Rand Paul at Iowa Faith & Freedom Event

[Indy Vidual]

I can't imagine Rand saying the things about blacks that Ron did in his newsletters.

Lol, I'm just kidding, but let's not criticize Rand so much for one joke he made. No one is perfect, and that includes Ron.

Rand never published newsletters in his own name and that is a great thing.

 

[BlackTerrel]

You should see r/politics (Reddit). They are blowing up about this. They hate Rand now (if they didn't before).

If you make a conscious decision to enter politics you have to accept that large percentages of the population won't like you.

I guarantee you a lot of people hate Obama for coming out in support of gay marriage.

That's life.

My views are a lot closer to Rand's than to Obama's.

 

[Jeremy]

For me....it makes me like him more.

He is against government definition of marriage while still a Christian, just like me.

Except it's not very Christian to make a joke like that and I hope he doesn't do it again.

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

Yeah, but being labeled a homophobe doesn't win the general election, my friend.

Anyone running as a Republican will be attacked for being a homophobe (including Ron). Rand will especially because he is close to the Tea Party and has an accent.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Anyone running as a Republican will be attacked for being a homophobe (including Ron). Rand will especially because he is close to the Tea Party and has an accent.

Thats actually a very good point. The secular left attacks both Ron and Rand on abortion, racism, marriage, etc.

The baffling thing is that many people who call themselves Paulians do the same thing.

 

[ProvincialPeasant]

Thats actually a very good point. The secular left attacks both Ron and Rand on abortion, racism, marriage, etc.

The baffling thing is that many people who call themselves Paulians do the same thing.

My theory is that most Paulistas come from the California Democrat backgrounds (regardless of where they live). They were socially liberal first. My suspicion is that this is why they don't like Rand, DeMint, Lee, etc., because they don't sound like Democrats (like Ron can and often does). My suspicions are confirmed everytime I hear bashing of Rand & Co. and adoration for Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Maddow and Kucinich.

 

[Sola_Fide]

My theory is that most Paulistas come from the California Democrat backgrounds (regardless of where they live). They were socially liberal first. My suspicion is that this is why they don't like Rand, DeMint, Lee, etc., because they don't sound like Democrats (like Ron can and often does). My suspicions are confirmed everytime I hear bashing of Rand & Co. and adoration for Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Maddow and Kucinich.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Agorism]

13000 votes in 2008 in Iowa GOP primary
27000 votes in 2012 in Iowa GOP primary

That's 207% increase. We saw those same numbers of increase in every state. If we even get half that type of increase in 2016, then we would have 40000+ votes, which means not even a year 2000 mega-canddiate George W. Bush could defeat Rand Paul.

That is of course as long as he MAINTAINS his fathers base rather than concentrating on alienating supporters.

Essentially no candidate even if they have unified national backing would be capable of defeating Rand.

Not to mention Paul supporters now control the chairmanship and the executive committee.

 

[Jeremy]

My theory is that most Paulistas come from the California Democrat backgrounds (regardless of where they live). They were socially liberal first. My suspicion is that this is why they don't like Rand, DeMint, Lee, etc., because they don't sound like Democrats (like Ron can and often does). My suspicions are confirmed everytime I hear bashing of Rand & Co. and adoration for Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Maddow and Kucinich.

I always assumed the exact opposite, that most came from fairly conservative backgrounds, but who knows... just my personal experience. I guess we are all different.

 

[Sola_Fide]

13000 votes in 2008 in Iowa GOP primary
27000 votes in 2012 in Iowa GOP primary

That's 207% increase. We saw those same numbers of increase in every state. If we even get half that type of increase in 2016, then we would have 40000+ votes, which means not even a George W. Bush. could defeat Rand Paul.

That is of course as long as he MAINTAINS his fathers base rather than concentrating on alienating supporters.

If Rand wants to win, there is no doubt he is going to have to walk a tightrope between these ignorant establishment types and a fired up liberty mob. It is going to be difficult.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

My theory is that most Paulistas come from the California Democrat backgrounds (regardless of where they live). They were socially liberal first. My suspicion is that this is why they don't like Rand, DeMint, Lee, etc., because they don't sound like Democrats (like Ron can and often does). My suspicions are confirmed everytime I hear bashing of Rand & Co. and adoration for Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Maddow and Kucinich.

Kucinich deserves praise because he's legitimately anti-war and because of his vocal criticism of the Fed. I am not fans of Stewart and Colbert, but they are better than most. Maher and Maddow are snakes who should not be praised by any liberty-minded person. Working with people like DeMint is something that should be encouraged even though he's terrible on many important issues. Any liberty-minded person who badmouths Lee or Rand is confused or isn't on the side of liberty. I can understand constructive criticism here or there, but overall those guys are fantastic.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

My theory is that most Paulistas come from the California Democrat backgrounds (regardless of where they live). They were socially liberal first. My suspicion is that this is why they don't like Rand, DeMint, Lee, etc., because they don't sound like Democrats (like Ron can and often does). My suspicions are confirmed everytime I hear bashing of Rand & Co. and adoration for Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Maddow and Kucinich.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I can't stand DeMint is that he fucking sucks. If people in the movement are going to fall for clowns like him, there is zero hope for anything ever coming out of this politically.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance285.html

For extra lulz, DeMint voted for the energy program that eventually gave us Solyndra. Now that you now this, every time you hear him drone on about Solyndra, understand that he's an idiot.

