Ron Paul 2016!

[sailingaway]

...

I'd rather vote for the Libertarian or the Constitutionalist than just write in Ron Paul if either candidate was at least reasonably in line with my values, and it is likely that one or the other would be (I could have supported Goode or Johnson in 2012, but preferred Johnson.) All that said, I would NOT write in Ron Paul, under any circumstance whatsoever, if Rand was on the ballot. If Rand did compromise to the point where I couldn't in good faith support him anymore, and I didn't like the LP or Constitution Party, I would write in someone else, maybe Judge Napolitano or something, but I wouldn't write in Ron Paul. Only because voting for Ron Paul when Rand was running would be basically like slapping him in the face. I'm not going to vote for Ron Paul while Ron Paul is telling us to vote for Rand...

As for the Ron running against Rand scenario, Ron Paul would win the debate intellectually, but 90% of people would perceive Rand as being the more rational candidate. I don't think Ron would attack his son either. Even if you think Rand deserves it, that's not Ron's MO...

I expect to vote for Rand, because I don't expect Ron to run. If I don't vote for Rand, unless a new bear comes out of the woods, so to speak, I expect to vote for Ron. There is no way he would 'tell us' how to vote. He might ask us, but wouldn't expect us to vote against our conscience, I don't think he'd even want us to. As for what other people would think, anyone who thinks any candidate is 'more rational' than Ron is simply wrong, and they certainly wouldn't sway my vote.

 

[sailingaway]

I've talked to Cajuncocoa, she doesn't hate Rand. She has issues with some of Rand's policies (As do I) but she definitely does not hate him.

I guess it looks like the battle lines are drawn, and I'm right on the line. Some of us absolutely cannot stand Rand and don't want to see him get elected, while others will defend practically everything he does tooth and nail. I'm virtually alone on the "Middle Ground." Why can't I think Rand is vastly better than the other options, and want to support him, while still being sharply critical of certain actions he takes? It seems like nobody thinks anywhere close to that, its "Either with him or against him" crap that is more fitting of neo-fascists like GWB than the liberty movement.

If you genuinely agreed with Rand Paul on everything, that would be fine, but I don't think ANYONE here (Even Falcon, probably) is even close to Rand Paul when it comes to libertarianism. All of us are way more hardcore than Rand is. Of course, Rand's positions seem radical in the current political climate, but compared to us, he's definitely a lot more moderate. NOBODY here agrees with Rand 100%. What's wrong with calling him out when he's wrong?

we are all individuals and objecting to actions is fine. Trolling is ragging on it over and over and over particularly when it isn't the subject matter of debate. By the way, Rand isn't even in the OP. And I'm pretty sick of Ron's threads all being co-opted into either booster or trashing threads of Rand. He has his own forum and there is hot topics if you want to pick a fight.

 

[fisharmor]

I've talked to Cajuncocoa, she doesn't hate Rand. She has issues with some of Rand's policies (As do I) but she definitely does not hate him.

I didn't say she does. And I don't hate him either.
Ten years ago, I would have a permanent Rand-Kool-Aid stain on my upper lip.

But I'm not settling for 65% of what I want because it's expedient.. If I did that, then I might as well settle for 40%, and then we're practically in Lindsey Graham territory.

 

[Falcon63]

That was the misspoke part. He gave a poor example of a situation that required the use of force. That is all.

Even if it required force, guns will suffice. He still believes in using drones on American soil. That alone is enough for me to NEVER vote for him.

 

[sailingaway]

I actually got corrected on that here. Look up his record. He's a warmonger, but I actually do line up with him on about 40% of this.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/lindsey_graham.htm

So if I'm going to hold Graham to a higher standard... well... where do I draw the line? At Rand's 65-70%?

OK, discuss Rand in Rand's forum or in the split off thread in H/T. However even Ron voted with Lindsay 'more than 40%', per rankings because they pick a bunch of stuff that is perfectly routine. Pelosi probably voted with Ron that much. Ron still voted less in party lock step than anyone else in the House, per rankings.

 

[Carson]

I'd write in Ron Paul if there were no suitable candidates on the ballot. If there were, I'd prefer casting a vote that counts.

A vote for Ron Paul is the only votes that have truly counted in as long as I can remember.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Gary wasn't wonderful, but he wasn't terrible either. I would have strongly preferred him over Obama, Romney, or anyone else on that ballot. I would have voted for him if I had not been 17 at the time.

Chuck Baldwin was REALLY good back in 2008.

Michael Badnarik was even better than Baldwin back in 2004.

Harry Browne was really good in '96 and '00.

I don't know who the LP candidate was in 1992. And of course, in 1988, it was RON PAUL!

Ron Paul is my favorite, but he's not the only person worth voting for. I could see why someone could say 2012 had no worthwhile candidates (Gary wasn't great) but there was definitely a worthwhile candidate on the ballot each Presidential election year from 1996-2008.

 

[Anti-Neocon]

I for One will be Writing in Dr. Ron Paul in the next election as I did in the last two. I can think of know more honorable man. I will always wrote with my conscious regardless of the outcome.

