Rolling Stone: Rand Paul is Losing His Own Flame War

[AuH20]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rand-paul-is-losing-his-own-flame-war-20150814

Paul isn't just screwing up; he's screwing up comprehensively. His attacks on Donald Trump this last week have been an effete shitshow. He's drawing negative attention back on his own campaign, and he's undermining his default brand – that of the semi-cool academic type who can't be bothered with how wrong everyone is. He's coming off as the thirstiest dude in a field of candidates whose thirst baseline already looks like a bunch of guys who got stranded in the desert after going to town on a salt lick.

And Donald Trump, who may be the greatest troll in a generation, is bringing out the worst of this. Rand Paul is mad. Rand Paul is not composed, and he is real mad.

There's an old rule about arguing on the Internet: never pick a fight with someone who obviously cares less than you. The lower the stakes, and the lower your stature, the funnier it is that you're spitting in the face of someone who can barely stay awake. To put this in practical political terms: Don't get in a flame war with Donald Trump. He doesn't care. He's amazed you're still talking about him after he got back from the magnificent Trump Turnberry golf course (which he owns). Trump's VP shortlist is probably just people he knows are willing to legally change their names so his bumper stickers can read: "TRUMP/IDGAF."

Instead of distracting from his campaign stumbles, Paul's throwing them into sharp relief. Rather than narrowing the distance between him and Trump, it's exposing the shortness of his reach. And the smug cool of Brand Paul is basically puling like the school smartass who refuses to acknowledge that he can credibly lose.

He's trying to burn Donald Trump by throwing stones through his glass house, bouncing them off the tree outside and doinking himself in the forehead on the ricochet. Which would be bad enough, but he shouldn't be trying to burn Trump at all. You can't burn this man. Here you were shouting at him while he was at the most luxurious and exclusive resort in the world (everyone loves it) and didn't know you were still talking about him until he got back and saw you still here. He mentioned your name to his wife, a very very beautiful woman you could never date, and she'd never heard of you.

 

[Demigod]

I think that it would be far wiser for him to try to become governor.

 

[acptulsa]

The Gospel According to Rolling Stone.

Just because the establishment media is trying to turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't mean they are succeeding. And the fact that they are trying isn't exactly newsworthy.

I think that it would be far wiser for him to try to become governor.

But Kentucky isn't what needs to be fixed.

Dude's a doctor. He isn't looking for a sinecure. He wants to fix broken stuff. He wants people to be able to see.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Hasn't Rolling Stone always hated the Pauls and said really horribly crap that wasn't true about Ron and Rand, all the way back to 2007? All the sudden Au thinks RollingStone magazine is gospel truth?

 

[dannno]

There are two ways to listen to people. You can listen to what people say and you can listen to how people say it.

More intelligent people tend to listen to what is being said and use how it is being said as a reference point.

Less intelligent people don't really pay much attention to what is being said, but how it is being said.

The author of this piece is in the group that is "less intelligent".

People who are less intelligent think that Rand Paul is losing these arguments. People who are more intelligent think Rand Paul is winning these arguments.

I put a lot more stock in humanity than a lot of people here and I think Rand's strategy just might end up paying off.

I could be wrong, we could actually be heading toward Idiocracy.

Either way it's a really interesting dynamic to watch.

 

[acptulsa]

Hasn't Rolling Stone always hated the Pauls and said really horribly crap that wasn't true about Ron and Rand, all the way back to 2007? All the sudden Au thinks RollingStone magazine is gospel truth?

Nothing sudden about it. He has been a trollish figure around here from the very beginning.

We just keep him around to prove we believe in free speech. And for the lulz.

People who are less intelligent think that Rand Paul is losing these arguments. People who are more intelligent think Rand Paul is winning these arguments.

It's a really interesting dynamic to watch.

A very sage observation. And very true.

The facts will out in the end. They always do. But, yeah, it would happen faster if Rand would crank up the humor. Because Reagan was the perfect combination of facts and delivery, and struck the perfect balance of passion and humor. If only he had walked his talk we wouldn't be in this mess today.

 

[AuH20]

There are two ways to listen to people. You can listen to what people say and you can listen to how people say it.

More intelligent people tend to listen to what is being said and use how it is being said as a reference point.

Less intelligent people don't really pay much attention to what is being said, but how it is being said.

The author of this piece is in the group that is "less intelligent".

People who are less intelligent think that Rand Paul is losing these arguments. People who are more intelligent think Rand Paul is winning these arguments.

I put a lot more stock in humanity than a lot of people here and I think Rand's strategy just might end up paying off.

I could be wrong, we could actually be heading toward Idiocracy.

Either way it's a really interesting dynamic to watch.

Yes, I'm sure Rand was thrilled that Trump reminded the entire nation that a member of his campaign team was recently indicted. That's the type of PR we all desire.

