Ron Paul: I wouldn't support Trump as GOP nominee

[juleswin]

That's right. A person doesn't need to be perfect in order for one to consider them the best choice.

At the same time, nobody should ever be beyond honest criticism, which is something that the post to which I initially replied strongly implied.

If the liberty movement is to move forward from here, it will have to do so without the Pauls, and perhaps even in spite of them.

There is a wide gap between someone not being perfect and someone throwing you under the bus and "the paul family being a disaster to the liberty movement". If someone threw me under the bus, used me to line their pocket and was a disaster to the liberty movement, there is no way I vote for the person ever again. But you would go back for a second round of abuse.

How do you talk about honest criticism when your major beef with Rand is that he endorsed Mitt Romney after the elections were virtually over?

Small correction and then agree with your last sentence

"If the liberty movement is to move forward from here, it should be able to do it without the Pauls"> I would vote for the best man and not the man with a Paul last name. Like my sig says, I trust principles not people

 

[thoughtomator]

There is a wide gap between someone not being perfect and someone throwing you under the bus and "the paul family being a disaster to the liberty movement". If someone threw me under the bus, used me to line their pocket and was a disaster to the liberty movement, there is no way I vote for the person ever again. But you would go back for a second round of abuse.

How do you talk about honest criticism when you major beef with Rand is that he endorsed Mitt Romney after the elections were virtually over?

Small correction and then agree with you last sentence

"If the liberty movement is to move forward from here, it should be able to do it without the Pauls"> I would vote for the best man and not the man with a Paul last name. Like my sig says, I trust principles not people

My major beef with Rand is that he attempted to make himself part of the establishment, when it was very clear that that was an absolutely terrible thing to do. The Romney endorsement was merely the first step on that path - he took many, many others, and it is not clear that he has left that path even today.

So, you are wondering, why I would still support Ron if he ran for President. The answer is simple - as burned as I feel by his post-2012 behavior, a rational decision as to who is best for the job is not based on feelings. He would still be the best out of all potential prospects for advancing the cause of liberty.

I once would have included Rand in that statement but I no longer do. Someone like Justin Amash, or perhaps a new liberty leader whose name is not well known, would be preferable. Rand doesn't have the killer instinct necessary to get the job done, and I'm tired of backing loser after loser after loser. I've done that my whole life and things haven't changed for the better at all. From here on in I will only back someone who is serious about winning and has the drive and skills to make it happen. Anyone who doesn't will simply be another waste of my time and money, and another hope to be dashed.

 

[juleswin]

My major beef with Rand is that he attempted to make himself part of the establishment, when it was very clear that that was an absolutely terrible thing to do. The Romney endorsement was merely the first step on that path - he took many, many others, and it is not clear that he has left that path even today.

Seeing as I wasn't born yesterday, I don't buy that excuse. He was trying to cover all bases, you might argue against such a strategy but it was a strategy that worked up until a Trump came into the race. He perfectly reflected the anti establishment sentiment while not antagonizing the establishment. But I have heard a much believable explanation from some of the former supporters that have now turned on him. That explanation was his decision to appeal to the black community, they say things like "how did it work out for you palling around with Al Sharpton" etc etc when everyone knew it was done to broaden the coalition for the general election.

Btw Trump has said that he would have to make nice with the establishment to get his bills passed but that doesn't seem to bother any of his fan boys who were so quick to condemn Rand for endorsing Romney.

So, you are wondering, why I would still support Ron if he ran for President. The answer is simple - as burned as I feel by his post-2012 behavior, a rational decision as to who is best for the job is not based on feelings. He would still be the best out of all potential prospects for advancing the cause of liberty.

Its sorta like a woman going ahead to marry a man who cheated on her during their courtship. If Ron threw you under the bus during the campaign, he would be double worse after the election and that alone should tell you that he is not trust worthy. This is especially true seeing as Ron ran a campaign that relied very little on pandering to win votes

I once would have included Rand in that statement but I no longer do. Someone like Justin Amash, or perhaps a new liberty leader whose name is not well known, would be preferable. Rand doesn't have the killer instinct necessary to get the job done, and I'm tired of backing loser after loser after loser. I've done that my whole life and things haven't changed for the better at all. From here on in I will only back someone who is serious about winning and has the drive and skills to make it happen. Anyone who doesn't will simply be another waste of my time and money, and another hope to be dashed.

