It's time for Rand Paul to unleash Ron Paul

[Rad]

I don't think an in-articulate old man is going to help even though I wish Ron were running. Rand needed to speak the truth about our Middle East policy in a calm, serious, unapologetic Michael Scheuer way. He needed to educate and re-frame the debate in his favor with the DIA report.

 

[CPUd]

Well, at least an old thread was bumped instead of creating a new one.

 

[jmdrake]

Boy, you're dumb...

I would prefer that you were overtly on the other side, so I would've have to pretend to tolerate you.

Did your mommy help you type that? Read through Donald Trump's foreign policy positions and tell me you honestly don't believe he has ripped off Ron Paul. The Iraq war was a mistake? Ron Paul. Let Russia deal with Syria? Ron Paul. Talk to our enemies? Ron Paul. He's not Ron Paul on things like Iran sanctions, but then neither in Rand. It's funny that you don't have the brains to come up with an actual counter argument.

By the way moron, the reason to be against Donald Trump isn't foreign policy. It's his economic policy. He supports bailouts and imminent domain. He also supports gun control (assault weapons ban). Only a total idiot would think someone has to support Donald Trump just because his foreign policy isn't as bad as most republicans. Bernie Sanders foreign policy isn't bad either. But he sucks on economics and the 2nd amendment. (He's better than Hillary on guns but not by much.)

 

[jmdrake]

I don't think an in-articulate old man is going to help even though I wish Ron were running. Rand needed to speak the truth about our Middle East policy in a calm, serious, unapologetic Michael Scheuer way. He needed to educate and re-frame the debate in his favor with the DIA report.

Unleash Michael Scheuer? I'd love to see him make a commercial that goes like this. "You like Jack Bauer and 24? All that fictional crap was based on me. I came up with extraordinary rendition were the terrorists where kidnapped and sent to places like Syria where they could be tortured on our behalf. And guess what? We can't kidnap, torture or bomb our way to victory in the war on terror. We need to change our foreign policy. If we quit screwing with them over there they will quit coming over here. Trust me. I know what the hell I'm talking about. Those moron talking head you are listening to who would piss their pants if they walked through the dark allies I've had to walk through don't know their head from a hole in the ground. Vote Rand Paul. He's the only one who gets it."

It'll never happen though.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Did your mommy help you type that? Read through Donald Trump's foreign policy positions and tell me you honestly don't believe he has ripped off Ron Paul. The Iraq war was a mistake? Ron Paul. Let Russia deal with Syria? Ron Paul. Talk to our enemies? Ron Paul.

All of which was professed by Rand.

Here's the difference: Rand is obviously serious, whereas Trump is obviously a retarded demagogue, meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That would be you.

It's funny that you don't have the brains to come up with an actual counter argument.

In a functional civilization, you're opinion wouldn't matter.

By the way moron, the reason to be against Donald Trump isn't foreign policy. It's his economic policy. He supports bailouts and imminent domain. He also supports gun control (assault weapons ban). Only a total idiot would think someone has to support Donald Trump just because his foreign policy isn't as bad as most republicans. Bernie Sanders foreign policy isn't bad either. But he sucks on economics and the 2nd amendment. (He's better than Hillary on guns but not by much.)

I assign this to the repository of democratic achievements.

See my sig

 

[Rad]

Unleash Michael Scheuer? I'd love to see him make a commercial that goes like this. "You like Jack Bauer and 24? All that fictional crap was based on me. I came up with extraordinary rendition were the terrorists where kidnapped and sent to places like Syria where they could be tortured on our behalf. And guess what? We can't kidnap, torture or bomb our way to victory in the war on terror. We need to change our foreign policy. If we quit screwing with them over there they will quit coming over here. Trust me. I know what the hell I'm talking about. Those moron talking head you are listening to who would piss their pants if they walked through the dark allies I've had to walk through don't know their head from a hole in the ground. Vote Rand Paul. He's the only one who gets it."

It'll never happen though.

No, I was thinking along the lines of Rand telling the American people that the US government has been since before 9/11 aligned with the terrorist (Saudis, Turks, Qataris). That the people on stage are aligned with the terrorist. The US defends the interest of the terrorist. The DIA report told what would happen in Syria and it did. It came to pass because the US is aligned with the terrorist who want to see Assad go. Rand could re-frame the debate in his favor and explain how he is going to deal with the actual realities of the situation. They all say (including Rand) "radical Islam" and work with the terrorist (Saudis, Turks, Qataris) to fight the terrorist (Al Qaeda and ISIS). The new Seymour Hersh piece is fascinating. Dempsey had to go around the president to help Assad fight the terrorist. I don't see why the truth is so bad to say? It isn't isolationist. The facts are on his side. I am a broken record saying this over and over again for months. He just hasn't run with them and explained what he is going to do about it. I know what the next president is going to do about it. Nothing. They will continue their treasonous relationship with the terrorist sponsors. People who should be hanging from the gallows walk free and the tree of liberty wilts, hungry for their blood.

