Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades

[Peace&Freedom]

No, not at all. It simply means we keep trying until successful because we get closer with each try. A third party presidential route is a non-starter. Not to mention that it is impossible to win the Presidency as a 3rd party candidate.


You have no idea what you are talking about, are highly ignorant of the process, and your conspiracy talk is not welcome here.

The point behind the third party run would be to salvage Rand getting the Republican nomination, by shaking the rank and file voters out of viewing the establishment frontrunner as being electable (in time for them to still vote for Rand in the primaries). The scenario I discussed (not winning a single GOP primary, three straight times) where the 3rd party angle is tried, is precisely one where we have NOT "gotten closer with each try" despite following all the normal rules. As for such a run in and of itself, we have never seen what a seriously well-funded, nationally supported candidate running on a minor party line through Election day would do, to definitively assert that no candidate could be elected that way.

To repeat, not winning a single primary each time is NOT "getting better with each try." And pointing out our failing to engage the main obstacle that has made people deaf to a liberty foreign policy view, is neither ignorant nor paranoid. I suspect avoiding false flags or covert activity, and its role in conjuring a fear mindset that we are continuously under threat, will make voters ignore the Paul approach a third time, unless the subject is openly engaged. At some point, those avoiding the matter have to be held accountable for the defeats we keep receiving, following that approach. And the failures of the Paul campaign machine will have to be examined, if they follow that approach (among other blunders) and cause us to lose a third time. I'm open to be proven wrong by what happens with Rand over the next 18 months, but I expect accountability by the other side if the same thing happens as I've outlined.

 

[Matt Collins]

The point behind the third party run would be to salvage Rand getting the Republican nomination, by shaking the rank and file voters out of viewing the establishment frontrunner as being electable (in time for them to still vote for Rand in the primaries). The scenario I discussed (not winning a single GOP primary, three straight times) where the 3rd party angle is tried, is precisely one where we have NOT "gotten closer with each try" despite following all the normal rules. As for such a run in and of itself, we have never seen what a seriously well-funded, nationally supported candidate running on a minor party line through Election day would do, to definitively assert that no candidate could be elected that way.

1 - yes we are getting closer, Ron '12 got more delegates than he did in '08. And he got way more votes in '08 than '89.

2 - Ross Perot even with his billions of dollars couldn't win the Presidency in a 3rd party.

 

[Vanguard101]

That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.

Actually, your post pretty much flew over your head. I forget most of you guys are 100% white and do not understand what it means to be black. It doesn't matter if she was the only dissenter. It's clear you don't understand race relations. You are comparing a white male with a decent amount of popularity to an african american female, that has the support of her race. Do you honestly think tough criticism would fall on her from her own base knowing race relations?

Calling Ron "supremely overrated" and "racist" should be an automatic ban!

I didn't call him racist. He is borderline supremely overrated. You guys overrate him far too much when discussing Rand.

Vanguard101 enjoys shouting about "racism" without having any idea what he's talking about.

This was not the first time: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist
(Against which, see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ses-a-racist&p=5567096&viewfull=1#post5567096)

I doubt it will be the last ...

You consistently stay on my dick. Fall back

 

[twomp]

Actually, your post pretty much flew over your head. I forget most of you guys are 100% white and do not understand what it means to be black. It doesn't matter if she was the only dissenter. It's clear you don't understand race relations. You are comparing a white male with a decent amount of popularity to an african american female, that has the support of her race. Do you honestly think tough criticism would fall on her from her own base knowing race relations?


I didn't call him racist. He is borderline supremely overrated. You guys overrate him far too much when discussing Rand.



You consistently stay on my dick. Fall back

Actually, I'm asian. But thanks again for highlighting your stupidity. It's awesome to watch.

 

[Vanguard101]

That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.

Calling Ron "supremely overrated" and "racist" should be an automatic ban!

Vanguard101 enjoys shouting about "racism" without having any idea what he's talking about.

This was not the first time: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist
(Against which, see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ses-a-racist&p=5567096&viewfull=1#post5567096)

I doubt it will be the last ...

Actually, I'm asian. But thanks again for highlighting your stupidity. It's awesome to watch.

