Do you support Rand Paul's endorsements?

Do you support the Endorsements?

  • Yes - They are gaining him political capital

    Votes: 21 43.8%
  • No - He is compromising principles and supporting those who should be removed

    Votes: 9 18.8%
  • It doesn't matter to me. Endorsements mean nothing.

    Votes: 18 37.5%

  • Total voters
    48

RPforPrez.

Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
111
I think there's been quite a bit of heat and debate in the forums regarding how Rand Paul is doling out his endorsements.

Whether it be supporting Mike Enzi, to Mitch McConnell, to endorsing Romney way back when.

Do you believe that he should indeed be making these endorsements, and that they are helping him in the long run without him sacrificing political "purity" or the expectations we all have of him?

Or do you believe he should stick to strict endorsements of people such as Brannon or Amash, such as Brannon in the primary in Kentucky.
 
Last edited:
Enzi > neocon Cheney. (Cheney is out, so this is moot.)
McConnell = key to establishment power/money. Even if this guy loses, no harm done. Rand did what he should and Bevin is a better guy anyway.

One can play a little politics without losing purity. There is a reason for these endorsements. Keep your purity test kit at home please.
 
Do you support Ron Paul's endorsements of Don Young, Lamar Smith and his blanket third party endorsement for the 2008 presidential election?

paul0910_S_20080910190324.jpg
 
(I personally support them.) It's just whenever I lurk on these forums, or on reddit's libertarian forums, or on dailypaul, etc, there always seems to be at least a decent amount of people who bash his endorsements and so forth.
 
(I personally support them.) It's just whenever I lurk on these forums, or on reddit's libertarian forums, or on dailypaul, etc, there always seems to be at least a decent amount of people who bash his endorsements and so forth.

People who don't like any given politician will look for things in which to say negative things about them. It's hard to believe anyone truly cares about meaningless endorsements, especially when they help you get in good with others who might return the favor.
 
I don't really like them (Either from Ron or Rand) but I tolerate them. And I agree that, compared to other things, its really not that big a deal. It only becomes a big deal when someone says "Well, Ron/Rand endorsed so-and-so, so I'll vote for them." That's not a good thing. Some of Ron's endorsements have been awful, and the same is true for Rand, but you're right that they really don't matter that much in the grand scheme.

I'm actually OK with Ron's blanket third party endorsement though, even on principle. None of the third partiers were worse than McCain or Obama. And Ron ultimately endorsed the excellent Chuck Baldwin. Is he perfect? Of course not. But he's pretty darn close.
 
Do you support Ron Paul's endorsements of Don Young, Lamar Smith and his blanket third party endorsement for the 2008 presidential election?

paul0910_S_20080910190324.jpg

Your last point is either an outright lie, or outright ignorance. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in 2008:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-president/
"I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."

And FWIW, no, I don't support "playing a game", or whatever people call it, with people's freedoms and electing/endorsing the same corrupt people over-and-over again. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
Personally I don't really put a lot of thought into who he endorses but it isn't that hard to predict who he will endorse.

If there is an incumbent Republican he'll either endorse the incumbent or not endorse at all.
If there isn't an incumbent then he'll endorse the best candidate if there is one.
Since he's a Republican he is going to endorse the Republican in the general or not get involved.

So you should know that before any endorsement.


Ron sort of followed the same rules but has had exceptions (3rd party endorsements). Now that he isn't in politics I expect him to endorse only the people he actually supports.
 
Just remember, Ron Paul has endorsed a lot of bad people too, which just goes to show that endorsements really don't mean much of anything. Here are Ron Paul's own words on the subject:



 
Endorsements are like tits on a bull. What many claim as the gold standard of politicians, Ron Paul, also had a pretty bad record of endorsements.
 
Just remember, Ron Paul has endorsed a lot of bad people too, which just goes to show that endorsements really don't mean much of anything. Here are Ron Paul's own words on the subject:





What a sellout. I wonder what kind of perks he got for screwing over Texans.
 
What a sellout. I wonder what kind of perks he got for screwing over Texans.

Are you kidding?

Damn people, get to the Leadership training so that you aren't such political noobs. Ron HAD TO endorse sitting Republicans or he would have gotten yanked out of the committees he was on. It's just the way it is. He expected us to have two brain cells to rub together to know that.
 
Pretty sure MichaelDavis was being sarcastic.

And yes, his endorsements are awesome. I can't say there's been one that I disagree with.
 
I understand the Lamar Smith endorsement was due to establishment pressure, but the Don Young endorsement seems more personal. Paul & Young were friends, and Paul regarded Young as an ally on the marijuana issue. Other than those two, I support pretty much all of Ron's other endorsements.

I also strongly support all of Rand's endorsements.
 
Your last point is either an outright lie, or outright ignorance. Ron Paul endorsed the Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin in 2008:

Paul endorsed Baldwin, specifically, but that doesn't change the fact he stood up on stage with McKinney and Nader and told Americans to vote for a third party candidate of their choosing.

CNN said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/10/paul.endorsement/index.html

Paul offered an open endorsement to the four candidates because each signed onto a policy statement that calls for "balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve," an aide to the congressman said.

Paul said a strong showing by the third-party candidates would express the public's frustration with the current system.
 
Last edited:
Paul endorsed Baldwin, specifically, but that doesn't change the fact he stood up on stage with McKinney and Nader and told Americans to vote for a third party candidate of their choosing.

Yes, it does. Because you must be missing what the point of the first press conference was, the "precise purpose" of it.

Ron Paul specifically said about the first press conference:
"The press conference at the National Press Club had a precise purpose. It was to expose, to as many people as possible, the gross deception of our presidential election process. It is controlled by the powerful elite to make sure that neither candidate of the two major parties will challenge the status quo. There is no real choice between the two major parties and their nominees, only the rhetoric varies. The amazingly long campaign is designed to make sure the real issues are ignored. The quotes I used at the press conference from insider Carroll Quigley and the League of Women voters strongly support this contention."

At the first press conference, he was attacking the two party system:
"The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.
Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both parties’ candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents."

And he endorsed Baldwin after the general press conference, because of criticism from the Libertarian candidate?

In his endorsement of Baldwin, he also said:
"The Libertarian Party Candidate admonished me for “remaining neutral” in the presidential race and not stating whom I will vote for in November. It’s true; I have done exactly that due to my respect and friendship and support from both the Constitution and Libertarian Party members. I remain a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and I’m a ten-term Republican Congressman. It is not against the law to participate in more than one political party. Chuck Baldwin has been a friend and was an active supporter in the presidential campaign.

I continue to wish the Libertarian and Constitution Parties well. The more votes they get, the better. I have attended Libertarian Party conventions frequently over the years.
In some states, one can be on the ballots of two parties, as they can in New York. This is good and attacks the monopoly control of politics by Republicans and Democrats. We need more states to permit this option. This will be a good project for the Campaign for Liberty, along with the alliance we are building to change the process.


I’ve thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. I’m supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."

Then, 2012 happened. And he sat by in complete silence as his campaign website was being used to defend a lying endorsement of Mitt Romney, the status quo candidate. A Republican candidate that was completely against more congressional oversight at the Federal Reserve. The candidate that said he would have signed the NDAA.
 
Back
Top