seems like it's about impossible to win over those people anyway.  You can't please them 100% of the time.  Cruz will probably do something eventually that will cause those people to throw him under the bus.  They basically just hate everyone.  They criticized Cruz and Rand when they worked with Kirsten Gillibrand on ending sexual assault in the military.

----------


## jj-

> I'm afraid that Rand is attaching himself to people who are going to hurt him in the long run, similar to Ron.
> 
> This thing with McConnell is not good, I'm afraid his talking points are coming from there.  He needs to sit down with, or get on the phone with, Cruz and talk this out.  
> 
> Cruz, I think, understands senate procedure better than Rand and Rand could use some education on the subject. _edit: Cruz is thinking like a lawyer here._


Kentucky Republicans must beat McConnell in the primary to save Rand from Mitch. Rand did himself a lot of damage with the conservative base the last few days.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, I just hope those people are only a tiny part of the overall Republican electorate.  They yelled and screamed about Romney, and he still won the GOP nomination fairly easily.


Do you really blame them here?




> And if you want to be successful, it is crucial to use strategy and choose one's battles.


I don't feel like Rand fights nearly enough of them, but then, I think most American people are too blinded to "Win" politically at this point.  So I guess I should just let Rand have fun with this and see what happens.  He's not going to win anyway.

----------


## specsaregood

> Cruz, I think, understands senate procedure better than Rand and Rand could use some education on the subject. _edit: Cruz is thinking like a lawyer here._


Despite all the reports from insiders over the years that have said they were all extremely impressed with how quickly Rand learned and became proficient in using those procedures?   Cruz is the new one up there, I'd suspect its the other way around.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you really blame them here?


Yeah, because Rand has said that he'll vote with Cruz and vote against closure on the house bill.  What more is he supposed to do?

----------


## jj-

Cruz's presence in the Senate illustrates that Rand is way too pragmatic. Cruz is seeing the big picture better here. The issue is that Republicans have forgotten that the House has the power of the purse. So if they're against the Department of Education, it should end when Republicans take the House, because it won't have funding for those two years. But the culture of Washington doesn't seem to be aware of the powers of the House. Cruz is trying to change that. It will be the most positive development in generations, and Rand is acting like McConnel's sidekick sabotaging Cruz.

----------


## Brett85

> The issue is that Republicans have forgotten that the House has the power of the purse. So if they're against the Department of Education, it should end when Republicans take the House, because it won't have funding for those two years.


That's ridiculous.  The house has the power of the purse, but the President has the power to veto any bill passed by the house.  If the house Republicans passed a budget that ended the Department of Education, all it would mean is that there would be a government shutdown.  Of course most people here would like that, but the average American doesn't.

----------


## fisharmor

> Guess what FF, sorry to tell you this but no one cares who you'd vote for. Hate to break it to you


You guys keep saying that to FF, and Cajun, and me, but at some point you guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the list of people you're saying that to is growing.

----------


## jj-

> That's ridiculous.  The house has the power of the purse, but the President has the power to veto any bill passed by the house.  If the house Republicans passed a budget that ended the Department of Education, all it would mean is that there would be a government shutdown.  Of course most people here would like that, but the average American doesn't.


Right, and if the government shuts down, the department of education will be closed as well. So either way you win. With a veto and without a veto the Department of Education gets closed. What Cruz is trying to do is to change the culture so that it is normal and expected that the House will use its power and choose what to fund or not to fund, regardless of what's been done in the previous years.

----------


## Warlord

> You guys keep saying that to FF, and Cajun, and me, but at some point you guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the list of people you're saying that to is growing.


Get over yourself. 3 people on a message board

----------


## RickyJ

> There is no better and trustworthy candidate than Rand.


There are no candidates for 2016 presidential election right now, so while Rand is a good choice, to say there is no one better before the candidates are even known is not a good idea.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Get over yourself. 3 people on a message board


It's more than 3.  And you can bet it's not just on this board.

----------


## jj-

> The house has the power of the purse, but the President has the power to veto any bill passed by the house.


Translation: The House has the power of the purse, but it doesn't have the power of the purse. Your mentality is what in practice nullified the House having the power of the purse.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Right, and if the government shuts down, the department of education will be closed as well. So either way you win. With a veto and without a veto the Department of Education gets closed. What Cruz is trying to do is to change the culture so that it is normal and expected that the House will use its power and choose what to fund or not to fund, regardless of what's been done in the previous years.


A  M   E  N

----------


## Brett85

> Right, and if the government shuts down, the department of education will be closed as well. So either way you win. With a veto and without a veto the Department of Education gets closed. What Cruz is trying to do is to change the culture so that it is normal and expected that the House will use its power and choose what to fund or not to fund, regardless of what's been done in the previous years.


And you think that the average American agrees with hardcore libertarians that it would be good to shut the government down?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> And you think that the average American agrees with hardcore libertarians that it would be good to shut the government down?


An Irate minority!

----------


## Brett85

> Translation: The House has the power of the purse, but it doesn't have the power of the purse. Your mentality is what in practice nullified the House having the power of the purse.


It has the power of the purse, but it doesn't have the power to prevent the President from vetoing legislation.  The house Republicans on their own don't have the authority to abolish the department of education.  The Republicans have to have control of the entire Congress to get that to happen, and the Presidency.

----------


## jj-

> And you think that the average American agrees with hardcore libertarians that it would be good to shut the government down?


The House is not who is shutting the government down. The House is funding everything except the Dept of Education in that scenario. It would be the President who is shutting the government down. And if Americans don't like that, the President should pay. The problem is that Republicans need to remind people of that, but before Cruz, there weren't many good communicators.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Cruz is trying to force the Democrats to shut down government, damnit!

_Or, defund ObamaCare_

----------


## Warlord

> It's more than 3.  And you can bet it's not just on this board.


Rand has 1.3 million facebook followers losing a few diehards does not concern him

----------


## jj-

> It has the power of the purse, but it doesn't have the power to prevent the President from vetoing legislation.  The house Republicans on their own don't have the authority to abolish the department of education.  The Republicans have to have control of the entire Congress to get that to happen.


But they have the ability to not fund it while they have the majority. That's a monkey wrench that will practically eliminate it.

A presidential veto can't force the House to fund anything, so that's irrelevant.

----------


## RickyJ

> What is your main grievance against Rand ? *apart from his 6.3 trillion amnesty support* , he is sound on most thing in my opinion.


He supports that? WTH? Is he also for the immigration reform bill, is that part of that? I certainly hope not, that bill is a disgrace to American tax payers.

----------


## Brett85

> But they have the ability to not fund it while they have the majority. That's a monkey wrench that will practically eliminate it.
> 
> A presidential veto can't force the House to fund anything, so that's irrelevant.


But a presidential veto causes a permament government shutdown, which the American people would never go along with and would cause them to vote out the entire Republican Congress.  You guys have absolutely no pragmatism and political realism at all.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The House is not who is shutting the government down. The House is funding everything except the Dept of Education in that scenario. It would be the President who is shutting the government down. And if Americans don't like that, the President should pay. The problem is that Republicans need to remind people of that, but before Cruz, there weren't many good communicators.


Will somebody rep this person for me, I can't give out enough rep fast enough to keep up with him!

----------


## Brett85

> He supports that? WTH? Is he also for the immigration reform bill, is that part of that? I certainly hope not, that bill is a disgrace to American tax payers.


No, he didn't support that.  He voted against the immigration bill that passed.  Some members here are simply trolls.

----------


## jj-

> But a presidential veto causes a permament government shutdown, which the American people would never go along with and would cause them to vote out the entire Republican Congress.  You guys have absolutely no pragmatism and political realism at all.


Because the surrender caucus, of which you're a member, are too lazy to remind the people that is the President who is shutting down the government, not the house who is funding everything except one thing which they promised to oppose in the campaign.

----------


## Brett85

I'm not saying that I disagree with Cruz that the Republicans should do everything they can possibly due to defund Obamacare.  I'm just saying I agree with Rand that ultimately it's not possible to completely defund Obamacare with Obama as President.  The best they can hope for is to use their leverage to get Obama to at least get rid of the worst parts of Obamacare, such as the medical device tax.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> But a presidential veto causes a permament government shutdown, which the American people would never go along with and would cause them to vote out the entire Republican Congress.  You guys have absolutely no pragmatism and political realism at all.


Did you read your own post?

Obama refuses to fund the government and the republicans are at fault?  That is soooooooooooo easy to refute.

----------


## Warlord

> Because the surrender caucus, of which you're a member, are too lazy to remind the people that is the President who is shutting down the government, not the house who is funding everything except one thing which they promised to oppose in the campaign.


The president's bully pulpit is immense and he'll use it that's the problem right there and why politically a shutdown is unpalatable

----------


## Brett85

> Because the surrender caucus, of which you're a member, are too lazy to remind the people that is the President who is shutting down the government, not the house who is funding everything except one thing which they promised to oppose in the campaign.


That's BS.  I never said the Republicans shouldn't try to defund Obamacare, just that realistically they're not going to get 100% of what they want in the end.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Why is everyone fighting this so hard?  Because what Cruz is doing is foolishness?  No, because it is brilliant!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Get over yourself. 3 people on a message board


Get over yourself, you're only one person.



> And you think that the average American agrees with hardcore libertarians that it would be good to shut the government down?


Nope.  But I don't care




> But a presidential veto causes a permament government shutdown, which the American people would never go along with and would cause them to vote out the entire Republican Congress.  You guys have absolutely no pragmatism and political realism at all.


I don't think this nonsense is actually winnable.  1776 before 1984 already.




> Because the surrender caucus, of which you're a member, are too lazy to remind the people that is the President who is shutting down the government, not the house who is funding everything except one thing which they promised to oppose in the campaign.


TC is at least sincere, but I have to agree with this.  Even though it probably still wouldn't work because of the media.

----------


## jj-

TC: Why not just eliminate the House having the power of the purse if it's never going to be used? Because that's what you're advocating, to not ever use it. It's one of the greatest tools the Founders gave to stop abuses, and it's like it doesn't exist.

----------


## sluggo

Over 6000 posts since Feb 2013. 

Holy $#@!.

----------


## Warlord

> Did you read your own post?
> 
> Obama refuses to fund the government and the republicans are at fault?  That is soooooooooooo easy to refute.


No it's not when the president commands huge media attention and will use the bully pulpit.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Thanks guys, with friends like you, who needs democrats?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Over 6000 posts since Feb 2013. 
> 
> Holy $#@!.


Warlord is still posting more than me

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Liberty is Rising, people.

Obama had the bully pulpit for Syria, how did that work out?

----------


## puppetmaster

> And you think that the average American agrees with hardcore libertarians that it would be good to shut the government down?


They don't. 

I am 100% sure that Rand has a good coach when it comes to congressional procedures.

 Our freedoms were lost over many decades it will be a long return path if we able to return to freedom......

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> They don't. 
> 
> I am 100% sure that Rand has a good coach when it comes to congressional procedures.
> 
>  Our freedoms were lost over many decades it will be a long return path if we able to return to freedom......


The wrong procedures.  That's what McConnell is doing for him.

----------


## Brett85

> TC: Why not just eliminate the House having the power of the purse if it's never going to be used? Because that's what you're advocating, to not ever use it. It's one of the greatest tools the Founders gave to stop abuses, and it's like it doesn't exist.


No, that's not what I'm advocating.  To use your hypothetical example, the Republican house should vote to completely defund the department of education, but when a Democratic President ultimately vetoes that budget, the house Republicans have to use their leverage to at least get some cuts to the department of education.  It's not possible for them to defund the entire department with a Democratic President, but perhaps they could use their leverage to completely defund No Child Left Behind.  The house should use the power of the purse, but ultimately you have to use your leverage to get the best results you can, not simply use your power to permanently shut down government.

