Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will

[fisharmor]

I would advise you to prepare yourself: the pragmatists will do nothing of the sort. They will blame the purists.

You beat me to the punch.
Yes, this is exactly what will happen. We'll be sure to hear about all the "negativity".
I'll be sure to state that I've always said the same thing: that "negativity" was no different than the negativity that showed up on this site when Ron got caught earmarking, or every time the newsletters showed up.
The difference is that whenever "negativity" showed up in relation to Ron, there was either a good excuse for it, or a sound rationale for why he was right and the "negative" posters were wrong.

And furthermore, that the answer we have always been given: "Go away kid, you bother me, Ron was a loser and Rand is a winner LOL" is not actually a valid argument.
The "negative" people here have always been attempting to reason through what's been happening, and the answer they've always been given is "STFU".

IMO, he most likely won't get the nomination: not because of any identifiable error on his part, but simply because this is an uphill battle (always has been, always will be).
.......
If he loses, then we try again next time.
.....
If Rand's strategy fails, it doesn't follow that the purist strategy would have worked better.

And that's all this boils down to with you.
Strategy.
Quit using checkers strategy when playing chess, and all that, right?

I bet you're a big fan of both Monopoly and Risk. Those two games irritate the shit out of me, for one simple reason: everything is almost totally random until a certain point in the game when it becomes crystal clear that certain players are just ballast at that point, and it becomes fairly clear who is going to win.
(If you're into games, you'd probably like one called RoboRally also: it too pretends to be something much more complicated than it really is.)

I can tell you like this sort of game because that's exactly how a primary works. There is one and only one strategy: get as much positive media coverage as possible and don't make any random bad rolls that knock you out of the game. If you assume there's some other strategy then you need to review what board you're looking at.

Ron Paul looked at that board and figured out there was one and only one strategy for that game that didn't involve a lot of compromise and lying.
It involved educating and inspiring people to change the game.
I haven't heard anything about local or state parties getting taken over by people in the movement since the 2012 elections.
And nobody is going to get convinced to start doing it again because it certainly seems like that strategy was rejected.

If the takeovers are still happening, I'd sure love to hear about it. It was a winning strategy in the long run, because it got rid of corrupt rules written by corrupt people for corrupt politicians, and potentially replaced them with rules that libertarians would actually compromise on.

We're sure as hell not going to compromise for your corrupt rules written by corrupt people for corrupt politicians, no matter how much we believe that our guy won't actually corrupt himself by getting involved with them.

 

[twomp]

^^^single-issue voter

Single issue? You need to learn how to count. If there is war, do you think there will be less taxes? If there is war, do you think there will be privacy and personal liberty? If there is war, do you think there will be LESS government? If there is war, do you think there will be lives that are taken? You care about abortion but you don't care about people being killed by bombs? Hypocrite! All these issues are DIRECTLY tied to war.

Learn how to count genius. Single issue. What a moron.

 

[Aratus]

Rallying libertarians is like herding cats, which is why I'm often discouraged and contemplate giving up on politics.

one of our forum wits here once said y'all have to open tuna fish cans in order to herd cats. you have to know their mentality and compensate for things!

 

[Aratus]

It's a marathon not a sprint.

agreed...

 

[Crashland]

Rand is by far the most non-interventionist and most libertarian candidate who has a chance at winning. It's not even close. But OMG he's voting against the Iran deal and doesn't support immediately ending sanctions, which means when he's president he's gonna have Netanyahu command our army into Iran!

 

[William Tell]

Yeah libertarians suck. They would rather not vote for a guy like Rand because he's not pure. Exactly why a libertarian leaning candidate will NEVER be potus. Exactly why I left the libertarian movement. Because the end game for libertarians in this movement doesn't seem to be electing someone on our side who actually has a chance, but to just stick it to the man.

I've been here forever and voted twice for Ron, and I'm really appalled at the lack of support for Rand. I'm apalled at how many former Ron Paul supporters are going in the direction of cruz, trump and even sanders. Not just people here, but people I know, who voted for Ron and pushed Ron Paul propaganda on their Facebook and Twitter non stop in 2007 and 2011, now posting non stop praise of cruz, trump and sanders, mostly sanders. I ask them why no mention or support of Rand, Ron's own son... Their answer? Always "hes not a pure libertarian like Ron was" or "hes too hawkish" or "he went to Israel". Really? And trump, sanders, cruz, et all, are better? Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

I'm with you. I used to think libertarian leaning people were logical, the support for Sanders and Trump because Rand isn't 'pure enough' makes me think some libertarians are at least hopeless as mainstream Americans in some ways.

 

[Aratus]

Good folks are looking for ways that avoid them all having to choose between JEB or HILLARY after they all debated BARACK verses MITT in 2o12!

 

[Carlybee]

I'm with you. I used to think libertarian leaning people were logical, the support for Sanders and Trump because Rand isn't 'pure enough' makes me think some libertarians are at least hopeless as mainstream Americans in some ways.

Um...I'm not for Trump or Sanders. If I vote, I will vote for Rand if he gets the nomination. Even though I apparently "suck". I'm not convinced the whole freaking thing isn't rigged from the get go. Any one who supports Sanders or Trump is not a libertarian unless they are so socially liberal that it takes over their fiscal common sense. However when I hear people on this board say libertarians suck it makes me wonder how they can make a claim at all to supporting liberty. When people say we libertarians need to be purged I say GFY.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I'm with you. I used to think libertarian leaning people were logical, the support for Sanders and Trump because Rand isn't 'pure enough' makes me think some libertarians are at least hopeless as mainstream Americans in some ways.

