Its raining mea culpa in liberty land.

[eleganz]

Yeah, but the bigger point is all the stuff he said in between that took him OFF track. That's what you refuse to understand here.

Nope, I understand it just fine and I'm glad we came to a conclusion that Rand did not say anything last night that was any different from what he was saying since he started his campaign for president.

That there was no massive shift in policy change, and that he didn't just flip a magic switch that suddenly made him a libertarian hero.

A lot of the excitement during these debates is purely psychological.

 

[jmdrake]

He's only recently started saying no boots on the ground in the middle east. Just months ago he wanted boots on the ground in fucking Afghanistan. I wouldn't point this out except for you trying to be a gloating piece of shit.

I missed that quote, but Ron voted to put those boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Just saying.

 

[TheTexan]

A lot of the excitement during these debates is purely psychological.

It is understandable though. Debates are pretty exciting.

 

[nikcers]

Nope, I understand it just fine and I'm glad we came to a conclusion that Rand did not say anything last night that was any different from what he was saying since he started his campaign for president.

That there was no massive shift in policy change, and that he didn't just flip a magic switch that suddenly made him a libertarian hero.

A lot of the excitement during these debates is purely psychological.

Honestly attitude is important, Rand's confidence has skyrocketed and he is taking criticism better. This is big on perception and I think this all started around the time PCKY joined the forums. So if anyone is to blame it's him.

 

[jmdrake]

Was the question I asked, not clear enough? Too difficult to respond to?

I put it pretty thoroughly in several posts why I think Rand had a much better night. He had a moment, the conditions were right for him to use one of many talking points that he had already been using and most likely wanted to use last night. A good delivery sometimes is also complimented with a good set up.

Every campaign wants to have a moment and every campaign likely plans for it but not every campaign gets exactly what they want because a lot of it is dependent on the conditions and dynamics of the debate stage.

Oh FFS! It wasn't the "debate conditions" that caused Rand in the first debate to make an ass of himself by going after Trump the same way GOP opponents went after his dad 4 and 8 years ago. "Hey Ron Paul. Are you going to pledge not to run third party?" The "conditions" haven't changed. Rand's tactics change. Good for him. Yeah he got a lucky break from Trump putting his foot in his mouth last night, but Rubio and Hillary being neocons has been a constant since before the campaign started.

 

[eleganz]

Oh FFS! It wasn't the "debate conditions" that caused Rand in the first debate to make an ass of himself by going after Trump the same way GOP opponents went after his dad 4 and 8 years ago. "Hey Ron Paul. Are you going to pledge not to run third party?" The "conditions" haven't changed. Rand's tactics change. Good for him. Yeah he got a lucky break from Trump putting his foot in his mouth last night, but Rubio and Hillary being neocons has been a constant since before the campaign started.

If you want to start a thread about the first debate, you can do so but I can't guarantee that I will participate.

 

[ds21089]

To this thread, I say:

 

[jmdrake]

You originally responded to my question (you know after I made sure it was attack-free) with a question and I answered you.

You have not given one single example of how the positions Rand took last night during the debate were not communicated in the past.

They were not consistently communicated in the past. Hell, in the past Rand once said that Iran getting a nuclear bomb wasn't a threat to the United States. I've seen the video. Have you heard him communicate that recently? Of course not. He won't. He can't. So sure, if you dig hard enough you can find all kinds of positions Rand has taken but has not consistently stood by after becoming a teocon darling. The non-interventionist response to Benghazi was "Why did we overthrow Khaddafi, and after overthrowing him why did we try to hang around in a failed state in a city that wasn't even the capital." Instead from Rand we got "Where were the marines?" I understand why. I get it. He needed to appeal to the teocons. At least that's what he thought he needed to do. But Ben Carson has sucked up a lot of the teocon vote and Rubio's trying to suck up what's left. Carson started off just as non interventionist as Rand in fact maybe even more so. Then he started spouting the "We've got to be afraid from the ISIS-caliphate-sharia-law boogeyman" and gained traction. Rand's not willing to go that far. So....he's started appealing to...well...people like us. And it's a good thing.