----------


## AuH20

> Why is everyone fighting this so hard?  Because what Cruz is doing is foolishness?  No, because it is brilliant!


Cruz & Lee realize that until the Republican leadership is ousted they cannot prosecute a full frontal assault against the democrats and it's various arms. Rand is in a much dicier situation since he made a deal with the 'devil' to augment his chances in 2016. He's isolated on this since he cannot betray Mitch. He accepted Mitch's gifts already. Where Rand miscalculated was thinking that the Republican old bulls would be safe by the time he would run for president. The situation has deteriorated greatly in that no one will be safe.

----------


## puppetmaster

> No it's not when the president commands huge media attention and will use the bully pulpit.


And every major media outlet is spewing this BS.

----------


## RickyJ

> No, he didn't support that.  He voted against the immigration bill that passed.  Some members here are simply trolls.


That is good to hear, I was getting a little worried. It did pass in the Senate but never passed in the House. I want that bill to die and stay dead. That may not be a "libertarian" stand, but I am not a pure libertarian, heck I may not even be a libertarian, I just really like Ron Paul.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Cruz & Lee realize that until the Republican leadership is ousted they cannot prosecute a full frontal assault against the democrats and it's various arms. Rand is in a much dicier situation since he made a deal with the 'devil' to augment his chances in 2016. He's isolated on this since he cannot betray Mitch. He accepted Mitch's gifts already.


He is attempting to make a full frontal assault, using their own damn rules.  If only the rest of the "liberty" crew would get a clue.

----------


## Brett85

> They don't. 
> 
> I am 100% sure that Rand has a good coach when it comes to congressional procedures.
> 
>  Our freedoms were lost over many decades it will be a long return path if we able to return to freedom......


But don't you realize that we can reverse 100 years of incremental progressivism overnight? Sarc/

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> But don't you realize that we can reverse 100 years of incremental progressivism overnight? Sarc/


How about we just start with ObamaCare, at this moment.  Then we can deal with another issue.

----------


## AuH20

Meanwhile in Kentucky...................................

http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...nell-Obamacare

----------


## Warlord

> Liberty is Rising, people.
> 
> Obama had the bully pulpit for Syria, how did that work out?


We had public opinion on our side with that. Govt shutdown does not poll as well as Syria

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> We had public opinion on our side with that. Govt shutdown does not poll as well as Syria


Why are we calling this government shutdown?  It's because that's the meme to keep what Cruz is trying to do from succeeding.  And, that meme seems to work here, just fine.

I'm almost done here.

----------


## Brett85

> Nope.  But I don't care


Then you don't care about actually winning elections, which is why it would be a terrible idea for Rand to actually follow your advice.

----------


## AuH20

> We had public opinion on our side with that. Govt shutdown does not poll as well as Syria


But you can still play chicken and kill 2 birds with one stone if you know what you're doing. I want every scumsucking traitor in the Republican Senate to place their career in jeopardy by voting 'yes' to allow Reid the backdoor to the amendment process.

----------


## jj-

> We had public opinion on our side with that. Govt shutdown does not poll as well as Syria


I think shutting down the government over Obamacare will be popular regardless of what the poll says, because people are already experiencing the trouble with the law.

Plus, the government isn't going to stay closed. Even if Republicans refuse to negotiate, Obama won't have the government closed for 2 years, so he'll sign the bill if Republicans give him no other option.

----------


## Brett85

> How about we just start with ObamaCare, at this moment.  Then we can deal with another issue.


Ok, but there's nothing wrong with doing everything possible to defund Obamacare while being realistic and acknowledging that Obamacare isn't going to completely go away as long as Obama is President.  That's all Rand is saying.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Ok, but there's nothing wrong with doing everything possible to defund Obamacare while being realistic and acknowledging that Obamacare isn't going to completely go away as long as Obama is President.  That's all Rand is saying.


Defund it, then they will have to come to the table.

----------


## AuH20

> Ok, but there's nothing wrong with doing everything possible to defund Obamacare while being realistic and acknowledging that Obamacare isn't going to completely go away as long as Obama is President.  That's all Rand is saying.


Rand is too cozy with leadership and 2016 aspirations to see the big picture. Mainly, that the old guard needs to go, which includes his boy Mitch.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then you don't care about actually winning elections, which is why it would be a terrible idea for Rand to actually follow your advice.


If I ever ran for politics it would be a purely educational experience.  I would lose, and I would be despised by almost everyone who listened to me speak.  I'd wake up a few, and the rest would absolutely despise me.  I don't even have as much tact as Ron Paul is, and I think I'm significantly more radical than he is as well.

I'm not giving Rand political advice here.  As I said, let them do their thing.  I'm honestly not sure I see the point anymore.  Will I vote for Rand?  Yeah, but I don't know how much its actually going to change.  I've said this before, you didn't like it last time, and I'll say it again, I'm with Sola on this issue.  Stick to principle, educate, assume you're going to lose.  If you win, great.

----------


## Brett85

> Defund it, then they will have to come to the table.


Right, and if they come to the table, then the GOP might at least be able to convince Obama to get rid of the worst parts of the law, such as the medical device tax.  That's what Rand was advocating, which I agree with.

----------


## Christian Liberty

But why would he "be torn" on government shutdown though?  Isn't that obviously a good thing for liberty?

----------


## Brett85

> But why would he "be torn" on government shutdown though?  Isn't that obviously a good thing for liberty?


No, not if it causes the entire Congress to be taken over by liberal Democrats who would give us a full fledged single payer system.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> But why would he "be torn" on government shutdown though?  Isn't that obviously a good thing for liberty?


He's saying that to appease the public who don't want a government shutdown, because that sounds so bad, but it won't be.

----------


## Brett85

And Rand doesn't philosophically support "shutting down the government" since he believes in limited government and isn't an anarchist.

----------


## jj-

> But why would he "be torn" on government shutdown though?  Isn't that obviously a good thing for liberty?


Rand wouldn't be torn, he is protecting himself from the potential negative fallout if it actually happens.

----------


## Warlord

> He's saying that to appease the public who don't want a government shutdown, because that sounds so bad, but it won't be.


It would be political suicide especially if soldiers and old people dont get checks

----------


## dinosaur

> Because the surrender caucus, of which you're a member, are too lazy to remind the people that is the President who is shutting down the government, not the house who is funding everything except one thing which they promised to oppose in the campaign.


It is useless to have a debate about tactics based on the presumption that there is a real majority in the House ( a real majority who had a goal of getting rid of obamacare).  There is a majority in pretense only.   It is transparently self-serving of Cruz to make a tactical move which presupposes that a majority of house republicans are genuine.

----------


## jj-

> It would be political suicide especially if soldiers and old people dont get checks


The House could pass a series of bills that funds essential things. If the Senate doesn't pass the bill that funds the military, it wouldn't be so easy to blame the GOP for that, since the House passed the bill funding the military.

----------


## KingNothing

> It would be very easy to spin a Govt shutdown against the liberty/tea party people in Congress.  It would likely hurt the very best people we have and our potential liberty candidates.  It's a dicey game.


Exactly.

“And I think it won’t be good for the party if we go through a shutdown — and the Democrats are gleefully rubbing their hands together hoping we go through a shutdown.”


That is an entirely reasonable line of thinking.  Rand, and the GOP, needs to be calculating and not so brash, or so accommodating.

Personally, I think that the GOP should demagogue two or three pieces of obvious waste and say that if that waste is cut, a continuing resolution could be passed.  Then, several months later, repeat the same thing.  Just keep chipping away at the very obvious and awful things that we spend money on.  You can cut the unpopular things and win a ton of points in the process.  ...and, by the time Obama is out of office, you'll have put a dent in the stupid spending.

----------


## 1836er

> He's saying that to appease the public who don't want a government shutdown, because that sounds so bad, but it won't be.


GGRRR, and that's what's so frustrating.  In order to win the GOP nomination he's got to get the hardcore conservative base on his side.  He's certainly not going to win the nomination by playing to what passes for the political "center," as it is the establishment who most despises and fears him.  Instead he should be playing up to the conservative base (to the extent he should be playing politics) by showing his willingness to accept a government shutdown if it comes to that.

----------


## KingNothing

> He's saying that to appease the public who don't want a government shutdown, because that sounds so bad, but it won't be.


A government shutdown WOULD be that bad because the Democrats and Obama would make it that bad.  And they'd be able to blame the GOP.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> A government shutdown WOULD be that bad because the Democrats and Obama would make it that bad.  And they'd be able to blame the GOP.


Not if Cruz was successful.  Then it would be in the democrats court.  Play ball.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, not if it causes the entire Congress to be taken over by liberal Democrats who would give us a full fledged single payer system.


That's unlikely.




> He's saying that to appease the public who don't want a government shutdown, because that sounds so bad, but it won't be.


It won't be.  Rand should explain this to this one.





> And Rand doesn't philosophically support "shutting down the government" since he believes in limited government and isn't an anarchist.


I understand that, and that's an in-house debate we can have.  But "Shutting down the government" doesn't actually mean shutting down ALL the government anyway.  You know that.




> It would be political suicide especially if soldiers and old people dont get checks


I'd love to have a liberty candidate that would have the guts to challenge the rights of government parasites (And yes, this includes 65 and over people who collect SS, medicare, medicaid, etc.) from voting.  It won't happen, but that's also the only way we can win, IMO.  Pandering to them continually won't lead to us winning anything worth winning.

----------


## Warlord

> Not if Cruz was successful.  Then it would be in the democrats court.  Play ball.


Listen to people who know what we're talking about? Cruz will not be successful

----------


## Brett85

> GGRRR, and that's what's so frustrating.  In order to win the GOP nomination he's got to get the hardcore conservative base on his side.  He's certainly not going to win the nomination by playing to what passes for the political "center," as it is the establishment who most despises and fears him.  Instead he should be playing up to the conservative base (to the extent he should be playing politics) by showing his willingness to accept a government shutdown if it comes to that.


Rand has said that he's going to vote with Cruz and vote against closure on this bill.  The only thing you're criticizing Rand for is that you don't think the rhetoric he's using is hardcore enough.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Rand is too cozy with leadership and 2016 aspirations to see the big picture. Mainly, that the old guard needs to go, which includes his boy Mitch.


Taking the Senate and House is far more important than taking the White House at this point. Having control of the bully pulpit is absolutely useless when you're unwilling to be bold. Does anybody really think that Rand will take off the sheep's coat he's been wearing and go full retard, betraying everyone he's been courting, once he takes office? At absolute best, he'll be the watered down libertarian-ish figure he's been in the Senate. More likely, he'll have to compromise much further. Worst case, the path he's on will lead him to a Reagan-like term in office.

If he wants to 'play the game,' then play the game and take out the establishment in the Senate. 'Playing the game' in an attempt to win the presidency is worse than useless; it's counterproductive.

----------


## Brett85

Why is Rand getting so much criticism for this from the so called "conservative blogosphere" when former VP nominee Paul Ryan has stated that he's completely opposed to using the threat of shutting down the government in order to defund Obamacare?  Apparently Paul Ryan is beyond criticism.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Why is Rand getting so much criticism for this from the so called "conservative blogosphere" when former VP nominee Paul Ryan has stated that he's completely opposed to using the threat of shutting down the government in order to defund Obamacare?  Apparently Paul Ryan is beyond criticism.


Because Rand has been making overtures to them his entire time in the Senate, and at this point he's much more visible than Paul Ryan.

----------


## Brett85

> Because Rand has been making overtures to them his entire time in the Senate, and at this point he's much more visible than Paul Ryan.


But Rand isn't even opposed to Cruz's plan of voting against closure on this bill.  Rand said that he's going to vote against closure.  The only criticism of Rand is that he's apparently not using rhetoric that's hardcore enough for some people.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why is Rand getting so much criticism for this from the so called "conservative blogosphere" when former VP nominee Paul Ryan has stated that he's completely opposed to using the threat of shutting down the government in order to defund Obamacare?  Apparently Paul Ryan is beyond criticism.


