What Senator reflects your values better than Rand Paul?

[Origanalist]

I would be very interested to know. Is there another Senator who you can hold up and say 'see, Rand should be more like THIS'?

 

[Origanalist]

Yes? No?

 

[specsaregood]

It is too bad that Johnson chose to run a hopeless presidential campaign rather than running for that Senate seat. A lot of liberty people like him and he would have probably gotten just as much support for a senate run as Rand did from Ron's base.

He could be looking at joining Rand in the Senate an kicking some ass as a team on the many issues they agree upon; but he chose not to.

 

[Origanalist]

No arguement from me on that. But he didn't.

 

[KCIndy]

Originalist, I asked the same question in a different thread and didn't get anyone to answer for two days, even after I bumped it.

Fact is, Rand is still the most liberty-oriented member of the Senate.

That means all the ultra-purists here are beating up the man who comes closest to their views while not saying a peep about the other 99 senators who are much more antithetical to liberty.

Way to make progress, guys. Why are we always so quick to throw our own under the bus, while giving a pass to the authoritarians???

 

[Indy Vidual]

...
Fact is, Rand is still the most liberty-oriented member of the Senate....

+1776
Rand Paul 2016!

 

[cajuncocoa]

Which disease do you prefer? Ebola virus? or Smallpox?

False choice is still false choice.

 

[Brent H]

Rand Paul is just as bad as the rest of them. He had greater gifts and therefore had a greater responsibility. He threw it all away for his own benefit.

 

[Indy Vidual]

Which disease do you prefer? Ebola virus? or Smallpox?...

Rand is more like a really mild case of the flu.

 

[Aratus]

glen bradley has yet to get into the house in d.c or even run for the u.s.a senate.
many of us can think of someone like adam kokesh or john dennis who is trying to
make a difference. i see young people around me who have yet to make their mark
on the world, but when they do, we will feel we have more options down the road.
rand paul is an honest man with a great responsibility on his sholders. i like rand!!!

 

[mosquitobite]

Shaking my head at the desires of purists.

We get it - you want 100 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 435 of them in the House.

Keep wishing.

As my ex used to say "want in one hand and $hit in the other. See which fills up faster!"

 

[cajuncocoa]

Shaking my head at the desires of purists.

We get it - you want 100 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 435 of them in the House.

Keep wishing.

As my ex used to say "want in one hand and $hit in the other. See which fills up faster!"

This is what someone usually says to me as a way convince me to not "throw my vote away on someone who can't win" ... in other words, it's what someone says when they want me to compromise my values. I usually tell them it's better to lose with your values intact than to win having sold them to the devil. Compromising with evil is what gets us deeper and deeper into this mess.

We may not be able to have "100 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 435 of them in the House" but I won't enable some candidate who doesn't share most of my values.

 

[Brett85]

Originalist, I asked the same question in a different thread and didn't get anyone to answer for two days, even after I bumped it.

Fact is, Rand is still the most liberty-oriented member of the Senate.

That means all the ultra-purists here are beating up the man who comes closest to their views while not saying a peep about the other 99 senators who are much more antithetical to liberty.

Way to make progress, guys. Why are we always so quick to throw our own under the bus, while giving a pass to the authoritarians???

Yeah, the purists won't actually have anyone to support after Ron retires from Congress.

 

[Aratus]

that rarified purist 97,98,99 or 100% percentile leaves when he leaves office! we get this! we feel this way, too!

 

[Brett85]

We may not be able to have "100 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 435 of them in the House" but I won't enable some candidate who doesn't share most of my values.

Lol. Really? Rand Paul doesn't share most of your values? So I guess you're not in favor of lower taxes, less spending, fewer regulations, opposing the Patriot Act, the NDAA, CISPA, SOPA, opposing war with Iran and Libya, opposing the Federal Reserve, etc.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Lol. Really? Rand Paul doesn't share most of your values? So I guess you're not in favor of lower taxes, less spending, fewer regulations, opposing the Patriot Act, the NDAA, CISPA, SOPA, opposing war with Iran and Libya, opposing the Federal Reserve, etc.

Go back and read the exchange again. Nowhere in my post did I even mention Rand's name.

 

[vita3]

Rand voted for Iran Sanctions.

 

[Brett85]

Rand voted for Iran Sanctions.

And agreeing with 99% of Rand's votes isn't good enough, correct? He has to be perfect, 100% of the time, or else you can't support him.

 

[Brett85]

Go back and read the exchange again. Nowhere in my post did I even mention Rand's name.

So I suppose you were talking about Romney? In that case, if Rand agrees with most of Romney's positions, then why shouldn't he support him?

 

[Sola_Fide]

So I suppose you were talking about Romney? In that case, if Rand agrees with most of Romney's positions, then why shouldn't he support him?

See, this is where I veer off. I think its pretty obvious that Rand doesn't agree with much of anything that Romney believes. I mean, when he was talking to Hannity about his similarities with Romney, what did Rand mention:

First he started off with how their families are similar and he ended by talking about all the things he has been trying to get Romney to concede on.

Political maneuvering is political maneuvering. I thought it was obvious.