Ron Paul 2012 vs. Rand Paul 2012 [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Linus

05-07-2010, 11:39 AM

I'd really like to see someone else galvanize the movement aside from a member of the Paul family, lest we all find ourselves Naderized in the minds of the few suburbanites we've managed to lure to "the dark side" after the big game here in '12.

Personally I've long been a Napolitano booster, his Constitution in Exile is a great book, but who knows if he's even willing to take a pay cut for government work at this point. Beside, I don't think we would ever elect an American of Italian descent as President.

Mini-Me

05-07-2010, 11:45 AM

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

This. Plus, the best use of a Presidential run at this point is still to use the debates as a soapbox for voter education, and while Rand is a better speaker, Ron is far more hard-hitting on foreign policy and the police state.

I'd like to see other people outside the Paul family become torchbearers as well, but as of this point our only option is probably Gary Johnson (although Napolitano would also be very interesting too, especially considering only a libertarian President would pick him as a Supreme Court justice - where he REALLY should be). When it comes to Presidential elections, you pretty much have to pick candidates who have experience in government office or strong voter recognition, and there aren't very many such people who are also pro-liberty.

tremendoustie

05-07-2010, 11:46 AM

Ron is more principled

leonster

05-07-2010, 11:48 AM

Ron. He's said himself, he's afraid this time there might be a chance of him winning. Uphill climb, yes, but within the realm of possibility. With his age, though, he'd be best as a one-termer, then passing the torch to Rand in 2016.

Or, if Ron were to make a big impact but fail to get the nomination in 2012, again Rand would be a great candidate for 2016. Seems the pattern lately is that people get annoyed at whatever President is in office and vote the other party afterwards. Bush's election in 2000 had a lot to do with people fed up with Clinton scandals and wanting a clean break from that crowd. Same with Obama a couple years ago--people were fed up with Bush and the neo-cons. People are getting sick of Obama now--the question is will they be sick enough of him in 2012, or will it take a second term of lame-duckedness from him to get people sick of Democrats?

leonster

05-07-2010, 11:49 AM

This. Plus, the best use of a Presidential run at this point is still to use the debates as a soapbox for voter education, and while Rand is a better speaker, Ron is far more hard-hitting on foreign policy and the police state.

I'd like to see other people outside the Paul family become torchbearers as well, but as of this point our only option is probably Gary Johnson (although Napolitano would also be very interesting too, especially considering only a libertarian President would pick him as a Supreme Court justice - where he REALLY should be). When it comes to Presidential elections, you pretty much have to pick candidates who have experience in government office or strong voter recognition, and there aren't very many such people who are also pro-liberty.

How old is Napolitano? Just thinking of the future, if one of the Pauls were in the White House and could nominate him... his age (and health of course) would affect how long he could fight the good fight in the SC.

Mini-Me

05-07-2010, 11:51 AM

How old is Napolitano? Just thinking of the future, if one of the Pauls were in the White House and could nominate him... his age (and health of course) would affect how long he could fight the good fight in the SC.

He's only 59! He's not in the greatest shape though, so there's really no telling whether he's more likely to live for another 50 years or 50 days. :-/

BuddyRey

05-07-2010, 12:06 PM

I like Rand, but he hasn't proven himself yet. I want to see a term or two in the Senate so I can know he's the genuine article like his dad.

AuH20

05-07-2010, 12:11 PM

Rand. Rand is on the precipice of being a U.S. Senator after being relegated to a significant underdog. He simply articulates his positions better than father and thanks to his youth he brings more vivacity & quick thinking to the table. Moreover, Ron simply comes off too nice sometimes.

Southron

05-07-2010, 12:13 PM

In 2012 I prefer Ron. No sense in wasting Rand's chance against an incumbent President. Rand needs time to build a power base anyway.

ctiger2

05-07-2010, 12:28 PM

Easily Ron. Rand hasn't won anything yet and even if he did he'd have to announce he's running for president almost immediately after the elections. Not gonna happen. Ron is the one.

leonster

05-07-2010, 12:28 PM

In 2012 I prefer Ron. No sense in wasting Rand's chance against an incumbent President. Rand needs time to build a power base anyway.

There's this too. With few exceptions (Nixon is the only one I can think of), IF you're the party's nominee you only get one chance at the Presidency.

RonPaulwillWin

05-07-2010, 12:29 PM

I would choose Peter Schiff over Rand Paul....Peter is the alpha dog.

