Is Rand our man or not?

[NOVALibertarian]

It may sound dumb to others but, the fact that rand endorsed Romney and bailed on his father before the primaries officially ended wont ever sit well with me. And i strongly feel that's what will be the i gotcha that the establishment will put in his face. He bailed on his father, whats stopping him from bailing on you. Its not like Ron was some father who wasn't part of his life and didn't pay child support.

Now people will argue it was a political move. Well lately i see too many "Political" moves by Rand. More of the same.

No one but RON PAUL.

These "No one but RON PAUL" comments is why some people view the Revolution as more of a cult than an actual movement.

It astounds me that so many people here are still on the fence about Rand Paul when no other viable alternative exists. Some people will say they would support Ron Paul or Judge Napolitano in 2016 when both will not run. There is no viable alternative to Rand Paul in 2016.

What Rand Paul is doing right now is brilliant. You must make "political" moves if you want to be the one to ascend to the metaphorical Iron Throne. Ron refused to ever make these moves. Whilst that makes him "special" in most people's eyes, it got him nowhere in regards to actually winning. If you want to make political change, you have to win at one point. Rand Paul is a great communicator of our ideas and can appeal to those moderate-liberals who feel disenfranchised by the last eight years of the Obama Administration. He appeals to the Tea Party obviously, and the rest of the GOP voters will march lockstep with whoever is their nominee (SEE: Romney, Mitt).

Is Rand Paul perfect? No. Nobody is. If the Revolution is to achieve victory, we can't hold every candidate to the standards of Ron Paul. If we do, we'll continue to hold onto the dream of a Ron Paul Presidency and never truly move-on. It's like never moving on from your ex because "they were perfect and nobody can compare." Do not let perfect be the enemy of good (or in Rand's case: pretty great). Rand and Ron seem to agree on nearly 90% (if not more) on issues. They might differ on some, but that 10% or so aren't large disagreements. It's not like Rand is hawkish on national security as opposed to Ron's non-interventionalist policy.

tl;dr- Rand is our best shot at winning the White House (and probably will be for the foreseeable future). We can't let this opportunity pass us by because he isn't his father.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'd honestly consider Rand semi-hawkish on Iran, but then, my standards are really high on that front. At least Rand strikes me as trying to avoid war unlike Cruz/Lee and "liberty" candidates of their type. I'm supporting Rand but the "cult" comments don't make any sense, particularly if addressed at people who like Napolitano.

 

[NOVALibertarian]

I'm supporting Rand but the "cult" comments don't make any sense, particularly if addressed at people who like Napolitano.

It's more towards the "no one but (Ron) Paul" people. They have their standards set so high that they won't accept anyone else. Because of this, it puts out the image that the Revolution is more about one person (Ron Paul) than an idea.

I consider someone "hawkish" if they seem to actively want war with another nation. The fact that Rand is urging caution against these latest sanctions that they're trying to pass shows me that he doesn't really want war with Iran. Like you mentioned, this is opposed to the line of thinking that Ted Cruz and others in the Republican Party perpetuate.

 

[SilentBull]

Those who don't support Rand and compare him to Ron Paul somehow forget the fact that Ron Paul himself fully supports Rand Paul and what he's doing.

 

[Bergie Bergeron]

See my signature, again.

 

[thoughtomator]

If you got a better man than Rand for the job, throw the name out in the ring and we can have an open, healthy debate as to who will best represent us. Rand gets no family name points, he's got to earn it like everyone else.

 

[Terry1]

Unless someone can bring Ron Paul back, I can't imagine supporting anyone other than Rand. Remembering too that Rand understands what it's going to take to get elected which doesn't necessarily mean that what he says to get elected is what he'll do once he is. Rand is more his father than some realize. That's as far as I'm willing to go with that considering prying eyes and all.

 

[Terry1]

I'd honestly consider Rand semi-hawkish on Iran, but then, my standards are really high on that front. At least Rand strikes me as trying to avoid war unlike Cruz/Lee and "liberty" candidates of their type. I'm supporting Rand but the "cult" comments don't make any sense, particularly if addressed at people who like Napolitano.

