Rand Paul's Latest Email

[Christian Liberty]

You're going to be upset with the guy a lot then because that's kind of his whole political operation.

Its true. Hence why I prefer Ron, and always have. I hope Rand is just playing the game, but how would I know?

Admittedly, I do genuinely wonder how Rand's views would change behind closed doors in the presence of other libertarians. I wonder if he'd still argue for the same positions he's arguing for now or not.

 

[libertywanter]

I am not sure if you just like to engage in arguments or what, but you sure do make a lot of posts bashing Rand Paul. If you enjoy bashing Rand Paul why don't you go get on facebook or some other site. I understand that this site is called Ron Paul Forums, but I for one joined it because of Rand and I am sure many others have as well. You can wish all you want that Rand be more like Ron or some other person, but he is who he is and if you don't like that, that is fine, but don't spew your anger on a site that has dedication of seeing things go well for him. If I wanted to be upset I would get on Facebook to see derogatory comments about Rand, I sure don't expect them to be on this site. Constructive criticism can be good, but this surely isn't constructive.

How could you be angry at someone for Bin Laden not having a trial, there are many more injustices that are going on besides that, why would you be angry at someone for them wanting another human being to not be tortured, why would you be upset at a person that wants to cut foreign aid to countries that hate us? Why do you expect Rand to be perfect? Why do you think Ron is perfect? Why do you think Rand should be more like Ron when Ron was incapable of reaching higher power? I quit getting on facebook because of all the bashing, why must you bring it here to a site that is supposed to be supporting Rand. While Rand surely isn't perfect he is the best hope that this country has, he is the only libertarian minded potential candidate for presidency that actually has a shot at being elected. A true full fledged libertarian has no chance at all to be elected, at least not at this time.

The only way that a full fledged libertarian would have a shot at presidency is if a gradual and very gradual shift occurs. While full fledged libertarians like yourself do not agree with Rand on all matters, you should understand that Rand would be the best pathway that you have to head in the direction of a more libertarian government. Rand has done more for this country than anyone has in a very long time. I for one feel very fortunate that he is in the government. I also accept his faults not only because he is human but he is doing very good things for this country. His good points far outweigh any bad points.

 

[Christian Liberty]

First off, if you read my post, I did agree with Rand on the torture bit.

I absolutely agree that Bin Laden not getting a trial is nowhere near the biggest injustice in the country. But that was the particular email that Rand sent that I was addressing.

I do NOT think Ron is perfect. I'm a little more radical than Ron, to be honest. But Ron is really, really darn close. Rand has disappointed me multiple times in the past couple weeks between the Snowden comments andthe waffling on Iranian sanctions (Which he should have opposed without question) so its nowhere near just this.

And all that said... I might still vote for him. We don't have any good options right now.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I am not sure if you just like to engage in arguments or what, but you sure do make a lot of posts bashing Rand Paul. If you enjoy bashing Rand Paul why don't you go get on facebook or some other site. I understand that this site is called Ron Paul Forums, but I for one joined it because of Rand and I am sure many others have as well. You can wish all you want that Rand be more like Ron or some other person, but he is who he is and if you don't like that, that is fine, but don't spew your anger on a site that has dedication of seeing things go well for him. If I wanted to be upset I would get on Facebook to see derogatory comments about Rand, I sure don't expect them to be on this site. Constructive criticism can be good, but this surely isn't constructive.

How could you be angry at someone for Bin Laden not having a trial, there are many more injustices that are going on besides that, why would you be angry at someone for them wanting another human being to not be tortured, why would you be upset at a person that wants to cut foreign aid to countries that hate us? Why do you expect Rand to be perfect? Why do you think Ron is perfect? Why do you think Rand should be more like Ron when Ron was incapable of reaching higher power? I quit getting on facebook because of all the bashing, why must you bring it here to a site that is supposed to be supporting Rand. While Rand surely isn't perfect he is the best hope that this country has, he is the only libertarian minded potential candidate for presidency that actually has a shot at being elected. A true full fledged libertarian has no chance at all to be elected, at least not at this time.

The only way that a full fledged libertarian would have a shot at presidency is if a gradual and very gradual shift occurs. While full fledged libertarians like yourself do not agree with Rand on all matters, you should understand that Rand would be the best pathway that you have to head in the direction of a more libertarian government. Rand has done more for this country than anyone has in a very long time. I for one feel very fortunate that he is in the government. I also accept his faults not only because he is human but he is doing very good things for this country. His good points far outweigh any bad points.

Anything Rand Paul does as president will be associated with libertarianism.

Think about that - about his pandering, his race to appear moderate, his abandonment of libertarianism.

Then think about what else could go wrong during a potential presidency. Bond collapse? Another economic calamity? Terrorist attack? Scandal involving a cabinet member or executive branch head?

Do you really want any of those things being associated with libertarianism? Even one of those things happening is a massive setback for the libertarian movement, not a step forward.

To note, I didn't even get into the fact that Congress wouldn't pass a single bill that would advance libertarian legislative agendas in any meaningful sense. In short, there is massive risk to having Rand Paul in the White House at this time, in his current form and political climate, and there is very little possible reward.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Anything Rand Paul does as president will be associated with libertarianism.

