Why I won't vote for Rand Paul or anyone else for president in 2016

[Dystopian]

self deleted.

 

[Sayzak]

Not endorsing the nominee would be political suicide for Rand if he wants to get anywhere in the G.O.P

Get over it. I have .

I am over it in the exact same way I am over the way republicans pander to the south and liberals pander to the coasts. It's the nature of the beast.

 

[Sayzak]

This, some of you need to learn what 'strategy' means. Rand Paul has a difficult line to walk, let's not make it more difficult by reading too deeply into everything he says or does, and criticizing his every move that may be designed to reach out and bring in more supporters. You just have to place your trust in the man, I've seen enough to do that but to each his own.

I know what strategy means. And I fully comprehend the strategy you believe he is using. But accepting it fills me with the same shame I felt when considering voting for the establishment in the past. I feel as though supporting Rand Paul after his Romney endorsement is like giving up on the message that Ron Paul helped me discover all those years ago. It would be a betrayal of not only the message, it would be a betrayal to myself. I spent 5 years preaching, fighting, and teaching the people around me not to compromise with the establishment because you know very well that the establishment doesn't compromise. They feign compromise. Rand Paul is their ace in the hole and they'll do and say anything to lure you into playing The Game for their benefit.

I won't do it. Ever again.

 

[specsaregood]

self deleted.

That is the most intelligent thing you have said in this thread.

 

[dean.engelhardt]

I'm a long time member (summer '07), but I couldn't remember the password to my other account so I'm using my alt.

I have been a very faithful and aggressive support for Ron Paul over the past 5 and a half years, donating a lot of money, and spending a lot of my time trying to find the best way to communicate his message to a variety of people. I was successful in converting a handful of my closest friends who went on to spread the message (or parts of it they agreed with) on their own in their own way. Over the years I felt the energy increase and the power of the tide grow.
I have made videos designed to appeal to different types of thinkers, as well as many others designed to motivate the already-in. Here are a few of the videos I am most proud of or have found to be the most effective:







But I digress. I have noticed a shift in attention from Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Revolution to getting Rand Paul elected in 2016 -- despite the fact that he supports Romney. Trusting Rand Paul after his endorsement of Romney is a huge leap of faith that is akin to hoping the least of two evils is somehow good, and I won't do it. Even supporting Ron Paul himself had me gut-checking for 5 years as to whether or not I really wanted to support the system by supporting a man who works in it.

Granted, we made a bit of headway. We were perpetually more and more influential and it is clear that the GOP needs us to win. They still deny this in their rhetoric through the media, but we know the truth. Enough former GOP faithfuls have defected to the Paul camp to render their party dead.

But here's Rand Paul, primed to wear the prince's crown and get his foot in the door in 2016. He talks a lot like his father, only he's a smoother politician. It's very tempting to project our desire for the right kind of change onto him, even after he endorsed Romney. I know how tempting it is, I feel it too. But supporting Rand now after he endorsed Romney (while his father was still in the race, come on!) is not a choice. I'm not going to waste my energy while still not making a choice.

I'm going to put my energy into the message, and the message alone. I will not use a politicians name. I will not use a party's name, or a platform. It will have nothing to do with voting. It will have nothing to do with politics.

From now on I am going to channel my desire for Liberty into a concise message that will fit directly into the hearts and minds of all people of all ages regardless of political affiliation, and I'm going to stick with that message for the rest of my life.

As Ron Paul recently stated: "We're too far gone."

This thing we call a system is broken in places we can't reach. Eventually it's going to come crumbling down. In my opinion, the best thing we can do for the future of not only this country, but the world at large is to be ready to pick up the pieces.

If we support Rand Paul or any politician in 2016 we're still worshiping government, thinking that we'll convince it to somehow fix its self. Deep down we know it won't, that it can't. It's a game of faith, and the longer we play it the less influence we'll have over the future.

If it's not about the future... what is it about?

Didn't read you whole thing here. Bottom line is that you won't vote; join the majority that allows other to decide for them. - Rep.

 

[Sayzak]

Didn't read you whole thing here. Bottom line is that you won't vote; join the majority that allows other to decide for them. - Rep.

That's like saying if I don't pray, other people who do will win God's affection.

Oh darn.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I support Rand 100% (so far), but I respect & approve Sayzak's decision to make a complete break from engagement with electoral politics. The people who irritate me are the ones who imagine they can engage the system without seeing or hearing things they don't like, and get all pissy-moany when the inevitable happens. Sayzak, at least, is putting his money where his mouth is. So good for him. More power to you, Sayzak, and I wish you well in whatever pro-liberty endeavors you take on.

