I support Rand Paul's actions.
Will you vote for Rand to have a second term?
- Thread starter mczerone
- Start date
I support Rand Paul's actions.
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
Whether he's dropped at that first disagreement would depend (for me) on how serious the disagreement is.
What the establishment usually does is make apologies for their own even when they adopt the principles of their opponents once elected (see: Obama/Bush). I'm not going to play that game.
That said, I'm not voting in this poll because (1) he hasn't even announced for 2016 yet and (2) I tend to wait until I see how someone performs in the first term before deciding whether I'll vote to re-elect them.
Last edited:
I know, that's why it's an assumption. I'm just trying to lay out a hypothetical situation to see how the fellow posters react.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
Isn't this like getting the cart before the horse?
It's a thought experiment to see where people fall in regard to support for Rand right now.
You don't have to play if you don't want to.
compromise
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 5,516
Any true american that votes for someone who wears a yarmulke at that stupid wall is at best misguided, and at worst a traitor.
He is channeling heavenly energy in order to win more of the Evangelical and Orthodox Jewish vote in 2016. Leave him be.
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
That was my first thought,, until I saw the "2016 presidential race".
At this point I am not expecting a 2016 race.
Victor Grey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Messages
- 554
Well I voted maybe.
Yes of course if he isn't on the aggregate and in the overall scheme of things, working toward what is a change for good it becomes irrelevant to support him.
However at the same time, I'm certainly not of the persuasion that if he somehow magic'd away 9/10ths of all the nation's government in 4 years, I'm still going to be stalwartly butthurt, either.
It's unrealistic to imagine anyone in the current age becoming a libertarian-politician/comicbook-superhero, bitten by a radioactive Rothbard with the power of mass liberty mind-control beams and throwing out 100 years of government stink immediately.
I can't expect that.
If he did win, I fully expect congress to be a stinging pain in the rear every hour, every day, every month, ever single step of the way.
I expect Fox, and conservative talk radio and all the rest, to shed their flesh and melt away, revealing the ugly hypocrite grim reaper's skeleton underneath within a few months. Ground gains would be small.
The best case outcome to hope for after the first term, would be a slight increase in public sympathizers toward the philosophy of less state, a cataclysmic avalanche of schadenfreude-inducing hate, and another century's worth of struggle to follow it all; at the very depressing best.
Yes of course if he isn't on the aggregate and in the overall scheme of things, working toward what is a change for good it becomes irrelevant to support him.
However at the same time, I'm certainly not of the persuasion that if he somehow magic'd away 9/10ths of all the nation's government in 4 years, I'm still going to be stalwartly butthurt, either.
It's unrealistic to imagine anyone in the current age becoming a libertarian-politician/comicbook-superhero, bitten by a radioactive Rothbard with the power of mass liberty mind-control beams and throwing out 100 years of government stink immediately.
I can't expect that.
If he did win, I fully expect congress to be a stinging pain in the rear every hour, every day, every month, ever single step of the way.
I expect Fox, and conservative talk radio and all the rest, to shed their flesh and melt away, revealing the ugly hypocrite grim reaper's skeleton underneath within a few months. Ground gains would be small.
The best case outcome to hope for after the first term, would be a slight increase in public sympathizers toward the philosophy of less state, a cataclysmic avalanche of schadenfreude-inducing hate, and another century's worth of struggle to follow it all; at the very depressing best.
Icymudpuppy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,497
I care about action. Not words when it comes to voting. That doesn't mean I won't criticize words I think are off.
libertariantexas
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 571
Well, lets see.
The choices are pretty much limited to vote for Rand or either a big government Democrat or possibly an extreme social conservative (e.g. run of the mill) Republican.
Seems like supporting a not perfect, but not bad, Rand Paul is a far better choice than the alternatives.
The choices are pretty much limited to vote for Rand or either a big government Democrat or possibly an extreme social conservative (e.g. run of the mill) Republican.
Seems like supporting a not perfect, but not bad, Rand Paul is a far better choice than the alternatives.
for what it's worth, OP gave a neg rep for my above post. not sure what he/she is, but sure has a problem
his rep comment included something about "playing jewish", completely missed the boat that bowing down to a foreign power is unamerican.
if you're not down with someone who wants to AVOID entangling alliances and frenemies, i'm not sure you understand ron paul
his rep comment included something about "playing jewish", completely missed the boat that bowing down to a foreign power is unamerican.
if you're not down with someone who wants to AVOID entangling alliances and frenemies, i'm not sure you understand ron paul
Last edited:
Also, I have been critical of Rand for voting in favor of sanctions on Iran and saying that he supports marijuana prohibition. But, I still think he's the best candidate we'll have by far in 2016. Ron isn't going to run again. Rand is head and shoulders better than statists like Christie and Santorum.
I respect those who disagree with me and aren't going to support Rand in 2016, but it just seems like some people simply ignore all of the good things Rand has done in the Senate.
I respect those who disagree with me and aren't going to support Rand in 2016, but it just seems like some people simply ignore all of the good things Rand has done in the Senate.
GregSarnowski
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 445
The whole premise of this question is ridiculous (not to mention getting WAY ahead of itself). Why not give Rand the benefit of the doubt? Not because he is Ron Paul's son, but because he has already demonstrated himself to be the most outspoken and effective proponent of liberty in the U.S. senate. If he has to compromise certain places to achieve larger goals, that's the name of the game. If you don't want to work within the system, that's respectable, but don't criticize those who do for trying to make incremental gains.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,059
Then why not just ask if people would vote for Rand Paul if the election was tomorrow?
2019 - 2013 = 6 years from now != "right now"
Bizarre poll is bizarre ...
mosquitobite
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,821
This. I get so tired of people buying WORDS.
Rubio is a tea partier, right? Um, why? Because the media told us so!
It's why I will support Lee Bright over Nancy Mace. She may be a fine lady but I think she's just as likely an establishment plant as Rubio was. Let's not go on words, but ACTIONS and RECORDS!
Similar threads
