Am I the only one that feels very pessimistic about Rand's 2016 chances right now?

R.G said:
No problem TaftFan. I already have the Rand Paul endorsement from the next Governor in the state of Florida. In Florida Rand will lock up the nomination.

Only a BOZO could lose to those other Republicans running in 2016. You can't find 2 brain cells to rub together to get a spark between the lot of them.

Everyone is going to vote for Rand Paul.
Click to expand...

Who is the next governor?

Edit-Nevermind, I see you aren't being serious.
 
idiom said:
Best thing we can have is a big bad 'war'. Its a clear cut issue to vote on, America is voting 75% against war.

We won't be the pro-war candidate. Nobody the GOP could run would be more pro-war than Hillary. GOP will be the anti-war candidate no matter what.
Click to expand...

But those numbers would turn on a dime if there was another large terrorist attack on our own soil.
 
The Free Hornet - touch a nerve? Love that Romney huh? Here let me help you with what Iowa people think of that Socialist Romney.

This is Jan Mickelson, WHO Radio - Des Moines, beating up on that fruitcake Romney. Iowa people like to surprise Romney. Jan told Romney he knew more about being a Mormon than him, too funny. You see Romney flip flopped on abortion when he ran for national office. You probably knew that.

enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEUMpni2H-U
 
Traditional Conservative said:
That's what I'm thinking too. This ISIS development in Iraq seems really bad for Rand. It does seem like it's immediately after 9-11 all over again. I'm not going to be as critical of Rand over his foreign policy positions as I have been, because it seems like he may have to come out fully in support of air strikes in Iraq to have any chance whatsoever to win the GOP nomination.
Click to expand...
That's all the more reason to hold his feet to the fire. Lest he become no different than his peers...
 
Taftfan don't pay any attention to those polls that are bought and paid for by Rick Scott. It's an old trick. The previous poll had Libertarian Wyllie at 9% support and only 8% had ever heard of him. How magical is that? Plus, Rick Scott was BUSTED when CEO of a company that paid the largest Medicare FRAUD Fine of all time. Jeb Bush said, "Scott has demonstrated leadership." Right Jeb, but that's the wrong kind of leadership. Scott should have been caught by the long arm of the law and in prison but he slipped into office spending $80 million of his own money. Is that a smart guy spending $80 million of your own money to be Gov?
 
I hope Rand Paul can get the GOP nomination, but the final election/MSM script is still getting tweaked in the back room...

THAT SCRIPT will pre-select all possible ballot (non-)choices and direct the biased news support for the nation's final voter
(re-)count and ultimately, pick a pre-selected POTUS winner!
 
As I've said for the last few years, what matters is how the establishment controls the narrative at crunch time (just before, and during the primaries). Current pro-Paul polls and buzz will mean next to nothing by that point, and will be replaced by non-stop MSM banter over their latest selected milquetoast moderate. That establishment will paint the pro-war, pro-bankster status quo, pro-surveillance state elite favorite (currently Bush or Christie) as the frontrunner or first tier, 'electable' candidates, and oters wil be cast as 'second tier' or later as 'distractions.' This will act as mainstream cover for softly blacking out Rand, from straw vote victories to his grassroots buzz, (just as they did with Ron), and to explain election or caucus rigging that deprives him of primary victories.

The past few weeks should clearly demonstrate how resilient the neo-con, pro-militarism forces are in whooping everybody back up into a war fever, over the super villian towelheads of the moment---ISIS in the current case---and in getting people to define the 'real' candidates in terms of their being war-whoopers. There was a moment during the run-up to the 2008 primaries where the Paul movement could have broken this narrative, by emphasizing the role of false flags and black covert ops in creating the pro-war sentiment, acknowledging a lot of election fraud was going on, or else proceeded to run third party to punish the GOP hacks for the rigging.

Instead, part of the movement became hostile to exposing 9-11 and other false flags, and reluctant to expose GOP corruption. This of course left the candidacy no leverage to overcome the emotional war monger framing, or to deal with election fraud cases while the iron was hot. Having Paul run third party would have destroyed the "establishment Republican is electable" meme by splitting the conservative vote, but that course was not taken either--thus the pushed "electable" candidate could not be stopped from winning the nomination. Decisions have consequences, and those choices made it impossible for Paul to overcome the obstacles.

