Do you still support Rand Paul?

Do you still support Rand Paul

  • Total voters
    241
Thanks for putting up this poll. Looks like those who don't are the vocal minority.

I still like Rand. Politics must be an incredibly difficult job, and at the end of the day he is his father's son. He must know that he's in a position to become the torchbearer for this movement after Ron is gone, and I hope it affects his decision making in the future.
 
ProIndividual said:
Besides, the guy voted for sanctions on Iran;
Click to expand...

Link please. My understanding is that Rand voted for a non-binding resolution, but when the actual sanctions vote came down he blocked it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

In fact, do you have a link to a single actual bad bill that Rand voted for? Not some stupid comment or non-binding resolution. An actual bad bill. You know the saying "Do what I do, not what I say"? Well with Rand it's "Watch what I do, not what I say". What he actually does (from what I've seen) is awesome! What he says pretty much sucks at least 25% of the time.
 
I'd support him over a Mitch McConnell any day, but if somebody more radically libertarian were to challenge him, I wouldn't think twice about giving him the boot.
 
jmdrake said:
Link please. My understanding is that Rand voted for a non-binding resolution, but when the actual sanctions vote came down he blocked it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/03/rand-paul-blocks-iran-sanctions-bill-118887.html

In fact, do you have a link to a single actual bad bill that Rand voted for? Not some stupid comment or non-binding resolution. An actual bad bill. You know the saying "Do what I do, not what I say"? Well with Rand it's "Watch what I do, not what I say". What he actually does (from what I've seen) is awesome! What he says pretty much sucks at least 25% of the time.
Click to expand...

This is the 2nd time you've said this nonsense. He voted for sanctions against Iran, just do a little google or bing search. What you sophistically call "blocking the bill" was adding an Amendmentnt to it that said 'this act of war is no way to be construed as an act of war', and then voting for it . Look sophist, obviously sanctions are an act of war...and if he voted for them, despite his Orwellian doublespeak Amendment, it remains an act of war. If you vote for an act of war without a declaration of war, that would be unconstitutional.

He violated his oath of office and supposed libertarian principles. It's not a little issue like abortion or privatizing roads...its WAR, where women and children will die, whether through sanction effects or by way of the hot war it provokes.

Why do you people stand by a man who made an unconstitutional vote that will likely kill women and children who don't pose any threat to us?

What is happeneing to this movement? Did it always lack principles, and I just didn't notice? Or is this a new thing?

Sophism is almost as bad as statism and nationalism.

Keep cheerleading for this dude...you can even run him in 2016...and replace my vote and support with some Glenn Beckians who will be glad to join you on your new-found neocon leaning foreign policy. Hell, those Objectivists might even join you...you know, the ones who said Ron Paul's foreign policy of peace was too "dangerous".

Are we all leaving libertarianism and becoming Objectivists now?!? WTH is happening?!?

I saw someone say in this or another thread "Rand will never support war with Iran"...except he already voted for an act of war against Iran, and that statistically raises the probability of war between us. Does he not know this?

Some of you have this conspiracy theory all worked out in your heads that he's some Trojan Horse candidate just faking these positions and rhetoric ...with no actual evidence that is the case. It's far more likely this is who this guy is.

What the hell would we have said if Ron Paul had endorsed McCain in 2008? What the hell will you say if Ron Paul endorses Romney in 2012? Is there no end to this hero worshipping crap? This fantasy of the nepotistic dynasty?

This movement may go on without people like me in 2016...but it won't be the same movement. So don't be all proud of yourselves when Rand runs in 2016...it'll be the death of the original movement and the beginning of some incrimentalist, sycophantic half-a-libertarian movement that will take 20 years to end up right back where it started.

Heres your damn links:

http://www.dailypaul.com/190014/sen...horization-bill-rand-votes-for-iran-sanctions

“My amendment is one sentence long; it states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in Iran or Syria,” Paul told his colleagues.
Click to expand...

That didn't stop it from being an unconstitutional act of war, now did it...

May 22, 2012

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the legislation now makes clear that "all options" could be considered, echoing previous statements by President Barack Obama.

"I hope sanctions will work," Graham said. "But this is a clear statement by the United States Senate, backing up our president, that when it comes to Iran having a nuclear capability, there will be more than sanctions on the table -- and the Iranians need to know that."

