Will the Libertarian Party Field A Candidate Against Presidential Candidate Rand Paul?

[FrankRep]

good try but no rand paul fails on the drug war. He basically endorses state rights over individual rightswhen it comesthe failed drug war. That isrands problem not mine. I will not stand with rand on that postion which he clearly has taken and made sure he reinforced in his gop speeched. rand paul will not win if they cannot get the libertarian vote. Does it mean he will not win because i will not vote for him in the general or primary? no but he is less lilely to winsince i am thevoter he is trying togert and lost. Rand thinks he can win with pro drug war and right wingersthen that is his plan. either way the gop cannot win without the libertarian vote inside the lp or outside the lp.

Can rand paul win my vote and support? Rand made his bed on hispositions on the drug war. He clearly stated that states have a right to imprison,fine and remove kids from their parents for using a safer substance then aspirin or alcohol and many common foods. Rand clearly doesn't want my vote or need my vote, NOT MY PROBLEM if he loses because of his stances on the failed drug war. even if you are in denial. The libertraina vote outside/inside the lp will make or break the gop. If the gop wantsto ignore the libertarian vote. Then expect the gop to become fossils in the future. The final percentages in any electiondo not even come close to showing you the actual number of libertarians voters inside the gop/dnc/lp. I can tell you gop zombies and dnc zombies will vote for their estblisment candidate which makes the 1% to 10% depending on state and local voters for lp which is just a lp number not an exact % of libertarian voters. If you want the gop to lose keep ignoring the lp and libertarian voter blocks. I have no problem making oil out of the gop if theyfail to understand. Libertrains make or break every election now.

Good try, but no?

You just agreed with me. --

"It appears that even Rand Paul is 'too Big Government' by Libertarian standards ..."

 

[speciallyblend]

Good try, but no?

You just agreed with me. --

"It appears that even Rand Paul is 'too Big Government' by Libertarian standards ..."

sorry misread, i thought you were trying to imply the gop doesn't need libertariansto win sorry. it is late and i am tired.

 

[FrankRep]

sorry misread, i thought you were trying to imply the gop doesn't need libertariansto win sorry. it is late and i am tired.

And probably stoned too.

 

[speciallyblend]

And probably stoned too.

actually no, i am at work doing audit and typing in between reports etc. not to mention i already suck at typing so my typos really get bad when i am tired oo well. I will not get stoned until i get off work. very busy this week just started closing on 4 houses and 15 acres ,lots of work and farming to come.

 

[jkob]

I don't think there is any question that they'll run a candidate. Hopefully they at least nominate a good candidate and not another Bob Barr because nobody is paying attention.

 

[speciallyblend]

sometunesfor the late nighters, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UrmN473LJw

 

[speciallyblend]

I don't think there is any question that they'll run a candidate. Hopefully they at least nominate a good candidate and not another Bob Barr because nobody is paying attention.

if i am correct they got less votes then in recent past with bob barr, karma!! Chuck Baldwin 2008! i wanted to vote lp but bob barr forced me to vote CP!!

 

[Chieppa1]

Absolutely. I still roll my eyes over all the young libertarian backing Gary Johnson got last go around.

 

[Carlybee]

good try but no rand paul fails on the failed drug war by his pandering. He basically endorses state rights over individual rights when it comes to the failed drug war. That is rands problem not mine. I will not stand with rand on that position which he clearly has taken and made sure he reinforced in his gop speeches. rand paul will not win if they cannot get the libertarian vote. Does it mean he will not win because i will not vote for him in the general or primary? no but he is less lilely to win since i am the voter he is trying to get and lost. Rand thinks he can win with pro drug war and right wingers then that is his plan. either way the gop cannot win without the libertarian vote inside the lp or outside the lp.

if you beleive what you say ? Then the gop has to court libertarians or go back to the lame argument if you don't vote gop you make the dnc win BS. Give us a reason to vote republican and stop the BS fence sitting.

