Rand Paul: Yeah, I Guess I'd Support Trump As The Nominee

erowe1 said:
This is news to you?
Click to expand...

What? I don't even know what this means. You're the one who is acting surprised about my comments. Is that news to you?

erowe1 said:
What character, conscience, priorities, and principles do you see in Rand's words here? Do you think there has to be any more to it than just exactly what he said?
Click to expand...

There's always excuses to be made, especially when one is defending one's own actions, choices, and words. I can't say I really care about such excuses, quite honestly.

Why are you defending an endorsement of Trump is what I find most curious. Are you a Trump supporter? Will you be voting for Trump if he wins the nomination, as Rand would evidently promote? Do you think a vote for Trump in such a scenario is aligned with the pursuit of liberty? Do you think it would be wise, conscientious, and principled to make such a vote? Would you donate to his campaign and support him?

If you wouldn't do these things, it would seem you're not in agreement with Rand on this point either. In which case, why are you arguing with me about it? Or is this just another case of an incapacity to be objectively critical when it comes to Rand, because 'he can do no wrong?'
 
Last edited:
Cabal said:
--



Endorsements don't matter? They don't speak to character, conscience, priorities, or principles? I think they do.

I was simply hoping Rand wouldn't endorse someone with an obviously terrible political platform that has no allegiance with liberty, regardless of anything else. Perhaps my expectations are too demanding of Rand.
Click to expand...

Were you this upset about lack of principles when Ron Paul endorsed a slate that included Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. If not, then why weren't you? As terrible as Trump is, he is clearly light years better than two Communists.

And what do you mean lack of principles? EVERY SINGLE CANDIDATE is a compromise candidate. It is just a matter of degree. In life you are presented with choices. Often you have to make the best choice among no great options. And not supporting anyone has downsides. That isn't a perfect choice. You aren't upset with Rand compromising. You are upset with his logic, which you disagree with.
 
Krugminator2 said:
Were you this upset about lack of principles when Ron Paul endorsed a slate that included Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. If not, then why weren't you? As terrible as Trump is, he is clearly light years better than two Communists.
Click to expand...

A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil. Keep compromising and conceding though, I'm sure it'll all work out eventually. :rolleyes:
 
Cabal said:
A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil. Keep compromising and conceding though, I'm sure it'll all work out eventually. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I am not an anarchist. I believe the outcome in anarchy is worse than the outcome of a system of limited constitutional government. That isn't a compromise. I think you are wrong. I fundamentally disagree with you. People who disagree with you are not compromisers. I don't think voting is some evil aggressive act. It is fine if you believe that. I think that is a brain-dead view. But I don't think you are a compromiser for holding it.
 
Krugminator2 said:
I am not an anarchist.
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate for you, but so what? I'm not impressed by false dichotomies in order to rationalize votes for evil, nor did I ask to hear about them. This isn't about voting vs. not voting. This is about the idea that encouraging, advocating, promoting, or endorsing votes for Trump is absurdly inexcusable for anyone who claims to promote liberty.
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
I think it's a strategic error to endorse Trump (his Presidency would be a catastrophe, best to not be associated with it), but I understand why he thinks he might have to.
Click to expand...

I don't think *support* and *endorse* are the same thing.
 
Cabal said:
That's unfortunate for you, but so what? I'm not impressed by false dichotomies in order to rationalize votes for evil, nor did I ask to hear about them. This isn't about voting vs. not voting. This is about the idea that encouraging, advocating, promoting, or endorsing votes for Trump is absurdly inexcusable for anyone who claims to promote liberty.
Click to expand...

And supporting Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader is a million times worse. For some reason I doubt you criticized Ron Paul for that but you feel perfectly okay criticizing Rand. You can't have it both ways.
 
Krugminator2 said:
For some reason I doubt you criticized Ron Paul for that but you feel perfectly okay criticizing Rand. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do prefer feels before reals. That's unfortunate for you, too. I'm not trying to have it both ways, despite what baseless assumptions about me you'd like to invent in order to feel better about your own nonsense.
 
Cabal said:
--



Endorsements don't matter? They don't speak to character, conscience, priorities, or principles? I think they do.

I was simply hoping Rand wouldn't endorse someone with an obviously terrible political platform that has no allegiance with liberty, regardless of anything else. Perhaps my expectations are too demanding of Rand.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're totally clueless since Rand said when the race first began that he would support the ultimate GOP nominee. That's the way party politics works. Rand is trying that route rather than running as an independent.
 
Cabal said:
What? I don't even know what this means. You're the one who is acting surprised about my comments. Is that news to you?
Click to expand...

Yes. It is news that someone here still thinks that Rands hemming and hawing about a hypothetical possibility of a future endorsement of his party's nominee against the Democrat nominee must somehow be a reflection his character, conscience, priorities, or principles.

I mean, where have you been for the past 8 years?
 
Krugminator2 said:
And supporting Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader is a million times worse. For some reason I doubt you criticized Ron Paul for that but you feel perfectly okay criticizing Rand. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Ron never supported either of them. Ron endorsed Chuck Baldwin and no one else for president in 2008.

Also you're wrong. Trump is a million times worse than either Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader.
 
Is there an equivalence to beer goggles? How many beers would you have to drink in order to force yourself to stomach voting for a president Trump?
 
Brett85 said:
Perhaps you're totally clueless since Rand said when the race first began that he would support the ultimate GOP nominee. That's the way party politics works. Rand is trying that route rather than running as an independent.
Click to expand...

No, I understand that perfectly fine. I just don't find that to be a good excuse. If he wasn't comfortable with the idea of endorsing someone like Trump, or Cruz, or Rubio, or Christie, or whoever, he should have never made that promise in the first place. That he did make that promise says to me he was comfortable with those possibilities. And thus, I will continue to criticize him for finding that acceptable.

erowe1 said:
Isn't preferring feels to reals exactly what you've been doing in this whole thread?
Click to expand...

I don't feel that Rand would endorse Trump if he were the nominee. He has really admitted as much.

So, no. That isn't what I've been doing. I would say nice try, but that was actually quite fucking pathetic and lulsy.
 
What size jackboot do you think Rand wears? I'm curious about how it will feel when he stomps down on my face at the Fuehrer's behest.
 
Cabal said:
Partisanship > principles.

I'm not really sure what's worse. That he ever agreed to endorse Trump, or that so many of you are apologizing and making excuses for him.
Click to expand...

That ship already sailed when he endorsed Mitt Romney. I despise Trump but Romney was arguably worse. That said Rand was out of the gates attacking Trump but he did so wrongheadedly. He attacked Trump on style rather than substance. In the first debate he should have said "Someone like Donald Trump who in his book The America We Deserve called for an assault weapons ban shouldn't even be in the running for the GOP nomination." Instead he attacked Trump for calling people fat and ugly. Stupid Rand. Stupid.
 
erowe1 said:
Limited constitutional government. That's what North Korea has, right?
Click to expand...

What limit is there on the power of the Supreme Leader in North Korea? Okay, he's not allowed to stop or reverse time but that's the laws of nature stopping him, not the NK constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top