Meanwhile, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul insisted on language that explicitly noted that nothing in the bill "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of the use of force" against either Iran or Syria, an Iranian ally now fighting a popular uprising against its government. Paul, the son of two-time GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, was pleased by the bill's passage, spokeswoman Moira Bagley told CNN.

And Reid said after the vote, "Iranians need to know we mean business."
Click to expand...

http://www.wgal.com/news/politics/S.../13537494/-/view/print/-/11mr8fr/-/index.html

Rand Paul explains his vote in favor of sanctions against Iran

Watch the video!



He DEFENDS sanctions as a tactic, you sophist!!!!!!!!

Anyone who denies Rand was for sanction on Iran is intellectually dishonest or delusional, PERIOD.

I just LOVE how he tries to make his vote for an act of war without declaration, that will kill people most likely, appear like it's not an act of aggression, is somehow anti-war, and that Iran having a nuke is somehow destabalizing the Middle East, and even if it was, that it's any of our concern.

If you think nukes destabalize the Middle East I'd suggest researching game theory mathematics. Nukes prevent wars. The Cold War was invented by the advent of mutually assured destruction, ie. unexploitable strategy via game theory. Two nuke nations have not went to war that I'm aware of, for any extended period of time. Nukes prevent wars...all higher levels of technology act as deterents to violent action and exploitation. Please read the below links if you don't understand this:

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry....ip-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.1

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry....ip-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.2
 
Last edited:
Rand is true to his fathers belief, people should understand that there is a larger chance that Rand becomes president then Ron.

The fight has just begun!

Rand 2016!!!

ProIndividual...... man take a deeeeeep breath and try to get a grip of the cruel reality that is Washington D.C.

I am all for the 100% moral / ethical voting, only voting by the constitution thing, but please try to understand that the rest 99,9 % in Washington doesn't see it that way. Some would argue that Ron was not able to pass any bill while in Washington, why is that? Because he stood hard core by his principle and wouldn't even budge in his belief. This maybe looks very honorable and correct (which it is) but to be truthful is of no real advantage if you are not able to pass any of your ideas or laws.

You need to understand that if you want to change something in D.C it will be small incremental changes over a long period of time, during this time you will to have to budge on some of the bills and you will need to negotiate with others to get what you want. Thats the way it works. Do i, you or even Rand Paul like that process? Probably not, but Rand knows that it is the way it sadly works.

If Rand had voted agaisnt Iran, he would have been the only senator agaisnt it. What good would come out from the fact if he voted no? It would maybe be a principle thing to do but would it help the freedom movement in any way? No. Would it empower Rand in the senate? No. Would it in anyway give him an advantage when introducing his own bills? No.

If there would have been 52 senators that would vote yes and 51 that would vote no, then Rand would have probably voted no. But to go and hang yourself (politically speaking) for a principle that in D.C and unfortunately with 50 % of the population has no weight or meaning, is not a really clever move to make.
 
Last edited:
I'm undecided, leaning on not supporting Rand in the future. It would take a lot for him to change my mind after some of the decisions that he's made. If he were to get the nomination I would consider voting for him so that's why I'm undecided. At this point, I can't see myself supporting him getting there though.

Guzabuza said:
Rand is true to his fathers belief, people should understand that there is a larger chance that Rand becomes president then Ron.

The fight has just begun!

Rand 2016!!!

ProIndividual...... man take a deeeeeep breath and try to get a grip of the cruel reality that is Washington D.C.

I am all for the 100% moral / ethical voting, only voting by the constitution thing, but please try to understand that the rest 99,9 % in Washington doesn't see it that way. Some would argue that Ron was not able to pass any bill while in Washington, why is that? Because he stood hard core by his principle and wouldn't even budge in his belief. This maybe looks very honorable and correct (which it is) but to be truthful is of no real advantage if you are not able to pass any of your ideas or laws.

You need to understand that if you want to change something in D.C it will be small incremental changes over a long period of time, during this time you will to have to budge on some of the bills and you will need to negotiate with others to get what you want. Thats the way it works. Do i, you or even Rand Paul like that process? Probably not, but Rand knows that it is the way it sadly works.

If Rand had voted agaisnt Iran, he would have been the only senator agaisnt it. What good would come out from the fact if he voted no? It would maybe be a principle thing to do but would it help the freedom movement in any way? No. Would it empower Rand in the senate? No. Would it in anyway give him an advantage when introducing his own bills? No.

