Rand Paul: I'm Not a libertarian...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

FIFY

If you're truly outraged, which I don't believe for two seconds, then you're way too hypersensitive.

 

[Spikender]

To be fair, I too have a problem with Rand for saying this, but I'm not going all out and saying this is what makes me dislike him

There are plenty of other things he's done to tick me off, but he's still got my support. Let's just not become blind to mistakes he makes. That's all I'm asking for.

 

[cajuncocoa]

To be fair, I too have a problem with Rand for saying this, but I'm not going all out and saying this is what makes me dislike him

There are plenty of other things he's done to tick me off, but he's still got my support. Let's just not become blind to mistakes he makes. That's all I'm asking for.

You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment.* After while those things add up and start to mean something.

*I realize I come off as the bad guy to Rand's supporters, but I consider it their own fault because I have to keep explaining over and over to several of his defenders why the gaffe-of-the-week is problematic.

 

[Spikender]

You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment. After while those things add up and start to mean something.

I agree, but I think there's issues on both sides, from people jumping up at every little thing, to people who blindly argue in Rand's defense no matter what he does.

I understand that it feels better to just go against Rand's more ardent supporters, but I'm going to stay at my middle ground until Rand does something that either truly shows his true colors, or without a doubt solidifies him as a generally good politician in my mind.

Until then, he'll have my support, and I will be there to cheer on his good moves and question the moves that don't seem so smart.

 

[jct74]

maybe this has been brought up earlier in this long ass thread but do we even know for sure that Rand that said "I'm not a libertarian" right after he said “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot”? This could very well be a case of sloppy reporting or intentionally trying to insert meaning in Rand's words from the Washington Post.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” he said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ccb4-b8af-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story_1.html

Even if he did really say things in that order, maybe I should be outraged but meh... poor choice of words is a small blemish on his entire body of work.

Infowars: Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-l...-run-around-with-no-clothes-on-and-smoke-pot/

where did Rand Paul for sure associate libertarians with smoking pot and being naked? can anyone provide the full continuous quote before flipping out, or did Washington Post string together two separate sentences and then Infowars "journalists" follow up with a hit piece based on something he didn't even say. are any of the people freaking out able to provide the full continuous quote?

someone on Daily Paul agrees with me BTW
http://www.dailypaul.com/285658/rand-paul-did-not-say-that

 

[erowe1]

Infowars: Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-l...-run-around-with-no-clothes-on-and-smoke-pot/

where did Rand Paul for sure associate libertarians with smoking pot and being naked? can anyone provide the full unabridged quote before flipping out, or did Washington Post string together two separate sentences and then Infowars "journalists" put out a hit piece based on something he didn't even say. are any of the people freaking out able to provide the full continuous quote?

someone on Daily Paul agrees with me BTW
http://www.dailypaul.com/285658/rand-paul-did-not-say-that

I think that's a great question. Or at least I would if I thought there was even the slightest bit of justification for anyone being upset about what he said.

Notice that even the way WaPo put it, it was two different sentences.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rand Paul might be the most cunning political strategist ever, getting himself distance from both Kokesh and Infowars simultaneously.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Infowars: Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-l...-run-around-with-no-clothes-on-and-smoke-pot/

where did Rand Paul for sure associate libertarians with smoking pot and being naked? can anyone provide the full unabridged quote before flipping out, or did Washington Post string together two separate sentences and then Infowars "journalists" put out a hit piece based on something he didn't even say. are any of the people freaking out able to provide the full continuous quote?

someone on Daily Paul agrees with me BTW
http://www.dailypaul.com/285658/rand-paul-did-not-say-that

1. I'm not freaking out; I'm involved in a discussion with apologists as to why this alleged quote by Rand is insulting, if indeed he did say it.
2. I cannot verify that it was said exactly that way other than to say that it's been quoted that way all over the Internet by now, and there's been no retraction or correction.
3. Rand tends to say many things that can be taken negatively (the drone comment comes to mind).

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Not sure what the outrage is, Rand isn't a libertarian, never claimed to be one.


Or are people upset he doesn't advocate that people run around naked while smoking pot?

How would you feel when everytime you defended the first amendment for instance, everyone chastised you for wanting everyone to run around screaming profanities, sexually erotic comments, and all sorts of other misogynistic and racist remarks? Oh you're just a racist, misogynistic, pedaphile when you defend the first amendment! That's the same tortured and twisted logic people apply whenever you say you want to legalize prostitution, substances (aka drugs), or other activities that puritans don't like to have to admit exists and people have a right to engage in. So, yeah, your 'heaven on Earth' is HELL.