Over there maybe.  Over here, we all know we all hate Paul Ryan.

----------


## jj-

> Why is Rand getting so much criticism for this from the so called "conservative blogosphere" when former VP nominee Paul Ryan has stated that he's completely opposed to using the threat of shutting down the government in order to defund Obamacare?  Apparently Paul Ryan is beyond criticism.


Because while he will vote against cloture, he is defending those who will vote for cloture. He did that for example this morning during the Glenn Beck show. He said that saying that a vote for cloture is a vote for Obamacare is unfair, and used the same lame, false rationalizations the establishment republicans are using.

Because while he is voting against cloture, he is spending his time arguing a vote for cloture is fine.

He is voting for Cruz's plan while actively helping his enemies to undermine Cruz's plan.

----------


## Brett85

Does anyone really think that Ron Paul would get involved in all of these strategies and political battles?  He would just vote "no" on the budget and not even say anything about it.  And he would vote "no" not just because Obamacare might get funded, but because these budgets contain all kinds of other unconstitutional spending and funding for the wars overseas.  I'm just saying that Ron was always very principled, but he didn't really get involved in these kind of strategic battles.

----------


## Brett85

> Because while he will vote against cloture, he is defending those who will vote for cloture.


So you want him to piss off his fellow Republicans in the Senate so that he won't ever get any future support from them when he introduces a bill or an amendment that he wants to pass?

----------


## jj-

> I'm just saying that Ron was always very principled, but he didn't really get involved in these kind of strategic battles.


Yeah, I don't think when he voted for his audit of the fed he went out of his way and spent his time in radio shows arguing that voting against the audit is actually ok, which is similar to what Rand is doing now. Voting against cloture while defending those who vote for it.

----------


## jj-

> So you want him to piss off his fellow Republicans in the Senate so that he won't ever get any future support from them when he introduces a bill or an amendment that he wants to pass?


He could just not say anything about that. He could say I'm voting this way, each person has to make up his mind.

----------


## puppetmaster

> GGRRR, and that's what's so frustrating.  In order to win the GOP nomination he's got to get the hardcore conservative base on his side.  He's certainly not going to win the nomination by playing to what passes for the political "center," as it is the establishment who most despises and fears him.  Instead he should be playing up to the conservative base (to the extent he should be playing politics) by showing his willingness to accept a government shutdown if it comes to that.


Appeal to the santorum folks.......lol silly and foolish. It won't be them that carry the next election

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, I don't think when he voted for his audit of the fed he went out of his way and spent his time in radio shows arguing that voting against the audit is actually ok, which is similar to what Rand is doing now. Voting against cloture while defending those who vote for it.


This isn't at all the same situation.  The bill that the house passed defunded Obamacare, and now anyone who votes for closure on a bill that defunds Obamacare somehow is in favor of Obamacare.

----------


## Brett85

> He could just not say anything about that. He could say I'm voting this way, each person has to make up his mind.


Well, he had to answer the question since he's been asked that specific question about 50 times.  He's not going to throw his fellow Republican Senators under the bus when asked that question.

----------


## jj-

> This isn't at all the same situation.  The bill that the house passed defunded Obamacare, and now anyone who votes for closure on a bill that defunds Obamacare somehow is in favor of Obamacare.


That's correct, because that's equivalent to allowing amendments with just 51 votes. It's a double standard. Republicans tend to not go along with closing debate unless there is an agreement to get 60 votes for amendments.

----------


## jj-

> Well, he had to answer the question since he's been asked that specific question about 50 times.  He's not going to throw his fellow Republican Senators under the bus when asked that question.


He wasn't asked directly,  he went out of his way to attack Cruz's characterization of those who vote for the bill.

----------


## puppetmaster

> Rand is too cozy with leadership and 2016 aspirations to see the big picture. Mainly, that the old guard needs to go, which includes his boy Mitch.


Sorry to say but obamacare is not the big picture.....have you missed the forest for the trees?

----------


## Brett85

> That's correct, because that's equivalent to allowing amendments with just 51 votes. It's a double standard. Republicans tend to not go along with closing debate unless there is an agreement to get 60 votes for amendments.


Yeah, I understand that, and think that Rand should vote against closure on this.  I just don't think it's a good idea for him to criticize his fellow Republican Senators for not wanting to go quite as far on this as he is.  Cruz is already becoming absolutely hated by his fellow Republicans for his tactics.  That might make him more popular with the conservative web sites and conservative talk show hosts, but it's going to make it a lot harder for him to get the necessary support he needs for what he wants to accomplish in the Senate.

----------


## Brett85

> He wasn't asked directly,  he went out of his way to attack Cruz's characterization of those who vote for the bill.


He never specifically mentioned Cruz's name or criticized him directly.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> Does anyone really think that Ron Paul would get involved in all of these strategies and political battles?  He would just vote "no" on the budget and not even say anything about it.  And he would vote "no" not just because Obamacare might get funded, but because these budgets contain all kinds of other unconstitutional spending and funding for the wars overseas.  I'm just saying that Ron was always very principled, but he didn't really get involved in these kind of strategic battles.


He'd also give a House floor speech as to the unconstitutionality of the bill and talk about some other stuff, as he always did.

----------


## jj-

> I just don't think it's a good idea for him to criticize his fellow Republican Senators for not wanting to go quite as far on this as he is.


But not defend them either. Voting one way and using your time to not argue your case but defend the other side is one of the most transparently hypocritical things anyone has ever done.

----------


## jj-

> He never specifically mentioned Cruz's name or criticized him directly.


I didn't say he did that.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Sorry to say but obamacare is not the big picture.....have you missed the forest for the trees?


No, it's not.  An out of control government is the big picture.  And, Cruz talked about that, and Lee talked about that, last night.  That's what this is all about.

----------


## jj-

> That might make him more popular with the conservative web sites and conservative talk show hosts, but it's going to make it a lot harder for him to get the necessary support he needs for what he wants to accomplish in the Senate.


But he is risking losing the votes of people who dislike blatant hypocrisy.

----------


## AuH20

> Sorry to say but obamacare is not the big picture.....have you missed the forest for the trees?


The republican leadership colluding with the globalists in the democrat party is the big problem. Rand could vault to the presidency and very little would change. However, if you could topple leadership and essentially take over the funding mechanisms and committee assignments, you could theoretically change the entire landscape of Washington.

----------


## 1836er

> Rand has said that he's going to vote with Cruz and vote against closure on this bill.  The only thing you're criticizing Rand for is that you don't think the rhetoric he's using is hardcore enough.


Could he stand to sound more hardcore on this one than he is?  Yes.  But more importantly, I think he just needs to be CLEAR where he stands because many of the people who agree with him on this issue (and whom he's spent the last three years cultivating a positive relationship with) are genuinely confused and think that he's standing with the establishment rather than against it.  The battle lines in the republican civil war are being drawn here and it needs to be clear who side he's on... this is the worst possible time for Rand to try and play the role of pragmatic mediator or behind-the-scenes strategist.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> The republican leadership colluding with the globalists in the democrat party is the big problem. Rand could vault to the presidency and very little would change. However, if you could topple leadership and essentially take over the funding mechanisms and committee assignments, you could theoretically change the entire landscape of Washington.


First, I agree with you.

Damn, I almost with I weren't drinking merlot tonight.  This conversation is moving so fast.  There seems to be a 5 to 10 ratio, on this board, for acting in a responsible way to do what can be done. 

It seems, few understand how the senate procedures affect the outcome of votes, or how responsibility is passed from one group to another.

Ted Cruz is doing something that is fundamental to how the senate works.  He understands it, and is trying to get others on board.

This is not about 2016, but about now and 2014.  He wants to get people in the senate on the record, but it requires an understanding of senate procedures for that to be effective.

----------


## osan

Interesting - I don't watch news so I have no idea what goes on in some cases - didn't find out about the DC Navy yard thing until the 19th.  Therefore, I don't see much of what Rand Paul does, however, the little I do see is almost always negative.  It is indeed true that he may be "playing the game", and if so I can agree with it to a point, but he appears to go too far and that undermines trust.  Either he has much to learn about how to play this game in a way that will earn him proper trust, is a political survivor, which makes him a weasel pragmatist willing to say and do whatever it takes to remain in the game whether intentions be fair or foul, or he is just outright corrupt.  Either way I see serious problems.  Obviously in the latter case there is nothing to discuss - he is out.  In the former, I would say he is in dire need of a reality check because trust is such an issue today and a large part of earning trust is demonstrating that you have the oats to stand tall on risky issues such as this.  

If nothing else, it seems that Rand Paul has some trouble keeping his tongue and I suspect this may be a good case in point.  Why issue such melodramatic statements when remaining silent is clearly the better move?  If he is "torn", then he is likely still undecided and if that be the case then he should shut up until he is certain of his position.  Has this man a need for attention?  Again to compare him with his father, Ron Paul to my knowledge has not been in the habit of indulging himself in such petty drama and perhaps headline grabbing antics.  Whenever he speaks he has something of clear and unequivocal value and relevance to say.  His boy, OTOH, stands before the nation and wrings his hands?  Seriously, how is this productive to the cause of liberty or even so much as restoring Constitutionality to government function?  If he is well intentioned, I still see him as screwing the pooch of public trust with these sorts of moves.  

At the very least, he appears to be in some need of reconsidering his choice of words.  I would not be torn over such an issue because the fact is that at some point we absolutely must cut this nonsense with the debt.  We are in trouble enough already and cannot by any means justify going more deeply down this path to economic chaos.  If this thing unwinds as it potentially may, droves of people here stand to die in the wake and that alone will provide Themme with all the pretext they need to further clamp down on the rights of the individual.  This is political theater designed for a very definite and apparently clear purpose and when the trap is sprung we will be then lucky to come out the other end with our asses, forget about rights.

If, for example, paying our men in uniform is so lofty and dire a need then don't endanger that by demanding the debt ceiling be raised yet again.  At some point one either stands tall or shrinks away and this language of Rand Paul suggests the latter and we all know that in politics public image is the holy grail.  To my eyes, Rand Paul's image could use significant augmentation.

*Edit:* I am sure that my ignorance of how things work in DC also play into my opinion, but that aside the perception issue is nonetheless valid.

----------


## dinosaur

> First, I agree with you.
> 
> Damn, I almost with I weren't drinking merlot tonight.  This conversation is moving so fast.  There seems to be a 5 to 10 ratio, on this board, for acting in a responsible way to do what can be done. 
> 
> It seems, few understand how the senate procedures affect the outcome of votes, or how responsibility is passed from one group to another.
> 
> Ted Cruz is doing something that is fundamental to how the senate works.  He understands it, and is trying to get others on board.
> 
> This is not about 2016, but about now and 2014.  He wants to get people in the senate on the record, but it requires an understanding of senate procedures for that to be effective.


You're right about one thing...I'm definitely not getting that.  This filibuster does not seem like a plan to expose RINOs in the Senate.

