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

[Carlybee]

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.

People are supporting Trump because:

A). He is saying things everyone is thinking but afraid to say
B). People believe he is an outsider
C). They think he represents backlash against Washington
D). He is persuasive whether sincere or not
E) He represents a collective middle finger

Ultimately he is ahead because he for whatever reason is resonating and apparently few others are.
Instead of poo-pahing him, they should probably be taking notes. Think about it,..the guy doesn't even have issues listed on his site and people still support him.

 

[jkob]

People have different priorities, a lot of people that like Ron were more hardcore antiwar and pro-civil liberties libertarians than dedicated pragmatic Austrian accountants. People have different lines that they won't cross and Rand is a habitual line stepper.

 

[AuH20]

People are supporting Trump because:

A). He is saying things everyone is thinking but afraid to say
B). People believe he is an outsider
C). They think he represents backlash against Washington
D). He is persuasive whether sincere or not
E) He represents a collective middle finger

Ultimately he is ahead because he for whatever reason is resonating and apparently few others are.

Pretty much... Let's analyze the lay of the land.

The system is hopelessly rigged.
Meaningful change is nearly impossible within the current system.
Voting is utilized as a placebo effect to quell populace frustrations.
The only way to usher forth change is for others to understand this futility.
The ascendancy of Trump does this by forcing the establishment to react in ways that they aren't entirely comfortable with.
The reaction of the establishment holds the key to widespread awakening. It's like a tiny crack in a dam that has the potential to break with some prodding.

 

[jkob]

Hopefully these critical threads get moved to the flak section, I don't want be yelled at again for not falling in line. If you're going to criticize us then we should have the opportunity to respond.

I do support Rand in so much that there really isn't any other options I do it holding my nose.

 

[twomp]

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.

So Rand should be dishonest about it and fear-monger the simpletons (like yourself) against a deal that might bring about peace? When Trump went around saying Edward Snowden should be killed. I was saying that the worse thing about that statement is that his supporters would start parroting it.

So when Rand made that statement, his supporters (like you) would go around parroting it as well. Even though it is dishonest. Its one thing to vote against peace. When he is being DELIBERATELY dishonest in order to persuade people to vote against peace, he is treading into war monger territory. Tread carefully.

 

[Brett85]

So Rand should be dishonest about it and fear-monger the simpletons (like yourself) against a deal that might bring about peace?

Did you read my comment in the other thread about how this deal is just another entangling alliance with Iran? Why would a self described non interventionist like yourself support a deal that will force us to use military action against Israel if Israel bombs Iran's nuclear program?

 

[jkob]

Rand shouldn't entangle alliances with neoconservatives, they're a much bigger threat to this country than Iran ever will be

 

[Brett85]

Rand shouldn't entangle alliances with neoconservatives, they're a much bigger threat to this country than Iran ever will be

But why would he want to get involved in an entangling alliance with Iran?

 

[twomp]

Did you read my comment in the other thread about how this deal is just another entangling alliance with Iran? Why would a self described non interventionist like yourself support a deal that will force us to use military action against Israel if Israel bombs Iran's nuclear program?

Why doesn't Rand Paul just say what you did then? Why did he have to be DELIBERATELY dishonest about someone else's statement? Please show me where Rand Paul said what you did? Are you a mind reader now?

 

[Brett85]

Why doesn't Rand Paul just say what you did then? Why did he have to be DELIBERATELY dishonest about someone else's statement? Please show me where Rand Paul said what you did? Are you a mind reader now?

Because he's trying to appeal to Republican Primary voters to have some chance to win the GOP nomination. His strategy isn't working right now, but it remains to be seen whether it will eventually work. But I just brought that point up because it sounded like you thought there weren't any problems with this particular deal from a non interventionist perspective.

 

[twomp]

Because he's trying to appeal to Republican Primary voters to have some chance to win the GOP nomination. His strategy isn't working right now, but it remains to be seen whether it will eventually work. But I just brought that point up because it sounded like you thought there weren't any problems with this particular deal from a non interventionist perspective.

I don't like the dishonesty. That to me is something warmongers do. I didn't say anything when he does stuff to get votes (like voting for sanctions) but when he is being deliberately dishonest, he crossed another line that I thought he was above doing. Parroting AIPAC talking points that he didn't need to do.