Ron Paul isn't running in 2016. We should feel blessed to have the opportunity to have someone like Rand doing so well in his campaign 3 years out (otherwise it'll be someone like Clinton, Biden, Rubio or Bush). If you write in Ron when Rand is an option and Ron is not, you are a fool. Unless Rand actually demonstrates he is a traitor. #standwithrand

 

[sailingaway]

Gary wasn't wonderful, but he wasn't terrible either. I would have strongly preferred him over Obama, Romney, or anyone else on that ballot. I would have voted for him if I had not been 17 at the time.

Chuck Baldwin was REALLY good back in 2008.

Michael Badnarik was even better than Baldwin back in 2004.

Harry Browne was really good in '96 and '00.

I don't know who the LP candidate was in 1992. And of course, in 1988, it was RON PAUL!

Ron Paul is my favorite, but he's not the only person worth voting for. I could see why someone could say 2012 had no worthwhile candidates (Gary wasn't great) but there was definitely a worthwhile candidate on the ballot each Presidential election year from 1996-2008.

I would vote for Badnarik if Ron didn't run. I would vote for Browne if Ron didn't run. I would maybe vote for Baldwin if Ron didn't run (I almost did in 2008 then wrote in Ron Paul) but I would not vote for Gary Johnson because he doesn't speak for me. I don't think he has a philosophic position, he seems to be more of a 'cost benefit' guy which is the worst part of Rand from my point of view, without the parts I like.

 

[Carson]

I'm going to be thinking Ron Paul is the best man for the job for decades.

It doesn't matter how old he is. It will be decades before anyone can come close to challenging his track record.

I repeat:

It will be decades before anyone can come close to challenging his track record.

Besides I also think he is the best man for the heavy lifting that will need to be done.

Geez! I'll be behind him at 100.

 

[Lucille]

I would love it if Ron ran for president again.

 

[revned]

If Ron runs again, I will be one of the first people on the ground making people aware of it.

 

[sailingaway]

If Ron runs again, I will be one of the first people on the ground making people aware of it.

me too.

I don't think it will happen, but I didn't think it would happen after 2008 either, so who knows?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron would DEEEE-STROY Rand in a debate and call out his statist record!

Ron says he and Rand agree on NINETY NINE percent of the issues.

 

[trey4sports]

sigh....

I would have a lot of FUN working for Ron Paul '16, but i surmise that Rand Paul '16 might be more productive.

 

[sailingaway]

and he has a forum you can start a thread in about it if you want.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ron says he and Rand agree on NINETY NINE percent of the issues.

Can you say the same thing about solutions to them? I mean, two people can certainly agree that they need to get off the top of the cliff and down into the valley but climbing down and jumping off are certainly two entirely different phenomenon.

And exactly what issues in particular are we talking about here? Do tell. To just say that they agree on 99% of the issues is only relevant to what the general public understand to be "the issues". I can tell you for a fact that most don't have a clue as to what equates to genuine issues. Not fair to manipulate this ignorance for political gain. Maybe discuss them like big boys and girls and perhaps stop with the political skullduggery.

I'm not particularly opposed to Rand. I do oppose political maneuvering by the base that distract from the genuine issues of the day in favor of social romper room.

Changing my sig now....again.

 

[NationalAnarchist]

He has my vote if he runs. I would vote for him,Ventura and Napolitano at this point,no one else deserves my vote.

 

[LovinThisLiberty]

I might take some flak for this but I would MUCH prefer a Rand campaign to a fourth Ron campaign. Don't get me wrong - I love Dr. Paul, I owe him my life for opening my eyes. One of the greats to be sure.

But...his son has political eloquence. He is able to convey the message of liberty to neocons - and they LOVE it. He's taking fire for his strategy, but I see it, approve of it, and he's got my vote in 2016. It's all but inevitable that he runs.

 

[sailingaway]

I might take some flak for this but I would MUCH prefer a Rand campaign to a fourth Ron campaign. Don't get me wrong - I love Dr. Paul, I owe him my life for opening my eyes. One of the greats to be sure.

But...his son has political eloquence. He is able to convey the message of liberty to neocons - and they LOVE it. He's taking fire for his strategy, but I see it, approve of it, and he's got my vote in 2016. It's all but inevitable that he runs.

Well, you are more likely to get your wish than we are that Ron run, but Rand has a subforum where you can talk about that. Besides this overall being Ron Paul forums, Ron also has a subforum, this one, and in Ron's subforum there will always be a bunch of people who don't see it the way you do.

For me, I like Ron telling the truth and convincing people. And most he doesn't convince right away still remember what he says, and when it comes true, as is happening constantly, they remember. I think the country needs someone to show the way, and if you are trying too hard to look like you stand for what they already think, they aren't following you somewhere else. That's part of it, but I think Ron is excellently eloquent for liberty, since he cured my apathy.

Take a look at his video on Larry King live, for example. Or on Hardball with Chris Matthews.