If Rand Paul Loses GOP Primary, What Will You Do?

[Christian Liberty]

There were people in 2012 who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the liberty movement if you voted for Romney in the general election. There were rank and file Republicans who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the Republican Party if you didn't vote for Romney in the general election. That's what I'm talking about, all of these ultimatums, that either you vote for a certain candidate or you get kicked out of a certain group you belong to.

I'm not really sure how you could be intelligent and vote for Mittens, but the "liberty movement" is an informal group anyway, and I'm not sure why you'd care about the GOP at all.

 

[DFF]

Any of us who followed Ron Paul's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 know that the election process is a crock.

The elites have gamed the system, and aren't leaving the big decisions to the people.

So I think that voting in the presidential election is a complete waste of time...now local elections, and state reps, and possibly even senators (although there's most likely a lot of rigging at this level) that's another story.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.

 

[Tinnuhana]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.

Ditto

 

[TheTexan]

If Rand Paul loses 2016, there is always 2020, or 2024.

2030 seems like a lucky year.

 

[Matt Collins]

Any of us who followed Ron Paul's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 know that the election process is a crock.

The elites have gamed the system, and aren't leaving the big decisions to the people.

So I think that voting in the presidential election is a complete waste of time...now local elections, and state reps, and possibly even senators (although there's most likely a lot of rigging at this level) that's another story.

Yes and no... it's not a crock, but remember that Rand is doing things necessary to win and already has a leg up over everyone but two of the potential candidates: Jeb and Romney.

But I agree with you that the long term fight is at the state and local level, it's really easy to win a lot of those races with liberty people.

 

[jjdoyle]

If Rand Paul loses 2016, there is always 2020, or 2024.

2030 seems like a lucky year.

I was actually thinking 2054, since Isaac Newton predicted the world might end in 2060. Get in one good last President, then it's over!

 

[Dianne]

Vote third party. Can't and never will pull a lever for a Bush, Romney or a Clinton.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

There were people in 2012 who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the liberty movement if you voted for Romney in the general election. There were rank and file Republicans who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the Republican Party if you didn't vote for Romney in the general election. That's what I'm talking about, all of these ultimatums, that either you vote for a certain candidate or you get kicked out of a certain group you belong to.

The liberty movement, as clearly embodied by Ron Paul, stands for a non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Fed/stopping the banksters, ending the IRS, restoring civil liberties (at least those eroded by post 9-11 laws like the Patriot Act), and strict limits on federal power as per the original intent of the Constitution.

Romney stands for more war and intervention, no change whatsover with the Fed or the bankster-domination, no change with the IRS, or with the post-Patriot Act regime, and disregard for Constitutional limits on federal power.

Thus, if the movement has any coherence at all, Mitt is utterly incompatible with any basic aspect of our agenda. Do you support our having SOME line drawn in the sand, or is imploring us to be open to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is your ultimatum?

 

[philipped]

If Rand looses in 2016 we still electing liberty lovers on every other level of govt. Rand being the President is truly symbolistic at the end of the day. Symbolizing the country is moving back towards liberty, which is totally fine. But Libertarian leaning city commissioners, school board members, and state legislatures will make a way bigger difference then just one guy as the President. Republican Liberty Caucus county chapters everywhere if Rand looses! Just grow and develop and make it even harder for an establishment nominee come 2020.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Barring Ron or Rand running third party, I'll probably stay home. Why bother?

 

[AuH2O]

Unless Cruz is the nominee, then I will focus more on some of the likely rematches (Greg Brannon, Chris McDaniel).

There won't be any "rematches" since Senate terms are every six years. If Brannon wanted to run again, he'd be primarying an incumbent Republican rather than running in an open GOP primary to face off against a sitting Democrat. And there is no Senate race in Mississippi in 2016.

 

[Brett85]

The liberty movement, as clearly embodied by Ron Paul, stands for a non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Fed/stopping the banksters, ending the IRS, restoring civil liberties (at least those eroded by post 9-11 laws like the Patriot Act), and strict limits on federal power as per the original intent of the Constitution.

Romney stands for more war and intervention, no change whatsover with the Fed or the bankster-domination, no change with the IRS, or with the post-Patriot Act regime, and disregard for Constitutional limits on federal power.

Thus, if the movement has any coherence at all, Mitt is utterly incompatible with any basic aspect of our agenda. Do you support our having SOME line drawn in the sand, or is imploring us to be open to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is your ultimatum?

