Sure, I can see that as well. My comment just came from the fact that here you get attacked as being a traitor even if you say that there's a candidate you have as a second choice. You're a "neocon" or a "traitor" if you don't subscribe to the "no one but Paul" mantra. It just seems to me like people who believe in "liberty" should be more tolerant and realize people are all individuals and that we shouldn't all just have to engage in group think. It's the group think mentality that I don't like here. I can understand why people here wouldn't want to vote for Cruz even in a general election. I've debated in my mind whether I can vote for him or not if he's the GOP nominee. I have reservations about some of his positions, especially on foreign policy. But, I also think he's pretty solid on other issues, but I guess others here just don't see that. But it just seems to me like people should have the freedom to at least consider voting for candidates who's last name isn't "Paul" without being threatened to be banned from this forum.
Sure, I can see that as well. My comment just came from the fact that here you get attacked as being a traitor even if you say that there's a candidate you have as a second choice. You're a "neocon" or a "traitor" if you don't subscribe to the "no one but Paul" mantra. It just seems to me like people who believe in "liberty" should be more tolerant and realize people are all individuals and that we shouldn't all just have to engage in group think. It's the group think mentality that I don't like here. I can understand why people here wouldn't want to vote for Cruz even in a general election. I've debated in my mind whether I can vote for him or not if he's the GOP nominee. I have reservations about some of his positions, especially on foreign policy. But, I also think he's pretty solid on other issues, but I guess others here just don't see that. But it just seems to me like people should have the freedom to at least consider voting for candidates who's last name isn't "Paul" without being threatened to be banned from this forum.
No, Cruz is not good on any issues. He's flip flopping, untrustworthy, Neo-Con fraud.
I thought you were leaving already?
J
Jan2017
Guest
Evangelical carpet bomb advocates seem to like Canada Cruz . . . for now anyhow.
See where you are wrong is that you believe the decent voting record Cruz has means that's the way he would be doing things if he's elected. First of all, until you realize that Cruz is a fraud who was sent into the tea party movement to mimic and hijack it, you wont notice how it makes no sense to support him. It's not an unlikely scenario that somebody attempting to do this would have a similar record to Rand (a true tea party conservative) in order to appear authentic. Since when do we trust people with ties to Goldman Sachs / CFR members here? The reality is every last person running except Rand would answer to the same people giving the same orders - so there's really no difference in voting for Cruz over Rubio or Trump. That's why it's Rand Paul or nobody.
Last edited:
I guess that could be the case. But the worst case scenario would be that he wouldn't be any worse than the others. I don't know, I just see both Trump and Rubio as being extremely anti liberty and don't want either one of them to win the GOP nomination. I'll support Rand Paul as long as he remains in the race. I would vote for him if I lived in Iowa or New Hampshire. But I live in Kansas, and if Rand is out of the race by that point then I'll probably caucus for Cruz in order to stop Rubio and Trump. I won't do any more than vote for him though. I won't give a speech for him like I did for Ron in 2012 because I still have a problem with some of Cruz's policies.
I understand where you're coming from, but one of the main reasons I'm worried about Cruz winning (though honestly he'd probably lose to Clinton anyway) is that when it turns out he lied about what he would do and being pro-liberty, it puts a stain on those who are genuinely running on that platform (Rand). So in that scenario next time around when Rand runs again people will just look at him as "yeah we heard this all before with Cruz".
I can see that, but Cruz has never really claimed to be a libertarian. It seems like if a Cruz Presidency was just a repeat of George W. Bush's Presidency it would reflect more poorly on conservatism than libertarianism. But I don't know. I think our country is going to be in trouble no matter what happens.
He may not claim to be as such, but looking at his supporters' comments in general leads me to believe that they think he's a principled person who believes in the constitution and wants to protect our rights. His actions have shown otherwise, but somehow they become blind to the facts presented to them and go on defense mode instantly or just redirect to the usual "but Rand is worse because he supported McConnell" line. That's a very common, reoccurring theme amongst the Cruz crowd. I'm hoping that Rand setting the record straight by going after Cruz may open their eyes, but I'm not so sure. I think that a lot of these people are evangelicals who were told to support Cruz from some lame talking head like Beck and so they blindly put their faith in him.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,408
Rands getting out the big guns and will win Iowa. Some of u guys ain't loyal, Rand says he is a fake and you still come on here defending him. Even after Ron endorsed Rand you guys come on here and tell me to vote for Cruz cause he can win. This is Ron Paul forums Rand is going to get audit the fed and gun control bills up for vote and Rand is going to say to republicans what has Cruz done for you?
The way I look at it is I'm 100% for Rand until that isn't an option, now you don't have to be but you surely can see how it can be perceived to be rude to be pushing Cruz while also dismissing Rand's chances when people on here are all in for Rand. I doubt you would be treated favorably elsewhere if you behaved in a similar fashion.
Now I ask you if Rand really is your #1 option why do you continuously dismiss his chances or candidacy?
I never told anyone to vote for Cruz. I just questioned why he's getting all of the attacks when in my opinion Rubio and Trump are far more anti liberty than Cruz.
Point taken. I won't do that anymore. I just won't comment about that anymore.
I didn't think I was doing it continuously. But I was just giving my objective opinion. I guess you and others are just a lot more optimistic than I am. But again I'm done doing that. I get your point.
nikcers
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2015
- Messages
- 14,408
You have to be optimistic because objectively the polls don't matter Rand will buck the narrative on the polls because if Ted Cruz can surge then so can Rand. You can give up and drink the MSM cool-aid but I'll hold my nose and write in Ron Paul if Rand isn't the nominee.
I hope you're right. We'll see what happens. I apologize for acting in a way that made people think that I was promoting Cruz and dismissing Rand's candidacy. That was not my intention. My intention was basically just to ask why most of the attacks from liberty activists are focused on Cruz rather than Rubio and Trump.
Until he isn't...it goes to character. He's that big preacher guy on TV bilking old ladies out of their pensions.
65fastback2+2
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2015
- Messages
- 1,396
yup...RAND OR BUST!
I used to think Carson and Cruz could be alternates...until they started speaking more and scared the crap out of me. I nixed that idea.
Similar threads
