Justin Raimondo: Why they hate Rand Paul

[JCDenton0451]

I wouldn't call that an effort.

"Obama is slightly worse than our turd sandwich. Ok well maybe they are the same but don't forget, god hates democrats."

What did you expect them to say? There was really no reason for any RP supporter to vote Romney other than Obama hate.

And I'm pretty sure some people on this board actually voted for Romney...

 

[JCDenton0451]

Who said Romney was the Neocons guy? Obama is making them quite happy. It was win win for them in 12'.

Obama doesn't give them everything they want all the time. Romney would have been different. Did you look at his foreign policy team?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Wonder if they'll try to bring out the newsletters again. Maybe CNN can have Dondero on and he can claim to have seen Rand Paul reading/writing them back in the early 1990s.

They've been mentioned in almost every story that involved Jack Hunter.

 

[NorfolkPCSolutions]

They hate him because he is the son of Ron Paul ... If anyone threatens their perpetual, fake, wars on drugs and terrorism he will go down.

We have no government ... we have Mafia, who gain personal wealth from wars and drug running. They will take Rand down if he continues to threaten their mafioso cartels.

<applause>

 

[cajuncocoa]

If Rand Paul doesn't win in 2016, there is no reason why he shouldn't try in 2024, assuming nobody more qualified comes along. Just look at Nixon: lost his election by a small margin in 1960, won by a landslide in 1968.

Anyway, our chief goal should be transforming American politics and educating voters, rather than electing a specific 'Liberty candidate' as president. There is not much a president can do on his own.

Whether Rand tries again if he doesn't succeed in 2016 doesn't necessarily negate what I said about him being the last best chance in my lifetime. And I do agree with what you said about what our chief goal should be; I've said that myself many times. Until the voters are educated, any and all gains Rand might make could be lost once he leaves office.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

If Rand Paul doesn't win in 2016, there is no reason why he shouldn't try in 2024, assuming nobody more qualified comes along. Just look at Nixon: lost his election by a small margin in 1960, won by a landslide in 1968.

Anyway, our chief goal should be transforming American politics and educating voters, rather than electing a specific 'Liberty candidate' as president. There is not much a president can do on his own.

A lot of us realized the urgency of putting Paul in the White House by 2008, sensing the number of election cycles we had left were limited. As we thought then, we think now---the next election might be the last one, IF we get that one. We are one major false flag incident away from having full martial law dropped on us, and then lights out, it's over, short of having a new revolution.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't call that an effort.

"Obama is slightly worse than our turd sandwich. Ok well maybe they are the same but don't forget, god hates democrats."

Well, the thing is, when you constantly talk about Obama, Romney sounds pretty good. When you start actually talking about Romney, not so much.

With reluctance, Obama was the lesser of two evils, primarily on foreign policy grounds. At least there Obama is getting some criticism from his base. All Romney would get from his is being told is that he wasn't bloodthirsty enough.

That, and the Republicans in Congress sometimes put up a fight when there's a Democratic President. Republican Presidents have a much easier time expanding government.

And thirdly, now Rand Paul has a shot next time around.

Fourth of all: Obama didn't directly cheat Ron Paul.

Voting for Johnson, Goode, heck even Jill Stein or not voting at all would have all been better choices, but if someone put a gun to my head and told me to pick between Obama or Romney... considering I don't really want to die I'd reluctantly pick Obama.

 

[Christian Liberty]

A lot of us realized the urgency of putting Paul in the White House by 2008, sensing the number of election cycles we had left were limited. As we thought then, we think now---the next election might be the last one, IF we get that one. We are one major false flag incident away from having full martial law dropped on us, and then lights out, it's over, short of having a new revolution.

We'll still be voting for puppets in 50 years, IMO.

Doesn't mean they'll actually allow us to speak out. They'll likely keep their fake, positive rights around, "Democratic Government" being one of them.

Its a farce.

 

[Federico]

We'll still be voting for puppets in 50 years, IMO.

Doesn't mean they'll actually allow us to speak out. They'll likely keep their fake, positive rights around, "Democratic Government" being one of them.

Its a farce.