Fozz

05-07-2010, 12:31 PM

This Rand Paul 2012 talk is pretty stupid. He has no experience of being an elected official, and if he were to run in 2012, he would have to start his campaign one month after entering office.

2016 would be a good year for Rand if he becomes a major leader in the Senate.

Imaginos

05-07-2010, 12:31 PM

Ron Paul.
Some people say Ron Paul is too old but I believe just like many Austrian economists, Ron Paul will live very long.
And regarding Rand Paul, sorry but I don't think there's any proven track record of him yet.
I really hope Rand is going to follow his father's direction and only time will tell.
However, at this point, comparing Rand with Ron Paul does not make sense to me.
Rand Paul is no way in the same league with Ron Paul.
He has to prove himself first.

AuH20

05-07-2010, 12:36 PM

I thought this poll was a hypothetical. In a debate setting, I have full confidence Rand would kick Obama's ass and cut through the semantics. Son of Paul is the new and improved version, thanks to his age.

Imaginos

05-07-2010, 12:42 PM

@AuH20--> [QUOTE] I have full confidence Rand would kick Obama's ass and cut through the semantics. [QUOTE]
I'd love to see that!
If Rand turns out to be a great defender of liberty and constitution just like his father, then he will have my full support.
:)

anaconda

05-07-2010, 12:47 PM

They both should run. We should get as many liberty candidates into the debates as possible.

Brian Defferding

05-07-2010, 12:52 PM

Rand still needs to win the Senate seat first, for the love of all that is holy!

isrow

05-07-2010, 01:05 PM

Ron will be in a much better position. The currency crisis will be here by 2012 most likely and Ron has been tryin to change the course for forty years. I saw a clip once of Obama saying we didn't need a gold standard and it's been a really long time since we have used it. How great would it be for Ron to be able to respond in a debate he was around before the gold standard and has seen the decline ever since. There will be a campus crusade for RON PAUL 2012! I'm psyched.

UtahApocalypse

05-07-2010, 01:11 PM

Ron has to go first.... all great dynasty's start somewhere :)

Brett

05-07-2010, 01:16 PM

Rand because he could win.

Justinjj1

05-07-2010, 01:25 PM

Ron. Because he is more principled, has more credibility, speaks the truth, and doesn't pander to the neo-cons.

Linus

05-07-2010, 01:32 PM

Ron has to go first.... all great dynasty's start somewhere :)

Don't even joke about that. As someone who will have spent my entire young adult life watching this country deteriorate under the Bush and Clinton dynasties, that is not even funny.

In fact, it is a real reason that I keep serious reservations about supporting Rand Paul, although I have still encouraged everyone I know to support him.

sailingaway

05-07-2010, 01:48 PM

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

+1

Also, I want to see Rand's record. he is being 'careful' and I want to make sure that isn't 'squishy'. I have some leeway on positions, but not on waffling on principles, IF that is what it turns out to be.

0zzy

05-07-2010, 01:49 PM

Rand Paul but not in 2012.

sofia

05-07-2010, 03:03 PM

Here's an idea...

How about Ron runs (and loses the GOP primary)......but wakes up a bunch of people

Then Rand (who by spring of 2012 will have had 1 year in the Senate)...runs as an independent...

Romney....Rand...Obama

If not, we should get behind Trafficante.....cuz 2012 is America's LAST CHANCE

Elwar

05-07-2010, 03:23 PM

Ron Paul 2012 starts here:

http://www.TheRonPaulTeaParty.com

Let's do it!!!

http://www.theronpaulteaparty.com/e107_images/banners/banner.jpg (http://www.TheRonPaulTeaParty.com)

Fr3shjive

05-07-2010, 03:32 PM

I'd like to see how Rand votes for a couple of years before I'd support him for president. I already know Ron Paul is a man of integrity.

purplechoe

05-07-2010, 03:57 PM

Ron...

http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/12199/GR_PR_090807whispers-RonPaulBETTER.jpg

Linus

05-07-2010, 04:06 PM

Wow. I first read Dr Paul's book in mid-2008 and was on-board with his ideas immediately. I registered to vote for the first time then and even donated money. I was the most annoying guy you could meet during the 2008 campaign, trumpeting Congressman Paul long and loud.

But I clearly lost the script within the "Ron Paul movement" at some point. I thought it was movement based on principles. Right?