 

[jkob]

But why would he want to get involved in an entangling alliance with Iran?

I don't considering trying to avoid war to be entangling alliances, isn't that part of peace/commerce/honest friendship?

Israel can do what they want but that doesn't mean we have to support it. I very much doubt Israel will attack Iran on its own, they're going to try to force us to do it as they have for the last 20 years and even if they do it unilaterally finally they're basically handcuffed to us to so we'd be forced to be involved and take their side. So no, I oppose all Israeli aggression towards Iran, Iran needed reassurance that Israel would not attack them to give up their nuclear program and they need reassurance that the US won't renege on their deal. I do not support any aid to Israel, I do not support the Israeli occupation of Palestinians lands.

 

[HankRicther12]

Why doesn't Rand Paul just say what you did then? Why did he have to be DELIBERATELY dishonest about someone else's statement? Please show me where Rand Paul said what you did? Are you a mind reader now?

I agree with this, it seems he makes many statements that either could have been worded differently or just not brought up at all.

Because he's trying to appeal to Republican Primary voters to have some chance to win the GOP nomination. His strategy isn't working right now, but it remains to be seen whether it will eventually work. But I just brought that point up because it sounded like you thought there weren't any problems with this particular deal from a non interventionist perspective.

Yet how well is this working? I keep hearing about how he does this or that to appeal to NeoCons, this or that to appeal to Blacks and Latinos, it's ridiculous.

Let me ask you point blank, and stop and think about this logically:

How many blacks or hispanics do you really think are going to change parties and vote for Rand?

How many NeoCons and Israel-firsters do you think he's brought on board?

Fact is, without his father's crowd Rand is just another Republican talking about free markets.

 

[Matthanuf06]

1. Anyone who votes for Sanders is not part of the movement and never was. They probably just like hanging out in college towns. That is their single issue. Sanders is a socialist. Those folks are a lost cause. Ignore those people.

2. Anyone who will stay home during primary season because Rand is not perfect is a fool. You do not have to be able to develop an American economic and societal algorithm based on game theory to determine Rand Paul being POTUS is by far the best course of action for anyone that supported Ron Paul. It is not a question of purist or pragmatic. It is a question of utility. Do you really think you'll be better off with Hillary, Bernie, Trump or Jeb? Then think about when could we have a "pure" candidate actually get elected? Probably never in your lifetime. Are you really better off without Rand?

3. I personally line up closer to Rand than Ron, and by no means do I line up with Rand perfectly. Frankly I'm "pro-choice" (although not pro funding it), pro Federal Reserve, and closer to Rand than Ron on foreign policy. Does that mean I should stay home or should I vote for the person that will produce the best outcome?

4. Unfortunately I think a lot of "Ron Paul" supporters aren't true believers in some form of liberty, but rather enjoyed the college feel, rebel, camaraderie, etc. feel of being a Ron Paul supporter. Rand doesn't have those qualities so those people are defecting to anti-liberty politicians like Sanders. They were never a part of the liberty cause. The truth is, those qualities are not electable. The tent isn't big enough. Rand has to build a coalition in order to get the nomination. The problem with the 'purist' thought process is it is hypocritical. It requires 50.1% of the voting American public to be pure libertarian. That will never happen. So the only way your "pure" candidate can ever get elected is if either 1) he/she builds a coalition or 2) some people hold their nose and vote for them. Clearly you are against 1 and you don't think people should do 2. So it sounds like you want to wallow in self pity as we continue to have POTUS after POTUS that represent virtually nothing from the liberty cause just because you aren't satisfied with one that represents a lot of the liberty cause.

/end rant

 

[Matthanuf06]

I agree with this, it seems he makes many statements that either could have been worded differently or just not brought up at all.



Yet how well is this working? I keep hearing about how he does this or that to appeal to NeoCons, this or that to appeal to Blacks and Latinos, it's ridiculous.

Let me ask you point blank, and stop and think about this logically:

How many blacks or hispanics do you really think are going to change parties and vote for Rand?

How many NeoCons and Israel-firsters do you think he's brought on board?

Fact is, without his father's crowd Rand is just another Republican talking about free markets.

If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. However, campaigning and being pure to his father's ideology is a guaranteed loss. We've seen that story play out.

Don't get me wrong I think Rand's campaign has been terrible so far. The problem isn't that he is trying to build a coalition though. The problem is he is focusing on the wrong issues and is totally botching the execution of the building the coalition.

