Interventionists Attempt to Isolate Rand Paul Over Iran Deal

[compromise]

liar liar pants on fire !, lol yeah I smoke weed because I caught you being deceitful

You "caught" me saying that I wasn't sure about the Democratic administration's deal that hasn't even been fully unveiled yet, but reportedly contains foreign aid. You never "caught" me saying I supported this round of sanctions.

As a result, I'm assuming you blindly trust the administration and would support everything they offer without question?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

You couldn't be more wrong. Why was the entire American publican against Syria intervention ? The public are waking up fast and the last thing Rand needs to do is move into the neocon side while the public opinion are shifting to non-interventionist side

Do I think the Syria intervention was an example of people waking up? Yes it was, but overall no I don't think it proves your point as a whole. I think we got lucky, and a lot of that was because of Rand, Amash and Massie forced the issue. And Obama, either through poor strategy or not wanting to go to war took the issue to the Congress...

 

[philipped]

Yes we are better informed, but the alternative media is not liberty-minded. Some times they are worse than the corporate media.

Even if 100% of the alternative media was libertarian in nature Rand would still have an uphill climb... but that won't happen, because people's views affect the media as much as the media affects people's views. It's a back and forth.

If Rand is going to become POTUS he will do it through superior strategy, which includes altering his rhetoric. He will not win on merit alone and integrity alone (or Ron Paul would currently be president) because the general public is too damn confused and the elite are too strong.

Sounds like we should mentally prepare for Rand to discredit the word libertarian because it could be painted as anarchism on main stream media in a general election if he were to make it past the primary.

 

[BringBackLiberty]

Yes we are better informed, but the alternative media is not liberty-minded. Some times they are worse than the corporate media.

Even if 100% of the alternative media was libertarian in nature Rand would still have an uphill climb... but that won't happen, because people's views affect the media as much as the media affects people's views. It's a back and forth.

If Rand is going to become POTUS he will do it through superior strategy, which includes altering his rhetoric. He will not win on merit alone and integrity alone (or Ron Paul would currently be president) because the general public is too damn confused and the elite are too strong.

Why does everyone seem to overlook this critical aspect? Without playing the political game, Rand Paul will never become president. Accept this fact and move on people. It doesn't mean Rand is going anti-liberty, he is just being smart. The Ron Paul strategy isn't going to work, we've learned that.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Sounds like we should mentally prepare for Rand to discredit the word libertarian because it could be painted as anarchism on main stream media in a general election if he were to make it past the primary.

I don't think he would ever go that far to demonize libertarianism, but if he is the presidential contender I imagine he will ignore that word as much as possible and stick to the issues.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

He needs to win the Republican primary before he can have the privilege to potentially lose a presidential race. If he makes to the general election, he will tone down the rhetoric and then point to votes he made in the Senate. Average voter won't be the wiser and the neocons will cast their vote for him anyway, because he has an R by his name.

That's what liberals were saying about Obama during the primaries back in '08 (even though Kucinich and Gravel were the obvious peace candidates in that party's race). And now look what they/we got stuck with...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Why does everyone seem to overlook this critical aspect? Without playing the political game, Rand Paul will never become president. Accept this fact and move on people. It doesn't mean Rand is going anti-liberty, he is just being smart. The Ron Paul strategy isn't going to work, we've learned that.

The Ron Paul campaigns failed because 1) he didn't court reachable social conservative voters, as Rand is doing, 2) he avoided discussing false flags used to justify the WOT, which made it impossible to shake the emotional pro-interventionist framework set by the war hawks, and 3) he didn't challenge the GOP vote rigging and cheating when it mattered. It had nothing to do with not changing his rhetoric or compromising his principles. Accept this fact and move on people. The jury is out as to whether Rand's finessing of these issues is going to work at all come primary crunch time. We'll see, but Ron didn't 'fail' because declined to compromise.

 

[Matt Collins]

There's no point of winning if you have to sacrifice all of your principles in order to win.

You need to understand rhetoric vs action. Reagan for example had the right rhetoric, his actions were pretty horrible.