If there would have been 52 senators that would vote yes and 51 that would vote no, then Rand would have probably voted no. But to go and hang yourself (politically speaking) for a principle that in D.C and unfortunately with 50 % of the population has no weight or meaning, is not a really clever move to make.
Click to expand...
You completely contradicted yourself in your own post. If Rand was true to his father's beliefs, he wouldn't have voted for sanctions against Iran, even if that meant he was the only one. Votes like this tells me that he doesn't share the same non-interventionist foreign policy Ron does. That's why people like Ron Paul - because he was right and he stood up on Capitol Hill and told the truth, even if he was the only one doing it.
 
You still don't get it do you? Probably more than 70 % of the people in U.S.A are NON-idealistic, moral ethical people. There is now way that freedom movement will prevail if you only tout your own book. There are more people that live in this country that are non-libertarian than those who are.


What are you trying to accomplish? To be 100 % idealistic and hold on to your principles and not to progress? or budge down a lite bit and attract more people to your cause?


I mean you need to be realistic. It is all swell and dandy in fantasy land but the real world unfortunately doesn't share our view how the system should work. Did the socialist and fascist minded people of this country force their belief views on you in 4 or 8 years ? No they did not, they did it incrementally over 100 years. Same thing goes for the freedom movement, you cant expect to change the minds and heart of the people in two election as it is not realistic to force your 100% idealistic view on them also.

Just try to imagine if Rand in the next four years manages to get support of 20 % of the senate and 20 % of the congress. He then outstrips his fathers support by a factor of 20x1. He then has 20 x more times of a chance to get elected. You have to ask yourself, what is better, Rand in 2016 or Romney in 2016 ?
 
Last edited:
I can see why he did it. Just saw this video and gave me a better insight on why he did it.

 
Of course. Who else do you intend to support? Someone who will commit political suicide for you?
 
I still support Rand. I will be watching him closely though. But, then again, I still watch his father closely. :p
 
Rand Paul endorsed a man that supports National I.D. Cards, Wants to double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Thinks that cutting Federal Government spending by one Trillion dollars takes money out of the economy, Thinks its ok to force people at the state level to buy government approved health insurance, Torture, suppressing assault weapon ownership, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, assassinating U.S. citizens, Bombing Iran without a declaration of war from Congress, Economic Protectionism, Forcing producers of computers to add a porn filter, The Feds "independence", Bank bailouts, believes in predatory pricing, building walls at our Mexican Border and much more.

This is everything I stand aginst. I want to spit in his face!
 
Last edited:
whippoorwill said:
Rand Paul endorsed a man that supports National I.D. Cards, Wants to double the size of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, Thinks that cutting Federal Government spending by one Trillion dollars takes money out of the economy, Thinks its ok to force people at the state level to buy government approved health insurance, Torture, suppressing assault weapon ownership, indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, assassinating U.S. citizens, Bombing Iran without a declaration of war from Congress, Economic Protectionism, Forcing producers of computers to add a porn filter, The Feds "independence", Bank bailouts, believes in predatory pricing, building walls at our Mexican Border and much more.

This is everything I stand aginst. I want to spit in his face!
Click to expand...

And I, yours.

This endorsement means no more than Ron Paul's endorsement of Lamar Smith, or his blessing on the likes of Commie McKinney.

If Rand did not endorse the eventual Republican nominee, regardless of who he was, all of his legislation would be dead on arrival. Ron Paul never endorsed against a sitting Republican incumbent. Never. Regardless of whether the incumbent was a POS and a fantastic liberty-candidate was running against him. Because he was told that if he did, he would be kicked out of the GOP. Now that would have been a big help, eh?

Judge Rand by his votes and his legislation. Because that is where we will find out what he stands for.

Note: I love you guys, but I'm not willing to go to a gulag, because you want to bite off your nose to spite your face.
 
Last edited:
Rand Paul - addresses drones, non violent offenders, the fed, raw milk, and hemp legalization, all in a week, and people are saying he's not a true libertarian. Crazy.