You still think we'll be voting in 50 years? You're much more pessimistic than me. =P

 

[jtstellar]

look don't join the political effort if you don't want, go ahead and prepare for the next stage of unrest and anarchy if you so wish, no one's stopping you, don't bitch at the rest of us who choose a different path because we have enough baggage to carry minus you, is all some of us are sayin'. And if we manage to get anything out of our effort, you get zero credit, 's all i'm saying, not much.

but i guess we're already sworn enemies to people who see us a pressure relief valve purposely delaying their uprising. in that case, i doubt anything will change even post-civil unrest. we are probably the greatest threat to anarchists than even statist establishment, chances are the ron/rand people interested in political reform will be the first on death rope when anarchy reins, because we delayed their uprising for a few years. smells like french revolution doesn't it

 

[Federico]

look don't join the political effort if you don't want, go ahead and prepare for the next stage of collapse and anarchy if you so wish, no one's stopping you, don't bitch at the rest of us who choose a different path because we have enough baggage to carry minus you, is all some of us are sayin'. And if we manage to get anything out of our effort, you get zero credit, 's all i'm saying, not much.

I voted for RP in the 2008/2012 primary and general elections, donated $1000+ each time, and enthusiastically encouraged most of my family and friends to do the same. Not sure what more you're expecting.

If your comment was directed at FreedomFanatic, I apologize for misconstruing.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You still think we'll be voting in 50 years? You're much more pessimistic than me. =P

I am probably the most cynical 18 year old in this whole doggone galaxy.

look don't join the political effort if you don't want, go ahead and prepare for the next stage of unrest and anarchy if you so wish, no one's stopping you, don't bitch at the rest of us who choose a different path because we have enough baggage to carry minus you, is all some of us are sayin'. And if we manage to get anything out of our effort, you get zero credit, 's all i'm saying, not much.

I'm not saying not to vote. I'm saying that voting isn't a human right.

There are lots of people I'd vote for. But the bottom line is that Democracy is still two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. Nothing wrong with the sheep trying to vote defensively, but that doesn't mean the wolves are actually exercising any kind of human right when they vote to eat the sheep.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be voting. As it is, voting is a defensive maneuver, but not a human right.

Obama got the most votes last election, that doesn't mean he should have ever got to become President.

 

[jtstellar]

I voted for RP in the 2008/2012 primary and general elections, donated $1000+ each time, and enthusiastically encouraged most of my family and friends to do the same. Not sure what more you're expecting.

If your comment was directed at FreedomFanatic, I apologize for misconstruing.

it was a comment to the public in general and anyone viewing this forum. I just went to a few rand's articles and saw again some Libertarian/anarchist venom, and some tint of implication of the same here, but very minor.

i can assure you there are anarchist groups out there who think we are fouling up their time for an uprising, and they have a long memory. We're not pleasing either side, it's do or die time. Either we focus and push this through or there won't be a pleasant future waiting for us

 

[Christian Liberty]

Voting to me is like Neo using the Matrix to his advantage. That's great, but we'd still be better off if the Matrix didn't exist in the first place.

 

[jtstellar]

Voting to me is like Neo using the Matrix to his advantage. That's great, but we'd still be better off if the Matrix didn't exist in the first place.

don't dirty your hands then. we will come to you when we need help/s

 

[Federico]

I am probably the most cynical 18 year old in this whole doggone galaxy.

Pessimism and cynicism are not the same thing. I'm certainly a cynic, but I'm no pessimist.

I'm not saying not to vote. I'm saying that voting isn't a human right.

I strongly agree with this.

There are lots of people I'd vote for. But the bottom line is that Democracy is still two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner. Nothing wrong with the sheep trying to vote defensively, but that doesn't mean the wolves are actually exercising any kind of human right when they vote to eat the sheep.

This is a common metaphor, but I think it's slightly misleading. Democracy seems to me more like 2 lambs and a wolf voting on what to eat for dinner. Nothing wrong with the sheep trying to vote defensively, but that doesn't mean they are actually exercising any kind of human right when they vote not to let the wolf eat them.

In a perfect world, there wouldn't be voting. As it is, voting is a defensive maneuver, but not a human right.

Obama got the most votes last election, that doesn't mean he should have ever got to become President.

I agree that voting should be abolished but not that Obama shouldn't have become President after having received the most votes. If we're going to hold elections, we probably ought to abide by the outcomes, no?

