It's time for Rand Paul to unleash Ron Paul

[jllundqu]

Not going to happen right now, at least not in the ways some of you want it to happen:

This post perfectly demonstrates why Rand's campaign is struggling.

When Ron Paul was running in 2008/2012, I would bet these numbers weren't all that different. The conservative republican base is always on war footing. It's precisely WHY Dr. Paul resonated with millions of Americans. He had the courage to speak out against illegal and unconstitutional wars... even when 'advisors' and 'polls' told him the opposite. If Rand embraced the Anti-war movement, instead of trying to 'appease the base', he could generate a tidal wave of excitement, but alas I fear it's much too late for that type of reversal.

 

[CPUd]

This post perfectly demonstrates why Rand's campaign is struggling.

When Ron Paul was running in 2008/2012, I would bet these numbers weren't all that different. The conservative republican base is always on war footing. It's precisely WHY Dr. Paul resonated with millions of Americans. He had the courage to speak out against illegal and unconstitutional wars... even when 'advisors' and 'polls' told him the opposite. If Rand embraced the Anti-war movement, instead of trying to 'appease the base', he could generate a tidal wave of excitement, but alas I fear it's much too late for that type of reversal.

It is also why Ron never won any primary states. You can't win primaries taking those extreme positions, they are scared to vote for fringe/extremist candidates.

 

[statist slayer]

Also, people have now forgotten about the trickle of deaths from the Middle East so are primed to jump back in. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand should have done that months ago.

 

[jllundqu]

It is also why Ron never won any primary states. You can't win primaries taking those extreme positions, they are scared to vote for fringe/extremist candidates.

"Taking those extreme positions" ?? You mean the pesky little positions like "following the constitution regardless of political costs?" ? lol

And when/if Rand loses the nomination... who will have made a bigger difference, ideologically speaking? Rand Paul, who has chosen the path of trying to please and appease everyone? Or Ron Paul, who chose to speak plainly, and truthfully, no matter the political cost.

Hint: The Answer is Ron Paul... setting all time fundraising records, bringing millions of people into the political process, single handedly changing the debate in this country about the federal reserve, constitutional power, spying, etc etc...

 

[brandon]

No reason for Ron to tarnish his legacy by getting involved in politics and compromise at this point. I'd like to see him endorse a 3rd party candidate if a decent one happens to run, Libertarian or otherwise.

 

[CPUd]

"Taking those extreme positions" ?? You mean the pesky little positions like "following the constitution regardless of political costs?" ? lol

And when/if Rand loses the nomination... who will have made a bigger difference, ideologically speaking? Rand Paul, who has chosen the path of trying to please and appease everyone? Or Ron Paul, who chose to speak plainly, and truthfully, no matter the political cost.

Hint: The Answer is Ron Paul... setting all time fundraising records, bringing millions of people into the political process, single handedly changing the debate in this country about the federal reserve, constitutional power, spying, etc etc...

Yes, Rand runs on constitutional declaration of war just like his father, but he's not going to say, "we marched in, we can just march out" in the primary or general. Really, anything less than "bomb the shit out of ISIS" right now makes the voters believe the candidate is weak on defense. Rand runs on "audit the Fed" just like his father, but he's not going to run on "end the Fed" because voters will believe he will wave a magic wand on day 1 and everyone's paper money will be worthless. Even Ron had to walk that back when he was running and say that ending the Fed was a process that would take more than 1 presidential term. Then he spent the rest of his congressional term trying to get a bill to the floor without others trying to water it down. Those ideas are considered fringe by most of the voters, and you should know as well as anyone else that it won't win an election today.

Do you people not know Rand was more active than anyone on this board in his father's 3 runs for POTUS? He knows what it will take to run a successful campaign (for better or worse), and has been executing that plan since at least 2012. Without the ideological push from Ron Paul 2008/2012, it wouldn't have been possible, and now some of you people are coming in here at the slightest hint of adversity and shitting all over it by making people have to defend Rand in his own forum, while letting Trump, Cruz promoters and anti-Rand sock puppets run wild. You're either in this until Rand gets elected, or stay the fuck out of the Rand forum because you're not helping.

 

[LawnWake]

Ron won't say the things he needs to in order to be of assistance to Rand. Plus he has too much baggage. Involving Ron, especially on the ground in a key state, is a bad idea.

Yeah, from the newsletters, it's only a tiny jump to Ron Paul is racist to RAND DOESN'T SUPPORT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT to RAND PAUL IS RACIST. We want to avoid that, especially around the time of the Iowa caucus. Like uhh, last time.

 

[fatjohn]

It is also why Ron never won any primary states. You can't win primaries taking those extreme positions, they are scared to vote for fringe/extremist candidates.