Think about that - about his pandering, his race to appear moderate, his abandonment of libertarianism.

Then think about what else could go wrong during a potential presidency. Bond collapse? Another economic calamity? Terrorist attack? Scandal involving a cabinet member or executive branch head?

Do you really want any of those things being associated with libertarianism? Even one of those things happening is a massive setback for the libertarian movement, not a step forward.

To note, I didn't even get into the fact that Congress wouldn't pass a single bill that would advance libertarian legislative agendas in any meaningful sense. In short, there is massive risk to having Rand Paul in the White House at this time, in his current form and political climate, and there is very little possible reward.

I hate it. It makes me want to go crazy. I don't expect perfection. But as much as it disgusts me, what you say here is absolutely, 100% correct. What hope do we have?

 

[Saint Vitus]

So according to Rand, the U.S. should "get tough instead of talking tough" with Iran, John McCain is a "war hero", Snowden should be tried, and the U.S. should get involved with Pakistan's internal affairs regarding this "Dr."

 

[cajuncocoa]

Question for those who support the approach Rand is taking: when has liberty ever been advanced through the political process? And was it sustainable?

 

[Christian Liberty]

So according to Rand, the U.S. should "get tough instead of talking tough" with Iran, John McCain is a "war hero", Snowden should be tried, and the U.S. should get involved with Pakistan's internal affairs regarding this "Dr."

All that and its going to get labeled as "libertarian."

Question for those who support the approach Rand is taking: when has liberty ever been advanced through the political process? And was it sustainable?

I don't even know if FeedingtheAbscess is right or not, but the kind of responses I'm getting from people who seem to obviously not even care if he's right or not makes me inclined to think that deep down, they know he is.

I hope FeedingtheAbscess doesn't take this the wrong way, but I definitely hope he's 100% wrong. I'd like nothing more than for Rand to get elected and to be a paragon of liberty, for him to be able to even halfway fix the problems this country is going through. But frankly, I don't think its going to be able to happen. People only get less libertarian as they get stronger. Let Rand do as much damage to the establishment as he can from where he is. Getting him into the White House will only corrupt him.

A truly libertarian President would not even need to be able to impact legislation directly. As long as he could avoid getting impeached, the bully pulpit and the power of the pardon would be enough.

 

[libertywanter]

Anything Rand Paul does as president will be associated with libertarianism.

Think about that - about his pandering, his race to appear moderate, his abandonment of libertarianism.

Then think about what else could go wrong during a potential presidency. Bond collapse? Another economic calamity? Terrorist attack? Scandal involving a cabinet member or executive branch head?

Do you really want any of those things being associated with libertarianism? Even one of those things happening is a massive setback for the libertarian movement, not a step forward.

To note, I didn't even get into the fact that Congress wouldn't pass a single bill that would advance libertarian legislative agendas in any meaningful sense. In short, there is massive risk to having Rand Paul in the White House at this time, in his current form and political climate, and there is very little possible reward.

So you don't want Rand because he is not libertarian enough, but would be associated with libertarians and harm the libertarian party because you believe he will be a screw up for a president? That is your opinion and your entitled to it, but in my opinion I would say he is one of the best people we have in DC. He may not be perfect but he sure does a lot of good things. You say you don't want Rand to be president because something bad could happen while he is president such as a bond collapse, terrorist attack or scandal, Well couldn't these things happen at any time with any president? You may never want to put a libertarian in ever because those threats will always be present.

You say that congress would not pass any libertarian bills. Do you think that a full-fledged libertarian would be able to work with congress easier than Rand? I don't think so, Rand has more appeal to all of congress than a full fledged libertarian would because his views align a little better with theirs.

If you don't think Rand is worthy of your vote, then by all means find a no-name full fledged libertarian that no one has ever heard of and pull votes from Rand to support someone that wont make it and then we can have Hillary or some other liberal jackass pick up the reins of our current president.

This country does not have time to wait around for what the true libertarians want. Rand Paul is the closest thing you will ever have a chance with. The country is getting more liberal by the minute and the liberals are continuing to grow their power. I honestly believe that Rand is a huge step in the right direction. I do not agree with all he says and does but I don't think I would ever find any candidate that I would agree fully with.

 

[libertywanter]

Question for those who support the approach Rand is taking: when has liberty ever been advanced through the political process? And was it sustainable?

Liberty has never advanced through the political process, so do you think people should just not care who gets elected? Ignoring the government is not going to make it go away. Getting Rand in the white house would certainly help ease the pain of government.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think Rand is more useful in the senate than the Presidency. The biggest areas in which the President has power, the power of the pardon and the bully pulpit, are the areas in which Rand is weakest, considering he compromises principles and takes "the law is the law" stances way too often. In the senate, voting matters a lot more.

 

[TheGrinch]

Question for those who support the approach Rand is taking: when has liberty ever been advanced through the political process? And was it sustainable?

History is filled with things that never happened before, and I can assure you they didn't get there by thinking that what they were trying to do was impossible.

History is also filled with gradualism. They did not strip us of our liberties and sell us down the river all at once. They were patient, influencing the populace and positioning themselves to maintain their power. Rome was not built in a day, as they say...