----------


## dinosaur

> Interesting - I don't watch news so I have no idea what goes on in some cases - didn't find out about the DC Navy yard thing until the 19th.  Therefore, I don't see much of what Rand Paul does, however, the little I do see is almost always negative.  It is indeed true that he may be "playing the game", and if so I can agree with it to a point, but he appears to go too far and that undermines trust.  Either he has much to learn about how to play this game in a way that will earn him proper trust, is a political survivor, which makes him a weasel pragmatist willing to say and do whatever it takes to remain in the game whether intentions be fair or foul, or he is just outright corrupt.  Either way I see serious problems.  Obviously in the latter case there is nothing to discuss - he is out.  In the former, I would say he is in dire need of a reality check because trust is such an issue today and a large part of earning trust is demonstrating that you have the oats to stand tall on risky issues such as this.  
> 
> If nothing else, it seems that Rand Paul has some trouble keeping his tongue and I suspect this may be a good case in point.  Why issue such melodramatic statements when remaining silent is clearly the better move?  If he is "torn", then he is likely still undecided and if that be the case then he should shut up until he is certain of his position.  Has this man a need for attention?  Again to compare him with his father, Ron Paul to my knowledge has not been in the habit of indulging himself in such petty drama and perhaps headline grabbing antics.  Whenever he speaks he has something of clear and unequivocal value and relevance to say.  His boy, OTOH, stands before the nation and wrings his hands?  Seriously, how is this productive to the cause of liberty or even so much as restoring Constitutionality to government function?  If he is well intentioned, I still see him as screwing the pooch of public trust with these sorts of moves.  
> 
> At the very least, he appears to be in some need of reconsidering his choice of words.  I would not be torn over such an issue because the fact is that at some point we absolutely must cut this nonsense with the debt.  We are in trouble enough already and cannot by any means justify going more deeply down this path to economic chaos.  If this thing unwinds as it potentially may, droves of people here stand to die in the wake and that alone will provide Themme with all the pretext they need to further clamp down on the rights of the individual.  This is political theater designed for a very definite and apparently clear purpose and when the trap is sprung we will be then lucky to come out the other end with our asses, forget about rights.
> 
> If, for example, paying our men in uniform is so lofty and dire a need then don't endanger that by demanding the debt ceiling be raised yet again.  At some point one either stands tall or shrinks away and this language of Rand Paul suggests the latter and we all know that in politics public image is the holy grail.  To my eyes, Rand Paul's image could use significant augmentation.
> 
> *Edit:* I am sure that my ignorance of how things work in DC also play into my opinion, but that aside the perception issue is nonetheless valid.


False either/or choice, Osan.  "Playing the Game" might also mean being serious about actually changing something.  To do that you need to pick and plan your battles.  The Cruz filibuster is an illustration of the opposite of that.  The Cruz filibuster is about talking a lot and not accomplishing anything.  You can separate the wheat from the chaff by understanding their resolve.  The Cruz filibuster illustrates a lack of resolve.  On the other hand, the Rand filibuster forced the media and many of his colleagues to change their narrative on foreign policy.  Rand is the one who is actually effecting positive change.

----------


## Brett85

> Could he stand to sound more hardcore on this one than he is?  Yes.  But more importantly, I think he just needs to be CLEAR where he stands because many of the people who agree with him on this issue (and whom he's spent the last three years cultivating a positive relationship with) are genuinely confused and think that he's standing with the establishment rather than against it.  The battle lines in the republican civil war are being drawn here and it needs to be clear who side he's on... this is the worst possible time for Rand to try and play the role of pragmatic mediator or behind-the-scenes strategist.


It just kind of amazes me that Rand got so heavily criticized for simply being honest and stating the obvious, which is that it's not possible to completely get rid of Obamacare when you have a Democratic Senate and a Democratic President.  It's like if Rand came out and said that the sky is blue, and people started arguing with him over that.

----------


## kathy88

> Guess what FF, sorry to tell you this but no one cares who you'd vote for. Hate to break it to you


No, actually I do care. It's ass wipes like this that won't register to vote in the primaries that $#@! us every time.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> You're right about one thing...I'm definitely not getting that.  This filibuster does not seem like a plan to expose RINOs in the Senate.


What Cruz did was not a real filibuster, maybe (_Although he used the rules_).  It was an educational talk till you drop to get awareness.  It was a "Hey, over here, there's something that can be done and the Republicans are not going to do it but instead take cover".

The Republicans have the votes to stop cloture.  But, McCain et al are not going to, even knowing that Reid is going to introduce an amendment to the bill to fund ObamaCare.  Cruz wants the Republicans to force a deal; cloture  or end debate - in exchange for - vote on the bill without amendments (Reid gives up his amendment) OR require that amendments need 60 votes.

----------


## osan

> False either/or choice, Osan.  "Playing the Game" might also mean being serious about actually changing something.


Incorrect cite of false dichotomy, sorry.  The choice is not false and the option you cite was included in my list of three, albeit differently worded.  You also appear to have failed to observe that I said I support such game playing, to a point.  My objection is that he goes too far and strains the ability of one to trust him because he reads much like the other low-rent crooks in Congress.  I am by no means the only person who sees this and holds it in issue.




> To do that you need to pick and plan your battles.


That is so, but it is not enough and there again the problem of perception - of image - arises and Rand Paul is not playing that card well.  He comes off as a panderer, as weak kneed to some, and so on.  I understand that the world of modern politics is a mine field with hazards everywhere.  I also understand that they cannot be avoided in all cases and therefore the best you can do is to stand tall and make clear who you are, that for which you stand, and that you are on that basis trustworthy.  You can be Jesus himself, doing the soft-shoe across the seven seas, but if you appear to people as a demon it matters not who you really are.  People can only go by what they experience directly - very few read between lines adeptly and fewer still are willing to wager their hides on speculative hunches.  Therefore, it is my personal view that it behooves people like Rand Paul to be unequivocal on the points I just listed because you will never buy the entire nation's support and can only hope to get as many as possible in your corner.  If you are so worried about winning and losing that you resort to the sorts of tactics I seem to be seeing Rand Paul use, you are already not the sort of person for whom I will be inclined to support.  Stand for what you believe and do so clearly and with no timidity, come what may.  If the nation is that far gone that people will not stand by a man who seeks to defend liberty, is that nation worth preserving?  In addition, if it is that far gone, those liberty-minded people who remain are then most likely faced with the more existential choice of fighting for their rights or laying down to be rendered eventually extinct.




> On the other hand, the Rand filibuster forced the media and many of his colleagues to change their narrative on foreign policy.  Rand is the one who is actually effecting positive change.


And our foreign policy has changed... _how_ exactly?  If you think the fact that we are not today bombing Syria into extinction demonstrates anything substantively good in terms of change in American _anything_, I think perhaps you are fooling yourself mightily.

It appears by your words that you are a pragmatist in the ways that pragmatism has served as the great scourge upon the world of humans.  That is your right, but I cannot agree with the approach.

----------


## dinosaur

> What Cruz did was not a real filibuster, maybe (_Although he used the rules_).  It was an educational talk till you drop to get awareness.  It was a "Hey, over here, there's something that can be done and the Republicans are not going to do it but instead take cover".
> 
> The Republicans have the votes to stop cloture.  But, McCain et al are not going to, even knowing that Reid is going to introduce an amendment to the bill to fund ObamaCare.  Cruz wants the Republicans to force a deal; cloture  or end debate - in exchange for - vote on the bill without amendments (Reid gives up his amendment) OR require that amendments need 60 votes.


Can't amendments be added even if cloture is stopped? What incentives do the Democrats have for making a senate deal?  They might have incentives for making a deal in the House, so why not send it to the house and give them more time to deal there?

----------


## jjdoyle

> False either/or choice, Osan. "Playing the Game" might also mean being serious about actually changing something. To do that you need to pick and plan your battles. The Cruz filibuster is an illustration of the opposite of that. The Cruz filibuster is about talking a lot and not accomplishing anything. You can separate the wheat from the chaff by understanding their resolve. The Cruz filibuster illustrates a lack of resolve. On the other hand, the Rand filibuster forced the media and many of his colleagues to change their narrative on foreign policy. Rand is the one who is actually effecting positive change.


Except you might be forgetting something. The Cruz "filibuster" is aimed at the Republican base that would help a REPUBLICAN candidate win the REPUBLICAN nomination in 2016. Rand filibustering and talking about drones, then back-tracking it and saying it's A-okay for a guy to get drone killed leaving a convenient store with a gun in hand, shows Rand had no clue what he was doing. I'm still not sure what the point was, especially with how he came out in support of a drone killing an untried person leaving a convenient store.

Cruz's "filibuster", not even being one, was more effective for a REPUBLICAN candidate trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination in 2016, than for a Republican trying to filibuster something on drones, when the MAJORITY of your Republican voters will be cheering for more drones when they are instructed to do.

----------


## dinosaur

> It appears by your words that you are a pragmatist in the ways that pragmatism has served as the great scourge upon the world of humans.  That is your right, but I cannot agree with the approach.


Everyone who disagrees with your analysis isn't a pragmatist.  I'm not, but categorizing me as one seems to be the defense of your analysis.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Can't amendments be added even if cloture is stopped? What incentives do the Democrats have for making a senate deal?  They might have incentives for making a deal in the House, so why not send it to the house and give them more time to deal there?


If cloture is stopped, yes amendments can be added, but final vote on the amended bill cannot take place until enough republicans vote for cloture or all debate is stopped and no one objects to the vote (is my understanding of how a vote can happen without a cloture vote).

Once cloture is successful, the democrats get whatever they want.  Amendments can be submitted within the allotted time, which is after cloture is filed and before it is voted on, then the democrats only need 51 votes (which they have) to get Reid's amendment to fund ACA part of the bill.

----------


## dinosaur

> Except you might be forgetting something. The Cruz "filibuster" is aimed at the Republican base that would help a REPUBLICAN candidate win the REPUBLICAN nomination in 2016. Rand filibustering and talking about drones, then back-tracking it and saying it's A-okay for a guy to get drone killed leaving a convenient store with a gun in hand, shows Rand had no clue what he was doing. I'm still not sure what the point was, especially with how he came out in support of a drone killing an untried person leaving a convenient store.
> 
> Cruz's "filibuster", not even being one, was more effective for a REPUBLICAN candidate trying to win the REPUBLICAN nomination in 2016, than for a Republican trying to filibuster something on drones, when the MAJORITY of your Republican voters will be cheering for more drones when they are instructed to do.



So it does nothing except help Cruz...which is a good thing because it would be good for the country if he got elected?

----------


## dinosaur

Right, but cloture is just a fast track which limits amendments and debate.  Can't they get what they want without cloture as well?

----------


## angelatc

> It would be very easy to spin a Govt shutdown against the liberty/tea party people in Congress.  It would likely hurt the very best people we have and our potential liberty candidates.  It's a dicey game.





> And I think it wont be good for the party if we go through a shutdown  and the Democrats are gleefully rubbing their hands together hoping we go through a shutdown.


I think he's exactly right.  Philosophically he's for it, but pragmatically he's well aware that the consequences will be used as a bludgeon in the upcoming elections.  Ideologues don't care about elections, though.

----------


## angelatc

> Not if Cruz was successful.  Then it would be in the democrats court.  Play ball.



No way! The executive branch gets to decide what gets funded and what doesn't.  They'll cut off food stamps, social security checks, Head Start programs and close the National Parks.  They'll make absolutely people feel as much immediate pain as possible.

----------


## dinosaur

> If cloture is stopped, yes amendments can be added, but final vote on the amended bill cannot take place until enough republicans vote for cloture or all debate is stopped and no one objects to the vote (is my understanding of how a vote can happen without a cloture vote).
> 
> Once cloture is successful, the democrats get whatever they want.  Amendments can be submitted within the allotted time, which is after cloture is filed and before it is voted on, then the democrats only need 51 votes (which they have) to get Reid's amendment to fund ACA part of the bill.


OK, thanks.  It still seems like the best outcome for this is delaying a vote.  I'm not sure what delaying will accomplish.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> No way! The executive branch gets to decide what gets funded and what doesn't.  They'll cut off food stamps, social security checks, Head Start programs and close the National Parks.  They'll make absolutely people feel as much immediate pain as possible.