As for Rand, anyone who releases a budget that raises taxes on poor and lower middle class individuals making less than 35k and families making less than 71k, as well as eliminates what meager cuts were scheduled by the warmonger-in-chief, is a joke. For the supposed leader of the liberty movement after Ron takes his leave, it's an outright disaster. Oh, and that whole funding Social Security and Medicare in perpetuity garbage. How limited government of him.

Kucinich opposed the warfare state, both at home and abroad. Seeing as though war is the health of the state, Dennis Kucinich is a greater friend of limited government advocates than anyone in the GOP who has ever voted for war. Yes, a socialist, a better limited government politician than any conservative. Especially losers like DeMint.

 

[Indy Vidual]

The comment on gays cheapened the speech.

I find it hard to believe many people would think that is offensive, but I just heard the way it's being spun on the radio.
At least it's not nearly as bad as the (Ron Paul Report) newsletters, this will pass.

 

[Indy Vidual]

Agreed that Rand is still top-shelf.
Maher is a snake, but I used to find him really funny ~10 years ago.

Kucinich deserves praise because he's legitimately anti-war and because of his vocal criticism of the Fed. I am not fans of Stewart and Colbert, but they are better than most. Maher and Maddow are snakes who should not be praised by any liberty-minded person. Working with people like DeMint is something that should be encouraged even though he's terrible on many important issues. Any liberty-minded person who badmouths Lee or Rand is confused or isn't on the side of liberty. I can understand constructive criticism here or there, but overall those guys are fantastic.

+1

 

[Karsten]

My theory is that most Paulistas come from the California Democrat backgrounds (regardless of where they live). They were socially liberal first. My suspicion is that this is why they don't like Rand, DeMint, Lee, etc., because they don't sound like Democrats (like Ron can and often does). My suspicions are confirmed everytime I hear bashing of Rand & Co. and adoration for Maher, Colbert, Stewart, Maddow and Kucinich.

That's a legitimate theory. I was a Democrat before I knew about Ron. I voted for Kerry in 04, and while I didn't vote in 06, I was rooting for Dems (mainly because I wanted anything that would look bad for Bush). I used to listen to Maher a lot. Actually, in the early 2000's and 90s he sounded a lot more libertarian than he did now, and he even used the term. Never liked Colbert or Stewart, except in their defense of Ron. I still am socially liberal on abortion and gay marriage. I agree with Ron about 99% of the time on all other issues. I don't think I'm any less of a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[Karsten]

On these forums we've done numerous polls on where people were before Ron. We were Dems, Reps, Indys, 3rd party's, and non-voters. That's a huge cross section of people that are only kept together by Ron. We probably differ on social issues more than any other issues. I think Rand will lose a lot of the young people and independents who were so passionate about Ron, I really do.

 

[angelatc]

They hated him since he was against civil rights because the propagandist rachel maddow (who a lot of the gullible folks around here apparently admire because she said something nice about us recently) said so. The people who are brainwashed by the state are out to oppose us anyway they can. They're all about using something like this to turn gays against us which is why I wish Rand never said this

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. They're never, ever going to like Rand. We went through this two years ago when Rand was running - the amount of people screeching that they would never vote for him over some silly thing was impossible to deal with, and certainly a big reason that we;re left with the liberal dregs of the movement around here.

They're not going to turn liberals against Rand, they're just going to make sure it's not socially acceptable to mention his name, ever. They will never stop.

When CLinton was in office, he pissed the members of his own party by making a joke that a female Southern Democratic politician might be closer to Hillary than he was, wink wink. She won the election, but she had to scramble because she was in a Bible belt state, and they didn't care for those types 'round those parts.

Gay baiting is the new race baiting, and it's ridiculous.

 

[angelatc]

On these forums we've done numerous polls on where people were before Ron. We were Dems, Reps, Indys, 3rd party's, and non-voters. That's a huge cross section of people that are only kept together by Ron. We probably differ on social issues more than any other issues. I think Rand will lose a lot of the young people and independents who were so passionate about Ron, I really do.

I think it's pretty hard for politicians to lose supporters. The people that voted for him in KY will likely continue to vote for him. But there's never been any real indication that the Ron Paul supporters would unilaterally back Rand. That's why he went for the GOP base - libertarians are useless when it comes to winning elections.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Maher is a snake, but I used to find him really funny ~10 years ago.

He's a talented comedian, he's just a disgusting egotist who thinks of himself as some type of genius philosopher and political oracle. He's a propagandist, a sycophant, a coward and belongs in a jail cell IMO

 

[Pisces]

I think it's pretty hard for politicians to lose supporters. The people that voted for him in KY will likely continue to vote for him. But there's never been any real indication that the Ron Paul supporters would unilaterally back Rand. That's why he went for the GOP base - libertarians are useless when it comes to winning elections.

It's not just Rand who has come to this realization. This is what A.J. Spiker, the state vice-chairman for the Ron Paul campaign who became the chairman for the Republican Party of Iowa, had to say about Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage:

DES MOINES, Iowa– The Republican Party of Iowa released the following statement from Chairman A.J. Spiker in response to President Obama’s gay marriage decision:
“Marriage is an institution that can only be between one man and one woman. While President Obama continues to play politics, the Republican Party of Iowa will continue to support maintaining the traditional view of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

http://okhenderson.com/

Of course, he may have had no choice but to support the position that the majority of Iowa Republicans favor if he wants to retain his chairmanship.