 

[Matt Collins]

The Ron Paul campaigns failed because 1) he didn't court reachable social conservative voters, as Rand is doing,

Valid point

2) he avoided discussing false flags used to justify the WOT, which made it impossible to shake the emotional pro-interventionist framework set by the war hawks,

Dumbest statement ever

and 3) he didn't challenge the GOP vote rigging and cheating when it mattered.

No, Iowa was the only time it mattered, and there is no evidence of GOP rigging / voter fraud there.

 

[compromise]

You need to understand rhetoric vs action. Reagan for example had the right rhetoric, his actions were pretty horrible.

Reagan wasn't really that bad...

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Reagan wasn't really that bad...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Matt Collins]

Reagan wasn't really that bad...

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

That's what liberals were saying about Obama during the primaries back in '08 (even though Kucinich and Gravel were the obvious peace candidates in that party's race). And now look what they/we got stuck with...

News Flash:

Rand Paul isn't Barack Obama.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Dumbest statement ever

After two primary race attempts where Paul's rational exposition on blowback fell on deaf ears, and ignoring 9-11 was tried twice with no primary wins to show for it, it's time to stop calling trying something else dumb. Rand's current approach of rhetorically conceding to the neocons goes three times to the well of ignoring the elephant in the room, and so will probably also fail to change the pro-intervention framework of GOP foreign policy debates. We tried it the other way twice now, folks, it doesn't work! And there was ample evidence of irregularities, strategically lost votes, etc in Iowa, as discussed on this board at the time.

 

[Matt Collins]

After two primary race attempts where Paul's rational exposition on blowback fell on deaf ears

That's because being rational doesn't work in politics. Ron's messaging was ineffectual for the average voter.

Rand's current approach of rhetorically conceding to the neocons goes three times to the well of ignoring the elephant in the room, and so will probably also fail to change the pro-intervention framework of GOP foreign policy debates.

Really? Because he is voting the correct way even though his rhetoric is what we'd want it to be.

 

[Brett85]

You need to understand rhetoric vs action. Reagan for example had the right rhetoric, his actions were pretty horrible.

Yeah, but Rand has already watered down the foreign policy message rhetorically. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but he doesn't need to go any further in that direction and water down the foreign policy message any more than he already has.

 

[Brett85]

Really? Because he is voting the correct way even though his rhetoric is what we'd want it to be.

His voting record on foreign policy issues isn't the same as Ron's either. Ron always voted against all of the sanctions. Rand has voted in favor of all of them.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sounds like we should mentally prepare for Rand to discredit the word libertarian because it could be painted as anarchism on main stream media in a general election if he were to make it past the primary.

I AM an ancap and I don't really like calling myself "libertarian" anymore without some qualification. This is because, first of all, the people who think that term basically means "Fiscally conservative, socially liberal" and second of all, those people, even if they might have a general idea about just how limited (Slim to none) the ideal government for a libertarian is, they assume that the pro-choice position on abortion is a necessary aspect of the package. I'd rather just say I'm a Christian who believes God's laws against murder, theft, etc. apply all the time, in every situation.

 

[Christian Liberty]

News Flash:

Rand Paul isn't Barack Obama.

You really, really don't know that. I wish you did know that, but you don't.

I hope Rand is the best President ever since Coolidge, but don't forget that he is corruptable. Don't assume that the man is the message.

His voting record on foreign policy issues isn't the same as Ron's either. Ron always voted against all of the sanctions. Rand has voted in favor of all of them.

Yeah, that's a big concern of mine as well. I'm still voting for Rand. Some chance of some liberty is better than no chance of any liberty. Rand is at least going to move the ball in the right direction, I think. But frankly, to those who have decided they can't support him, I don't blame you. Its not your fault. Rand Paul, and Rand Paul alone, needs to take responsibility for any of his dad's supporters who he may have lost.

 

[Brett85]

Yeah, that's a big concern of mine as well. I'm still voting for Rand. Some chance of some liberty is better than no chance of any liberty. Rand is at least going to move the ball in the right direction, I think. But frankly, to those who have decided they can't support him, I don't blame you. Its not your fault. Rand Paul, and Rand Paul alone, needs to take responsibility for any of his dad's supporters who he may have lost.

Yeah, and I wasn't actually criticizing Rand with my comment. I was simply correcting an incorrect statement that someone made.