 

[Thor]

Rand Paul might be the most cunning political strategist ever, getting himself distance from both Kokesh and Infowars simultaneously.

And for a big tent, possibly win the POTUS strategy, a good one too.... I think he has good roots, so I am not worried.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment.* After while those things add up and start to mean something.

*I realize I come off as the bad guy to Rand's supporters, but I consider it their own fault because I have to keep explaining over and over to several of his defenders why the gaffe-of-the-week is problematic.

I'm a Rand-Supporter. For the moment, I hope you'll still give him your vote at least. I don't really like his strategy, but when I see someone say "I don't like Ron but I like Rand" I kind of cross my fingers and hope for the best. I'm not a Randroid type of Rand supporter, but unless he gets worse, I'll still support him.

I can't bank on the whole "Secret Agent" strategy, I can only go by what he says, but for now, what he's saying is good enough that, even if its not perfect, he is someone I could vote for.

Rand Paul hasn't outright rejected the constitution yet, and he is passing my three litmus tests so far (Anti-War, Pro-Gun, and anti-Federal Reserve), he's not absolutely perfect on those issues, but he is passing them. Until he either really fails on one of those, or fails in a LOT of smaller areas put together, I'll still cast my vote for him.

No, I'm not saying that Rand is evil; just using an expression that means having to choose something that isn't what you really want.

@FreedomFanatic...I don't really like Gary Johnson, but I decided to give him my vote last November in order to grow the LP. Dems and Repubs have had a monopoly on the system for too long.

I would have voted for Gary Johnson at the time (But I wasn't allowed to, being 17), but if what someone mentioned about him supporting Roe v Wade is true I'd probably prefer Virgil Goode over him. Gary was already shaky on foreign policy and the FED anyway, he was solid on guns but seemed much more concerned with gay marriage. I'm honestly starting to think I'd probably prefer Goode.

And I am a libertarian, not a constitutionalist. But Virgil Goode is decent at being a constitutionalist, the more I listen to Gary the more he really sucks at being a libertarian OR a constitutionalist.

For me it goes Ron Paul> Rand Paul >>>>>> Gary Johnson

And I voted for Gary Johnson, so Rand Paul is a lock for my vote.

For me its more like Ron Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand Paul >>>>>>> Gary Johnson.

Rand is closer to Gary than he is to Ron.... but then, who isn't?

This is an outrageous thread. It all depends on what issues you view most important and what frame of reference you use. Heck, Reason kept telling us how Gary Johnson was a much better libertarian than Ron. I don't even see Gary anywhere near as good as Rand.

I think Rand is probably a better libertarian than Gary these days, but that really isn't saying much. I always viewed Gary as more of a libertarian leaning liberal than a real libertarian. Rand is a libertarian leaning conservative. Neither of them is really a libertarian even by a leinient definition.

(To me "Libertarian by a leinient definition" would be basically somebody who supports government for not only police, courts, and defense, but also public services and maybe a couple other random non-libertarian positions)

For Reason, the biggest problem with Rand doing this is the fact that he is trying to get any evangelical support at all. From some of the comments in this thread, it looks like that's where a lot of the most zealous detractors are too. Notice references to them as "those people," etc.

This is seriously annoying me. I'm an Evangelical, and while I'm not sure, I'm guessing TradCon is too. Both of us support legalization of all drugs. I'm sure we aren't the only two around here either....


These people are "Warvengelical neocons." These people need to be converted. I used to be one. Thanks to Ron Paul, I'm not one anymore.

That's what I can't stand about Reason and even Gary Johnson. They live in their own little bubble and would be happier if the LP continued to plod along with <1% of the vote as long as it remained a club of only people they approved of. I'm sure many of us Paulites here started out as neocons or at least more conventional conservative Republicans. He sold a message to us that no other libertarian type had been able to do. Gary and Reason continue to bash religion and social conservatism and make it like you can't support religion or conservative principles AND liberty. Ron was able to do that. So I sympathize with what Rand is doing. Ron did it without sacrificing the message, and I hope Rand's spreading of the message will not bastardize our core principles. I'm a bit disappointed on drugs but other than that I'm totally fine with what he's doing.

I think Rand is watering it down... but yeah, Gary doesn't have a clue what libertarianism is. Rand is really making it sound like he doesn't either, even though I know he does.

 

[erowe1]

These people are "Warvengelical neocons."

What do you base that on?

 

[Christian Liberty]

@Cajuncocoa- I don't think its fair to judge Rand by his supporters. I'm not pleased with everything Rand's doing either, but I would encourage you to avoid those supporters of his that you think are obnoxious and solely look at Rand Paul the man when deciding what to do. That's what I'm trying to do. Heck, I'm trying to ignore Ron Paul here, since I know he's biased, but I honestly do care a lot more about his take than anyone else's.