Don't be fooled, Rand knows exactly what those sanctions on Iran are all about as well as Ron does. They have nothing to do with nukes, it's all about the dollar and oil being bought and sold with other currencies. Iran could nuke a city in the U.S. and it wouldn't do near the damage as selling oil in currencies other than the dollar does. If it were all about nukes, I'd be more worried about N. Korea than anyone else.

All those sanctions are doing is provoking instead of using some kind of diplomacy by backing out of their affairs as well as stop funding the enemies of their enemies, which include about all of the Mideast. Stop empire building and bring the money back home if there's any chance of that left at all.

What other possible reason could there be for over 130 different military interventions globally.

 

[Terry1]

Ron Paul was the answer and light unto this dark nation. They chose the devil instead and now they're getting just what they chose. I could go on but I don't want to bore anyone.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand doesn't appeal to Democrats the way Ron Paul did.

- ML

Yeah, the thumbs down is probably coming from the MSNBC leftists. The Marxists, socialists and establishment have been attacking and demonizing Rand. They used to just pretend that Ron didn't exist. Rand will be more polarizing because of this.

 

[ssunlimited]

It may sound dumb to others but, the fact that rand endorsed Romney and bailed on his father before the primaries officially ended wont ever sit well with me. And i strongly feel that's what will be the i gotcha that the establishment will put in his face. He bailed on his father, whats stopping him from bailing on you. Its not like Ron was some father who wasn't part of his life and didn't pay child support.

Now people will argue it was a political move. Well lately i see too many "Political" moves by Rand. More of the same.

No one but RON PAUL.

Yeah I think it was a political move. Now Rand gets much media attention and is a popular GOP candidate. I hope he wins.

 

[fisharmor]

Uh, you don't represent "we".

I don't represent YOU.
One thing I'm having a lot of trouble getting across is that I'm not the only person who holds these opinions.
Perhaps I'm not writing in English.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Uh, you don't represent "we".

No individual person on this site represents the whole. We are individuals, not a hive mind.

We are not.

As Ron Paul supporters, Rand is obligated to give us a reason to vote for him.

This.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think the better question is:

"Are we Rand's people?"

I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron, and one of the primary reasons for that is the subtle hints that "we" are not welcome anyway.

 

[Dogsoldier]

What or why exactly wouldn't Rand get just as much Democrat support as his father? They are 99%. Whats the big difference?

"As Ron Paul supporters, Rand is obligated to give us a reason to vote for him."

This is true of any other candidate but were talking about Ron Pauls son here...LOL....Do you honestly think the apple fell so far from the tree?

Rand to me is the GOP's last hope. They better get their $%it together ....or else....RISE OF THE LIBERTARIAN!!! Which is fine by me...

 

[Dogsoldier]

"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

 

[cajuncocoa]

"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

Rand's most ardent supporters here keep telling us that isn't true. That there are more Reagan/Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans than there are Ron Paul Republicans. That we need to sit down, shut up, and stay out of sight from those coveted Republicans lest we upset them into thinking all of Rand's supporters are dope-smoking 9/11 Truthers.

Make up your minds. If you need us, don't tell us to shut up. We're the ones who brought Rand to the dance, after all.

 

[Anti Federalist]

What or why exactly wouldn't Rand get just as much Democrat support as his father? They are 99%. Whats the big difference?

The big difference is that Rand is playing the Establishment Game, you know, Yay Red Team.

We have all been told, ad nauseum, that playing that political game is the only way to win.

That appealing to the "lunatic fringe" of either side is a losing proposition.

When you play that game you get your team behind you...but nobody else.

 

[fisharmor]

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

How old are you?
How many children do you have?

I'm not in it to win 2016.

Ron Paul showed us a change for the next 250 years.

The movement seems hell bent on wiping that glimpse clean from its collective memory and moving forward full steam with the win of a single race.

I'm not sure anyone else can put it in simpler terms than you yourself did right there.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

Then Rand is going to have to do something to light that fire and keep it stoked.
I'm with AF. I support Rand - but he's not exactly inducing paroxysms of enthusiasm.
(Especially when he can't or won't say flat-out that he's opposed to things like the minimum wage ...)