That's even worse. What's even worse is the fact that you were too stupid to realize I didn't call you white. Try again idiot. Keep comparing a black congresswoman to Paul though

 

[twomp]

That's even worse. What's even worse is the fact that you were too stupid to realize I didn't call you white. Try again idiot. Keep comparing a black congresswoman to Paul though

LOL!! You are so funny! I feel like I'm talking with a child throwing a hissy fit. YOU brought racism into this. Remeber this quote?

Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

Racist ties? Who brought that up? YOU DID! Then you go stumbling around trying to explain how your comment has anything to do with the topic people are discussing. Do you know what the AUMF is? Everyone voted to authorize it except for ONE person and she ended up being the one that was right all along. So her video was linked. The fact that she was black had NOTHING to do with anything. But somehow you in your brilliant mind decided to link that to racism.... Then you go bumbling around trying to explain yourself. Making yourself look even more stupid every post.

Good job! You crack me up! Genius!

 

[Occam's Banana]

You consistently stay on my dick. Fall back

You consistently see racism where there isn't any. Fall back.

If you persist in doing this, you are going to become the RPFs version of "the boy who cried wolf" when it comes to racism.
Once you get that reputation, people around here will not take you seriously if and when you decry actual, genuine racism.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Actually, your post pretty much flew over your head. I forget most of you guys are 100% white and do not understand what it means to be black. It doesn't matter if she was the only dissenter. It's clear you don't understand race relations. You are comparing a white male with a decent amount of popularity to an african american female, that has the support of her race. Do you honestly think tough criticism would fall on her from her own base knowing race relations?

If you want to bring race into this, you do realize that another black candidate within her own party (not too many black Republicans in her district) could have challenged Lee, right?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

I didn't call him racist. He is borderline supremely overrated. You guys overrate him far too much when discussing Rand.

What the hell does "borderline supremely overrated" even mean? Even with his colossal failure in voting for AUMF, Ron has done more to help spread awareness to the war/police state than any public figure in decades.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

1 - yes we are getting closer, Ron '12 got more delegates than he did in '08. And he got way more votes in '08 than '89.

2 - Ross Perot even with his billions of dollars couldn't win the Presidency in a 3rd party.

1- As they say, stats are for losers. Ron not only didn't win a single state in either year, the primary race was basically over the same month (by February '08, and February '12).

2- Perot shot himself in the foot by pulling out of the race mid-summer, then re-inserting himself later in the year. He didn't spend even the $100 million he originally promised he would to run his "world class campaign," so we'll never know how well he would have done if he had gone in whole hog and undamaged.

US News has just confirmed the viability of Rand running for both party nominations. I guess they don't know what they're talking about either:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too

 

[Matt Collins]

Ron not only didn't win a single state in either year

You are incorrect... Ron won multiple states in 2012.

2- Perot shot himself in the foot by pulling out of the race mid-summer, then re-inserting himself later in the year. He didn't spend even the $100 million he originally promised he would to run his "world class campaign," so we'll never know how well he would have done if he had gone in whole hog and undamaged.

No, it was not possible for a third party to win a Presidential election.

US News has just confirmed the viability of Rand running for both party nominations. I guess they don't know what they're talking about either:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too

That was a subtle hit piece trying to tie Rand to the LP. And if the LP nominates Rand in abstentia it will mean nothing and in fact will likely hurt him due to the stigma that the LP carries with it.

Third party presidential candidates cannot win the Presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise fails to understand the American political system.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You are incorrect... Ron won multiple states in 2012.

No, it was not possible for a third party to win a Presidential election.


That was a subtle hit piece trying to tie Rand to the LP. And if the LP nominates Rand in abstentia it will mean nothing and in fact will likely hurt him due to the stigma that the LP carries with it.

Third party presidential candidates cannot win the Presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise fails to understand the American political system.

Paul won zero primaries, and the caucus cases are disputed, depending on how you do the count. Ignoring the substance of what I pointed out, and just repeating your propaganda line doesn't make it true. I do agree Rand would have to actively pursue the third party nod, an abstentia nomination would not happen, due to the stigma the GOP carries with it.

To repeat, a seriously funded, nationally popular figure can win as a third party candidate. The system is indeed designed to deprive such contenders of the money, media coverage and national momentum to be viable, but if the figure already has those features he can win, since he then has the means of bypassing the establishment obstacles. There just hasn't been a test case to provide proof of concept of this on election day (and no, Perot doesn't count, as he didn't spend the money, and compromised his momentum). Ron/Rand would be the first real case.