 

[jmdrake]

If you want to start a thread about the first debate, you can do so but I can't guarantee that I will participate.

LOL. Whatever. You asked what changed. I answered the question.

 

[Indy Vidual]

I never doubted Rand for a second, but you have to admit his presentation style has changed. He stated in the email prior to the debate he was going to be more bold and that's exactly what he did. I dont know if it was entirely a presentation vs simply having more time, but whatever it was certainly resonated better than the previous debates.

Yes, Rand changed the timing and quality of his interruptions and it made a huge difference.
He is no longer boring.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand got me excited for the first time in months.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rather than mentioning arming the Ukranians and Kurds, keeping forces in Afghanistan, enforcing sanctions on Iran and other countries, declaring war on ISIS, restoring the military funds cut by sequestration - and he had plenty of opportunity to do just that last night - he decided to take non-interventionist positions and pointed out the folly in interventionist policies like arming rebel forces, no-fly zones, and ending diplomacy.

It is dishonest to say the latter is no different or not the result of a changed approach from the former.

Great point!

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's great, but where's the talk of the Austrian business cycle, booms and busts, market distortion? Can he help explain the dangers of fiat currency a little better, the effects of inflation that people already notice? What does he plan to do about it? Gold standard? Competing currency? Crypto currency? I think this is more important then the tax plan, if we fix the fed issue and get out of debt we could eliminate the income tax.

Rand definitely needs to start delving into these subjects and explaining them to voters. Add in an intelligent case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Rand might salvage his campaign.

 

[cajuncocoa]

LOL. Whatever. You asked what changed. I answered the question.

I think eleganz doesn't want to hear (read) the answer....that would negate the purpose of this thread which was to point fingers, when just the opposite of that is what was needed (time to come together.)

 

[H. E. Panqui]

afwjam writes: "All the issues foreign and domestic that Rand has been talking about are enabled by the Feds dishonest, unfair and down right evil monetary policy. Arguing about these issues is useless if we do not change our monetary policy and reveal the evil behind it."

..you got it..

...i'm of the opinion these republicrats, including rand, do not possess an honest under$tanding here..

...for example, i've heard all these [odiferous] republicrats working their hot-dog holes about 'the 19 trillion dollar debt'...but i've never heard one of them reveal the fraudulent 'debt that ought not to be debt'...i.e. that [suspected] HUGE portion of the debt owed to banksters who acquired government bonds for free..(if you don't understand what i just wrote, you're probably happy with rand...but i under$tand...and i'm not happy that supposed 'champions' of ideas about better government are apparently hand-picked puppets...no threat to this MI$ERABLE ROTTEN 'monetary system'...

....every stinking one of them!...propped up by the same ma$ter$ who ask the vomitous questions at the big 'debates'...

 

[philipped]

Rand definitely needs to start delving into these subjects and explaining them to voters. Add in an intelligent case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Rand might salvage his campaign.

+ Compound it into extremely simplified statements & that's where the real challenge is.

Kudos to whoever on staff thought it was wise to tie Income Inequality to the Fed, I knew it, and all but it's the way he was able to make a soundbyte with it is what set him off Tuesday night on a lot of topics.

 

[jllundqu]

Well no matter what people think, his fundraising went great after the debate, his google hits went viral, he's the most watched debate moments on youtube... I would think this all translates into better polling in the days and weeks ahead.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

+ Compound it into extremely simplified statements & that's where the real challenge is.



...here's a simple, honest, important statement rand could make..REPEATEDLY: "...much of 'the 19 trillion dollar debt' is a stinking fraud...it's 'interest' owed to privileged banksters who have acquired U.S. gov. interest-bearing bonds FOR NOTHING!!..there are some stinking, grievous, DESTRUCTIVE, etc., defects in 'our' system of money creation and issuance and you can read all about it in h.e. panqui's 'republicrat monetary ignorance exposed for dummies' over at the ron paul forums...'