I get the eagerness to be on the winning team, any winning team for that matter but what is the point in winning if its going to be more of the same? For me, I want to win and on top of that, I want to win something that wouldn't injure me. That is why I support Rand and never a man like Trump.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Why not just go ahead and skip voting this time, Ron?

 

[rg17]

This is the fagot that sent me into a tyraid. Telling me to ban myself lolol because I'm pissed Ron tells me not to vote for Trump, but no suggestion on who he endorses. This little troll needs to head back to the Marco Rubio forum where he belongs.

I completely respect your opinion.

 

[jkob]

Ron is entitled to endorse or not endorse anybody he wants, I don't hold his word as gospel especially when it comes to endorsements of which he has been fairly liberal giving out in the past for personal and strategic reasons but now he's retired and free to do what he wants. He's earned it. I'd be more upset if Ron endorsed Ted Cruz, there really is no reason for him to endorse anyone in this primary now that Rand is out. Rand has said he will endorse the nominee which is strategically and politically necessary, Rand has built these relationships in the Senate so I hope that he can become one of this country's all time great senators and the respect will come maybe not today or not year or maybe not until he's 70 like his dad but if he puts in the work and builds these relationships without losing his soul this country will be so much better off for it.

Vote for who you think is the best most qualified candidate for whatever you prioritize, we are a diverse group so we're not all going to agree but that's okay.

 

[georgiaboy]

Why not just go ahead and skip voting this time, Ron?

Ultimately, he may do that, if no candidate meets his criteria.

Preferably, there will be someone on the ballot where he can register his vote and be counted, even as protest, just so the world can see that not everybody buys into this "lesser of two evils" charade.

ETA - I sure wish there was a way for conscientious objectors to log a "none of the above" vote.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Ultimately, he may do that, if no candidate meets his criteria.

Preferably, there will be someone on the ballot where he can register his vote and be counted, even as protest, just so the world can see that not everybody buys into this "lesser of two evils" charade.

ETA - I sure wish there was a way for conscientious objectors to log a "none of the above" vote.

There is. Don't vote. What was the last national election that the non-voters weren't the majority?

 

[jkob]

Not voting is cowardly, there are other races than just presidency. I have potentially John McCain to vote against(altho hopefully we get that done in August instead of November) and a hardcore socialist in Krysten Sinema as my congressional representative in a swing district. Not to mention the referendum to legalize marijuana. Holding your breath and having a hissy fit doesn't advance liberty one bit. Get lemons, make lemonade. I'm excited to vote this November, hopefully you guys stop crying into your pillows and realize the world keeps going with or without you.

 

[georgiaboy]

There is. Don't vote. What was the last national election that the non-voters weren't the majority?

It's too easy to brush off non-voting.

I'd much rather see conscientious non-voters show up at the polls to register a NOTA write-in. That way at least there's a signal of people paying attention, but not buying into the garbage they're being forced to live with.

 

[georgiaboy]

Not voting is cowardly, there are other races than just presidency. I have potentially John McCain to vote against(altho hopefully we get that done in August instead of November) and a hardcore socialist in Krysten Sinema as my congressional representative in a swing district. Not to mention the referendum to legalize marijuana. Holding your breath and having a hissy fit doesn't advance liberty one bit. Get lemons, make lemonade. I'm excited to vote this November, hopefully you guys stop crying into your pillows and realize the world keeps going with or without you.

Exactly - the ballot is larger than just the presidency. I try to vote at every opportunity, even if I only partially fill in the ballot. That way the counters are at least seeing people paying attention, participating, and registering their honest views.

For those who desire to see change within the system, I just can't see any other way of participating. Ron Paul gets the credit for helping me see this.

cue the Texan.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Video was so worth the watch,especially at the end when he says they are all establishment. Then he says Trump is worse then the others in some ways because he loves torture. They took Ron out of context, Ron made a coherent argument.