 

[Guitarzan]

You consistently see racism where there isn't any. Fall back.

If you persist in doing this, you are going to become the RPFs version of "the boy who cried wolf" when it comes to racism.
Once you get that reputation, people around here will not take you seriously if and when you decry actual, genuine racism.

I stopped taking Vanguard seriously when he stated that the war on drugs was unconstitutional because congress didn't declare it.

Vanguard says: You distinguish between libertarians and conservatives so where is your warrant for Cruz not being a conservative? Fiscal conservatism and positions on war are two entirely different things. Yes, I admit he's bad on some social issues and the federal drug war is only unconstitutional because it wasn't declared. I admit he's a hawk. Goldwater was a hawk too. In all honesty, I never asked you to stand with him. Oh and on Syria, you are wrong. He said he would vote no and gave legitimate reasons. That's when I began reconsidering him.

link: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453213-Current-members-of-Team-Liberty&highlight=war+drugs

 

[Matt Collins]

Paul won zero primaries, and the caucus cases are disputed, depending on how you do the count. Ignoring the substance of what I pointed out, and just repeating your propaganda line doesn't make it true. I do agree Rand would have to actively pursue the third party nod, an abstentia nomination would not happen, due to the stigma the GOP carries with it.

To repeat, a seriously funded, nationally popular figure can win as a third party candidate. The system is indeed designed to deprive such contenders of the money, media coverage and national momentum to be viable, but if the figure already has those features he can win, since he then has the means of bypassing the establishment obstacles. There just hasn't been a test case to provide proof of concept of this on election day (and no, Perot doesn't count, as he didn't spend the money, and compromised his momentum). Ron/Rand would be the first real case.

Rand does not want a 3rd party nomination, and Ron was smart enough not to want it either. Quit being obtuse, third parties are not viable. This has been explained numerous times, besides being self evident. Seriously, if you're going to join in the discussion here, at least make an effort to try and keep up.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Rand does not want a 3rd party nomination, and Ron was smart enough not to want it either. Quit being obtuse, third parties are not viable. This has been explained numerous times, besides being self evident. Seriously, if you're going to join in the discussion here, at least make an effort to try and keep up.

Well, P&F, I guess you're just a hobo on the Liberty Train - and the railroad dick cometh ...

"Tickets, please!" ... or GTFO, you "riff raff" ...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Rand does not want a 3rd party nomination, and Ron was smart enough not to want it either. Quit being obtuse, third parties are not viable. This has been explained numerous times, besides being self evident. Seriously, if you're going to join in the discussion here, at least make an effort to try and keep up.

I think I'm the one thinking 18 months ahead, and it's your propagandizing, shopworn cant that is the slow deer in the headlights. I've said my piece, and patiently counter-explained not only how the third party run is viable, but most likely the only viable scenario by which Rand will be able to leverage himself to a Republican nomination victory, all of which you have ignored. Circa the first day of spring in 2016, when Paul Inc. has again failed to get anywhere following the same failed approach, you will at last catch on.

Your view more self-serving than self evident. You've managed to not even pick up that I was not primarily talking about a third party run in and of itself (though it would be nice to see a Paul on the November 2016 ballot), but its usefulness to get Rand to victory in the GOP primaries. The obstacles to that goal are the same as they were '08 and '12, and absent the "game changer" counter-strategy mentioned, unlikely to be over taken by Rand. If you have a new, alternative plan for dealing with those obstacles, please provide it. Otherwise, we've tried it your way twice, and it doesn't work. Again, I hope I can be proven wrong. We'll see if things change in the next 18 months, that is all I will concede.

 

[Vanguard101]

LOL!! You are so funny! I feel like I'm talking with a child throwing a hissy fit. YOU brought racism into this. Remeber this quote?


Racist ties? Who brought that up? YOU DID! Then you go stumbling around trying to explain how your comment has anything to do with the topic people are discussing. Do you know what the AUMF is? Everyone voted to authorize it except for ONE person and she ended up being the one that was right all along. So her video was linked. The fact that she was black had NOTHING to do with anything. But somehow you in your brilliant mind decided to link that to racism.... Then you go bumbling around trying to explain yourself. Making yourself look even more stupid every post.