Can rand paul win my vote and support? not sure unless he flip flops like romney, then trust is the issue and no i do not trust a republican who sucks up to pro-drug war and war mongering. Rand made his bed on his positions on the drug war. He clearly stated that states have a right to incarcerate,fine and remove kids from their parents for using a safer substance then aspirin or alcohol and many common foods. Rand clearly doesn't want my vote or need my vote, NOT MY PROBLEM if he loses because of his stances on the failed drug war. even if you are in denial. The libertraina vote outside/inside the lp will make or break the gop. If the gop wantsto ignore the libertarian vote. Then expect the gop to become fossils in the future. The final percentages in any electiondo not even come close to showing you the actual number of libertarians voters inside the gop/dnc/lp. I can tell you gop zombies and dnc zombies will vote for their estblisment candidate which makes the 1% to 10% depending on state and local voters for lp which is just a lp number not an exact % of libertarian voters. If you want the gop to lose keep ignoring the lp and libertarian voter blocks. I have no problem making oil out of the gop if they fail to understand. Libertarians make or break every election now.

rand has alot of flip flopping to do if he wants to win the swing state of colorado. Ignore the majority voter block in colorado see what happens ask romney. sorry for any typos/grammar got no time to fix them i suck at typing.

there is no if. if the gop doesn't win over libertarians the gop will lose. The gop lost the last election because they couldn't get republicans like me or libertarians to vote for them.

I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters. That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway. I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.

 

[LibertyEagle]

ROFL.

Rand Paul wants to send the decision down to the states. So did Ron. Some of the same people who applauded Ron for his stance, are now denouncing Rand for the same.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters. That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway. I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.

Yet another inaccurate statement and smear about Rand. Huge surprise.

The neat thing is that you don't have the corner on what is libertarian and what is not. Neat how that works, isn't it?

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters. That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway. I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.

The "libertarian vote" that you reference, I believe would be referring to the hardcore libertarians. The type that place every politician and pundit under a electron microscope to find their flaws and therefore disqualify them from being called "libertarian". In all honesty, from a political standpoint that group is practically unreachable, and furthermore it is such a minuscule portion of the electorate that it is not worth courting.

 

[PatriotOne]

I don't think he wants the libertarian vote and I get the impression his supporters would like it if libertarians stay far away from his campaign, so he can concentrate on wooing evangelicals and more conservative voters. That's just an impression going by some of the comments I've seen anyway. I'm not sure how one can reconcile libertarianism with theocratic conservatism so basically he will only be able to claim libertarian ideology on cherry picked issues.

Obviously he wants the libertarian vote. And so do I. He just doesn't want the "libertarians" who smoke a joint in one hand while holding a Rand Paul sign in the other. Or like the one that lit up a joint at a Republican meeting while supporting Ron in 2011. Basically he doesn't care about the ones who have an IQ below 80 or the common sense of a rock.

 

[compromise]

Obviously he wants the libertarian vote. And so do I. He just doesn't want the "libertarians" who smoke a joint in one hand while holding a Rand Paul sign in the other. Or like the one that lit up a joint at a Republican meeting while supporting Ron in 2011. Basically he doesn't care about the ones who have an IQ below 80 or the common sense of a rock.

Can you link me a source for this? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true though.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It most certainly is. Ask around at your church if you want proof of that. I know it's true at mine.

I have no doubt the same is mostly true at mine. Nobody cares about the people being murdered.

I say give them what they want to hear socially, and focus on the murderous foreign policy.

ROFL.

Rand Paul wants to send the decision down to the states. So did Ron. Some of the same people who applauded Ron for his stance, are now denouncing Rand for the same.

I can agree with this, although Ron makes it obvious to someone that is paying attention that he wants drugs to be legal... Rand makes it clear that he does not (He may secretly actually want drugs to be legal, but he says he doesn't.) Its easy to tell a difference in rhetoric on the issue. If Ron and Rand were running for state governor at the same time, their stances on drugs would likely look different.