Past is prologue. Despite some at times very intelligent rhetorical manuevers, Rand is mostly making the same bad main choices, none of which change the narrative obstacles placed before him. Unless he talks up the potentiality of himself or his father running third party, he cannot overcome the "electability" meme surrounding the establishment candidate. Unless he talks up the deception and covert activity behind the current alleged "threat" (the fact that ISIS forces are US intelligence trained, funded and backed operating on behalf of the West, just as Al Qaeda was and is) he can't overcome the "gotta get those towelheads" interventionist framing of foreign policy issues. Unless he goes to court over election fraud, he will be victimized over election fraud. And if he crowds his staff with Bentonites and CFR alumni, he will further demoralize the grassroots, if he hasn't already.
 
Last edited:
Traditional Conservative said:
But the problem is winning the GOP nomination. The war drums are beating like they were right after 9-11 and before we invaded Iraq.
Click to expand...

I don't think that will be a problem. First off, most of the other GOP contenders are liberals like Romney and Republican voters don't want that. Christie... not a factor outside of the liberal northeast. Bush... not a factor outside of the neocon media.

Rand connects with people. Who else does?

The media can beat the war drums all they want, but the voters aren't interested in buying that load of crap.

If the U.S. Congress gets to nominate the GOP candidate then Rand will have a problem, but I don't think that will be a problem. The actual voters are disgusted with Congress and don't agree with them on much at all.

Just remember to keep things in perspective, such as the tiny group of people that watch Bill O'Reilly are about .006% of the voting population. These old school media gatekeepers at only connected to an old, dying and shrinking demographic.
 
I'm pessimistic about it on the inside but am positive about Rand when talking to conservatives. Felt the same way about Ron but admittedly Rand has a better chance. There were Ron supporters who thought he'd win in a landslide so I'm skeptical when I see people here saying Rand is going to win or that he's the "clear frontrunner".
 
Nic said:
I've been sporting the Rand Paul 2016 bumper sticker on my car since 2012. He's very quickly losing my support with the pro-Israel foreign aid crap. If he doesn't hop off that bandwagon very soon, I won't be voting for him.
Click to expand...

As a Senator, Rand has one vote and that is it, for any foreign policy decision or foreign aid or war declaration vote etc. yadayadaya

Rand should use that vote wisely, and that is about it.

His Dad made smart enuf moves, in line with the US Constitution and the War Powers clause,
in late September 2001 while at the same time as Condi and Collin Powell et al. and Bush43 developed a strategy (read Woodward's Bush at War for Condi's role).
His Dad along with the GOP Congressman from eastern Iowa and four other GOP Congressmen in November 2002, were the 6 "NO" votes of the GOP for the 2002 Iraqi War Resolution Act. Did that diminish RP's popularity ??

Talking is what McCain did and does alot of - to the enemy and everybuddy fer' that matter.
McCain is no hero, and at his best becomes a POW crashing his plane near Hanoi - this is besides losing five aircraft for the United States Navy - the one off Corpus Christi of his stupidity of not having ever read portions of his training manual - (by his own admission btw, altho that was self-evident),
and WE ALL do not ever forget the USS Forrestal disaster and his role on the carrier deck camera unedited tape, and not the campaign 2008 tape edits either trying to vindicate and/or obfuscate his inherent lying nature).

Rand does not need to be a neocon wanna-be to defeat Hilary or Joe Biden ( who I think gets the Dimocrat nomination anyhoo).

Only bumbling idiots of Senators talk about foreign policy without the same knowledge set as the commander-in-chief anyway.

Watch the McCain double talk express, (and note Ron Paul at the 2:13 - 2:20 mark cringe seated next to McCain at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley
and note at 1:08 Senator Lieberman cringe after McCain still can't get the story straight)



Yes, Rand does need foreign policy advisors, just as he would as commander-in-chief - I'll be optimistic, for now - but . . . we'll see.

 
Last edited:
Rand has had quite a few ups and downs over the past couple years, and we can expect plenty more over the next couple. His overall trajectory so far has been very much a positive one, but it does seem as though he has hit a rough patch during the last month or so; we will have to wait and see whether it's only another blip on the radar screen, or represents a long-term shift.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top