Endorsing Scott Brown

Scott Brown will be more respectful of Rand than Kelly Ayotte.

Brown said if Republicans want Rand or Cruz to be Chairman of a committee, vote for Brown.

Also Brown hasn't really done anything totally pissing off the base, like Ayotte voting for amnesty.

Brown is clearly popular. He did better than Tillis, Coats, Ayotte and others.
 
Last edited:
KingNothing said:
Who would you rather have in office if Rand were president? A Republican that he endorsed, he or a Democrat? If you think it makes no difference, you're a blithering idiot.

Politics matter. Just because you wish it wasn't so doesn't make it that way.
Click to expand...

LOL! Blithering idiot eh? Well, how much of the voting for the lesser of two evils has turned this country around?

So that must make you insane, eh? “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
 
invisible said:
Yeah, endorsing a guy who cast almost half of his votes with the democrats is real convincing to the average Republican. I'm not one to tear Rand down, and I feel he's doing a fantastic job, but this is a really lousy endorsement. I suppose we should expect the tom cotton endorsement next.
Click to expand...

FYI, most mainstream Republicans like Scott Brown....this is just politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a damn endorsement and Rand is trying to help the Republicans recapture the Senate. It's pretty obvious and endorsements don't mean anything in the end...
 
Massachusetts said:
FYI, most mainstream Republicans like Scott Brown....this is just politics. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a damn endorsement and Rand is trying to help the Republicans recapture the Senate. It's pretty obvious and endorsements don't mean anything in the end...
Click to expand...

He was only liked because he has an "-R" after his name, and managed to win an election in a liberal state. It wasn't because of his record, by any means.
 
invisible said:
He was only liked because he has an "-R" after his name, and managed to win an election in a liberal state. It wasn't because of his record, by any means.
Click to expand...

I never said it was. But Rand is trying to align himself in the public eye with a popular "moderate" Republican who has appeal on both sides of the aisle. It's an endorsement....not...a...big....deal. POLITICS is important if you want to win elections.
 
KingNothing said:
Who would you rather have in office if Rand were president? A Republican that he endorsed, he or a Democrat? If you think it makes no difference, you're a blithering idiot.

Politics matter. Just because you wish it wasn't so doesn't make it that way.
Click to expand...

Yes, playing politics has worked so well up to this point, amirite?

NH's federal representation is awful, Scott Brown will not improve it.
 
Anti Federalist said:
Yes, playing politics has worked so well up to this point, amirite?

NH's federal representation is awful, Scott Brown will not improve it.
Click to expand...

The liberty movement has not played politics at all until Rand got to the Senate. Ron Paul certainly never played politics. Simply running for office and holding office is not what I would consider "playing politics". The water gets much more muddy the more you politic and Rand is carrying the torch in branding the new movement of Libertarian Republicans.
 
donnay said:
Yes, but still an evil nonetheless.

ETA: That mindset has taken this country completely off course.
Click to expand...

Really, I figure dumbass idiots who think that protest votes for the libertarian party are actually helpful ...those are the evil ones. Instead of helping do a little good, you end up doing no good. But hey, at least you get fucking pretend that you are better than everyone else.

Slutter McGee
 
Slutter McGee said:
Really, I figure dumbass idiots who think that protest votes for the libertarian party are actually helpful ...those are the evil ones. Instead of helping do a little good, you end up doing no good. But hey, at least you get fucking pretend that you are better than everyone else.

Slutter McGee
Click to expand...

Does that mean you actually voted for romney in 2012 and mccain in 2008? This is simply another variation of "the good candidate can't win" argument. Am I a dumbass idiot because I voted for the Libertarian candidate in 1988?
 
Last edited:
Slutter McGee said:
Really, I figure dumbass idiots who think that protest votes for the libertarian party are actually helpful ...those are the evil ones. Instead of helping do a little good, you end up doing no good. But hey, at least you get fucking pretend that you are better than everyone else.

Slutter McGee
Click to expand...

So can you name names of those lesser of two evils candidates who have turned this country around?

Ron Paul cured my apathy--getting out there and educating people about liberty is the only way we are going to turn this country around. Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils still gives us an evil and the encroachments on our liberties. And if the reality of that makes me better than the likes of you, then so be it.
 
donnay said:
So can you name names of those lesser of two evils candidates who have turned this country around?

Ron Paul cured my apathy--getting out there and educating people about liberty is the only way we are going to turn this country around. Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils still gives us an evil and the encroachments on our liberties. And if the reality of that makes me better than the likes of you, then so be it.
Click to expand...

If it comes down to a vote where the only viable candidates are a choice between two evils, then you have already failed, and voting for a non-viable candidate accomplishes nothing. It only makes sense to vote third party is you *really* think there is not even any marginal difference between the two viable candidates. I get that a lot of people here feel that way, but I don't.
 
Crashland said:
If it comes down to a vote where the only viable candidates are a choice between two evils, then you have already failed, and voting for a non-viable candidate accomplishes nothing. It only makes sense to vote third party is you *really* think there is not even any marginal difference between the two viable candidates. I get that a lot of people here feel that way, but I don't.
Click to expand...

It accomplishes peace of mind for me. Sorry, I do not vote for the lesser of two evils. I withdraw my consent when I do not vote for the evils. If more people thought that way, then the same ole' establishment lackeys wouldn't be in office year after year.
 
Slutter McGee said:
Really, I figure dumbass idiots who think that protest votes for the libertarian party are actually helpful ...those are the evil ones. Instead of helping do a little good, you end up doing no good. But hey, at least you get fucking pretend that you are better than everyone else.

Slutter McGee
Click to expand...

I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, but I could argue that extricating oneself from voting for evil is not necessarily the choice of a "dumbass idiot," nor "evil." Furthermore, defecting from both of the two major parties is a directed strategy by many, and all movements start somewhere. I would never chastise anybody for supporting an unpopular political movement solely because of its unpopularity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Dave Smith | Scott Horton | Part Of The Problem 1254
Replies
0
Views
29
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
G
Sen. Rand Paul Calls for Elon Musk to Be Named Speaker of the House
Replies
17
Views
3K
Matt Collins
Matt Collins
6
Weezer bassist's wife shot by police.
Replies
5
Views
54
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Swordsmyth
Trump Fires Top US General and Navy Chief
Replies
2
Views
93
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Brian4Liberty
Tom Woods - Scott Horton on the Unknown Background to the Ukraine Disaster
Replies
0
Views
9K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Back
Top