No.

That was the newsletter and only the newsletter.

If not for the newsletter, Ron would have won Iowa in 2012. No doubt.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

No.

That was the newsletter and only the newsletter.

If not for the newsletter, Ron would have won Iowa in 2012. No doubt.

No. If the campaign had been run better, if Paul had been a more aggressive challenger, and had Romney not been pushed as the frontrunner, then Paul might have won Iowa. But let's not act like all the blame belongs on exterior forces and none on the campaign itself.

 

[Matt Collins]

Not really. Facebook shows you what you're interested in.

It's a lot more complex than that. And last year FB started changing their edgerank system so that pages were shown to only a tiny fraction of their followers. So yeah it is no suprise that Rand's page is getting less and less likes... FB wants page owners to pay in order to play.

 

[Matt Collins]

"Taking those extreme positions" ?? You mean the pesky little positions like "following the constitution regardless of political costs?" ? lol

When it's phrased that way, it is extreme sounding, and turns off many voters.

 

[phill4paul]

Wasted breath. Too little, too late. Rand stands or falls on his own now for better or worse. A shame really.

 

[PierzStyx]

Ron is unlikely to make a difference. He wouldn't be allowed to go off the rails anyway because saying anything that conflicts with Rand's campaign message is a bad idea. There are absolutely things that the campaign could be doing better, but I put the blame on the voters themselves for their own lack of energy, whining about details and not recognizing one of their own, instead of rallying non-liberty voters to the liberty cause. The campaign feeds off the energy of the grassroots and the grassroots is worn out and tired from Ron's failed runs.

Didn't realize that insisting the people I support actually hold and espouse liberty in all its forms and in all places was "whining."

 

[klamath]

Not going to happen right now, at least not in the ways some of you want it to happen:

People around here just CAN'T get the concept about THIS. This is NOT 2007 where quite a number of republicans were getting tried of war or 2012 where they were really getting tired of war, this is 2015 and they want to go kick ISIS ass. ISIS destroyed Rand, plain and simple. Look at the Fucking numbers! Terrorism/national security have 3.5 times as many people concerned than immigration that the Trump followers claim is killing Rand. Ron would do horrible in this electorate.

 

[Crashland]

Didn't realize that insisting the people I support actually hold and espouse liberty in all its forms and in all places was "whining."

What people don't seem to get is that there is plenty of room to criticize a politician when they aren't perfect enough for you, and also enthusiastically support them at the same time. Instead what we are seeing is people criticizing Rand, then throwing their hands up and supporting Cruz, Trump, Sanders, or no one at all, because apparently those are greater defenders of liberty...

 

[DFF]

It may actually be too late already but it's December.

It's too late. From the outset of his campaign Rand should have channeled the old man.

But he tried to be more "mainstream" thinking this would attract some of the dumbass neocon voters.

However the strategy totally backfired, and only thing he achieved was disappointing libertarians who were hoping for a young Ron Paul to rally behind.

 

[twomp]

I agree that Ron would be a great asset and he is needed on the campaign trail.

I disagree it is "obvious" Rand can't bring out enthusiasm. Rand is bringing out hundreds of students to his college campus visits, Ron was doing hundreds in his campaign stops around this time too. Ron didn't start getting thousands until it was just down to delegate strategy and he started touring the country on his education campaign.

The money bombs for Rand Paul disagrees with your statement. Where are the signs over freeway passes? Where are the internet polls wins that we used to dominate? The lack of enthusiasm isn't just on the internet. It's lacking in all of the grassroots. Despite what Matt Collins thinks, he won't garner any more support by pandering to the idiot neo-con voters. Bending your principles does not inspire people. Well, maybe people like Matt Collins who think they are political gurus. People don't stand on bridges waving your signs when you act that way.

If things continue the way they do now, come May or June, we will see Rand Paul campaigning for Trump, Cruz, Rubio, or Bush. Because Rand Paul plays along to get along.

 

[CPUd]

Rand is not looking for sign wavers, he's trying to get votes to win an election. His strategy will not change dramatically, and it remains to be seen whether or not it pays off. Do we really have to keep having this thread every week?

 

[Anti-Neocon]

No it's time for Rand Paul to BE Ron Paul and say loud and clear how the other candidates' policies are failures. Trump did it authoritatively with regards to the Iraq War. He has to show "Rand Paul Was Right (and the John Fay Intiative psychopaths advising the other non-Trump candidates were wrong)". By not challenging the neocon narrative strongly enough, it actually starts to seem legitimate to low intelligence voters. Neocons want you to smoke more cigarettes when you have lung cancer, by doing more of the same of what actually caused the problem.