Having said that, I honestly don't understand what it is that people think Rand Paul has "compromised" on. I know his rhetorical stance doesn't provide the kind or red meat we've all gotten used to from his father. I know people are angry about his endorsement of Romney and his association with McConnell and such like. But what do any of these things have to do with anything that's important? How have our liberties been in any way tangibly impaired or damaged by any of these things? What, in other words, has he actually *done* that deserves the degree of hostile skepticism (not to mention outright condemnation) that has been directed at him?

In my own book, the ONLY black mark against Rand is the Iranian (central bank) sanctions issue. And even then, my understanding is that Rand went out of his way to lessen the severity of those sanctions - something he didn't have to do (so the mark becomes more of a dark-to-medium grey). While others may legitimately apply other standards in their assessment of Rand's performance in the Senate, and therefore come to a different conclusion than I have, I really don't understand why so many people seem so obsessed with ultimately meaningless trivialities like endorsements. alliances, and such. Ron Paul made unsavory endorsements. Ron Paul advocated engaging in coalitions & cooperating with others who don't share our values & ideology. And he proved that it is possible to do both of those things without compromising principles. He had no problems when it came to working with the likes of Dennis Kucinich, and he has encouraged others to do the same. How is *anything* Rand has done any different? Shouldn't we extend to Rand the same benefit of the doubt that we give to Ron - at least until he proves he doesn't deserve it (by his *actions* in the Senate, and *not* by his endorsements or alliances or such)?

We are all too familiar with the phenomenon of the politician who tells us what we want to hear, and then betrays us when it comes time to actually live up to his words. But now, in the case of Rand Paul, we are being confronted with something altogether different - a politician who *doesn't* always say the things we want to hear (or say them in the way we want to hear them), but who *does* do the "right thing" when it comes to his actual *actions* in the legislature.

And aren't his *actions* the only things that really matter, in the end? Isn't it more than a little ironic that we're coming down on Rand because of his "talk" rather than his "walk" ?

Isn't that just exactly backwards?

 

[realtonygoodwin]

I respect your decision here, and applaud your focusing on the message. I just ask that you don't do anything to sabotage those of us who will be attempting to work within the system (such as Rand).
To win this country over will take attacking on multiple fronts. There is no need for conflict here within the broader liberty movement. If you choose to focus on education and conversion of the populace, others will focus on winning elections with the best viable candidates.
Thank you.

 

[jcannon98188]

So then the question becomes, how much is he willing to sacrifice down the road? What principles are expendable and what principles are not?

Agreed. This is my issue with Rand. If he never compromises again I will happily admit I was wrong. But I am worried that he might in the future compromise his prinicples again to be elected, and who knows what he will compromise

 

[thoughtomator]

Once I understood Rand, I became a lot more comfortable supporting him.

Rand is the diplomat of the family. Watch what he does, not what he says, and you may well be quite pleased with him. Most of what he says is for the purpose of cultivating acceptance among the GOP mainstream, which he will have to do in order to achieve what we would like him to achieve.

 

[jtwing85]

I know what strategy means. And I fully comprehend the strategy you believe he is using. But accepting it fills me with the same shame I felt when considering voting for the establishment in the past. I feel as though supporting Rand Paul after his Romney endorsement is like giving up on the message that Ron Paul helped me discover all those years ago. It would be a betrayal of not only the message, it would be a betrayal to myself. I spent 5 years preaching, fighting, and teaching the people around me not to compromise with the establishment because you know very well that the establishment doesn't compromise. They feign compromise. Rand Paul is their ace in the hole and they'll do and say anything to lure you into playing The Game for their benefit.

I won't do it. Ever again.

Does falling on your own sword give you a sense of martyrdom?

 

[Todd]

Yes it's about the future and there's nothing wrong with doing the things you say and being there when the pieces fall. But there are so many moving parts to the Liberty movement. Everyone has a part from educating themselves, to preparing for a possible crash to spreading the message.

And one of those parts people play would be to seek out politicians who faithfully believe in Liberty and get them into office.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

Having said that, I honestly don't understand what it is that people think Rand Paul has "compromised" on. I know his rhetorical stance doesn't provide the kind or red meat we've all gotten used to from his father. I know people are angry about his endorsement of Romney and his association with McConnell and such like. But what do any of these things have to do with anything that's important? How have our liberties been in any way tangibly impaired or damaged by any of these things? What, in other words, has he actually *done* that deserves the degree of hostile skepticism (not to mention outright condemnation) that has been directed at him?