 

[jmdrake]

All of which was professed by Rand.

Here's the difference: Rand is obviously serious, whereas Trump is obviously a retarded demagogue, meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

That would be you.

I see you're problem. You have a reading comprehension deficit. From the start I said Trump was PARROTING Ron Paul. You know what PARROTING means? Hint, it means not serious.

 

[jmdrake]

No, I was thinking along the lines of Rand telling the American people that the US government has been since before 9/11 aligned with the terrorist (Saudis, Turks, Qataris). That the people on stage are aligned with the terrorist. The US defends the interest of the terrorist. The DIA report told what would happen in Syria and it did. It came to pass because the US is aligned with the terrorist who want to see Assad go. Rand could re-frame the debate in his favor and explain how he is going to deal with the actual realities of the situation. They all say (including Rand) "radical Islam" and work with the terrorist (Saudis, Turks, Qataris) to fight the terrorist (Al Qaeda and ISIS). The new Seymour Hersh piece is fascinating. Dempsey had to go around the president to help Assad fight the terrorist. I don't see why the truth is so bad to say? It isn't isolationist. The facts are on his side. I am a broken record saying this over and over again for months. He just hasn't run with them and explained what he is going to do about it. I know what the next president is going to do about it. Nothing. They will continue their treasonous relationship with the terrorist sponsors. People who should be hanging from the gallows walk free and the tree of liberty wilts, hungry for their blood.

You mean go from "blowback" to "LIHOP" (let it happen on purpose)? Hey, I'm all for that. But nobody has ever been willing to take that risk. Not even Ron. Rand has kinda / sorta hinted at it. Trump flirted with truther land by saying "The towers fell on your brother's watch" to Jeb, but Trump seems to be able to pull of saying just about anything. I'm with you that at this point Rand should throw caution to the wind (and some bad advisors to the wind as well) and just go for broke and see what happens. I'll have to ready the new Seymour Hersh piece. Thank you for bringing that up. And yes, we've been on the side of radical Islam, even helping to "radicalize" Islam, since Jimmy Carter and Zbignew Bresinski started funding jihadists in Afghanistan in the late 1970s.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

No, it is time for Rand Paul to unleash Rand Paul.

Can Rand win GOP base without fiercely attacking Obama?

 

[Rad]

You mean go from "blowback" to "LIHOP" (let it happen on purpose)? Hey, I'm all for that. But nobody has ever been willing to take that risk. Not even Ron. Rand has kinda / sorta hinted at it. Trump flirted with truther land by saying "The towers fell on your brother's watch" to Jeb, but Trump seems to be able to pull of saying just about anything. I'm with you that at this point Rand should throw caution to the wind (and some bad advisors to the wind as well) and just go for broke and see what happens. I'll have to ready the new Seymour Hersh piece. Thank you for bringing that up. And yes, we've been on the side of radical Islam, even helping to "radicalize" Islam, since Jimmy Carter and Zbignew Bresinski started funding jihadists in Afghanistan in the late 1970s.

Yeah, the US has been on the side of Salafi Jihadist for decades, someone needs to give the American people the choice between siding with them and their interest, or Americas. That is what upsets Michael Scheuer I've noticed. He wants the American people to know that supporting the Israelis, Saudis, etc has consequences and its not because the Salafi Jihadist hate leggings and miniskirts.

Here is the Seymour Hersh article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

I think 9/11 was blowback but Syria was policy. My argument is that the US has refused to confront the terrorist sponsors and is conducting a foreign policy which suits them. All the presidential candidates refuse to do so. Hillary's State Department agrees with me on Saudi Arabia: http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11923176

Then there is the 28 pages which Rand should have worked hard to release by now.

I'm baffled to why Rand is unwilling to go there. There isn't anything peacenik about it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And yes, we've been on the side of radical Islam, even helping to "radicalize" Islam, since Jimmy Carter and Zbignew Bresinski started funding jihadists in Afghanistan in the late 1970s.