Yep, standard operating procedure.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

...
And what has Ron done since? He's not been spreading the message of liberty, he's only talking now to the hardcore already-converted and trying to make money off of them.
...

Bullshit. Ron is producing a daily (internet) television show, and spreading his message. And he is certainly not pushing for donations or selling anything other than his liberty-oriented perspective, so I have no idea how it is funded.

It's worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkJ1N-7g9Q6n7KnriGit-Ig

And he also has a foreign policy oriented website, which once again, is not selling anything or pushing for donations:

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/

 

[Ronin Truth]

Not voting is cowardly, there are other races than just presidency. I have potentially John McCain to vote against(altho hopefully we get that done in August instead of November) and a hardcore socialist in Krysten Sinema as my congressional representative in a swing district. Not to mention the referendum to legalize marijuana. Holding your breath and having a hissy fit doesn't advance liberty one bit. Get lemons, make lemonade. I'm excited to vote this November, hopefully you guys stop crying into your pillows and realize the world keeps going with or without you.

For you too. Your vote is insignificant, trivial, redundant and meaningless. If your folks win, they would have anyway. If your folks lose, they would have anyway.

For grins and snickers, just skip voting once and see what that effects and changes.

Your shepherds will forgive you.

 

[LibertyExtremist]

It's a real shame that Ron didn't run again this time around and then Rand next time. The steam that Ron built from 2008 to 2012 just didn't translate to Rand. However, hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ron has endorsed way worse candidates than Trump for strategic reasons

I wasn't aware that Pol Pot ran for office in the US?

 

[thoughtomator]

Bullshit. Ron is producing a daily (internet) television show, and spreading his message. And he is certainly not pushing for donations or selling anything other than his liberty-oriented perspective, so I have no idea how it is funded.

It's worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkJ1N-7g9Q6n7KnriGit-Ig

And he also has a foreign policy oriented website, which once again, is not selling anything or pushing for donations:

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/

Check out the view counts on those videos. He used to reach more people than that in a single speech. Nobody is tuning in but the most hardcore, already-converted RP admirers, and only a small percentage of that group is even bothering to watch.

His days of leading and most importantly growing the movement are over. The peak and decline of the liberty movement directly corresponds with the Rand endorsement of Romney followed by Ron all but dropping out of public view.

This movement had the momentum to completely overwhelm and take over the political system and provide for some real liberty. That momentum crashed with the effective capitulation of the two Pauls, the younger to the establishment, the older to what is essentially a resting-on-laurels retirement. If these principles are as important as they said they are, this abdication is inexcusable.

 

[CPUd]

Check out the view counts on those videos. He used to reach more people than that in a single speech. Nobody is tuning in but the most hardcore, already-converted RP admirers, and only a small percentage of that group is even bothering to watch.

His days of leading and most importantly growing the movement are over. The peak and decline of the liberty movement directly corresponds with the Rand endorsement of Romney followed by Ron all but dropping out of public view.

This movement had the momentum to completely overwhelm and take over the political system and provide for some real liberty. That momentum crashed with the effective capitulation of the two Pauls, the younger to the establishment, the older to what is essentially a resting-on-laurels retirement. If these principles are as important as they said they are, this abdication is inexcusable.

At some point people have to take his ideas and be committed to implementing them. There were 3 or 4 state GOPs completely controlled by Paul people after 2012, they did not get the support they needed from the folks who voted them in, and they almost all got forced out by 2014. That's not Ron or Rand's fault, it's ours.

 

[misterx]

For you too. Your vote is insignificant, trivial, redundant and meaningless. If your folks win, they would have anyway. If your folks lose, they would have anyway.

For grins and snickers, just skip voting once and see what that effects and changes.

Your shepherds will forgive you.

The difference being that if everyone who wants to write in Rand stays home it will have zero impact on anything. If everyone who wants to vote Trump stays home, it will give the nomination to Rubio.

 

[Ronin Truth]

The difference being that if everyone who wants to write in Rand stays home it will have zero impact on anything. If everyone who wants to vote Trump stays home, it will give the nomination to Rubio.

What in your life has everyone ever chosen to do, politics-wise?

If everyone always boycotts all elections, who wins?