In my own book, the ONLY black mark against Rand is the Iranian (central bank) sanctions issue. And even then, my understanding is that Rand went out of his way to lessen the severity of those sanctions - something he didn't have to do (so the mark becomes more of a dark-to-medium grey). While others may legitimately apply other standards in their assessment of Rand's performance in the Senate, and therefore come to a different conclusion than I have, I really don't understand why so many people seem so obsessed with ultimately meaningless trivialities like endorsements. alliances, and such. Ron Paul made unsavory endorsements. Ron Paul advocated engaging in coalitions & cooperating with others who don't share our values & ideology. And he proved that it is possible to do both of those things without compromising principles. He had no problems when it came to working with the likes of Dennis Kucinich, and he has encouraged others to do the same. How is *anything* Rand has done any different? Shouldn't we extend to Rand the same benefit of the doubt that we give to Ron - at least until he proves he doesn't deserve it (by his *actions* in the Senate, and *not* by his endorsements or alliances or such)?

We are all too familiar with the phenomenon of the politician who tells us what we want to hear, and then betrays us when it comes time to actually live up to his words. But now, in the case of Rand Paul, we are being confronted with something altogether different - a politician who *doesn't* always say the things we want to hear (or say them in the way we want to hear them), but who *does* do the "right thing" when it comes to his actual *actions* in the legislature.

And aren't his *actions* the only things that really matter, in the end? Isn't it more than a little ironic that we're coming down on Rand because of his "talk" rather than his "walk" ?

Isn't that just exactly backwards?

QFT & intelligence but this thread deserves to go in the venting bin.

 

[whoisjohngalt]

When is Rand going to come out of his supposed Trojan horse and start acting like his father? Ive been waiting for that moment since he was elected. Now I'm beginning to wonder if it's going to happen.

He has already done so to this point more than I was expecting. If you are waiting for the full fledged transformation, that won't happen until the horse is actually inside the walls of Troy. I'm predicting it happens right around the first Wednesday in November 2016. Call it a hunch.

 

[Endthefednow]

Well, at this point I am not ready to Support Rand, it looks to me that he is part of the establishment.
As I see it Rand will not receive the R3volutions full support in my opinion others in the Liberty Movement
are more in line with Constitution as was Ron Paul!

 

[specialkornflake]

Rand Paul is less overtly philosophical than his father but he is very Libertarian. You appear to realize that operating within the political system is typically unproductive. Yet, the idea of liberty is spreading. Rand Paul endorsing Romney didn't really affect our votes or do anything within the government except keep some allies and not blow his 2016 prospects. So, what I'm saying, is don't think Rand Paul was a big betrayal and just focus on spreading liberty!

 

[erowe1]

But I digress. I have noticed a shift in attention from Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Revolution to getting Rand Paul elected in 2016 -- despite the fact that he supports Romney. Trusting Rand Paul after his endorsement of Romney is a huge leap of faith that is akin to hoping the least of two evils is somehow good, and I won't do it. Even supporting Ron Paul himself had me gut-checking for 5 years as to whether or not I really wanted to support the system by supporting a man who works in it.

Granted, we made a bit of headway. We were perpetually more and more influential and it is clear that the GOP needs us to win. They still deny this in their rhetoric through the media, but we know the truth. Enough former GOP faithfuls have defected to the Paul camp to render their party dead.

But here's Rand Paul, primed to wear the prince's crown and get his foot in the door in 2016. He talks a lot like his father, only he's a smoother politician. It's very tempting to project our desire for the right kind of change onto him, even after he endorsed Romney. I know how tempting it is, I feel it too. But supporting Rand now after he endorsed Romney (while his father was still in the race, come on!) is not a choice. I'm not going to waste my energy while still not making a choice.

I'm going to put my energy into the message, and the message alone. I will not use a politicians name. I will not use a party's name, or a platform. It will have nothing to do with voting. It will have nothing to do with politics.

From now on I am going to channel my desire for Liberty into a concise message that will fit directly into the hearts and minds of all people of all ages regardless of political affiliation, and I'm going to stick with that message for the rest of my life.

As Ron Paul recently stated: "We're too far gone."

This thing we call a system is broken in places we can't reach. Eventually it's going to come crumbling down. In my opinion, the best thing we can do for the future of not only this country, but the world at large is to be ready to pick up the pieces.

If we support Rand Paul or any politician in 2016 we're still worshiping government, thinking that we'll convince it to somehow fix its self. Deep down we know it won't, that it can't. It's a game of faith, and the longer we play it the less influence we'll have over the future.

If it's not about the future... what is it about?

There's nothing wrong with your position. It's a valid option. I didn't vote this year, and, though I plan to vote for Rand if given the chance, I could see myself being persuaded to your way of thinking.

Have you thought about building a coalition with like-minded people and actually pursuing a campaign based on this conviction? You could have yard signs and bumber stickers that say, "Nobody for President," and on election day encourage as many people as possible to wear "I didn't vote" stickers. Have a goal like getting voter turnout below 50%. Then you could say your candidate won.

 

[fr33]

I just ask that you don't do anything to sabotage those of us who will be attempting to work within the system (such as Rand).

Quoting for attention.