Good job! You crack me up! Genius!

More stupidity. That comment about you being white does not bring racism into the thread.


The media projects Ron to have racist ties. They have done it for decades. I never once said Ron was RACIST. Quote me where I said Ron was RACIST.

You consistently see racism where there isn't any. Fall back.

If you persist in doing this, you are going to become the RPFs version of "the boy who cried wolf" when it comes to racism.
Once you get that reputation, people around here will not take you seriously if and when you decry actual, genuine racism.

I didn't read your post. You are still on my dick though.

What the hell does "borderline supremely overrated" even mean? Even with his colossal failure in voting for AUMF, Ron has done more to help spread awareness to the war/police state than any public figure in decades.

He's overrated when you guys make him some godsent infallible politician and everyone has to be exactly like him.
You guys want Rand to be a clone of Ron. What's ironic is he's basically a clone when factoring Ron's entire career in congress. Not just the few years he began blowing up.

I stopped taking Vanguard seriously when he stated that the war on drugs was unconstitutional because congress didn't declare it.

Vanguard says: You distinguish between libertarians and conservatives so where is your warrant for Cruz not being a conservative? Fiscal conservatism and positions on war are two entirely different things. Yes, I admit he's bad on some social issues and the federal drug war is only unconstitutional because it wasn't declared. I admit he's a hawk. Goldwater was a hawk too. In all honesty, I never asked you to stand with him. Oh and on Syria, you are wrong. He said he would vote no and gave legitimate reasons. That's when I began reconsidering him.
It was

 

[Matt Collins]

how the third party run is viable, but most likely the only viable scenario by which Rand will be able to leverage himself to a Republican nomination victory, all of which you have ignored. Circa the first day of spring in 2016, when Paul Inc. has again failed to get anywhere following the same failed approach, you will at last catch on.

The world doesnt work that way, and it makes no sense to do that. Besides, Ron was smart enough to understand this.

but its usefulness to get Rand to victory in the GOP primaries. The obstacles to that goal are the same as they were '08 and '12, and absent the "game changer" counter-strategy mentioned, unlikely to be over taken by Rand.

The GOP is not going to nominate someone based on the fact that they might run 3rd party. And besides, Rand is NOT going to run 3rd party, so it doesn't matter.

 

[twomp]

More stupidity. That comment about you being white does not bring racism into the thread.

Do you even know how to read? Talk about stupid. DID YOU NOT SAY THIS?

Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

You brought racism into a thread that had nothing to do with racism all because a video was linked with a black congressmen speaking in it. Just simply linking that video automatically means racism to you now? Because you have a hard time understanding anything, you didn't realize that Barbara Lee was linked because she was CORRECT in her vote.

But you with that chip on your shoulder plus the fact that you are dumb as rocks decided to make it about racism for some stupid reason. Now you spent the rest of the time trying to explain your stupid reasoning for doing it (and failing miserably!). It's amusing watching you try to bumble your way out of this though. It's even MORE amusing to see how stupid you are that you can't even understand what you did.

BUT go ahead and cry RACISM again. It seems like you enjoy doing that. OMG OMG RACISM! OMG OMG! RACIST TIES!! OMG OMG!

 

[Vanguard101]

Do you even know how to read? Talk about stupid. DID YOU NOT SAY THIS?



You brought racism into a thread that had nothing to do with racism all because a video was linked with a black congressmen speaking in it. Just simply linking that video automatically means racism to you now? Because you have a hard time understanding anything, you didn't realize that Barbara Lee was linked because she was CORRECT in her vote.

But you with that chip on your shoulder plus the fact that you are dumb as rocks decided to make it about racism for some stupid reason. Now you spent the rest of the time trying to explain your stupid reasoning for doing it (and failing miserably!). It's amusing watching you try to bumble your way out of this though. It's even MORE amusing to see how stupid you are that you can't even understand what you did.

BUT go ahead and cry RACISM again. It seems like you enjoy doing that. OMG OMG RACISM! OMG OMG! RACIST TIES!! OMG OMG!

You are really stupid. Me discussing you being white is not a conversation about RACISM. Racism deals with the superiority of one race over another dickhead. The rest of your post is you crying because you are too incompetent to understand what I posted.