And then people in this very forum are likely going to blame the media and electorate when his unfavorability shoots over the 50% mark in Iowa? It's clearly evident that someone 'leapt without looking' when they decided to embark on this ridiculous crusade. You never beat the guy with the bigger microphone who's willing to go blow for blow with you in the mud. Never. This is Politics 101.

 

[WeTheVigilant]

No surprise to see establishment media demonizing Paul for trying to make a name for himself and expose Trump in the process.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes, I'm sure Rand was thrilled that Trump reminded the entire nation that a member of his campaign team was recently indicted. That's the type of PR we all desire.
And then people in this very forum are going to blame the media and electorate when his unfavorability shoots over the 50% mark in Iowa? It's clearly evident that someone 'leapt without looking' when they decided to embark on this ridiculous crusade. You never beat the guy with the bigger microphone who's willing to go blow for blow with you. Never.

A member of which campaign team? The one that won, and that you want him to repeat and emulate on a national scale? Because to intimate (as you are doing here) that the indicted were part of the current campaign is to spread disinformation. And you've known for a very long time how we feel about disinformation.

Many have come here to inform us that they stand for nothing, and will fall for anything. Damned few have felt the need to remind us of it every day for six years running.

 

[dannno]

Yes, I'm sure Rand was thrilled that Trump reminded the entire nation that a member of his campaign team was recently indicted. That's the type of PR we all desire.

Yes, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, Benton is not on his campaign team he was part of a PAC. Benton committed the crime he is being charged for under his father's 2012 campaign and the courts have already established that Ron was not involved and had no knowledge. The only crime he is being charged for is lying to the FEC, the actions that led to the questioning were legal, it was just a matter of correctly reporting campaign funds.

The more intelligent person would ask these questions and find out what happened and whether there was any negligible actions on Rand Paul's behalf before condemning him simply based on what Donald Trump says. The less intelligent person will simply say, "Ohh!! Burrn!!!"

And then people in this very forum are likely going to blame the media and electorate when his unfavorability shoots over the 50% mark in Iowa? It's clearly evident that someone 'leapt without looking' when they decided to embark on this ridiculous crusade. You never beat the guy with the bigger microphone who's willing to go blow for blow with you in the mud. Never. This is Politics 101.

That's a great rule if there is legitimately something negative to be said about Rand Paul, or if you have a media that is willing to lie and manipulate situations in a way that convince voters.

There isn't really an area where you can legitimately attack Rand without being intellectually dishonest and shallow, however, so Rand is a great person to be going after Donald Trump.

 

[AuH20]

Yes, see, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, Benton is not on his campaign team he was part of a PAC. Benton committed the crime he is being charged for under his father's 2012 campaign and the courts have already established that Ron was not involved and had no knowledge. The only crime he is being charged for is lying to the FEC, the actions that led to the questioning were legal, it was just a matter of correctly reporting campaign funds.

The more intelligent person would ask these questions and find out what happened and whether there was any negligible actions on Rand Paul's behalf before condemning him simply based on what Donald Trump says. The less intelligent person will simply say, "Ohh!! Burrn!!!"

Semantics. He is employed for the explicit purpose of helping Rand secure the nomination. Plus, he's an inlaw of Rand's for Christ sake. You don't seem to understand how perception works. This indictment is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the less the public knew about was beneficial. Having Donald Trump make off the cuff jokes about this issue during national press conferences does not help the cause. Did Rand think that Trump would just stand there like a mannequin after he attacked him? Once again, the lack of awareness backfires when the lower level celebrity goes on the attack.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Semantics. He is employed

Campaigns who hire/employ/coordinate with PACs go to prison, because it's illegal. A direct and unequivocal violation of federal law. Is Rand Paul in prison? No? then you are spewing bullshit lies. Again.

for the explicit purpose of helping Rand secure the nomination. Plus, he's an inlaw of Rand's for Christ sake. You don't seem to understand how perception works. This indictment is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the less the public knew about was beneficial. Having Donald Trump make off the cuff jokes about this issue during national press conferences does not help the cause. Did Rand think that Trump would just stand there like a mannequin after he attacked him? Once again, the lack of awareness backfires when the lower level celebrity goes on the attack.

We get it. You like unprincipled blowhards over principled statesmen. The vast majority of us on Ron Paul forums prefer the Pauls over libtard progressives. Clearly you prefer libtard progressives so long as they speak in entertaining ways. Some of us have these things called 'principles' which prevent us from doing likewise.

 

[acptulsa]

Semantics. He is employed for the explicit purpose of helping Rand secure the nomination. Plus, he's an inlaw of Rand's for Christ sake. You don't seem to understand how perception works. This indictment is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the less the public knew about was beneficial. Having Donald Trump make off the cuff jokes about this issue during national press conferences does not help the cause. Did Rand think that Trump would just stand there like a mannequin after he attacked him? Once again, the lack of awareness backfires when the lower level celebrity goes on the attack.