Since before that, even. One of the elements of Operation Ajax - the 1953 CIA-backed coup d'état in Iran - was the inflammation of religious sentiment against Mosaddegh's secular regime. (Twenty-six years and one Shah later, et voilà! ...)

 

[ds21089]

What is with this "unleashing Ron Paul" sentiment? Yes, I agree with every single thing Ron has ever said, but are we trying to have Rand win the election or not? While I absolutely adore Ron, what would Ron bring that Rand isn't already doing? The people who are for Ron's foreign policy are already with Rand. Nobody is closer to non-interventionism than Rand. It might help to take a few % from Cruz, but what do you guys think will be accomplished by such a thing? The sad truth is the majority of people are in fear and succumb to the foreign policy of "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". While it probably wont hurt too much to have Ron help, do you guys think it would be any kind of significant boost?

 

[CPUd]

What is with this "unleashing Ron Paul" sentiment? Yes, I agree with every single thing Ron has ever said, but are we trying to have Rand win the election or not? While I absolutely adore Ron, what would Ron bring that Rand isn't already doing? The people who are for Ron's foreign policy are already with Rand. Nobody is closer to non-interventionism than Rand. It might help to take a few % from Cruz, but what do you guys think will be accomplished by such a thing? The sad truth is the majority of people are in fear and succumb to the foreign policy of "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". While it probably wont hurt too much to have Ron help, do you guys think it would be any kind of significant boost?

I know there are a few here who believe Ron can help Rand win, but the majority of the people who push for "unleashing Ron" don't really care to see Rand win. They don't even believe in voting, or the concept of electoral politics. They just want to see a national presidential campaign promoting their pet issues.

 

[jmdrake]

What is with this "unleashing Ron Paul" sentiment? Yes, I agree with every single thing Ron has ever said, but are we trying to have Rand win the election or not? While I absolutely adore Ron, what would Ron bring that Rand isn't already doing? The people who are for Ron's foreign policy are already with Rand. Nobody is closer to non-interventionism than Rand. It might help to take a few % from Cruz, but what do you guys think will be accomplished by such a thing? The sad truth is the majority of people are in fear and succumb to the foreign policy of "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here". While it probably wont hurt too much to have Ron help, do you guys think it would be any kind of significant boost?

Donald Trump tried to claim in one of the debates that he was the only won on stage who was opposed to the Iraq war. Of course Rand corrected him. But if you think Cruz is the only one picking up non-interventionist votes you haven't been paying attention. Trump is masterful at getting everybody think he agrees with them.

 

[TomtheTinker]

Rand has to do something. When he first announced, anytime he posted something on FB, it would get sometimes over 10,000 likes. Now when he posts something, he's lucky if it gets over 100 likes.

A simple visit to Rand's face book would show this not to be true at all. A quick scan on his last few dozen fb posts show him in between 200 and 27k likes. With most ranging around 6k.

 

[adam220891]

He had 70k a week ago

 

[jmdrake]

I know there are a few here who believe Ron can help Rand win, but the majority of the people who push for "unleashing Ron" don't really care to see Rand win. They don't even believe in voting, or the concept of electoral politics. They just want to see a national presidential campaign promoting their pet issues.

Umm....you realize that there is no way to spin the fact that at this time four hears ago Ron was actually a contender and right now Rand is not? People outside of this movement who never supported Ron Paul have been asking "Where are the Ron Paul people?" and "I thought Rand will build on the support that his father had, but that hasn't happened." This isn't about people who "don't believe in voting" or "have a concept of electoral politics." This is about people looking at reality and saying "Hell....Ron did better than this. What's going on?" You aren't doing Rand any favors by denying reality. Ron did better than Rand is currently doing poll wise. Now granted, Donald Trump wasn't running in 2008 or 2012. Ron Paul soaked up most of the anti-establishment vote back then. Now Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are soaking up a lot of the anti establishment vote. That doesn't mean all the Ron Paul voters are voting for Sanders and Trump. But Sanders and Trump are soaking up a lot of the 18-22 "Never voted before" category. You see...if you voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and/or 2012, you are not a "Never voted before" voter. And if you heeded Rand's call to "join the Republican party to take it over and change it"...you're no longer anti establishment. Sorry. It's like the Mick Jagger who once said "Never trust anyone over 30" is now waaaaay over 30.