Then, it will be Rand, Cruz, Amash, Lee... (all the wacko-birds) turn to use their time in the limelight to tune the message.  
That is why I would like to see Rand come out stronger on that message, right now.  
Pass the House Bill "as is" and then the government is funded, then ACA can be discussed separately.  He has said this, but isn't clear enough on it since the Cruz filibuster.  He's "unsure" about shutting down government, as though it is the republicans doing it.  Turn that around to the democrats doing it and keep it there. _The republican house sent a bill to the senate that funds government, except ACA._

----------


## dinosaur

> Then, it will be Rand, Cruz, Amash, Lee... (all the wacko-birds) turn to use their time in the limelight to tune the message.  
> That is why I would like to see Rand come out stronger on that message, right now.  
> Pass the House Bill "as is" and then the government is funded, then ACA can be discussed separately.  He has said this, but isn't clear enough on it since the Cruz filibuster.  He's "unsure" about shutting down government, as though it is the republicans doing it.  Turn that around to the democrats doing it and keep it there. _The republican house sent a bill to the senate that funds government, except ACA._


Holy crap!  Fear would drive people right into Obama's arms and we would lose the debate in about two seconds. Who the hell is this Cruz character working for anyway?  I was cautiously optimistic about him before this.

----------


## jjdoyle

> So it does nothing except help Cruz...which is a good thing because it would be good for the country if he got elected?


Doing a "fake filibuster" on ObamaCare is more boost for a potential Republican candidate in 2016, than doing a real filibuster on drones. Rand isn't exactly picking his battles wisely here lately. From the issue with Christie, to endorsing Mitch McConnell...

If Rand is supposed to be different, then he needs his actions and words to match, and he is flipping and flopping on issues...which is what I thought many people didn't like.
Filibuster against drones, then say "clarify" that drones are okay and if they dronestrike a mundane coming out of a convenient store without a trial, so be it.

The idea should be to win the Republican nomination first, and then worry with the general election. If the independent and Democrat voters were so important for a primary, I think that Ron Paul would have gotten more votes in the primary than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, but he didn't. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich pitched to the hardcore Republican base...and one HUGE reason Romney won the nomination was because Ron Paul 2012 helped him in key states by attacking Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with massive attack ads, while never touching only Romney.

Even with Romney being a Democrat basically, he still only garnered basically the same number of votes as McCain in 2008, despite 4 years of President Obama...so I would HOPE that is being taken into consideration when deciding what issues to try and get attention with.

----------


## Rocco

Name one issue he has flip flopped on. 




> Doing a "fake filibuster" on ObamaCare is more boost for a potential Republican candidate in 2016, than doing a real filibuster on drones. Rand isn't exactly picking his battles wisely here lately. From the issue with Christie, to endorsing Mitch McConnell...
> 
> If Rand is supposed to be different, then he needs his actions and words to match, and he is flipping and flopping on issues...which is what I thought many people didn't like.
> Filibuster against drones, then say "clarify" that drones are okay and if they dronestrike a mundane coming out of a convenient store without a trial, so be it.
> 
> The idea should be to win the Republican nomination first, and then worry with the general election. If the independent and Democrat voters were so important for a primary, I think that Ron Paul would have gotten more votes in the primary than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, but he didn't. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich pitched to the hardcore Republican base...and one HUGE reason Romney won the nomination was because Ron Paul 2012 helped him in key states by attacking Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich with massive attack ads, while never touching only Romney.
> 
> Even with Romney being a Democrat basically, he still only garnered basically the same number of votes as McCain in 2008, despite 4 years of President Obama...so I would HOPE that is being taken into consideration when deciding what issues to try and get attention with.

----------


## Saint Vitus

> Name one issue he has flip flopped on.


Drones

----------


## dinosaur

> Drones


Nope.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> An Irate minority!


.... who thinks it is brilliant strategy to throw snowballs at Sean Hannity.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

For 106 posts, it sure feels like libertarian101 has done a lot of concern trolling.

----------


## Saint Vitus

> .... who thinks it is brilliant strategy to throw snowballs at Sean Hannity.


He deserved more than snowballs.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> You guys keep saying that to FF, and Cajun, and me, but at some point you guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the list of people you're saying that to is growing.


Um, that's the same three people here it's been for months.  That's not "growing."

Guess what?  Rand Paul is polling first in multiple states.  He's top-tier in national polls.  That's without you.  He may lose in 2016, odds are any single person will now, but if he does, it won't be because he didn't get the support from anarchists.  Certainly, Ron Paul never won a state in two cycles with people like that.

----------


## angelatc

> Then, it will be Rand, Cruz, Amash, Lee... (all the wacko-birds) turn to use their time in the limelight to tune the message.  
> That is why I would like to see Rand come out stronger on that message, right now.  
> Pass the House Bill "as is" and then the government is funded, then ACA can be discussed separately.  He has said this, but isn't clear enough on it since the Cruz filibuster.  He's "unsure" about shutting down government, as though it is the republicans doing it.  Turn that around to the democrats doing it and keep it there. _The republican house sent a bill to the senate that funds government, except ACA._


I think that's been the GOP message all along - that it's the Democrats who are not willing to negotiate...willing to shut down the government and send people into starvation over this one issue.  But that's not the way the media is playing it.

You certainly have a point that the message needs to be drilled home hard and fast, but Rand and Cruz can't do it alone.  Heck, most of the GOP would like nothing better to portray them as Wacko Birds.  They're staying silent on this only because they know the base agrees with Paul and Cruz, leaving them very little room to distance themselves from the message as much as they would like to, because they want to get reelected.  

And if you think that will get better after the checks stop arriving, I don't know what to say.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> We had public opinion on our side with that. Govt shutdown does not poll as well as Syria


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...down-(8-in-10)




> *Eight in 10 Americans find it unacceptable for either President Obama or members of Congress to threaten to shut down the government during budget negotiations in order to achieve their goals, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.* Fewer than 1 in 5 think the stalemate between Mr. Obama and the Republicans in Congress is acceptable.
> 
> Republicans, Democrats, independents and Tea Party supporters alike object to the threat of a shutdown, the poll says.

----------


## angelatc

> .... who thinks it is brilliant strategy to throw snowballs at Sean Hannity.



I know you're right, but <hangs head guiltily>I kind of liked that.  It's not like they put rocks in them...if Hannity wasn't a wimp he and his bodyguards would have scooped up some snow and thrown it right back.

Alinsky and his crew blew up stuff to make their points.  I can live with radical snowballing.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Name one issue he has flip flopped on.


Ummm, did you not read my two posts? Or, did you not understand them? I provided the example of his flip flop at least once...
"If Rand is supposed to be different, then he needs his actions and words to match, and he is flipping and flopping on issues...which is what I thought many people didn't like.
Filibuster against drones, then say "clarify" that drones are okay and if they dronestrike a mundane coming out of a convenient store without a trial, so be it."

----------


## krugminator

> Ummm, did you not read my two posts? Or, did you not understand them? I provided the example of his flip flop at least once...
> "If Rand is supposed to be different, then he needs his actions and words to match, and he is flipping and flopping on issues...which is what I thought many people didn't like.
> Filibuster against drones, then say "clarify" that drones are okay and if they dronestrike a mundane coming out of a convenient store without a trial, so be it."


He didn't flip flop. He used the exact same example of when drone use would be appropriate during his filibuster.

----------


## jtstellar

i don't know, 

i know it will be chaotic and likely politically suicidal, but i kinda want to see the pension system destructed when government shuts down, lol




> Ummm, did you not read my two posts? Or, did you not understand them? I provided the example of his flip flop at least once...
> "If Rand is supposed to be different, then he needs his actions and words to match, and he is flipping and flopping on issues...which is what I thought many people didn't like.
> Filibuster against drones, then say "clarify" that drones are okay and if they dronestrike a mundane coming out of a convenient store without a trial, so be it."


seriously,

if you don't have time to do all the followups, can you not politick in the first place

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He deserved more than snowballs.


True.  But, if we were trying to win over Republicans, do you think it was a smart move?

----------


## RabbitMan

Having read the whole thread, let me explain to you what I hear in the urban Northwest where Ronnie P. didn't do terribly bad:

*Rand*
After Drone Filibuster - "_A Republican making a stand on this?  That's weird.  Still seems like a blow-hard though._"
After Syria - "_It's that guy again.  A Republican against war, wait what?  He's probably just doing it because every Republican wants to hate on Obama...but what he says makes sense.  Too bad he is a Republican and I could never vote for him._"
After Mandatory Minimum/Drug War comments - "_What is Rand doing now?  Oh.  That makes a lot of sense, but why is he saying this and not my Democrat Rep.?  I thought I didn't agree with what a lot of he says but maybe I just don't understand what he is doing in the Republican Party._"

*Ted Cruz*
After anything he does - "_Sounds like a typical Republican, saying things in hyperbolic fashion that are anti-Obama administration because that is what the GOP does.  Let's see...he is against the Affordable Care Act, against the War in Syria, and now leading the charge to once again put us in crisis mode and start a Government shutdown because the Republicans aren't getting their way on healthcare for the...13th time?  God I hate Republicans._"

I do as much as I can to distance myself from any cults of personality, which I'll admit was pretty difficult to do with Ron in 2007-8, but the way Rand is blurring the party lines is either mildly fascinating or simply brilliant.  That being said, I'd probably label myself as a pragmatic Civil Libertarian with nothing but a passing interest in the healthcare debate.  But my wife, a self-styled Elizabeth Warren-type of Democrat, just last week said she could definitely see herself voting for Rand and republicans like him in 2016 if he keeps this up and leaves social issues to the States.  She LOVED his tax reform idea with no income tax below $50,000 and a flat-tax afterwards, and liked his plans to reform the Safety Net.  A Progressive Democrat agreeing with a Republican's view on income taxes and the safety net?  *Guys, that just DOES NOT HAPPEN.*

If Rand _is_ running for President in 2016 and gets to the General, he will win.  Democrats will either be too much in the center or too far to the left, and personality wise he is likable and comes off as reasonable.  By the time the election rolls around I think Hillary would even have a tough time.

So what do we get with a Paul presidency if not just a "_watered-down libertarian_"?  You get a mandate to do one BIG thing and a few little ones while affecting the country in times of crisis.  Knowing Rand, that sounds like it might be winding down the Drug War, or maybe prison reform, or deficit reform, or safety net reform, tax reform, Defense reform, or best of all dismantling to a large extent the National Security state.  And we will have a very relaxed stance on the world where we don't go hunting for dragons to slay.  

Or he may just be the Republican Obama.  Who knows!?

----------


## Christian Liberty

Despite the fact that green apparently doesn't like it, I'm going to have to quote negative feedback again so I can refute it:




> Parasites?  Those folks 65 and over paid into a system and with the expectation to be paid back.  That's just them collecting on a contract they have worked for all of their lives.


First of all, I don't object to them taking the money.  Taking from government is justified, just like taking money from any other thief would be justified.

Second of all, however, they are receiving stolen money.  Not the money they received off any kind of "Contract."  Money stolen from the younger generation who is currently working.

And yes, their money was stolen too, but that's not an excuse.  It would be like catching a gang of thieves, and then telling that gang of thieves they could steal for a few more years to pay back the people they stole from in the past.  Absolute insanity.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I think that's been the GOP message all along - that it's the Democrats who are not willing to negotiate...willing to shut down the government and send people into starvation over this one issue.  But that's not the way the media is playing it.
> 
> You certainly have a point that the message needs to be drilled home hard and fast, but Rand and Cruz can't do it alone.  Heck, most of the GOP would like nothing better to portray them as Wacko Birds.  They're staying silent on this only because they know the base agrees with Paul and Cruz, leaving them very little room to distance themselves from the message as much as they would like to, because they want to get reelected.  
> 
> And if you think that will get better after the checks stop arriving, I don't know what to say.