I'm not saying that I voted for Romney or would ever vote for him. I voted for Chuck Baldwin on the Kansas Reform Party ticket. (Yes, he was on the ballot in Kansas but only in Kansas) But, I'm just saying the reason why I didn't vote for Romney is because I didn't want to vote for him, not because people were telling me that I wasn't allowed to vote for him. It's simply arrogant and egotistical for people to go around kicking others out of this movement because they may have viewed Romney as the lesser of two evils and voted for him for that reason. That's the attitude that some people have here, that if you decide to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you're no longer part of the movement. I'm certainly not saying that you or anyone else have to be "open to voting for the eventual GOP nominee." I'm just arguing that you and others shouldn't have an ultimatum that if Rand Paul isn't the nominee that everyone in the liberty movement has to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not saying that I voted for Romney or would ever vote for him. I voted for Chuck Baldwin on the Kansas Reform Party ticket. (Yes, he was on the ballot in Kansas but only in Kansas) But, I'm just saying the reason why I didn't vote for Romney is because I didn't want to vote for him, not because people were telling me that I wasn't allowed to vote for him. It's simply arrogant and egotistical for people to go around kicking others out of this movement because they may have viewed Romney as the lesser of two evils and voted for him for that reason. That's the attitude that some people have here, that if you decide to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you're no longer part of the movement. I'm certainly not saying that you or anyone else have to be "open to voting for the eventual GOP nominee." I'm just arguing that you and others shouldn't have an ultimatum that if Rand Paul isn't the nominee that everyone in the liberty movement has to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election.

There is no monolithic liberty movement. There is only individual libertarians and their opinions of other people. Someone is welcome to believe that anyone who votes for Romney is not really a libertarian if they want.

I think everyone in the liberty movement SHOULD vote third party or sit out the election if Rand isn't the nominee.

 

[Brett85]

I think everyone in the liberty movement SHOULD vote third party or sit out the election if Rand isn't the nominee.

What about Ben Carson? He's on record as being fairly anti war. He opposed the War in Iraq and said that he even opposed the War in Afghanistan, which is even farther than Rand has gone.

 

[ctiger2]

Change IF to WHEN.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm not saying that I voted for Romney or would ever vote for him. I voted for Chuck Baldwin on the Kansas Reform Party ticket. (Yes, he was on the ballot in Kansas but only in Kansas) But, I'm just saying the reason why I didn't vote for Romney is because I didn't want to vote for him, not because people were telling me that I wasn't allowed to vote for him. It's simply arrogant and egotistical for people to go around kicking others out of this movement because they may have viewed Romney as the lesser of two evils and voted for him for that reason. That's the attitude that some people have here, that if you decide to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you're no longer part of the movement. I'm certainly not saying that you or anyone else have to be "open to voting for the eventual GOP nominee." I'm just arguing that you and others shouldn't have an ultimatum that if Rand Paul isn't the nominee that everyone in the liberty movement has to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election.

Everyone here is free to vote for whomever they want, or believe whatever they want, including (on a case by case basis) voting for the lesser of two evils. But given the main agenda of pro-liberty people, it is reasonable to declare some politicians like Romney are "beyond the pale," given that they completely oppose ALL of that agenda.

Romney is not the lesser of two evils, he is as toxic to liberty as the Democrat would be, even more so because he would have right cover in office, just as GW Bush did. Obarry is actually the "lesser of two evils" figure, if you want to take that approach to its ultimate conclusion, because rank and file Republicans are willing to scrutinize his policies to a depth they would NEVER go if a Republican had beaten him, and enacted the same measures.

Our movement has a higher standard than cynical "lesser" pragmatism, and it is simply far more consistent for us to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election. If our advocacy of that sounds like an ultimatum, it is because anything less, means the exact status quo we are always complaining about.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What about Ben Carson? He's on record as being fairly anti war. He opposed the War in Iraq and said that he even opposed the War in Afghanistan, which is even farther than Rand has gone.

I decided I couldn't fathom supporting Ben when he endorsed the CIA torture program. I can see why someone could support him since he's better than most, but he's too nationalistic for me to consider.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

If Rand (and maybe Cruz) don't get the nom, this is the analysis I largely agree with.

 

[DFF]

Yes and no... it's not a crock, but remember that Rand is doing things necessary to win and already has a leg up over everyone but two of the potential candidates: Jeb and Romney.

But I agree with you that the long term fight is at the state and local level, it's really easy to win a lot of those races with liberty people.

The elites aren't giving up the Presidency to anyone unless they've been preapproved by them...plan a is to assassinate any anti-establishment candidates character, and if that doesn't work, then it's time for old reliable: outright vote fraud, which there was no doubt plenty of with Ron in 2008 and 2012.

But state and local will be where the fight is won, ultimately. And luckily these are still, for the most part, in the hands of the people.