How badly does this hurt Rand?

[kylejack]

The sanctions are a non-issue for anyone who studies it. Rand only voted to stop doing business with the Iranian central bank. That would be like China saying "we aren't doing business with the Federal Reserve anymore".

I've studied it, and it remains an issue with me. It also cuts off trade with any other nation's banks that have dealings with Iran.

 

[Sola_Fide]

That's not sabotage, it is people deciding who they personally choose to support. Some people don't like people who endorse Mitt Romney and vote for sanctions. Deal with it.

I'd much rather someone have a principled disagreement with Rand over libertarianism than to keep trying to make this an issue after it has been explained countless times. Get over it bro.

 

[erowe1]

Not endorsing could have hurt him even more.

 

[Verrater]

That's not sabotage, it is people deciding who they personally choose to support. Some people don't like people who endorse Mitt Romney and vote for sanctions. Deal with it.

It can't be from the inside if he's not working to elect Rand. That would be from the outside.

First it's not sabotage.
Then it's not sabotage, because it's not from "within."
When in fact sabotage doesn't have to come from within.
That's a misrepresentation of the position, and thus what is called a straw man.

The only reason you are defending Nystrom is because you agree with his position to use his site, which has become a primary hub for the liberty movement, to sabotage someone you don't like for your own reasons. Instead of letting the liberty movement decide for itself, which is the way it should be.

How quickly you will endorse dictatorial tactics when it suits your agenda.

 

[kylejack]

First it's not sabotage.
Then it's not sabotage, because it's not from "within."

No, that's not what I said. I'll concede that it's sabotage if you like, but you said it came from within, and I don't agree.

 

[kylejack]

The only reason you are defending Nystrom is because you agree with his position to use his site, which has become a primary hub for the liberty movement, to sabotage someone you don't like for your own reasons. Instead of letting the liberty movement decide for itself, which is the way it should be.

Uh, what? Daily Paul doesn't belong to the liberty movement, and I'm really terrified by your understanding of property rights. It's a free country where we're free to use our voice (and our websites) as we please, even if "the liberty movement" decides otherwise.

 

[Verrater]

Uh, what? Daily Paul doesn't belong to the liberty movement, and I'm really terrified by your understanding of property rights. It's a free country where we're free to use our voice (and our websites) as we please, even if "the liberty movement" decides otherwise.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between morality and legality.
Just because he has the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Nice try at changing the subject, and the point of argument, yet again.

edit:

No, that's not what I said. I'll concede that it's sabotage if you like, but you said it came from within, and I don't agree.

You don't have to concede anything to me. You challenged my point.
I could really careless what is defined as "within" I don't believe in collectivizing.

 

[kylejack]

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between morality and legality.
Just because he has the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
Nice try at changing the subject, and the point of argument, yet again.

I think you just feel entitled to something that isn't yours. I guess I'm a member of "the liberty movement" and I support what he's doing, so let us say that "the liberty movement" has conflicting opinions on what to do with the site.

 

[Verrater]

I think you just feel entitled to something that isn't yours. I guess I'm a member of "the liberty movement" and I support what he's doing, so let us say that "the liberty movement" has conflicting opinions on what to do with the site.

Another straw man.
He can do what he likes.
All I said is what he's planning on doing is wrong, and it's going to hurt Rand's campaign if he even decides to run.
As long as we're talking about what we think, I think you're just mad.

 

[kylejack]

Well at least now you're speaking for yourself and not for the liberty movement, that has conflicted opinions on Rand.

 

[Verrater]

Well at least now you're speaking for yourself and not for the liberty movement, that has conflicted opinions on Rand.

Instead of letting the liberty movement decide for itself, which is the way it should be.

Yeah because that's exactly what I'm doing. You'd make Levin a good co-host.

 

[kylejack]

Movements are not sentient. They're groups of individuals with different opinions.

 

[Verrater]

Movements are not sentient. They're groups of individuals with different opinions.

You're just trolling me now.

 

[kylejack]

Daily Paul is a part of the liberty movement. Thus Daily Paul owners have a moral and legal right to decide what to do with Daily Paul. Perfect!

 

[July]

It's to bad even those from within are seeking to sabotage it before it even gets started.
http://www.dailypaul.com/261969/the-door-is-open-for-rand-paul-2016#comment-2820725

Well, actually that's probably not such a bad thing, if Rand supporters gravitate to a new or different site. DP has not really been all that pro Rand for a while, since before the Romney endorsement. So I've always kinda felt like Rand would need his own forum/site eventually if he decided to run. Plus considering the fact that he has other tea party support from outside the Ron Paul liberty movement. Though, these days, maybe people will just gravitate to Facebook and whatnot.

I would hope DP would not actively sabotage or anything, though.

 

[Southerner]

Endorsing Mitt? Not this old herring again, SHEESH! I thought certainly this was gonna be a link to an interview with Rachael Maddow and the "civil rights" thing, THATS the only "mud" that will forever follow Rand, and its very minor. RAND PROMISED when running for SENATOR in KY that he would endorsed the GOP nominee. He kept that campaign promise. Get over it already.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I view Christie embracing Obama the same way all of you view Rand endorsing Romney: it was something he had to do. The difference is, Christie is at the helm of a state that has been severely damaged and is wanting Federal funds to help restore it. Rand didn't need anything from Romney.

Obama would have been raked over the coals on election eve had he tried playing politics with disaster relief.

Christie made smoochies with Obama 'cause they're peas & carrots. He didn't have to do it. He wanted to.

And Rand wasn't trying to get anything from Romney. Rand was making smoochies with the Republican rank-and-file.

Romney had absolutely *nothing* to do with it. He merely happened to be the "presumptive nominee" (and hence, the object - but *not* the subject - of Rand's endorsement).

If the GOP would even THINK about going for a social conservative they'd be suicidal.

That the GOP is suicidal was established when they nominated in 2012 the same guy (Romney) who lost to the guy (McCain) who lost to Obama in 2008.

So could the GOP be stupid enough to nominate Santorum in 2016? You bet your ass they could!

 

[kylejack]

RAND PROMISED when running for SENATOR in KY that he would endorsed the GOP nominee.

An idiotic promise to make.

 

[Southerner]

An idiotic promise to make.

Go troll elsewhere, aka "Go away kid, you bother me". W.C. Fields

 

[kylejack]

Go troll elsewhere, aka "Go away kid, you bother me". W.C. Fields

You think it's a good idea to promise to endorse a candidate before you know who the candidate is or what he supports?