schiffheadbaby
Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 832
I didn't say endorsements were meaningless.
Isn't it a little "collectivist" to group together all members of the pro-Rand faction in that way based on the words of just a few? Also, if Ron supports him, then why don't you? I thought Ron was always right?
Isn't there a huge difference between an incumbent Senator with presidential ambitions endorsing his party's presidential nominee and a former Congressman at the end of his political career endorsing a candidate in a Senate primary? I'm pretty sure the latter endorsement is far more meaningful as it isn't obligatory and shows genuine enthusiasm for the candidate.
Paul Broun is the only liberty candidate who can get through this primary. TMOT is rhetorically far too extreme for conservatives, while Broun can unite the liberty movement and the Tea Party and beat the establishment.
Also, the first page of this thread is misleading activists, either intentionally or unintentionally, into thinking that TMOT is a Ron Paul endorsed candidate by highlighting his stars in green. That is certainly not true. That's why I said he was not endorsed by Ron Paul.
TMOT is at least willing to be honest. Paul Broun explicitly said he doesn't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy. So we are just supposed to ignore that altogether?