Do you think it will be worse than the reaction to the Bank Bailouts, or passing ObamaCare?
Hell the story has been spun so bad, I'm not sure how many people remember that the bank bailouts started with Bush.
People recover.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Despite the fact that green apparently doesn't like it, I'm going to have to quote negative feedback again so I can refute it:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I don't object to them taking the money.  Taking from government is justified, just like taking money from any other thief would be justified.
> 
> Second of all, however, they are receiving stolen money.  Not the money they received off any kind of "Contract."  Money stolen from the younger generation who is currently working.
> 
> And yes, their money was stolen too, but that's not an excuse.  It would be like catching a gang of thieves, and then telling that gang of thieves they could steal for a few more years to pay back the people they stole from in the past.  Absolute insanity.


I know you have said this several times, but I still think you don't get it.

First, you're not paying for anything but debt service and war machinery (if you are paying taxes/ssi).  That's why the government has to borrow.

There is/was a surplus of a huge proportion (at the time, in more valuable money) at the time of Reagan.  I guess it has been borrowed also (or stolen in your words).

No one wants you to have to pay for their way, you should be able to opt out.

----------


## WD-NY

Glad to see I'm not the only one surprised/worried about how Rand has responded to Cruz & Lee's 'filibuster' & strategy... 

As I've said in other threads, my *hope* is that *Rand & Cruz/Lee are 110% in cahoots* and that Rand's "waffling"/double-speak/squishiness yesterday on Beck, Hannity & Blitzer was part of a *'good-cop-bad-cop' strategy* the three of them worked out in advance rather than the result of Rand being jealous of/flummoxed by Cruz for solidifying his position with tea-party/conservative grassroots *by playing up issues they already support* rather than challenging them to broaden their view towards positions that they should support (logically & electorally) but don't because of neocons/theocons/establishment/etc as Rand has done over Drones, NSA, SOPA, PIPA, Drug-War, mandatory minimums and Syria. 

*Based on 2016 polling* and every GOP primary since 1980, the establishment is going to a.) coalesce around a SINGLE candidate well before Iowa and b.) split the conservative vote by propping up (then tearing down one-by-one) as many conservative sellouts candidates as are willing (DIVIDE & CONQUER 101).

Facts: 
Cruz w/o Rand's base of support can not win the 2016 GOP primary - there simply aren't enough tea party voters to overtake a single "moderate establishment republican" (e.g. Christie).Rand w/o Cruz's base of support (which will soon be a majority of tea-party voters assuming he continues telling them exactly what they want to hear) can not beat the Establishment's candidate.
Until yesterday, I figured that Rand & Cruz/Lee had some sort of tag-team pact worked out whereby they'd each lockdown different segments of the Republican party (Cruz = hard-core tea-party & TeaOcons, Lee = "Reagan Democrats", Rand = Libertarians + Ron Paul Republicans + Anti-Intervention Tea-partiers + actively reach out to new constituencies and EXPAND their collective base of support)... *aka how Nick Gillespie sees it:*




> But commentators who think these guys are in politics only for themselves are missing the energy that’s driving the wacko birds. Maybe, just maybe, they really do believe in shrinking the size, scope, and spending of the federal government. *And maybe they realize that their vehicle of choice, the Republican Party, really does need to reach out to new swaths of the electorate while holding on to conservatives*.
> 
> If that’s true, *then between Paul and Cruz, they’re covering a lot of territory*. For my money, the most interesting moment in Cruz’s interminable speech came when Paul, who refused to back a filibuster on defunding Obamacare, popped in to ask a question. It was like an old Chip and Dale routine from Looney Tunes, where the two excruciating chipmunks couldn’t stop complimenting each other. Would Cruz, Paul asked, ever compromise and vote for a budget that included funding for the Affordable Care Act?
> 
> Before getting to a long-winded, circuitous, and utterly predictable no, Cruz took a few minutes to talk about how Paul’s filibuster in March of CIA Director John Brennan’s nomination was historic and momentous. Cruz noted that the filibuster was the first time he ever spoke on the Senate floor and that it was among “the proudest moments of my life.”
> 
> Part of that is surely just the sort of flattery for which the Senate is nauseatingly well-known. But there’s no question that these two wacko birds, and the others in that small and growing nest, *are pulling in the same direction even as they are courting different audiences*. They’ve shown that they can work together, and they’ve shown that they’re not standard-issue Republicans but true believers in limited government. In a country where six of 10 voters already think the government is too big, the wacko bird caucus has got a lot of room to fly.


In this scenario, the 10-15% of voters who have Cruz as their #1 *HAPPILY* have Rand as their #2. That way, when it comes time to unite against the single establishment candidate, there's little to no bad blood between to 2 groups. Before yesterday, that was how things stood. Sure it kind of stuck to see Cruz peel away some of Rand's support in Iowa, NH and South Carolina, but if you asked all of those Cruz supporters who their #2 was, I'd bet the farm that +90% said Rand with a smile.

But yesterday, unless they're taking the good-cop-bad-cop strategy to it's limit, then Rand pretty much went out of his way to open up a rift in the partnership. Which would've been a-ok STRATEGICALLY if the issue was say, Cruz supports war in country X while Rand does not. In that hypothetical, Rand would be on solid ground. But to openly undercut/undermine Cruz & Lee as he did on Hannity & Beck (aka (Tea Party CENTRAL) of all places *MADE ZERO STRATEGIC SENSE (unless again, Rand was purposely playing the "open to negotiating a middle ground solution" card bc Cruz, Lee & him actually want to reach some sort of deal w/ Obama & DEMs... which would be no small victory)*. If not, it honestly would've been 100x better to have just kept quiet, like most every other Republican Senator was doing. 




> But Rand isn't even opposed to Cruz's plan of voting against closure on this bill. Rand said that he's going to vote against cloture. The only criticism of Rand is that he's apparently not using rhetoric that's hardcore enough for some people.


All the more reason to rhetorically hitch his wagon to Cruz & Lee! If there aren't 41 votes to force a 60 vote threshold, then there's ZERO risk of openly supporting Cruz & Lee's plan... because they don't have enough votes to block and thus won't change anything.... just like the 46 Republican Senators who will vote against Obamacare on Saturday aren't really going to change anything (but at least get to say that they "voted against it")




> Because while he will vote against cloture, he is defending those who will vote for cloture. He did that for example this morning during the Glenn Beck show. He said that saying that a vote for cloture is a vote for Obamacare is unfair, and used the same lame, false rationalizations the establishment republicans are using.
> 
> Because while he is voting against cloture, he is spending his time arguing a vote for cloture is fine.
> 
> He is voting for Cruz's plan while actively helping his enemies to undermine Cruz's plan.


Exactly. Which is why I'm still like 'WTF?'... it just doesn't seem possible that Rand could be so "personal" (re: emotional) given how disciplined he's been up until now.

----------


## dinosaur

> But to openly undercut/undermine Cruz & Lee as he did on Hannity & Beck (aka (Tea Party CENTRAL) of all places MADE ZERO STRATEGIC SENSE (unless again, Rand was purposely playing the "open to negotiating a middle ground solution" card bc Cruz, Lee & him actually want to reach some sort of deal w/ Obama & DEMs... which would be no small victory). If not, it honestly would've been 100x better to have just kept quiet, like most every other Republican Senator was doing.


It doesn't make a lot of sense going with the assumption that Rand and Cruz are allied for 2016.  That is what troubles me.  I wanted to believe that they were allied.  I wanted it to be true.  If it isn't, it is not because Rand threw away an ally.  That is not consistent with his history, and not his style.  The fact that Rand felt that it was important to state for the record that he was against government shut down makes me think that his friends in the senate were trying to drag him into appearing to spearhead a shut-down with them.  Rand, not Cruz, is the one who could win a general election.  Conservative talk media was trying to bully Rand into supporting the effort, and trying to dupe their audience into believing that a shut-down would help us to get rid of obamacare.  Why?  This smells.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Rand remains by far the best candidate overall all things considered.

----------


## Rocco

I did, you're just *wildly* off base. 




> Ummm, did you not read my two posts? Or, did you not understand them? I provided the example of his flip flop at least once...
> "If Rand is supposed to be different, then he needs his actions and words to match, and he is flipping and flopping on issues...which is what I thought many people didn't like.
> Filibuster against drones, then say "clarify" that drones are okay and if they dronestrike a mundane coming out of a convenient store without a trial, so be it."

----------


## jj-

Cruz became better than Rand this week. Regarding electability, probably Rand is still more electable.

----------


## Brett85

I just saw a poll by CBS that showed that only 16% of Americans support shutting down the government in order to defund Obamacare.  So Rand is probably smart to not be seen as the leader of this particular effort.  It's only a small part of the Republican base that is actually in favor of this, according to the polls.  I'm in favor of Cruz's efforts, but I realize that it's extremely unpopular with the American people, and it's smart for Rand to keep his distance from what Cruz is doing.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Cruz became better than Rand this week.


In what way?

----------


## osan

> Everyone who disagrees with your analysis isn't a pragmatist.  I'm not, but categorizing me as one seems to be the defense of your analysis.


I am afraid that was not even a marginally adept attempt at assessing my response.  Everything you wrote cries "pragmatist" with very little to speak of in terms of solid principle, at least so far as your apparent support, or at least explanation, of Rand Paul is concerned.  Furthermore, I was not defending my analysis; it needs no defense as it is correct, so far as it goes.  I was simply pulling your reasoning apart and demonstrating its flaws.  I am by no means attempting to persuade you to believe anything other than that which you want to believe, but I most certainly am voicing my disagreement with your apparent defense of Rand Paul.  Perhaps agreement to disagree is the best next step here.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> You guys keep saying that to FF, and Cajun, and me, but at some point you guys are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the list of people you're saying that to is growing.


Really?  How many more 90%-10% polls do we need to see?  We are all stubborn $#@!s.  Although I give Cajun huge props for her change in tone regarding Rand without losing the criticism and skepticism.  I try not to be an apologist for Rand offhand but it's hard not to stake out a polar position and defend it.

How many people on the forums changed their position on Rand because of this?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> GGRRR, and that's what's so frustrating.  In order to win the GOP nomination he's got to get the hardcore conservative base on his side.  He's certainly not going to win the nomination by playing to what passes for the political "center," as it is the establishment who most despises and fears him.  Instead he should be playing up to the conservative base (to the extent he should be playing politics) by showing his willingness to accept a government shutdown if it comes to that.


He needs to be honest to the point that it won't ruin his career (see maddow) and the find the area of the traditional political spectrum that aligns with him and then go after them on that issue.  It's what he has done so far and what he will continue to do.  And it's working in large part.  He is making it impossible to pidgeon hole him or use some archetypal narrative to tell his story.  He is appealing to different people across all parts of the political spectrum.  You will like him on some things and dislike him on others no matter what your political stripes.  

It's never been tried before and it's working.  Let the man do his thang.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Really?  How many more 90%-10% polls do we need to see?  We are all stubborn $#@!s.  Although I give Cajun huge props for her change in tone regarding Rand without losing the criticism and skepticism.  I try not to be an apologist for Rand offhand but it's hard not to stake out a polar position and defend it.
> 
> How many people on the forums changed their position on Rand because of this?



Me.  Maybe that's only 1.  Not necessarily my position, because I didn't have one yet, but this doesn't help, at all, at all.

----------


## pacelli

I'm really glad that Rand is already laying the groundwork to depend on financial donations from the avg republican, rather than solely the diehard grassroots.  

It isn't 2007 anymore. He knows how bad the economy has gotten, thanks to his dads predictions, so he is not putting his entire campaign in the hands of the grassroots.  I am relieved. Hopefully he will take matching funds, like other mainstream republican candidates, to keep it going far beyond Super Tuesday.  I remember this was a big sticky point with Ron's campaigns.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Reading through this thread what strikes me most is the rampant speculation on how it will affect Rand.  Why not go do some research to support your position?  Facebook, twitter, and the like.  Don't read well informed, agenda driven pundits.  Look at polls and crowd source.  I am always monitoring to keep a pulse and generally people think that Rand is backing Cruz in this entirely and is completely noble.  They don't follow this $#@! as closely as we do.  People see and hear what they want.

