Ron Paul 2012 vs. Rand Paul 2012

[isrow]

Ron will be in a much better position. The currency crisis will be here by 2012 most likely and Ron has been tryin to change the course for forty years. I saw a clip once of Obama saying we didn't need a gold standard and it's been a really long time since we have used it. How great would it be for Ron to be able to respond in a debate he was around before the gold standard and has seen the decline ever since. There will be a campus crusade for RON PAUL 2012! I'm psyched.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

Ron has to go first.... all great dynasty's start somewhere

 

[Brett]

Rand because he could win.

 

[Justinjj1]

Ron. Because he is more principled, has more credibility, speaks the truth, and doesn't pander to the neo-cons.

 

[Linus]

Ron has to go first.... all great dynasty's start somewhere

Don't even joke about that. As someone who will have spent my entire young adult life watching this country deteriorate under the Bush and Clinton dynasties, that is not even funny.

In fact, it is a real reason that I keep serious reservations about supporting Rand Paul, although I have still encouraged everyone I know to support him.

 

[sailingaway]

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

+1

Also, I want to see Rand's record. he is being 'careful' and I want to make sure that isn't 'squishy'. I have some leeway on positions, but not on waffling on principles, IF that is what it turns out to be.

 

[0zzy]

Rand Paul but not in 2012.

 

[sofia]

Here's an idea...

How about Ron runs (and loses the GOP primary)......but wakes up a bunch of people

Then Rand (who by spring of 2012 will have had 1 year in the Senate)...runs as an independent...

Romney....Rand...Obama


If not, we should get behind Trafficante.....cuz 2012 is America's LAST CHANCE

 

[Elwar]

Ron Paul 2012 starts here:

http://www.TheRonPaulTeaParty.com

Let's do it!!!

 

[Fr3shjive]

I'd like to see how Rand votes for a couple of years before I'd support him for president. I already know Ron Paul is a man of integrity.

 

[purplechoe]

Ron...

 

[Linus]

Wow. I first read Dr Paul's book in mid-2008 and was on-board with his ideas immediately. I registered to vote for the first time then and even donated money. I was the most annoying guy you could meet during the 2008 campaign, trumpeting Congressman Paul long and loud.

But I clearly lost the script within the "Ron Paul movement" at some point. I thought it was movement based on principles. Right?

I mean...Rand Paul for President? Really? Right now? Such fleck-spittling enthusiasm for a man who has never served a single day in public office is the most disturbing thing I've seen since Obamania.

What can I say? Except "Damn it."

 

[Fozz]

Ron. Because he is more principled, has more credibility, speaks the truth, and doesn't pander to the neo-cons.

This may shock you, but Ron Paul in 2008 endorsed and donated money through his Liberty PAC to Michele Bachmann and Virgil Goode, both of whom are hardcore neocons.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2008&cmte=C00234641

Also, he pandered to neocons when one of his ads said he would reject visas from terrorist nations.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/

Ron Paul is not as pure as you think.

 

[BuddyRey]

This may shock you, but Ron Paul in 2008 endorsed and donated money through his Liberty PAC to Michele Bachmann and Virgil Goode, both of whom are hardcore neocons.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2008&cmte=C00234641

Also, he pandered to neocons when one of his ads said he would reject visas from terrorist nations.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/

Ron Paul is not as pure as you think.

The crap he has to say to get elected is one thing; how he has and does legislate from strict libertarian principle is another. I'm not saying Rand won't live up to that, but it is an awfully big pair of shoes to fill.

 

[Fozz]

The crap he has to say to get elected is one thing; how he has and does legislate from strict libertarian principle is another. I'm not saying Rand won't live up to that, but it is an awfully big pair of shoes to fill.

This Justinjj1 person has been calling Rand Paul a neocon and a sellout.

And Ron Paul didn't have to endorse Bachmann or Goode to get elected.

Also Ron Paul's earmarking is a troubling practice.

 

[Linus]

Also Ron Paul's earmarking is a troubling practice.

It's troubling that so many Americans actually believe that money would be saved if earmarks were done away with.

 

[low preference guy]

It's troubling that so many Americans actually believe that money would be saved if earmarks were done away with.

True, but what in the Constitution allows Congress to send money to fishing companies? Nowhere. When Ron inserts those requests in bills, he makes them worse and more unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Paul and getting him elected to the Presidency in 2012 is probably the only way to prevent a catastrophic monetary, social, political, and military collapse in the United States.

 

[Linus]

True, but what in the Constitution allows Congress to send money to fishing companies? Nowhere. When Ron inserts those requests in bills, he makes them worse and more unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Paul and getting him elected to the Presidency in 2012 is probably the only way to prevent a catastrophic monetary, social, political, and military collapse in the United States.

But he votes against the bills so he is no way, shape or form violating neither the letter nor the spirit of his Congressional duties.

 

[RforRevolution]

Ron. Rand in 2016 when the message is more widely spread.

 

[anaconda]

In 2012 I prefer Ron. No sense in wasting Rand's chance against an incumbent President. Rand needs time to build a power base anyway.

I don't think running against Obama will be a "waste of time." If I have ever seen a one-term president, this is he. It would not even surprise me if Obama pulls an LBJ and steps aside to give the Democrats a prayer of a chance by running someone else. Things will continue to get worse through 2012. Carter, Bush I, Obama....