There simply aren't enough true "liberty" voters to push anyone into the White House. Especially given how many fake ones there were that jumped to the Sanders camp. Rand's only chance is to build a real coalition that goes to the polls.

 

[Carlybee]

If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. However, campaigning and being pure to his father's ideology is a guaranteed loss. We've seen that story play out.

Don't get me wrong I think Rand's campaign has been terrible so far. The problem isn't that he is trying to build a coalition though. The problem is he is focusing on the wrong issues and is totally botching the execution of the building the coalition.

There simply aren't enough true "liberty" voters to push anyone into the White House. Especially given how many fake ones there were that jumped to the Sanders camp. Rand's only chance is to build a real coalition that goes to the polls.

And if this doesn't work will it be considered a guaranteed loss next time around?

 

[Matthanuf06]

I agree with this, it seems he makes many statements that either could have been worded differently or just not brought up at all.



Yet how well is this working? I keep hearing about how he does this or that to appeal to NeoCons, this or that to appeal to Blacks and Latinos, it's ridiculous.

Let me ask you point blank, and stop and think about this logically:

How many blacks or hispanics do you really think are going to change parties and vote for Rand?

How many NeoCons and Israel-firsters do you think he's brought on board?

Fact is, without his father's crowd Rand is just another Republican talking about free markets.

It shouldn't be expected to bring anyone on board yet. Frankly he has learned from the failures of his father's campaigns.

Rand's positions aren't meant to appease and make blacks/Hispanics/Israel firsters/etc love him right now. They are meant to make him palatable once their guys drop out. Ron was never palatable and that is why he had a ceiling. Other candidates would drop out and nearly all of those numbers would go to a different candidate. Rand is setting himself up to being able to gobble up some of the votes when candidates drop out.

What Rand is banking on:

1. Liberty group keeping him viable early on as candidates begin to drop out.
2. Being palatable enough to those voters that no longer have a candidate

 

[cajuncocoa]

If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. However, campaigning and being pure to his father's ideology is a guaranteed loss. We've seen that story play out.

Don't get me wrong I think Rand's campaign has been terrible so far. The problem isn't that he is trying to build a coalition though. The problem is he is focusing on the wrong issues and is totally botching the execution of the building the coalition.

There simply aren't enough true "liberty" voters to push anyone into the White House. Especially given how many fake ones there were that jumped to the Sanders camp. Rand's only chance is to build a real coalition that goes to the polls.

Then we're fucked. Because if we have to keep playing this stupid game, we're going to keep sinking further. Unless somebody (like Ron) is not afraid to stand up and say...loudly...

WAKE UP!!

...unless that happens it won't matter what strategy we have "next" time. There won't be much time left.

 

[Matthanuf06]

And if this doesn't work will it be considered a guaranteed loss next time around?

The reasoning why it is a guaranteed loss isn't because it didn't work, but rather the numbers are simply not there. Ron Paul had many deal breakers with the electorate, hence why he was labeled an extremist. That produces a ceiling far lower than what you need to win.

So it is a guaranteed loss until we get more libertarians in the United States. Simple as that. And the ironic thing from your standpoint is the best way to get more people onto the liberty cause is to actually have a non hardliner like Rand actually implement some libertarian ideas. That is how you get the snowball rolling. Grassroots alone won't come close to the numbers that we need to win.

 

[Matthanuf06]

Then we're fucked. Because if we have to keep playing this stupid game, we're going to keep sinking further. Unless somebody (like Ron) is not afraid to stand up and say...loudly...

WAKE UP!!

...unless that happens it won't matter what strategy we have "next" time. There won't be much time left.

Maybe you are right, and it is too late and we are totally screwed. But why not give ourselves a chance? Even if that chance is minute. The only chance we have is Rand Paul building a coalition that hopefully gets America on the liberty train.

Nobody is saying that it wouldn't be ideal for a Ron Paul type to win. It would be. That would be best.

The problem is in this decision tree the question isn't what is "best" in isolation. That isn't the formula. The rationale action for you is "Best times probability". The problem is the probability of a Ron Paul type is 0% when there is a Rand Paul type alternative. The "best" variable may be lower for Rand than the Ron type, but the probability is quite literally an infinite amount higher resulting in much greater utility.