All in all, there is a lot of panic over nothing.  And there is still a very good chance you see a Rand-Cruz ticket, in my opinion.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *Cruz became better than Rand this week.* Regarding electability, probably Rand is still more electable.


No....no, he didn't.  He did this one good thing, but overall he is not as strong an advocate for liberty as Rand is.

----------


## Brett85

> All in all, there is a lot of panic over nothing.  And there is still a very good chance you see a Rand-Cruz ticket, in my opinion.


I would prefer Paul/Amash.  I think Cruz would actually be a drag on the ticket.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I would prefer Paul/Amash.  I think Cruz would actually be a drag on the ticket.


I would prefer that too....but I have a hard time believing there would be two liberty candidates on the same ticket.  If that happens, I will pinch myself.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I would prefer Paul/Amash.  I think Cruz would actually be a drag on the ticket.


Oh I would definitely definitely prefer that.  But I don't think it's politically feasible.  Cruz is Hispanic and is much closer to the establishment than Rand.  He doesn't upset the party regulars on social and foreign policy like Rand does.  I just think I see how things are lining up.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh I would definitely definitely prefer that.  But I don't think it's politically feasible.  Cruz is Hispanic and is much closer to the establishment than Rand.  He doesn't upset the party regulars on social and foreign policy like Rand does.  I just think I see how things are lining up.


But Rand's relatively non interventionist foreign policy stance and more moderate positions on social issues help him with independents and Democrats, and Cruz doesn't really share Rand's positions on those issues and wouldn't have as much appeal with independents and Democrats.  That's why I think that having Cruz on the ticket could actually hurt Rand in 2016, if Rand were to win the GOP nomination.  A lot of independents and Democrats who might consider voting for Rand probably wouldn't if Cruz were on the ticket.

----------


## jjdoyle

> I'm really glad that Rand is already laying the groundwork to depend on financial donations from the avg republican, rather than solely the diehard grassroots.  
> 
> It isn't 2007 anymore. He knows how bad the economy has gotten, thanks to his dads predictions, so he is not putting his entire campaign in the hands of the grassroots.  I am relieved. Hopefully he will take matching funds, like other mainstream republican candidates, to keep it going far beyond Super Tuesday.  I remember this was a big sticky point with Ron's campaigns.


Raising funds was not an issue for Ron Paul 2008 and Ron Paul 2012, it was HOW the campaigns spent the funds, or didn't spend it. Let's stop acting like the grassroots were the problem, when the campaigns were.

The grassroots delayed car repairs (because I saw it happen from some) to make donations, ate trash food, and did all sorts of crazy things to help raise funds for the campaigns. Had the campaign(s) not been completely dishonest and wasted so many people's time AND money, they could have actually accomplished much more I believe. So, in one instance, I do agree I'm glad Rand isn't depending on the "diehard grassroots" (if it's true), because they have already been burnt twice with, "Puhlease more monies, for what, well to help Mitt Romney win the nomination! We just need it, because we're playing a game and fighing a fake fight, like wrestling...you just don't know it! Puhlease. Puhlease! Puhlease!"

Oh, and if we look at the Republican (and Democrat) candidates that "raised" the most money in the campaigns, outside of Ron Paul 2008 and 2012 (and perhaps Obama's 2008 campaign?), they were almost always ones connected with multi-millionaires/billionaires or married to one (not sure what big connections President Obama had in 2008, but he did seem to get a lot of "average" donations if I'm remembering correctly?). So, I really hope Rand isn't depending that much on the "avg. republican" donor, because for candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich who raised less than Ron Paul 2012, but still got more votes than Ron Paul, the average Republican donors weren't enough for them.

So, if Rand is really supposedly going for the "avg. Republican" voter, and not just the "senior Republican voter" getting Social Security, then he probably should be in FAVOR of a government shutdown, since we all know the Social Security checks would be one of the last things to go anyway...because politicians don't want grandmas and grandpas showing up in their offices. Why? They could be there all day, because they don't have anything else to do, like work.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> But Rand's relatively non interventionist foreign policy stance and more moderate positions on social issues help him with independents and Democrats, and Cruz doesn't really share Rand's positions on those issues and wouldn't have as much appeal with independents and Democrats.  That's why I think that having Cruz on the ticket could actually hurt Rand in 2016, if Rand were to win the GOP nomination.  A lot of independents and Democrats who might consider voting for Rand probably wouldn't if Cruz were on the ticket.


I know in the heat of this Senate speech, it feels that way.  The people who would unconditionally reject Cruz are already adamantly opposed to Rand.  He would have to support Rand's campaign agenda; I certainly don't see him pulling a Sarah Palin.  And when he wants to be persuasive he can be despite that horrible voice.  

The campaign will make the realization that the good he might do with the Hispanic vote easily outweighs any negative.  And I agree.  Choosing anyone further away from him ideologically would most likely do great damage to Rand's libertarian base.  

We shall see.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Cruz became better than Rand this week. Regarding electability, probably Rand is still more electable.


lol, no.  Cruz is still FAR worse than Rand.  Cruz still hasn't even caught up to Kucinich.  He's nowhere near Rand.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> lol, no.  Cruz is still FAR worse than Rand.  Cruz still hasn't even caught up to Kucinich.  He's nowhere near Rand.


I figure that I'll wait to judge their performances over the next couple of years.  I'm really disappointed that Rand did not come out with all barrels lit up on this with Cruz.  Cruz is doing the right thing.

----------


## fr33

What a REAL government shutdown would actually look like

Ermahgerd! A Gervernmernt Shertdern! Oh the horror!

----------


## krugminator

> I figure that I'll wait to judge their performances over the next couple of years.  I'm really disappointed that Rand did not come out with all barrels lit up on this with Cruz.  Cruz is doing the right thing.


I like Cruz and I like his filibuster, but what are you going to judge? Rand is the most libertarian senator in history. He was the BIGGEST reason why Syria wasn't attacked. Rand was a huge reason why the sequester cuts took place. Rand is the reason you actually see budgets submitted that balance. I believe Cruz on the other hand could turn out to be very bad on foreign policy. 

Rand is better on economic issues. He is going to better on social issues. He is better on foreign policy. He even supported Cruz in his show filibuster. The filibuster was a nice educational show and might reap benefits down the road

----------


## jj-

> In what way?


In a great number of ways, one of them being that he made it significantly harder for the scum who voted for the bailouts to survive their primaries, including Cornyn and McConnell. The exchange he had with Corker this afternoon I think eliminated his chances of being reelected.

Also, after starting threads with idiotic articles by morons from CNN you really lost the right to roll your eyes at others and be taken seriously.

----------


## jjdoyle

> He didn't flip flop. He used the exact same example of when drone use would be appropriate during his filibuster.


Do you have a clip to that in his 12 hour filibuster, of him saying he would be okay with a drone killing an American on American soil, without a trial...just because they APPEAR to have committed a crime?

I'm not sure at what point in his 12 hour filibuster that happened, but since it's the same line I'm guessing you can provide the link to it...which even if he did, he would still be wrong and it would show why he wasted 12 hours on a filibuster. I mean, if Rand thinks it's okay to drone strike a guy without a trial in America, then what was the point of the filibuster?

Also, since when do we expect a politician to make a decision based just on public polling, and instead of actually doing the right thing? If the government shutting down would prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds with ObamaCare, I don't care what the public opinion is. I guess Ron Paul should have voted for the Iraq War and The Patriot Act based on public opinion at the time....

----------


## MaxPower

> Do you have a clip to that in his 12 hour filibuster, of him saying he would be okay with a drone killing an American on American soil, without a trial...just because they APPEAR to have committed a crime?
> 
> I'm not sure at what point in his 12 hour filibuster that happened, but since it's the same line I'm guessing you can provide the link to it...which even if he did, he would still be wrong and it would show why he wasted 12 hours on a filibuster. I mean, if Rand thinks it's okay to drone strike a guy without a trial in America, then what was the point of the filibuster?
> 
> Also, since when do we expect a politician to make a decision based just on public polling, and instead of actually doing the right thing? If the government shutting down would prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds with ObamaCare, I don't care what the public opinion is. I guess Ron Paul should have voted for the Iraq War and The Patriot Act based on public opinion at the time....

----------


## 69360

Poll on cbs this morning shows 80% of Americans disapprove of a shutdown. Rand is on the right side of this issue if he wants to be president.

----------


## jjdoyle

> 


Thank you for that clip! Which, goes back to what I said, if he's looking for justification from the other side...he just gave it to them and that whole filibuster was a complete waste of time. The, "Well, maybe the guy...coulda, shouldha, mighta been threatening..." excuse. The police already use that excuse in their "accidents" that happen now where they get assigned a 2 week paid vacation. The fact that you would have an armed drone in the sky in the U.S. and TRY to justify that, is the problem. I don't agree with it, and his examples are bad.

So, instead of "no armed drones in the skies", it's "armed drones are okay, and might be used like they are in Somalia...", that's even worse than Charles Krauthammer on the situation.

----------


## jjdoyle

> Poll on cbs this morning shows 80% of Americans disapprove of a shutdown. Rand is on the right side of this issue if he wants to be president.


I'll just quote what I said above, "Also, since when do we expect a politician to make a decision based just on public polling, and instead of actually doing the right thing? If the government shutting down would prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds with ObamaCare, I don't care what the public opinion is. I guess Ron Paul should have voted for the Iraq War and The Patriot Act based on public opinion at the time.... ".

----------


## 69360

> I'll just quote what I said above, "Also, since when do we expect a politician to make a decision based just on public polling, and instead of actually doing the right thing? If the government shutting down would prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds with ObamaCare, I don't care what the public opinion is. I guess Ron Paul should have voted for the Iraq War and The Patriot Act based on public opinion at the time.... ".


A shutdown won't do a thing. The democrats won't give up obamacare. They will just wait for the GOP to cave as the GOP is crucified in the media. 

If 80% of the country doesn't want something, how can you claim it's the right thing?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> A shutdown won't do a thing. The democrats won't give up obamacare. They will just wait for the GOP to cave as the GOP is crucified in the media. 
> 
> If 80% of the country doesn't want something, how can you claim it's the right thing?


You just said, "A shutdown won't do a thing", so what difference does it make if the people don't want it? 

This isn't about a government shutdown, it's about the defunding of O'Care.  Why are you carrying water for the democrats and msm?

----------


## jjdoyle

> A shutdown won't do a thing. The democrats won't give up obamacare. They will just wait for the GOP to cave as the GOP is crucified in the media. 
> 
> If 80% of the country doesn't want something, how can you claim it's the right thing?


How can you claim it's the right thing?
Simple. Play politics. It's how we've gotten $16 trillion in debt, while politicians have continued to do the WRONG thing claiming it's the right thing.

Instead of reading Green Eggs and Ham, read the Constitution to the American people. Say, "A majority of Americans may not want a shutdown, but a majority doesn't make it right. We are a Republic, not a democracy, maybe a demoCRAZY..."

"A majority of Americans approved of The Patriot Act. Now?" "At one time, the majority of Americans approved of slavery apparently. Now?"

"I'm going to do what I believe the RIGHT thing is, and what my oath of office to the Constitution would have me do, even if political points may be lost. I'm concerned with the long-term future of our kids and our grandkids, as well as the immediate problems we face. Passing this budget with the ACA not only harms many current Americans, adding unnecessary layers of government, but will most likely devastate our healthcare industry and private sector with jobs for many decades to come."

