Best reason to fully support Rand Paul for those against him

[mz10]

Amendment 3232 to S.3254(National Defense Authorization Act of 2013): Increase sanctions on Iran.
Vote:
Paul (R-KY), Yea


Now, as we know, Ron Paul has stated that sanctions are literally and Act of War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc

Thus, if Rand Paul voted FOR sanctions AGAINST Iran, then he has voted for an Act of War.

Edit: Source of his vote for sanctions on Iran http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00215

Well I don't consider everything Ron Paul says to be gospel truth, he is just giving his opinion. Would I have voted for the sanctions? Depends on the extent of them. But just because Rand disagrees with his dad on something doesn't make him a traitor and a neocon, especially considering that he agrees with his dad 99.9% of the time.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Thus, if Rand Paul voted FOR sanctions AGAINST Iran, then he has voted for an Act of War.

And how does that translate into Rand being a neo-conservative (i.e., a liberal Republican whose ideology is descended from the Trotskyite left)?

Interventionist != neo-conservative.

 

[Matthew5]

I'll give Rand credit for doing something meaningful toward auditing the Fed...but why are we campaigning for an imaginary presidential candidate? Why stop at 2016? Why aren't we campaigning for 2020? or 2024 (isn't there some pro-liberty 28 year old out there)?

I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but it irks me to see a flood of Rand 2016 threads day after day on the forum. I seriously want to know, why is the Rand Camp so adamant about converting everyone this early in the game (heck, the game hasn't even started yet)? I know modern political scientist argue that the next campaign begins as soon as the last one ends, but is that really a healthy model? We're too busy playing arm-chair politics while real problems are occurring today. Let's focus our energy on solving these and devote forum space to that, not another useless Rand thread.

/rant

 

[July]

Interventionist != neo-conservative.

Yeah, there aren't only two stances on FP, he might be more of a realist or pragamatist of some type.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yeah, there aren't only two stances on FP, he might be more of a realist or pragamatist of some type.

Exactly. And that doesn't make me happy. But it certainly doesn't make him a "neo-con."

 

[Matthew5]

Exactly. And that doesn't make me happy. But it certainly doesn't make him a "neo-con."

I agree, neo-con is certainly not the right term for Rand. He has a much more pro-liberty track record than even the smaller time neo-cons.

 

[Badger Paul]

I will say this: Rand is going to be a lot better than most politicians you'll find on the issues you care about. But for myself personally there's none of the emotional attachment I had to Ron that's there for Rand. There's something about him that's off-putting. Maybe he's just too political for my tastes, I don't know. While I certainly wouldn't vigorously oppose him, I certainly wouldn't sign wave in near 100 degree heat and humidity for him as I did for Ron. I wish him well but that's all.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'll give Rand credit for doing something meaningful toward auditing the Fed...but why are we campaigning for an imaginary presidential candidate? Why stop at 2016? Why aren't we campaigning for 2020? or 2024 (isn't there some pro-liberty 28 year old out there)?

I know I shouldn't let it bother me, but it irks me to see a flood of Rand 2016 threads day after day on the forum. I seriously want to know, why is the Rand Camp so adamant about converting everyone this early in the game (heck, the game hasn't even started yet)? I know modern political scientist argue that the next campaign begins as soon as the last one ends, but is that really a healthy model? We're too busy playing arm-chair politics while real problems are occurring today. Let's focus our energy on solving these and devote forum space to that, not another useless Rand thread.

I've noted elsewhere that I don't think Rand should run for president at all. That aside, with Ron Paul leaving Congress, Rand is THE single most prominent liberty movement figure in public office. He is going to be talked about, and talked about a lot - especially here at RPFs. And most of that talk is going to revolve around his 2016 campaign (regardless of whether it ends up being for POTUS or the Senate). For better or worse, you are probably going to have to reconcile yourself to a lot more "useless" Rand threads around here for quite some time to come. And it's not like RPFs is going to run out of "forum space" ...

 

[Matthew5]

I've noted elsewhere that I don't think Rand should run for president at all. That aside, with Ron Paul leaving Congress, Rand is THE single most prominent liberty movement figure in public office. He is going to be talked about, and talked about a lot - especially here at RPFs. And most of that talk is going to revolve around his 2016 campaign (regardless of whether it ends up being for POTUS or the Senate). For better or worse, you are probably going to have to reconcile yourself to a lot more "useless" Rand threads around here for quite some time to come. And it's not like RPFs is going to run out of "forum space" ...

