2016: If not Rand, then who?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand VP

Ron Treasury

Just a thought, I am still trying to wrap my head around all this.

Ron doesn't want that job. If we could get Jim Grant in there it would be a good deal for us.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Honestly do you guys even read what the Paul's write or hear in their interviews? Rand has said for the last 14 months that he would support whomever the Republican nominee is. This isn't exactly news to anyone who was paying attention. Ron conceded the race with the last campaign email they sent out. It's not in the cards for us this go around. Time to plan ahead to 2016.

There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

Good point! Let's focus on winnable races yet to be decided. Let's see some more Thomas Massies spring up up and bankroll them to victory!

 

[July]

Nope, never seen that study. You could be the most learned person on earth, but if fumble at communicating your ideas, what is really worth?

Oh, well, there was a recent MSM hit piece on Rand circulating over the past few weeks, claiming that Tea Party politicians were dumbing down the system, and Rand ranked as one of the worst offenders in the supposed "study". They actually ran a study that calculated speeches on syntax complexity. Rand's speech is often simple, but clever. But there's no accounting for such things for those who think everything can be quantified and calculated...or who have a specific agenda to push. That's the same story with a lot of politicized junk science these days.

 

[July]

I think Rand could use some good old competition to help keep him honest, especially after tonight's backstabbing. He strikes me as too much of a "pragmatist" if that is really the right word, and while that quality may earn him some votes, it will also put off a lot of people and in my opinion may be his downfall in the fashion of McCain or Romney.

Yes, yes, that's the idea. That's why we can't win with just pragmatists alone, nor with just absolutists. Not one or the other. Both. At the same time.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

If we don't listen to LE on this we might as well not even show up in 2016. Seriously.

 

[Aratus]

LE + our JFK3 = common sense

 

[phill4paul]

There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

^^^This. Funds and grassroots activism go much further on a local scale.

 

[Joey Fuller]

NOT Rand Paul.
I think his section should be deleted from this forum.
Rand Paul is not the future of our movement.
I am disgusted by his endorsement of Mittens and hope the Ron Paul Revolution doesn't get behind Rand Paul.
sheesh.. what a day.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

NOT Rand Paul.
I think his section should be deleted from this forum.
Rand Paul is not the future of our movement.
I am disgusted by his endorsement of Mittens and hope the Ron Paul Revolution doesn't get behind Rand Paul.
sheesh.. what a day.

If Rand isn't the future of our movement then our movement doesn't have a future.

 

[QuickZ06]

Replies like these are already getting old......

If Romney is the same as Obama than why is Rand Paul supporting Romney? You're an idiot! I'm sure even RP wouldn't want you to waste your vote and right in his name. You are as stupid as a college brainwashed closeminded communist liberal wasteoide.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Replies like these are already getting old......

Yes they are.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I still trust Rand. Sorry! I understand everyone who doesn't, though. It's a risky business, playing the political game. Power corrupts. Could it corrupt even one like Rand Paul, or perhaps could it have already? Yes. Did it? I think no. Your guess may differ.

The endorsement of Romney was not a surprise betrayal. He has been saying since at least January he would support the nominee. When he interviewed about his press release smashing Gingrich, he told the TV he would support Romney if he was the nominee, and in fact that he preferred Romney to be the nominee rather than Gingrich or anyone else, since the others would be seen as "Tea Party" candidates, and thus their nomination would destroy the Tea Party (as Rand wants it to be), whereas everyone knows Romney is just a phony moderate.

 

[Origanalist]

There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

Absolutely.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

In my opinion our only shot at winning the White House in 2016 is uniting behind one candidate. In my opinion it should be Rand Paul. But not everyone here likes him. So let's discuss who else we could potential get behind. State the persons name and make your case. Some of you may want to debate the point of not being able to win unless we unite behind one candidate. You can do that too, but please also name someone.

Keep it civil.

-JFKIII

Sheesh, what a Rand-slurper.

 

[erowe1]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of drafting Raimondo to run against Rand in the primaries.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of drafting Raimondo to run against Rand in the primaries.

I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Is this to make Rand lose or to help him?

I don't know what the strategy is there, but if someone better than Rand Paul ran against him, even someone with little chance, I'd be tempted to vote for that person.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

Wait, you're talking about the KY Senate primary? What's that supposed to accomplish, especially after Rand Paul beats Raimondo (or whatever fringe candidate that meets your litmus test) 88%-12%?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

Are you f'in crazy?