I seriously doubt Rand Paul thinks as highly of himself as the radical Randroids here think of Rand.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What do you base that on?

"Social theocrats" may be more technically accurate in this case. Or something more nuanced. I don't actually know, and I'm stereotyping. My point is that just calling them "Evangelicals" is to paint with a rather broad brush. I'm an Evangelical, and not only am I a Rand supporter, but I'm one who wishes he was more radical, and I'd definitely be tempted to vote for the foil if there actually was one...

I know they're stereotyping, and that they know they're stereotyping, but its still annoying. Saying "Evangelicals oppose drug legalization" is just an insanely broad brush, much like Rand acting like libertarians (As a group) support smoking pot while naked.

Granted, the perception of Evangelicals is accurate more often, but being an Evangelical does not require holding those crazy views...

Ron Paul is a Baptist BTW...

 

[TheGrinch]

I think that's a great question. Or at least I would if I thought there was even the slightest bit of justification for anyone being upset about what he said.

Notice that even the way WaPo put it, it was two different sentences.

And yet some of us are being blind "knob-slobbers" for trying to talk people off the ledge over an out-of-context quote that might even just be two sentences they strung together for all we know.

I can assure you we wouldn't be so defensive of Rand if some didn't go on the total offensive over every little trivial thing they can find to bitch about him.

My concerns are, is he bowing down to the lobbyists or fighting for what's right? His fights over investigating and auditing the Fed, Pentagon, IRS, passing industrial hemp, etc., would suggest that he's using his position to be a thorn in their side and enact/promote whatever positive change he can. I say good for him, you can get back to me when you have real evidence that Rand is an establishment lackey. Until then I'm going to continue to tell you all that you're being overdramatic gotcha-sensationalists for disavowing the only guy getting good things accomplished in Washington.

Gee, why would we defend by far the best Senator we have? Let's fixate on reasons why he's not the same as his father, and jump on gotcha attacks like the media. It's freaking ridiculous. Some would rather bitch and be 100% "pure" than support ANYONE trying to get things done for liberty. Think about that the next time some of you want to act like we're just being fanboys. It's a piss-poor deflection from you being blind haters if you're going to act all butthurt over every little dumb thing like this. Drama-queening at it's worst, and I don't think it's any accident. Some here really do want reasons to hate Rand it seems, and that's just sad.

 

[fr33]

No it's not.

Most of Ron's supporters are going to stick with Rand. Most of the ones that won't were never "the base."

If he loses will you admit you were wrong? He has a few more years of saying things that alienate a portion of his dad's base while depending more on GOPers who've shown they can be completely manipulated by the media.

 

[erowe1]

If he loses will you admit you were wrong? He has a few more years of saying things that alienate a portion of his dad's base while depending more on GOPers who've shown they can be completely manipulated by the media.

If he doesn't do better than Ron did, I will.

 

[cajuncocoa]

@Cajuncocoa- I don't think its fair to judge Rand by his supporters. I'm not pleased with everything Rand's doing either, but I would encourage you to avoid those supporters of his that you think are obnoxious and solely look at Rand Paul the man when deciding what to do. That's what I'm trying to do. Heck, I'm trying to ignore Ron Paul here, since I know he's biased, but I honestly do care a lot more about his take than anyone else's.

I seriously doubt Rand Paul thinks as highly of himself as the radical Randroids here think of Rand.

Nope, I'm not judging him by his supporters, just saying they're somewhat annoying when they pretend not to get it, and having to keep hammering my point with them makes it seem like I support Rand less than I really do (good grief, it's not like he's Lindsey Graham!) I like his voting record, and I may just vote for him in 2016 (not definite) but I will say these gaffes will probably result in my donations going to help grow the LP rather than to Rand.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Notice that even the way WaPo put it, it was two different sentences.

Next month, from the Washington Post:

"I support...sending troops...into...and bombing...Iran," said Rand Paul.

Followed quickly by the usual suspects here claiming Rand Paul is a neocon.

 

[TheGrinch]

If he loses will you admit you were wrong? He has a few more years of saying things that alienate a portion of his dad's base while depending more on GOPers who've shown they can be completely manipulated by the media.

If he loses, then why do you care who he alienates? He's only alienating them from himself.

Plus that's a ridiculous standard, that if his efforts don't succeed, then we should apologize for trying. Would it be fair for me to flip that on Ron and say he was wrong for "saying things that alienate GOP voters who are manipulated by the media, while depending more on his base"? Of course not.