And I agree, I think Rand is a prominent figure and should be discussed. Far be it from me to censor discussion. But I feel like the pep rallies are premature. I will resign myself to ignoring them as best as I can.

lol And I meant space in the sense of screen space...I would hate to see fruitful discussion buried by "how Rand will save the world in his first 100 days, PLEASE SUPPORT HIM!!" threads.

 

[Occam's Banana]

lol And I meant space in the sense of screen space...I would hate to see fruitful discussion buried by "how Rand will save the world in his first 100 days, PLEASE SUPPORT HIM!!" threads.

Ah, OK, I see. Well ... in that case, the use of multiple monitors should help.

Three or four will probably do the trick to start with ... with more to be added as needed ...

 

[July]

And I agree, I think Rand is a prominent figure and should be discussed. Far be it from me to censor discussion. But I feel like the pep rallies are premature. I will resign myself to ignoring them as best as I can.

lol And I meant space in the sense of screen space...I would hate to see fruitful discussion buried by "how Rand will save the world in his first 100 days, PLEASE SUPPORT HIM!!" threads.

It isn't premature, IMO, since there is still post election excitement and enthusiasm right now. Republicans are still in a mood to talk strategy, what went wrong this time, what direction the party should go in, who is up and coming, etc. Once that post election debate dies down in the media, 2016 won't be front and center.

 

[EBounding]

Would a President Rand increase liberty in this country? I think the answer is undoubtedly, yes.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Same position. He is better then anyone else out there, so I will probably vote for him. Wether I campaign for him depends on what happens in congress. He already voted for Iran Sanctions, which I am very much opposed to.

"On Saturday (Sept. 22) the U.S. Senate voted 90 to 1 to pass a non-binding resolution that would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The lone senator voting against the resolution was Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul the well-known libertarian.
Rand Paul argued that the resolution was de-facto a declaration that the U.S. would wage a pre-emptive war. The resolution was introduced months ago by three senators: Lindsey Graham, Bob Casey and Joe Liebermam."

He is also the only one voting against pre-emptive war against Iran. Which makes him, even on issues involving Iran, the best credible option for 2016.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Amendment 3232 to S.3254(National Defense Authorization Act of 2013): Increase sanctions on Iran.
Vote:
Paul (R-KY), Yea


Now, as we know, Ron Paul has stated that sanctions are literally and Act of War.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIO-4v8qpYc

Thus, if Rand Paul voted FOR sanctions AGAINST Iran, then he has voted for an Act of War.

Edit: Source of his vote for sanctions on Iran http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00215

And Ron Paul voted for the AUMF, which is roughly 1 million times as bad as voting for Iranian sanctions and is literally voting directly for an Act of War. Not just one war either, all future wars. Just because Ron Paul says something doesn't make it correct either. He has done and said a lot of shit that isn't correct. Not saying he is wrong about sanctions, but Ron saying something isn't proof of anything.

 

[Viperscale]

I'm all behind Rand Paul...just passed out 500 flyers for him at a gun show.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I'm all behind Rand Paul...just passed out 500 flyers for him at a gun show.

+rep

 

[radiofriendly]

Many (and maybe most) of the hardcore Rand haters actually lean anarchist and don't even believe in voting--and have no record of engagement with the electoral process. This doesn't mean that their ideas aren't fascinating - but it's silly to let them lead the discussion. Sad truth is, we libertarians aren't even a significant voting block, much less the anarchists and Adam Kokesh types.

 

[anaconda]

Rand's appointments could be legendary.

His actions as POTUS could also be legendary.

 

[anaconda]

I'm all behind Rand Paul...just passed out 500 flyers for him at a gun show.

^This is how it gets done.

P.S. Would love to see what your flyer looked like.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

^This is how it gets done.

P.S. Would love to see what your flyer looked like.

Flyers are great and all, but I think talking to people is much more important. Especially those in our own sphere of influence. It's never too early to start bringing them in Rand's direction. I know that I have a ton of friends and family down here in the lone star that range from neocon to confused republican and all my badgering about Ron and his philosophy over the years has opened them up to the ideas of liberty but just as importantly, it has made Rand seem like a compromise to them. Any attempts to paint him as a radical will fall tragically short.