Maybe you guys are right about Rand Paul......

[3kgt]

I'm not going to get involved in a 10 page argument but I will say that I believe a few things are quite clear

1. Rand is Ron 2.0 and he will be a great asset to the cause of liberty, even more so than he is already
2. While I don't think Ron is exactly perfect I don't think its his fault that he hasn't won a state yet. I mean come on, we're supposed to be the ones that understand the influence the establishment/MSM has on people and the elections. I'd say its about 5% Ron's fault and 95% the establishment.

 

[ssjevot]

I'm not going to get involved in a 10 page argument but I will say that I believe a few things are quite clear

1. Rand is Ron 2.0 and he will be a great asset to the cause of liberty, even more so than he is already
2. While I don't think Ron is exactly perfect I don't think its his fault that he hasn't won a state yet. I mean come on, we're supposed to be the ones that understand the influence the establishment/MSM has on people and the elections. I'd say its about 5% Ron's fault and 95% the establishment.

I disagree with point one, but agree with point two. I don't think you can call Rand Paul Ron 2.0, because they simply differ far too much on many issues. Gary Johnson for instance has much more in common with Paul. So really it comes down to people calling Rand, Ron 2.0 because he's his son and they think he's electable. If you have to sell out your values to be electable though I don't think it's worth it. Even if he is some liberty sleeper agent, you can't get people to fight for their freedom if you trick them into it.

 

[Bonnieblue]

I disagree with point one, but agree with point two. I don't think you can call Rand Paul Ron 2.0, because they simply differ far too much on many issues. Gary Johnson for instance has much more in common with Paul. So really it comes down to people calling Rand, Ron 2.0 because he's his son and they think he's electable. If you have to sell out your values to be electable though I don't think it's worth it. Even if he is some liberty sleeper agent, you can't get people to fight for their freedom if you trick them into it.

I am utterly ignorant. How are Rand Paul and Ron Paul politically different on principle and on the issues?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I disagree with point one, but agree with point two. I don't think you can call Rand Paul Ron 2.0, because they simply differ far too much on many issues. Gary Johnson for instance has much more in common with Paul. So really it comes down to people calling Rand, Ron 2.0 because he's his son and they think he's electable. If you have to sell out your values to be electable though I don't think it's worth it. Even if he is some liberty sleeper agent, you can't get people to fight for their freedom if you trick them into it.

Gary takes Rand's stance on Gitmo, too. In all seriousness, Gary and Rand are on the same level, more or less. They tend to have different negatives, though.

 

[AuH20]

I disagree with point one, but agree with point two. I don't think you can call Rand Paul Ron 2.0, because they simply differ far too much on many issues. Gary Johnson for instance has much more in common with Paul. So really it comes down to people calling Rand, Ron 2.0 because he's his son and they think he's electable. If you have to sell out your values to be electable though I don't think it's worth it. Even if he is some liberty sleeper agent, you can't get people to fight for their freedom if you trick them into it.

No, Rand chooses not to stick his head into a proverbial fireplace on certain issues. That's the difference. Read his book. He and Ron on parallel on many issues but you won't see him talking about such nonsense on a national stage anytime soon. It's truly inconsequential to the goals at hand. Discretion is the better part of valor. I respect what Ron has accomplished and he has carried the ball far up the field, but it's clearly evident we're going to need a better messenger to get us in the endzone.

 

[shane77m]

hopefully we will be able to vote in four years.
Rand 2016

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

You won't see Rand agreeing with Dennis Kucinich all the time nor see him associating himself with a Barney Frank type to demand military cuts. That's better than having two Ron Pauls going around doing the exact same thing. Ron and Rand can get liberty across to the public from different angles.

I respect what Ron has accomplished and he has carried the ball far up the field, but it's clearly evident we're going to need a better messenger to get us in the endzone.

If Rand is as much of a threat to the establishment as his father, I doubt he gets into the 'end zone.' These things aren't allowed to happen.

 

[RonPaulRevolution!]

If you can't see the blatantly sneaky path Rand Paul is taking in the footsteps of Ron for the sake of fooling the establishment and saving our country, you aren't looking close enough. Ron has groomed Rand perfectly.

 

[ssjevot]

Gary takes Rand's stance on Gitmo, too. In all seriousness, Gary and Rand are on the same level, more or less. They tend to have different negatives, though.

Gary most certainly does not take his stance:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy

"Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes."

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

You realize if he flat out say.. "oh lets end aid to israel too!...", he will have a hard time winning the presidency like his dad is. Ending aid to a country or any country is a start. I rather not be giving aid at all, but i would take the proposal to end aid to some countries.

If Rand Paul say end all aid.. he might as well join the Libertarian Party. Rand is not Ron.. but I will take Rand (if he was running in 2012) over Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.

Rand is not perfect... If he was an exact carbon copy of Ron Paul I would be worried. It would mean he may possibly be pretending to be exactly like his dad or has a blind fervor for his dad.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I disagree with point one, but agree with point two. I don't think you can call Rand Paul Ron 2.0, because they simply differ far too much on many issues. Gary Johnson for instance has much more in common with Paul. So really it comes down to people calling Rand, Ron 2.0 because he's his son and they think he's electable. If you have to sell out your values to be electable though I don't think it's worth it. Even if he is some liberty sleeper agent, you can't get people to fight for their freedom if you trick them into it.

