Tom Woods: Iran Update, Plus: Rand Paul's Best Strategy

[ctiger2]

Tom Woods and Scott Horton start talking about Rands strategy at 16:00 for the rest of the show



I agree with them 100%, If Rand suddenly morphs into principled Ron, then I'd support him.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Tom was spot on.

 

[afwjam]

Yep, I'm a little confused.

 

[eleganz]

Yea its easy for them to stand on the sideline and say how EASY it is to take Ron's position when almost every average Republican loves Rand EXCEPT the Ron-like position on foreign policy spooks them.

That entire conversation was about doing the same thing as we did before and to some that would be a great thing but to others we want to see progress with more Republicans. Rand obviously won't win the neocons but he's looking to make room for the Republicans in the middle.

Its mostly all rhetoric though, most average Republicans haven't heard Rand's new foreign policy position (which I can understand can be confusing).

 

[Matt Collins]

And yet again, Tom needs to stick to what he knows which is history, law, and economics because he knows nothing about functional politics.


He has no clue what he is talking about and worst yet doesn't even realize he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is a brilliant orator, historian, and scholar but once he gets outside of his realm he is floundering like a fish out of water.






After Tom has focus group, polled, and tested his messaging ideas, then maybe he can come back to us and tell us what percentage of Republican primary voters will vote for a candidate who says the things that he recommends.


Not to mention that Tom completely misses the strategy. Rand isn't trying to "win the warmonger vote" as Tom alleges. What Rand is trying to do is to ensure that he doesn't get pinned down like Ron did and labeled an extremist.




And candidates don't get elected by telling the electorate that they are wrong on the issues. And there are not enough liberty minded voters to win a Presidential nomination process in the Republican Party. It's just that simple.

 

[Matt McGuire]

Tom is right as usual. I can only imagine what the 2012 campaign could have been had he been in charge. Tom knows that Rand needs to give America something radically different, something to believe in--not something "10% different from Ted Cruz."

 

[LatinsforPaul]

Tom Woods and Scott Horton start talking about Rands strategy at 16:00 for the rest of the show



I agree with them 100%, If Rand suddenly morphs into principled Ron, then I'd support him.

Rand's rebuttal, as true today as it was three years ago....

 

[Brett85]

I agree with them 100%, If Rand suddenly morphs into principled Ron, then I'd support him.

He would lose ten supporters for every "uncompromising hardcore libertarian" he gained. It's not worth it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Tom should stop talking about politics (a subject about which he clearly knows nothing).

He's ruining my otherwise excellent opinion of him.

As for Horton, I don't care what that stupid fucking twat has to say.

In any event, to break it down:

1. Tom thinks Rand is trying to appeal to the hawkish voters, which is a mistake, since he would have to compete for their votes with all the other candidates (who are all hawks); instead, he should try to appeal to the non-interventionist voters. Two Errors: (1) Rand is not trying to out-hawk the hawks to win the hawkish voters, he's trying to prevent the hawkish voters from dismissing him out of hand because of his foreign policy, so that they can support him for other reasons (most hawkish voters, like most voters in general, are not single-issue voters), (2) there are not enough non-interventionist voters to win an election, and those that do exist are already supporting Rand!

2. Tom thinks that the absolute and obvious failure of interventionism means that advocating non-interventionism is a political winner; and that, to win, one must have a coherent philosophy. ROFL. The truth does not always prevail, Tom. In fact, in politics, the truth hardly matters at all. Just prior to beginning their criticism of Rand's strategy, Tom was laughing about how ridiculously irrational voter behavior is....Uh huh, that's right Tom, they ARE irrational! Say that ten times in the mirror every morning and then perhaps you will start to understand why the truth hardly matters and why a strategy like Rand's is required to win elections.

3. Tom says that if Rand stuck with a hardcore position, he could create real excitement among young people, like "ride your bike back and forth across the country" kind of excitement. Does Tom realize that the outcome of elections is determined by the VOTE TOTALS?

4. Tom whines about the campaign in '12 ignoring his ever-so brilliant advice...

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Rand's rebuttal, as true today as it was three years ago....

And just how many of these "bills" made it through since 2012? And even if you stop the NSA in one bill, it will be introduced and passed as amendments in another. And, if it doesn't, then they'll keep doing it anyway. The same for all of that stuff, they'll just say "The Ayes have it". Just like they did at the convention. How'd that work out?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

You have to confront the evil to it's face, boldly and in public. Over and over again.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You have to confront the evil to it's face, boldly and in public. Over and over again.

Why would you think that?

Evil didn't win that way (by confronting good boldly and in public). It won by patient, gradual subversion.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Why would you think that?