 

[Christian Liberty]

don't dirty your hands then. we will come to you when we need help

lol ya right

You completely missed the point of my metaphor. -1 for failure of reading comprehension.

We're freaking Ron Paul supporters, my point is not that complicated.

Pessimism and cynicism are not the same thing. I'm certainly a cynic, but I'm no pessimist.

I'm both.

I strongly agree with this.

This is a common metaphor, but I think it's slightly misleading. Democracy seems to me more like 2 lambs and a wolf voting on what to eat for dinner. Nothing wrong with the sheep trying to vote defensively, but that doesn't mean they are actually exercising any kind of human right when they vote not to let the wolf eat them.

Well, now that we're going down this road, its like voting for the wolf that only wants to eat one lamb rather than wanting to eat two. I mean, its a defensive act that saves one lamb, but that doesn't mean that the outcome is actually a just one.

I agree that voting should be abolished but not that Obama shouldn't have become President after having received the most votes. If we're going to hold elections, we probably ought to abide by the outcomes, no?

My view is that anyone who violates their oath to the constitution should be nuremberg trialed and sentenced to death. I'm not really saying that one government system is better than another here, I'm saying that ANY unjustified use of government force is evil and shouldn't be tolerated no matter how many people support it.

Someone was complaining about a hypothetical future in which elections are abolished. I think focusing on that is missing the point. I'm not saying that you shouldn't vote, just that the right to vote does not make us inherently freer than not having the right to vote.

If you crowned me King, you'd be freer than you are right now. Just saying. Don't try, I won't take the job anyway, but I'm just saying.

 

[jtstellar]

assume history has had lots of groups who were once interested in liberties. Why has none of them thrived? It's because they were outnumbered. Strength often lies in numbers, and many times it takes a group effort.

the point is this--no one wants to join a group that cannot find cohesion amongst itself, because people want a sense of security that when things fail, there is someone else you can fall back on. A group that is constantly bickering and looking like enemies to each other will be extremely unattractive to new blood. This is why libertarian party failed. People think it's just all good natured bantering and gossiping small disagreements and cute cats being herded-- it's not. It's a grave danger for liberty minded people to behave that way missing any sense of urgency and priority. If you cannot find cohesion in your organization, you will never draw support. At this rate, your revolution will fail too. You will lose that war in the upcoming civil unrest.

 

[Federico]

Well, now that we're going down this road, its like voting for the wolf that only wants to eat one lamb rather than wanting to eat two. I mean, its a defensive act that saves one lamb, but that doesn't mean that the outcome is actually a just one.

I think you may have misunderstood my point. Suppose one voted for a lamb that wanted to ban lamb-eating. It's a defensive act that saves all the lambs, but then the wolf starves to death. Is this a just outcome?

My view is that anyone who violates their oath to the constitution should be nuremberg trialed and sentenced to death.

Okay, well that is sort of insane and a good illustration of why young men tend to be ill-suited to wielding political power. No offense. =P

I'm not really saying that one government system is better than another here, I'm saying that ANY unjustified use of government force is evil and shouldn't be tolerated no matter how many people support it.

Well, you might not really be saying it, but I hope you'd agree that it's true. Different things are different; different things are not equal. Thus, it follows that when comparing any two government systems, one will be better than the other.

Also, how are you using the word "tolerated" here? What form(s) of resistance do you advocate?

If you crowned me King, you'd be freer than you are right now. Just saying. Don't try, I won't take the job anyway, but I'm just saying.

Why wouldn't you take the job? I know I would.

 

[Federico]

assume history has had lots of groups who were once interested in liberties. Why has none of them thrived? It's because they were outnumbered. Strength often lies in numbers, and many times it takes a group effort.

the point is this--no one wants to join a group that cannot find cohesion amongst itself, because people want a sense of security that when things fail, there is someone else you can fall back on. A group that is constantly bickering and looking like enemies to each other will be extremely unattractive to new blood. This is why libertarian party failed. People think it's just all good natured bantering and gossiping small disagreements and cute cats being herded-- it's not. It's a grave danger for liberty minded people to behave that way missing any sense of urgency and priority. If you cannot find cohesion in your organization, you will never draw support. At this rate, your revolution will fail too. You will lose that war in the upcoming civil unrest.

Would +rep this if I could.