ProIndividual said:
This is the 2nd time you've said this nonsense. He voted for sanctions against Iran, just do a little google or bing search. What you sophistically call "blocking the bill" was adding an Amendmentnt to it that said 'this act of war is no way to be construed as an act of war', and then voting for it . Look sophist, obviously sanctions are an act of war...and if he voted for them, despite his Orwellian doublespeak Amendment, it remains an act of war. If you vote for an act of war without a declaration of war, that would be unconstitutional.

He violated his oath of office and supposed libertarian principles. It's not a little issue like abortion or privatizing roads...its WAR, where women and children will die, whether through sanction effects or by way of the hot war it provokes.

Why do you people stand by a man who made an unconstitutional vote that will likely kill women and children who don't pose any threat to us?

What is happeneing to this movement? Did it always lack principles, and I just didn't notice? Or is this a new thing?

Sophism is almost as bad as statism and nationalism.

Keep cheerleading for this dude...you can even run him in 2016...and replace my vote and support with some Glenn Beckians who will be glad to join you on your new-found neocon leaning foreign policy. Hell, those Objectivists might even join you...you know, the ones who said Ron Paul's foreign policy of peace was too "dangerous".

Are we all leaving libertarianism and becoming Objectivists now?!? WTH is happening?!?

I saw someone say in this or another thread "Rand will never support war with Iran"...except he already voted for an act of war against Iran, and that statistically raises the probability of war between us. Does he not know this?

Some of you have this conspiracy theory all worked out in your heads that he's some Trojan Horse candidate just faking these positions and rhetoric ...with no actual evidence that is the case. It's far more likely this is who this guy is.

What the hell would we have said if Ron Paul had endorsed McCain in 2008? What the hell will you say if Ron Paul endorses Romney in 2012? Is there no end to this hero worshipping crap? This fantasy of the nepotistic dynasty?

This movement may go on without people like me in 2016...but it won't be the same movement. So don't be all proud of yourselves when Rand runs in 2016...it'll be the death of the original movement and the beginning of some incrimentalist, sycophantic half-a-libertarian movement that will take 20 years to end up right back where it started.

Heres your damn links:

http://www.dailypaul.com/190014/sen...horization-bill-rand-votes-for-iran-sanctions



That didn't stop it from being an unconstitutional act of war, now did it...



http://www.wgal.com/news/politics/S.../13537494/-/view/print/-/11mr8fr/-/index.html

Rand Paul explains his vote in favor of sanctions against Iran

Watch the video!



He DEFENDS sanctions as a tactic, you sophist!!!!!!!!

Anyone who denies Rand was for sanction on Iran is intellectually dishonest or delusional, PERIOD.

I just LOVE how he tries to make his vote for an act of war without declaration, that will kill people most likely, appear like it's not an act of aggression, is somehow anti-war, and that Iran having a nuke is somehow destabalizing the Middle East, and even if it was, that it's any of our concern.

If you think nukes destabalize the Middle East I'd suggest researching game theory mathematics. Nukes prevent wars. The Cold War was invented by the advent of mutually assured destruction, ie. unexploitable strategy via game theory. Two nuke nations have not went to war that I'm aware of, for any extended period of time. Nukes prevent wars...all higher levels of technology act as deterents to violent action and exploitation. Please read the below links if you don't understand this:

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.1

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry....ip-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.1

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically P.2

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry....ip-and-nuclear-weapons-game-theoretically-P.2
Click to expand...
 
ProIndividual said:
I saw someone say in this or another thread "Rand will never support war with Iran"...except he already voted for an act of war against Iran, and that statistically raises the probability of war between us. Does he not know this?
Click to expand...

Ron voted for acts of war without an official declaration of Congress when he voted for "authorization for the use of force" against Afghanistan. Afghanistan never attacked us and intel was sketchy. He violated his oath to do this, it can be argued, and it led to a protracted war. Iran sanctions might prevent war who knows. Ron's actions however directly led to war.

So Ron and Rand are really no different in this regard, difference of degree not of kind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Donating to Rand Paul without going through WinRed
Replies
2
Views
105
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
jct74
  • Poll Poll
Rand waiting on Trump to support liberty issues and candidates more
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Matt Collins
Rand Introduces Free Speech Protection Act
Replies
2
Views
616
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
jmdrake
Rand Paul introduces "REINS" act to rein in the administrative state
Replies
13
Views
2K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
T
Senator Rand Paul Calls U.S. Support for Saudis a “National Disgrace”
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAF
PAF
Back
Top