That said, it really doesn't matter. For a Federal level politician, being willing to repeal the Federal laws is all that I really need.

I'm a Rand supporter, but the issues I seriously have with him are foreign policy issues, not social issues.

Of course, I'll likely be called a hater despite defending Rand, but whatever.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Of course, I'll likely be called a hater despite defending Rand, but whatever.

Why do you put that at the bottom of so many of your posts? It's almost like you are just trying to pick a fight. It's weird.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Why do you put that at the bottom of so many of your posts? It's almost like you are just trying to pick a fight. It's weird.

Not sure. But I feel like some people will take ANY criticism of Rand as an attack, even if its in a post that is primarily positive.

When Ron Paul talked about heroin in South Carolina, he said it was a state's rights issue, but he seemed to imply, very clearly, that there was no need for any government regulation.

When Rand talks about drugs, he says its a state's rights issue, but he does obviously (Or at least, its obvious that his public position is) support state-level bans of drugs. Which is pretty much the same position my dad takes. My dad supports leaving pretty much every issue to the states, but he does support anti-drug laws at the state level. Much like Rand does.

At the Federal level, it doesn't really matter which stance is taken for any pragmatic purpose, so I see nothing wrong with Rand taking the stance he's taking. That said, when Ron Paul ran, he was trying to educate, not to win, so what he did in that instance made sense as well.

This isn't a big deal to me though. Rand is clearly opposed to the "war" on drugs, and he's clearly in support of state's rights, so the fact that he may personally support some watered down drug laws at the state level isn't a huge deal to me.

 

[PatriotOne]

Can you link me a source for this? I wouldn't be surprised if it's true though.

JK/SEA posted about it here and thought it was great. It might of been 2012. I can't remember if he was actually there at the Repub mtg or got it from a 2nd hand source. They were electing Repub delegates for their district or precinct officers or something during that mtg. I forget the details now as I was just more shocked that JK/SEA thought it was just fantastic .

JK/SEA would prob be glad to provide the details...he was quite proud of the guy .

Hmmmm....or maybe it was PhilforPaul who reported it. Wish I could find the thread on it because I would love to use it as an example of people that we don't want being activists for Rand....lol.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Not sure. But I feel like some people will take ANY criticism of Rand as an attack, even if its in a post that is primarily positive.

I don't think that's true. I think its primarily been directed at those who ran all over the forum twisting Rand's words and were quite gleeful about their intentions.

When Ron Paul talked about heroin in South Carolina, he said it was a state's rights issue, but he seemed to imply, very clearly, that there was no need for any government regulation.

When Rand talks about drugs, he says its a state's rights issue, but he does obviously (Or at least, its obvious that his public position is) support state-level bans of drugs. Which is pretty much the same position my dad takes. My dad supports leaving pretty much every issue to the states, but he does support anti-drug laws at the state level. Much like Rand does.

At the Federal level, it doesn't really matter which stance is taken for any pragmatic purpose, so I see nothing wrong with Rand taking the stance he's taking. That said, when Ron Paul ran, he was trying to educate, not to win, so what he did in that instance made sense as well.

This isn't a big deal to me though. Rand is clearly opposed to the "war" on drugs, and he's clearly in support of state's rights, so the fact that he may personally support some watered down drug laws at the state level isn't a huge deal to me.

Ron was a FEDERAL politician and so is Rand. The only thing they could/can do is get it sent down to the states. The Republicans largely misunderstood Ron and feared what he was suggesting. They aren't with Rand and he is suggesting the same thing be done. It's because of how he explains it, I'm pretty sure.

This is all a good thing.

 

[Carlybee]

Yet another inaccurate statement and smear about Rand. Huge surprise.

The neat thing is that you don't have the corner on what is libertarian and what is not. Neat how that works, isn't it?

Not a smear..my perception. And since this thread is about the LP I was referring to those who might generally vote LP. Reign in your claws.