Facts. You don't seem to understand how perception works. Lying constantly produces the perception that you are a liar. About 100% of the time, eventually. This crap was going to come out whether Rand attacked Trump or not. Having Trump bring it out--and having his supporters lie outright about it all over the net--merely leads to the perception that this thing only matters to liars. Which is pretty much true.

No, this feud with Trump is working beautifully. Rand Paul is getting coverage, getting street cred for having cojones, and is getting the benefit of having what mildly smelly laundry he does have aired out by the biggest lying, bribing mountain of seriously soiled laundry in the nation today. Which not only makes everyone question whether any of it is true, it helps them realize that Rand's 'dirty laundry' looks like it just came off the rack at the haberdashery by comparison.

And your only problem is you hate that it's working out so well for the long run. Which is why you're trying to browbeat us into talking Rand out of finishing what he so wisely started.

That debate exchange caused Trump to have to go all mealy-mouthed over support for our allies. If Rand and we press him about whether we should stop funding Israel before we stop funding all their and our enemies in the region, he'll end up eating a whole paragraph of his own words from that debate. So, tell us again how that's 'losing his own flame war'?

 

[Patrick Henry]

Like I say, show no quarter to Trump. Attack, attack, attack. Unless of course we are now going to heed the wisdom of the honorable and legitimate Rolling Stone of fake Rape fame? Trump is a giant D-bag that most people will realize at some point. Even if it doesn't work, it is always good to attack trash. my .02

 

[AuH20]

Campaigns who hire/employ/coordinate with PACs go to prison, because it's illegal. A direct and unequivocal violation of federal law. Is Rand Paul in prison? No? then you are spewing bullshit lies. Again.

Insider trading is supposed to be illegal too.

So PACs are run rudderless? Do you really believe that nonsense?

We get it. You like unprincipled blowhards over principled statesmen. The vast majority of us on Ron Paul forums prefer the Pauls over libtard progressives. Clearly you prefer libtard progressives so long as they speak in entertaining ways. Some of us have these things called 'principles' which prevent us from doing likewise.

First off, there are no principled statesmen. Secondly, it's not as doctrinaire as picking between the two.

 

[acptulsa]

First off, there are no principled statesmen.

See, this is the heart of your problem.

You see, you are a member of a very, very small segment of the population. The overwhelming majority of the people of the world do not believe, as you do, that what Fox Newscorp points their cameras at exists, and nothing else does.

 

[erowe1]

Why isn't AuH2O's rep bar red yet?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand Paul is mad.

And he has stated why he is mad. Trump has co-opted the anti-establishment Tea Party wing with a rallying cry of "everyone is an idiot" and "I can make the trains run on time build a fence."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Insider trading is supposed to be illegal too.

And people are arrested and sent to prison for it all. the. time. We even fund an entire government administration to arrest and prosecute such people, called the "Securities and Exchange Commission."

So PACs are run rudderless?

Not much for logic are you? The fact that a candidate and the candidate's official campaign is required by law to have no interaction with their super PACs mean these superpacs have no personnel in them? Because Rand Paul is not telling Benton what kind of ads to produce means Benton doesn't exist?

Do you really believe that nonsense?

Why yes. I have been directly involved in political campaigns large and small from 2007 unto this very day. My mother has served as Treasurer for several campaigns. Direct violations of federal campaign law is something that political campaigns tend to avoid. If the media won't call them out for breaking federal law, you can damn well bet their opponents will.

Now, maybe the establishmentarian candidates like Bush Romney or McCain get away with sending coordination via backchannels, but principled campaigns like Ron Paul and Rand Paul simply do not. I know this first hand, from experience. Not from "just guessing" that campaigns "probably" break the law because "it makes sense" that they would. I know from direct first hand experience that campaigns, at leas all of the non-establishment campaigns I have worked with, avoid communicating with PACs like they avoid the Black Plague.

First off, there are no principled statesmen.

Ron Paul is a principled statesman. Ron Paul raised a child named Rand Paul, who is also a principled statesman. If there were no such thing as a principled statesman, then we would not have words and terms specifically to refer to such people. You may believe that Ron Paul was a corrupt self interested politician, but I 1000% stand by my assertion that Ron Paul is unequivocally a principled statesman.

Secondly, it's not as doctrinaire as picking between the two.

And yet you are constantly trashing Rand and constantly promoting Trump. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

 

[dude58677]

Semantics. He is employed for the explicit purpose of helping Rand secure the nomination. Plus, he's an inlaw of Rand's for Christ sake. You don't seem to understand how perception works. This indictment is not good by any stretch of the imagination and the less the public knew about was beneficial. Having Donald Trump make off the cuff jokes about this issue during national press conferences does not help the cause. Did Rand think that Trump would just stand there like a mannequin after he attacked him? Once again, the lack of awareness backfires when the lower level celebrity goes on the attack.

AuH20, you support a guy with ties to the mafia. That says a lot about you.