To think we can undo that with a "my way or the highway" attitude is naive. We need people to continue to wake up (I know we hear that term all the time but don't seem to understand what it means. You don't go from seeing the world one way to seeing it completely differently right away. It is a gradual process of awakening we all had).

I've seen these methods work with my own eyes, and people end up coming to the conclusion that Ron Paul was right after being led there. It is happening all over the place, and you want to pretend we're not having success changing a lot of minds? It's very evident we are. We're past the tipping point already.

If you don't think incrementalism is a sound strategy, then fine, continue to educate (regardless) and wait for the collapse so you can say "I told you so", I know I will too. But please stay out of the way of those trying to actually accomplish something before they completely destroy this country and any chance of freedom we have to oppose it.

You can feel better about your principles and moral superiority by being "above politics", but do it without bringing down the few people we have fighting for any of our causes. Leave them be until/unless they show that they're bought out by lobbyists/elite and are not working for liberty.

Rand has shown more than enough for people to stop bitching about his views and methods. He's clearly on our side and proof that our ideas are catching on... I'm sorry he's not always going to be like Ron in his rhetoric, but you all have to realize the shit-storm he's trying to go against. He's doing everything he can realistically achieve.

 

[T.hill]

All that and its going to get labeled as "libertarian."


I don't even know if FeedingtheAbscess is right or not, but the kind of responses I'm getting from people who seem to obviously not even care if he's right or not makes me inclined to think that deep down, they know he is.

I hope FeedingtheAbscess doesn't take this the wrong way, but I definitely hope he's 100% wrong. I'd like nothing more than for Rand to get elected and to be a paragon of liberty, for him to be able to even halfway fix the problems this country is going through. But frankly, I don't think its going to be able to happen. People only get less libertarian as they get stronger. Let Rand do as much damage to the establishment as he can from where he is. Getting him into the White House will only corrupt him.

A truly libertarian President would not even need to be able to impact legislation directly. As long as he could avoid getting impeached, the bully pulpit and the power of the pardon would be enough.

I very much care if Rand is principled, but I just don't see superficial rhetoric as a legitimate problem, his voting record is available to those who worry about him. A lot of whats he says you probably agree with and you just don't think he goes far enough, but he narrows disscussion to what he deems appropiate or relevant. Rand has said numerous times that he favors eliminating all foreign aid, why should he have to repeat it everytime when hes trying to direct conversation in a certain way?

I know you and others have your reservations with Rand and I respect your critiques, but don't confuse valid criticism with a personal desire for him to act and talk exactly like Ron, because it ends in character assassination. I engage with you because I want you to support Rand.

 

[T.hill]

Also, Rand is a libertarian, even if he personally told me he wasn't his voting record would show me otherwise.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand is the most libertarian Senator in over a century.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Anything that could be said involving this Osama bin Laden murder operation is going to be wrong in one way or another. Anything that's not politically suicidal, that is. The whole operation -- the whole story we were told about the operation -- no, strike that, too: the multiple conflicting stories the gov't told about the operation were fishy and surely false in one way or another. We'll probably never know the truth.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Question for those who support the approach Rand is taking: when has liberty ever been advanced through the political process? And was it sustainable?

Humans act. The content and thus the outcome of those actions is unpredictable.

Anyone who thinks they have a Grand System or even just a single Rule stating what humans can and can't or will and won't do is exibiting arrogance and hubris. An example of such a rule: "Liberty cannot be advanced sustainably through the political process."

 

[eduardo89]

I think Rand is more useful in the senate than the Presidency. The biggest areas in which the President has power, the power of the pardon and the bully pulpit, are the areas in which Rand is weakest, considering he compromises principles and takes "the law is the law" stances way too often. In the senate, voting matters a lot more.

You think the biggest area where the President has power is the power to pardon??

 

[cajuncocoa]

Question for those who support the approach Rand is taking: when has liberty ever been advanced through the political process? And was it sustainable?

Thanks to those who answered this question. I didn't raise it to argue with you; I really wanted your thoughts on this.

My thought is that the political process it to fickle for sustainable liberty and I'm not even certain that most people want it. I've come to terms with the idea that this is why Rand has to say the things he says at times, but I don't like it. If I had to vote today I would still vote for him, but I find this process deceitful, and therefore, unsustainable.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Anything that could be said involving this Osama bin Laden murder operation is going to be wrong in one way or another. Anything that's not politically suicidal, that is. The whole operation -- the whole story we were told about the operation -- no, strike that, too: the multiple conflicting stories the gov't told about the operation were fishy and surely false in one way or another. We'll probably never know the truth.

So why address it? Why try to get Americans fired up to get more involved with Pakistan's internal affairs? How is this helping anything?

You think the biggest area where the President has power is the power to pardon??

For Rand Paul, yes. Both sides of congress will be against him if he has even half his dad's principles going in.

Obviously for a statist who wants to make the government bigger and bigger, this is not the case.

@thill- I'll probably gamble: once. Why not? I don't see any hope so I'll try anything, once. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize Rand when his rhetoric is hawkish.