Of course that still begs the question "What happened to the Ron Paul voters." I'm really not sure. Clearly some are looking elsewhere. If you leaned left but supported Ron Paul because of his foreign policy, you could in good conscience support Bernie Sanders. If you leaned right you might support Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. If you support Donald Trump and you lean right you've been suckered by his bombastic rhetoric. You might have supported Ben Carson, but his star seems to be fading. As it's fading Rand's numbers aren't going up by the same amount.

Anyway, since you claim to understand electoral politics so much, what's your explanation for why Rand is doing so poorly and your idea on how to fix it? I'm not being facetious. Knocking others' ideas about how to fix a sinking ship doesn't unsink the ship. So what's your plan oh electoral guru?

 

[jmdrake]

Since before that, even. One of the elements of Operation Ajax - the 1953 CIA-backed coup d'état in Iran - was the inflammation of religious sentiment against Mosaddegh's secular regime. (Twenty-six years and one Shah later, et voilà! ...)

Yeah...that's true. That act turned the Shiites against us. But we didn't see blowback until 20 to 30 years later. Than again, 9/11 didn't happen until 20 to 30 years after the arming of the mujaheddin. Maybe that's the blowback incubation period? God only knows what will happen 20 to 30 years post the arming of radical jihadists to overthrow Qaddafi and Assad.

 

[SilentBull]

Umm....you realize that there is no way to spin the fact that at this time four hears ago Ron was actually a contender and right now Rand is not? People outside of this movement who never supported Ron Paul have been asking "Where are the Ron Paul people?" and "I thought Rand will build on the support that his father had, but that hasn't happened." This isn't about people who "don't believe in voting" or "have a concept of electoral politics." This is about people looking at reality and saying "Hell....Ron did better than this. What's going on?" You aren't doing Rand any favors by denying reality. Ron did better than Rand is currently doing poll wise. Now granted, Donald Trump wasn't running in 2008 or 2012. Ron Paul soaked up most of the anti-establishment vote back then. Now Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are soaking up a lot of the anti establishment vote. That doesn't mean all the Ron Paul voters are voting for Sanders and Trump. But Sanders and Trump are soaking up a lot of the 18-22 "Never voted before" category. You see...if you voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and/or 2012, you are not a "Never voted before" voter. And if you heeded Rand's call to "join the Republican party to take it over and change it"...you're no longer anti establishment. Sorry. It's like the Mick Jagger who once said "Never trust anyone over 30" is now waaaaay over 30.

Of course that still begs the question "What happened to the Ron Paul voters." I'm really not sure. Clearly some are looking elsewhere. If you leaned left but supported Ron Paul because of his foreign policy, you could in good conscience support Bernie Sanders. If you leaned right you might support Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. If you support Donald Trump and you lean right you've been suckered by his bombastic rhetoric. You might have supported Ben Carson, but his star seems to be fading. As it's fading Rand's numbers aren't going up by the same amount.

Anyway, since you claim to understand electoral politics so much, what's your explanation for why Rand is doing so poorly and your idea on how to fix it? I'm not being facetious. Knocking others' ideas about how to fix a sinking ship doesn't unsink the ship. So what's your plan oh electoral guru?

I'm a little confused by this post. It seems to me that on the one hand you are implying that Ron's campaign was better than Rand's at this point. But then on the other hand you actually go on to list precisely the reasons why I believe Ron would be actually doing just as "bad" as Rand. Like you said, back when Ron ran there was no Trump, and no Sanders for those Ron supporters who leaned left. There was also no one else that was anti-establishment. Those reasons you listed are spot on, in my opinion. So why do we keep hearing about how Rand's campaign is worse than Ron's? Didn't you just explain precisely why we cannot compare Ron's campaign to Rand's?

Also, as it has been said before, Ron's numbers were not that great when there was still over a month left before the caucus. Wasn't he at 8% in the polls? Rand is hovering around 4-5 in an environment that is much different as you yourself explained.

And as for the "where are the Ron supporters" question.. The fact that many of them are supporting Sanders makes it clear that they were never for liberty in the first place. So Ron's support really wasn't as solid as we thought. He was just the only one there at the time that those people could gravitate to.

 

[Rad]

Ron wouldn't have played the game. I don't know how many people would gravitate to his pure honesty but I think he would have kept more of his paleolibertarian/paleoconservative supporters. He wouldn't have blended in like Rand has. He wouldn't have tried to blend in. He would have ran on ending the Empire and the Fed. Clear, concise, goals. He would speak the truth and people would have gravitated towards him and he would get attention because he would have been so unorthodox. All the candidates would want to take a swing at him. There would be blimps in the air and road signs as far as I could see. It would have been glorious.