Rand phrases things in ways that conservatives can hear. I've heard him push a states' rights issue in Kentucky and the people were on their feet cheering. However, when Ron tries to push same, he gets crickets.

Rand needs to work on his debating skills and get ready. Four years is not very far away.

 

[low preference guy]

Rand phrases things in ways that conservatives can hear. I've heard him push a states' rights issue in Kentucky and the people were on their feet cheering. However, when Ron tries to push same, he gets crickets.

That's not Ron's fault. That's because a lot of people are stupid.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Gary most certainly does not take his stance:
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/foreign-policy

"Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes."

That's Rand's stance, too. Here's Gary pathetically hawking it up on Gitmo, proving he has no basis of understanding of the issue:



I have my issues with Rand, but Gary is no saint. I'd probably even say that Rand is better, now that I think about it. At least Rand does agree with ending the Fed, or did at one point (there's video of him leading an End the Fed chant at an End the Fed rally from 2009). Gary believes it should stay. Rand understands the business cycle - Gary doesn't. Gary's also working with Eric Dumbdero and Wayne Allen Root.

 

[MaxPower]

The Judge is not presidential candidate material.

Schiff most republicans and conservatives (including me) wouldn't support because he's pro-abortion.

Some quick Googling on the topic indicates to me that Schiff is like Gary Johnson- self-identifies as "pro-choice," but still agrees that Roe vs. Wade should be overturned (and thus, by implication, that the issue should be returned to state jurisdiction). I am pro-life and consider this an acceptable position in a candidate for federal office. Things might be different if, say, Schiff were running for governor of Connecticut in a post-Roe-vs.-Wade-repeal United States, but for purposes of a congressional seat or presidency, his support for a Roe-vs.-Wade reversal should suffice.

 

[MaxPower]

You realize if he flat out say.. "oh lets end aid to israel too!...", he will have a hard time winning the presidency like his dad is. Ending aid to a country or any country is a start. I rather not be giving aid at all, but i would take the proposal to end aid to some countries.

If Rand Paul say end all aid.. he might as well join the Libertarian Party. Rand is not Ron.. but I will take Rand (if he was running in 2012) over Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich.

Rand is not perfect... If he was an exact carbon copy of Ron Paul I would be worried. It would mean he may possibly be pretending to be exactly like his dad or has a blind fervor for his dad.

Oh, Rand already has publicly advocated an end to all foreign aid (which was, of course, widely reported with headlines like "Rand Paul advocates ending foreign aid to Israel"), and even officially proposed it in his budget-cut bill; this is just another little stab by him at trying to get them to agree to cut something.

 

[MaxPower]

I disagree with point one, but agree with point two. I don't think you can call Rand Paul Ron 2.0, because they simply differ far too much on many issues. Gary Johnson for instance has much more in common with Paul. So really it comes down to people calling Rand, Ron 2.0 because he's his son and they think he's electable. If you have to sell out your values to be electable though I don't think it's worth it. Even if he is some liberty sleeper agent, you can't get people to fight for their freedom if you trick them into it.

Okay, I think you have a very seriously-distorted picture of Rand, here. Rand offered the single biggest budget-cut proposal in the history of the Senate within his first month in office; he introduced a bill to audit the Federal Reserve within his first month in office; he stood alone fighting tooth-and-nail against the PATRIOT Act extension, delayed it for weeks, and was one of only two Republicans to vote against it; he was the loudest and strongest voice in the Senate by far against Obama's Libyan excursion, and introduced a provision to explicitly deny the president's authority to launch military offensives without Congressional authorization; he was strongly against the SOPA; he was strongly against the NDAA; he single-handedly stopped a "president-can-hold-you-indefinitely-even-if-you're-acquitted" provision from getting into the NDAA (which he also voted against); the list goes on. There is a very good case that Rand already has the best pro-liberty record in the history of the Senate, and he's only a fraction of the way into his first term. It's absurd to suggest that if Rand is pro-liberty, he's a "sleeper agent"- he's been out in the open for liberty for a long time now.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Rand rocks! Rand is even better than his father when it comes to using good strategy to promote liberty.

 

[craezie]

Okay, I think you have a very seriously-distorted picture of Rand, here. Rand offered the single biggest budget-cut proposal in the history of the Senate within his first month in office; he introduced a bill to audit the Federal Reserve within his first month in office; he stood alone fighting tooth-and-nail against the PATRIOT Act extension, delayed it for weeks, and was one of only two Republicans to vote against it; he was the loudest and strongest voice in the Senate by far against Obama's Libyan excursion, and introduced a provision to explicitly deny the president's authority to launch military offensives without Congressional authorization; he was strongly against the SOPA; he was strongly against the NDAA; he single-handedly stopped a "president-can-hold-you-indefinitely-even-if-you're-acquitted" provision from getting into the NDAA (which he also voted against); the list goes on. There is a very good case that Rand already has the best pro-liberty record in the history of the Senate, and he's only a fraction of the way into his first term. It's absurd to suggest that if Rand is pro-liberty, he's a "sleeper agent"- he's been out in the open for liberty for a long time now.

YES!! Thank you. If Ron Paul doesn't make it to the White House this time around, which is unfortunately looking less likely, I am for Rand all the way. And he is young with none of the other baggage of his father.