Evil didn't win that way (by confronting good boldly and in public). It won by patient, gradual subversion.

But good did win that way. at any time that it progressed. It was the people (Anglo's) confronting those that would be king over them, face to face. And that is how mankind has moved forward, in any way.

 

[William Tell]

You have to confront the evil to it's face, boldly and in public. Over and over again.

I agree with you generally speaking, but I think different people have different roles. Some people want Rand to be the highest profile spokesman of the purest message of the liberty movement. In reality, he's just a guy, who also happens to be a U.S Senator from Kentucky. He's trying to make a coalition of people, bringing them together over liberty issues, without necessarily changing their minds entirely. He's also trying to make liberty become the default position of independents and moderates it seems. He's doing things his way.

I respect Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Nap, etc. But they all have different, although sometimes overlapping roles.
That's my opinion anyway.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I agree with you generally speaking, but I think different people have different roles. Some people want Rand to be the highest profile spokesman of the purest message of the liberty movement. In reality, he's just a guy, who also happens to be a U.S Senator from Kentucky. He's trying to make a coalition of people, bringing them together over liberty issues, without necessarily changing their minds entirely. He's also trying to make liberty become the default position of independents and moderates it seems. He's doing things his way.

I respect Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Tom Woods, Judge Nap, etc. But they all have different, although sometimes overlapping roles.
That's my opinion anyway.

If the dark sludge is allowed to remain a secret, and only the names spoken are those that have been given for public acceptance of those things which are hideous behind the scenes, then what will have changed?

One presidency makes a few changes, while still going backwards in sum, and then the next presidency goes full bore. Why? because the people have not learned nor experienced freedom in its essence.

I have seen an attempt to educate people, and the people are taking to it. It is not a futile endeavor to tell the truth and the history of it. Neither is it a futile endeavor to be kind. And true kindness will seek to promote truth.

 

[William Tell]

If the dark sludge is allowed to remain a secret, and only the names spoken are those that have been given for public acceptance of those things which are hideous behind the scenes, then what will have changed?

One presidency makes a few changes, while still going backwards in sum, and then the next presidency goes full bore. Why? because the people have not learned nor experienced freedom in its essence.

I have seen an attempt to educate people, and the people are taking to it. It is not a futile endeavor to tell the truth and the history of it. Neither is it a futile endeavor to be kind. And true kindness will seek to promote truth.

I'm all for educating about the dark sludge. I just don't expect Rand Paul to personally do it for me. Think of the liberty movement as a whole, then think of Rand Paul as a bonus.
I tend to think Rand has actually done more for the liberty movement than most anyone on these forums, in his way, but I know some would disagree. Sure, I'd like it if he always acted like a clone of his dad, but he doesn't, and he won't. And he's still a great guy in my opinion, and he may actually be doing more good by trying a different way. Time will tell how successful his approach is.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

I'm all for educating about the dark sludge. I just don't expect Rand Paul to personally do it for me. Think of the liberty movement as a whole, then think of Rand Paul as a bonus.
I tend to think Rand has actually done more for the liberty movement than most anyone on these forums, in his way, but I know some would disagree. Sure, I'd like it if he always acted like a clone of his dad, but he doesn't, and he won't. And he's still a great guy in my opinion, and he may actually be doing more good by trying a different way. Time will tell how successful his approach is.

I'm not asking him to do it for me. I do it or myself. I also know that he will do what he will. All of that is kind of obvious.

As to whether I think he could do a better job to promote the truth, yes I believe he could.

I think our discussion is on our opinions (such as Tom's) of what is happening, not the facts of what is currently happening.

edit: I also don't want him to be a clone of his dad, but to stand on his dad's shoulders

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If all we care about is winning an election, we've already lost the war.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

Tom Woods and Scott Horton start talking about Rands strategy at 16:00 for the rest of the show



I agree with them 100%, If Rand suddenly morphs into principled Ron, then I'd support him.

Unfortunately that means that your support is mutually exclusive with about 85% of Republican primary voters.

Tom Woods has no idea what the hell he is talking about when it comes to politics; this much is painfully clear. He doesn't seem to understand that most voters even primary voters are extremely uneducated on the issues. No matter what Rand says or does there will always being people saying they can't vote for him because "they don't trust his foreign policy" or some such.

He has to sound "moderate" enough in the debates to neutralize that line of attack and that line of thought as much as possible. He can't do that if he doesn't lay the groundwork before the debates.

Your support actually would hurt Rand Paul. He doesn't want it or need it.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If all we care about is winning an election, we've already lost the war.

"If all we care about is winning battles, we've already lost the war."

-No General Ever