Those supporting Trump and Sanders cannot possibly be libertarians.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Single issue? You need to learn how to count. If there is war, do you think there will be less taxes? If there is war, do you think there will be privacy and personal liberty? If there is war, do you think there will be LESS government? If there is war, do you think there will be lives that are taken? You care about abortion but you don't care about people being killed by bombs? Hypocrite! All these issues are DIRECTLY tied to war.

Learn how to count genius. Single issue. What a moron.

P1. War is bad.
P2. Rand is merely the least interventionist candidate, he's not perfectly non-interventionist
C. Therefore, to prevent war, we should oppose Rand.

...makes sense

 

[Aratus]

for all practical purposes LOGIC 101 at the university level is not POLY~SIGH 101 at all!

 

[William Tell]

Those supporting Trump and Sanders cannot possibly be libertarians.

Cool. Try tell them that. Different people have different qualifications for what makes a libertarian, someone on this site says if you vote you are not a libertarian, lol.

I agree with you that they are not acting in a libertarian manner if they support Sanders or Trump. But lots of ideological libertarians have supported bad candidates in the past when they thought they were a better option.

However, I still have no idea how anyone who supported Ron can possibly think Sanders or Trump is better than Rand. But hey, I know some people who were die hard Ron Paul supporters who think that now. And its really dumb, and illogical, and simply mindblowing.

 

[twomp]

Rand is by far the most non-interventionist and most libertarian candidate who has a chance at winning. It's not even close. But OMG he's voting against the Iran deal and doesn't support immediately ending sanctions, which means when he's president he's gonna have Netanyahu command our army into Iran!

This is what Rand Paul said Ayatollah Khamenei’s words were:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true.”

This is what Ayatollah Khamenei’s words ACTUALLY were:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

He is INTENTIONALLY taking words out of context to sell the same idea that AIPAC is selling. He's being deceitful to to keep a peace deal from happening. Sorry you have your head stuck in the sand.

 

[twomp]

P1. War is bad.
P2. Rand is merely the least interventionist candidate, he's not perfectly non-interventionist
C. Therefore, to prevent war, we should oppose Rand.

...makes sense

The least interventionist candidate is doing the same deceitful thing that the most interventionist candidate is doing and you of course are supporting it just because you think you can read his mind. Makes sense...

 

[Brett85]

However, I still have no idea how anyone who supported Ron can possibly think Sanders or Trump is better than Rand. But hey, I know some people who were die hard Ron Paul supporters who think that now. And its really dumb, and illogical, and simply mindblowing.

There are people who post on this forum who support Trump for President over Rand.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Cool. Try tell them that. Different people have different qualifications for what makes a libertarian, someone on this site says if you vote you are not a libertarian, lol.

I agree with you that they are not acting in a libertarian manner if they support Sanders or Trump. But lots of ideological libertarians have supported bad candidates in the past when they thought they were a better option.

However, I still have no idea how anyone who supported Ron can possibly think Sanders or Trump is better than Rand. But hey, I know some people who were die hard Ron Paul supporters who think that now. And its really dumb, and illogical, and simply mindblowing.

Well, ya know, Glenn Beck tried to call himself a libertarian so, yeah...the definition is fluid with some folks. But in reality, it has a meaning, a true definition, and it doesn't include supporting Trump or Sanders (or Glenn Beck!)

 

[William Tell]

Well, ya know, Glenn Beck tried to call himself a libertarian so, yeah...the definition is fluid with some folks. But in reality, it has a meaning, a true definition, and it doesn't include supporting Trump or Sanders (or Glenn Beck!)

I know it has a meaning. One libertarian girl told me she would love to stand with Rand, but we can't wait for him to wake people up, and therefor we need to try Trump. I know that's crazy, I also know that she does hold libertarian views. I suppose you can take the position that her support of completely anti liberty people negates her worldview. So whatever.

 

[Carlybee]

I know it has a meaning. One libertarian girl told me she would love to stand with Rand, but we can't wait for him to wake people up, and therefor we need to try Trump. I know that's crazy, I also know that she does hold libertarian views. I suppose you can take the position that her support of completely anti liberty people negates her worldview. So whatever.

There are a lot of impressionable people out there who may change their political ideology several times in their lifetime.

 

[Crashland]

This is what Rand Paul said Ayatollah Khamenei’s words were:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true.”

This is what Ayatollah Khamenei’s words ACTUALLY were:

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”

He is INTENTIONALLY taking words out of context to sell the same idea that AIPAC is selling. He's being deceitful to to keep a peace deal from happening. Sorry you have your head stuck in the sand.

The idea that Rand is selling is that he does not trust Iran to comply and wants to include greater compliance measures in the deal. Yes the quote is taken out of context, but the fatwa thing is BS as well, as if this fatwa actually exists (where is it?), and even if it did, as if the Iranian government's decision to develop or not develop a nuclear weapon would have anything to do with it.

Should Rand instead come out and tell everyone "Actually, Iran isn't developing a nuclear weapon, and we don't need to be concerned about compliance because the Iranian politicians say there was a fatwa prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons."? It's not going to happen.

 

[William Tell]

There are a lot of impressionable people out there who may change their political ideology several times in their lifetime.

Of course. But most of these people supporting Trump don't claim to agree with his ideology. They take his recent bombastic rhetoric on the border as evidence that 'he's the only one with guts' and then support him despite the fact that if you pick apart his policy positions over the years, they have little in common.

The same goes for those talking about how they like Sanders, they like his vaguely populist rhetoric, and think he might end the wars. They don't agree with most of his actual positions.

This kind of thinking dictating who you support is course illogical, but unfortunately logic often takes a backseat to emotion in politics.