Quote Einstein, say something like, "I doubt most Americans would think Congress is smarter than Albert Einstein, and I agree with Albert Einstein when he said, '*What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.*'"

----------


## dinosaur

> How can you claim it's the right thing?
> Simple. Play politics. It's how we've gotten $16 trillion in debt, while politicians have continued to do the WRONG thing claiming it's the right thing.
> 
> Instead of reading Green Eggs and Ham, read the Constitution to the American people. Say, "A majority of Americans may not want a shutdown, but a majority doesn't make it right. We are a Republic, not a democracy, maybe a demoCRAZY..."
> 
> "A majority of Americans approved of The Patriot Act. Now?" "At one time, the majority of Americans approved of slavery apparently. Now?"
> 
> "I'm going to do what I believe the RIGHT thing is, and what my oath of office to the Constitution would have me do, even if political points may be lost. I'm concerned with the long-term future of our kids and our grandkids, as well as the immediate problems we face. Passing this budget with the ACA not only harms many current Americans, adding unnecessary layers of government, but will most likely devastate our healthcare industry and private sector with jobs for many decades to come."
> 
> Quote Einstein, say something like, "I doubt most Americans would think Congress is smarter than Albert Einstein, and I agree with Albert Einstein when he said, '*What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.*'"


Yes, we should do the right thing.  I don't think that the right thing to do is to grandstand instead of doing something with a chance of success.  Especially when that grandstanding hurts our chance of success.  Just because grandstanding is popular amongst the republican crowd, that doesn't make it right.  Rand is doing the right thing by telling us the truth about the obamacare funding situation.

edit:  If the point of this is simply to get McCain and Graham on record, then that is good.  But that is not how I see it being sold to my talk media junkie friends.

----------


## 69360

> How can you claim it's the right thing?
> Simple. Play politics. It's how we've gotten $16 trillion in debt, while politicians have continued to do the WRONG thing claiming it's the right thing.
> 
> Instead of reading Green Eggs and Ham, read the Constitution to the American people. Say, "A majority of Americans may not want a shutdown, but a majority doesn't make it right. We are a Republic, not a democracy, maybe a demoCRAZY..."
> 
> "A majority of Americans approved of The Patriot Act. Now?" "At one time, the majority of Americans approved of slavery apparently. Now?"
> 
> "I'm going to do what I believe the RIGHT thing is, and what my oath of office to the Constitution would have me do, even if political points may be lost. I'm concerned with the long-term future of our kids and our grandkids, as well as the immediate problems we face. Passing this budget with the ACA not only harms many current Americans, adding unnecessary layers of government, but will most likely devastate our healthcare industry and private sector with jobs for many decades to come."
> 
> Quote Einstein, say something like, "I doubt most Americans would think Congress is smarter than Albert Einstein, and I agree with Albert Einstein when he said, '*What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.*'"


It's all talk. There is nothing that can be done while the democrats have the senate and presidency. So if you want to change that, doing a shutdown that 80% of Americans disapprove of is NOT the way to get more republicans elected to change it

----------


## ClydeCoulter

It's all in the message.  Or, we could just wait forever for something to be done, NOT!

*Today is the vote, just say "NO" to cloture*

*Call your senators, toady!*

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> I greatly respect your dedication and passion on this issue my friend, my friend.  Your only shortcoming seems to be that you refuse to accept poll numbers and their implications.  Quite possibly you just don't care.  But Rand and a lot of us sure do.  
> 
> We have the public on our side in the debt ceiling showdown in three weeks.  New Bloomberg poll shows that 61% of Americans say that a debt ceiling raise should only occur if tied to spending cuts.  Only 28% favor an unconditional raising of the debt ceiling.  That despite the constant doomsday talk from MSM and the president using his bully pulpit.  
> 
> That is the issue where the GOP can make a stand.


The GOP is not going to make any stand to do anything that is right.  The only stand they make is a grandstand, just like right now.

Sen John Cornyn is on the senate floor lying through his teeth, right now.   He is lying by obfuscation and denial.  And that will continue.  You will see ObamaCare become so entrenched that it will be almost impossible to be removed (like SSI and Medicare).  And, you will see the GOP candidates campaign on "fixing" it for decades.

----------


## 69360

> The GOP is not going to make any stand to do anything that is right.  The only stand they make is a grandstand, just like right now.
> 
> Sen John Cornyn is on the senate floor lying through his teeth, right now.   He is lying by obfuscation and denial.  And that will continue.  You will see ObamaCare become so entrenched that it will be almost impossible to be removed (like SSI and Medicare).  And, you will see the GOP candidates campaign on "fixing" it for decades.


Oh Obamacare can easily be defunded, but not without control of the senate and white house. You are fighting for a lost cause right now. 


The coming debt ceiling fight is winnable, this one, not so much.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Oh Obamacare can easily be defunded, but not without control of the senate and white house. You are fighting for a lost cause right now. 
> 
> 
> The coming debt ceiling fight is winnable, this one, not so much.


If you were in the Senate, would you vote for cloture today?

----------


## georgiaboy

> If you were in the Senate, would you vote for cloture today?


no;  on second thought, hell no.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> If you were in the Senate, would you vote for cloture today?


Of course not.  Cloture will certainly be invoked though so there is no political liability for doing so.

----------


## Brett85

> If you were in the Senate, would you vote for cloture today?


I wouldn't, but I would still realize that there would be political consequences for voting that way, (if closure wasn't actually reached) and it most likely wouldn't be popular at all with the American people.  I at least don't blame Rand for trying to be somewhere in the middle on this issue and not actually be seen as the main spokesman for this particular effort.

----------


## jj-

> Poll on cbs this morning shows 80% of Americans disapprove of a shutdown. Rand is on the right side of this issue if he wants to be president.


Rand will vote against cloture, which will be blamed for the shutdown if it occurs, so he is on the same side as Cruz.

----------


## jj-

> On this particular, yes.  But Cruz is also a warmonger.  He wanted to go into Syria with guns blazing.  Don't fall for the Ted Cruz nonsense, please.


Rand Paul voted for sanctions against Iran, so he is a warmonger as well.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Rand will vote against cloture, which will be blamed for the shutdown if it occurs, so he is on the same side as Cruz.


Just not loud enough, but he's voting against it ... so he has cover as well (with people here, _and others of the same ilk_).

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Rand Paul voted for sanctions against Iran, so he is a warmonger as well.


So did Justin Amash.  Ron Paul voted for the AUMF.  They are all warmongers.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Just not loud enough, but he's voting against it ... so he has cover as well (with people here, _and others of the same ilk_).


What, no comment?

Yippykieay!  We'll fixit come 2016, yep, yep, yeppers, there always a better day to fight down the road.  Who cares about winning good legislation and freedom, freedom is a OUR president /sarc

----------


## jj-

> So did Justin Amash.  Ron Paul voted for the AUMF.  They are all warmongers.


Ron Paul's vote was after the country was attacked. But Iran didn't attack the U.S.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Ron Paul's vote was after the country was attacked. But Iran didn't attack the U.S.


But you do agree that Amash is a warmonger?  And don't bull$#@! me.  Ron voted for an AUMF against Terrorism, not against Afghanistan or the people who attacked us on 9/11.  All terrorists.  And you know how it's been used, and let's not pretend like Ron was too dumb to have any idea either.  Barbara Lee pointed out exactly how it would be used, in case  you would like to claim ignorance on his behalf.  

Oh and the Iranian National Guard was declared a terrorist organization by our government and Ron voted for the AUMF against terrorist.  So technically speaking, Iran (who as you just pointed out, never attacked us) is the only sovereign country on which Ron did vote authorize force.  You lose.

The AUMF was far worse than an infinite amount of sanctions.  The two are not comparable.

You are so full of $#@!.

----------


## jj-

The AUMF was necessary to retaliate after 9/11. Regarding Amash, anyone who voted for sanctions against Iran can rightfully be called a warmonger.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> The AUMF was necessary to retaliate after 9/11. Regarding Amash, anyone who voted for sanctions against Iran can rightfully be called a warmonger.


Actually, no it wasn't.  More bull$#@!.  They could have used the War Powers Act to try to take the aggressors out in 60 days, issues letters of marque and reprisal, or take some time to construct a very specific AUMF, not a blanket one that gives the President to fully prosecute anyone he "determines" is aiding terrorist.  Stop lying.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

The AUMF was unsuccessfully cited by the George W. Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration's military commissions at Guantanamo Bay were not competent tribunals as constituted and thus illegal.
The AUMF has also been cited as authority for engaging in electronic surveillance in ACLU v. NSA without obtaining a warrant of the special Court as required by the constitution.
The AUMF was also the basis of one of the principal arguments advanced by the Department of Justice in the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy, namely that the AUMF implicitly overrode the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

OMG, Ron voted for NSA surveillance by proxy too!  He is a police state loving warmonger, obviously.  Case closed.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Add on top of that, that the new President of Iran is suing for peace and has directly noted the effects of the sanction as a reason why, which means that instead of being an act of war as foretold by Ron and you, sanctions look to actually be preventing war in this case.  

So there goes the whole, "they are always an act of war" meme.  We now have proof that this is also utter bull$#@!.

Sorry.  How does it feel to be so spectacularly wrong in everything you say?

----------


## jj-

Sanctions are an act of war. All your bull$#@! won't change that. Keep writing all the useless posts you want, but they won't change the fact that sanctions are an act of war.

----------


## 69360

> Actually, no it wasn't.  More bull$#@!.  They could have used the War Powers Act to try to take the aggressors out in 60 days, issues letters of marque and reprisal, or take some time to construct a very specific AUMF, not a blanket one that gives the President to fully prosecute anyone he "determines" is aiding terrorist.  Stop lying.


You are looking at it from a 2013 perspective in retrospect. Nobody in 2001 though we would still be using this 12 years later and still be in Afghanistan. Not even Ron Paul saw this coming, he voted for it.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> You are looking at it from a 2013 perspective in retrospect. Nobody in 2001 though we would still be using this 12 years later and still be in Afghanistan. Not even Ron Paul saw this coming, he voted for it.


That was my whole point.  And you are wrong that nobody saw it coming.  Barbara Lee not only saw exactly what was to come, she gave a poignant speech detailing it to the entire Congress.

JJ is trying to label Rand a warmonger because he voted for Iranian sanctions.  By that standard, every congressperson in the liberty movement is a warmonger.  By the same standard, Ron was much worse.  But my point is that the standard is nonsense and not applied equally.  JJ just wants to hate Rand.  Ironic that he has spent so much time defending Cruz, whom is prepared to attack Iran right now.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Sanctions are an act of war. All your bull$#@! won't change that. Keep writing all the useless posts you want, but they won't change the fact that sanctions are an act of war.


Sanctions are not an act of war. All your bull$#@! won't change that. Keep writing all the useless posts you want, but they won't change the fact that sanctions are not an act of war.

----------


## Brett85

It's kind of funny that Cruz is actually making Rand look like the "moderate" in the Republican Party.  The free republic types are praising Cruz and acting like Rand sold out, even though Rand voted with Cruz and voted against closure.  I guess that will at least make Rand look more "mainstream" and "reasonable" and would at least help him in a general election.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Ron Paul made a poor vote on AUMF (putting aside his initial opposition).

He should be criticized for this vote, and we as a movement should expect improvements on future votes. Not use it as an excuse for other politicians when they also make poor votes.

Learn to liberty, because this approach is seriously backwards.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Ron Paul made a poor vote on AUMF (putting aside his initial opposition).
> 
> He should be criticized for this vote, and we as a movement should expect improvements on future votes. Not use it as an excuse for other politicians when they also make poor votes.
> 
> Learn to liberty, because this approach is seriously backwards.


It had nothing to do with excusing anyone's actions.  I don't believe sanctions are an act of war.  I do believe they are immoral and wrong.  

It has to do with holding people to the same standard.

Cults of personality.  Ron and Amash get passes on things Rand gets crucified for and people make excuses for Rand that they wouldn't for others.  I'm ok with giving them all quite a bit of slack, personally.  As long as you are consistent, fine, but I see a whole lot of inconsistency.

----------


## trey4sports

I trust rands judgement

----------