I mean...Rand Paul for President? Really? Right now? Such fleck-spittling enthusiasm for a man who has never served a single day in public office is the most disturbing thing I've seen since Obamania.

What can I say? Except "Damn it."

Fozz

05-07-2010, 04:22 PM

Ron. Because he is more principled, has more credibility, speaks the truth, and doesn't pander to the neo-cons.

This may shock you, but Ron Paul in 2008 endorsed and donated money through his Liberty PAC to Michele Bachmann and Virgil Goode, both of whom are hardcore neocons.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2008&cmte=C00234641

Also, he pandered to neocons when one of his ads said he would reject visas from terrorist nations.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/

Ron Paul is not as pure as you think.

BuddyRey

05-07-2010, 04:43 PM

This may shock you, but Ron Paul in 2008 endorsed and donated money through his Liberty PAC to Michele Bachmann and Virgil Goode, both of whom are hardcore neocons.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2008&cmte=C00234641

Also, he pandered to neocons when one of his ads said he would reject visas from terrorist nations.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/

Ron Paul is not as pure as you think.

The crap he has to say to get elected is one thing; how he has and does legislate from strict libertarian principle is another. I'm not saying Rand won't live up to that, but it is an awfully big pair of shoes to fill.

Fozz

05-07-2010, 04:46 PM

The crap he has to say to get elected is one thing; how he has and does legislate from strict libertarian principle is another. I'm not saying Rand won't live up to that, but it is an awfully big pair of shoes to fill.

This Justinjj1 person has been calling Rand Paul a neocon and a sellout.

And Ron Paul didn't have to endorse Bachmann or Goode to get elected.

Also Ron Paul's earmarking is a troubling practice.

Linus

05-07-2010, 04:52 PM

Also Ron Paul's earmarking is a troubling practice.

It's troubling that so many Americans actually believe that money would be saved if earmarks were done away with.

low preference guy

05-07-2010, 05:01 PM

It's troubling that so many Americans actually believe that money would be saved if earmarks were done away with.

True, but what in the Constitution allows Congress to send money to fishing companies? Nowhere. When Ron inserts those requests in bills, he makes them worse and more unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Paul and getting him elected to the Presidency in 2012 is probably the only way to prevent a catastrophic monetary, social, political, and military collapse in the United States.

Linus

05-07-2010, 05:03 PM

True, but what in the Constitution allows Congress to send money to fishing companies? Nowhere. When Ron inserts those requests in bills, he makes them worse and more unconstitutional.

Don't get me wrong, I like Ron Paul and getting him elected to the Presidency in 2012 is probably the only way to prevent a catastrophic monetary, social, political, and military collapse in the United States.

But he votes against the bills so he is no way, shape or form violating neither the letter nor the spirit of his Congressional duties.

RforRevolution

05-07-2010, 05:23 PM

Ron. Rand in 2016 when the message is more widely spread.

anaconda

05-07-2010, 05:46 PM

In 2012 I prefer Ron. No sense in wasting Rand's chance against an incumbent President. Rand needs time to build a power base anyway.

I don't think running against Obama will be a "waste of time." If I have ever seen a one-term president, this is he. It would not even surprise me if Obama pulls an LBJ and steps aside to give the Democrats a prayer of a chance by running someone else. Things will continue to get worse through 2012. Carter, Bush I, Obama....

Fozz

05-07-2010, 05:49 PM

It's troubling that so many Americans actually believe that money would be saved if earmarks were done away with.

The problem with earmarks is not the amount of spending, but the corruption and bribery that it entails. People shouldn't vote for representatives simply because they bring a lot of goodies with taxpayer dollars. But that is what earmarks encourage.

anaconda

05-07-2010, 05:49 PM

Ron. Rand in 2016 when the message is more widely spread.

But the public anger might dissipate by 2016 and be channeled into other false prophets. The mood will be ripe in 2012..

anaconda

05-07-2010, 05:53 PM

KramerDSP

05-07-2010, 06:01 PM

Goldwater is to Reagan as Ron is to Rand. History always repeats itself. And that's what I'm afraid of (President Reagan wasn't the same guy as the one in 1964 campaigning for Goldwater, and Bush 41 was forced upon on him as VP).

Fozz

05-07-2010, 06:18 PM

parocks

05-07-2010, 08:47 PM

In 2012 I prefer Ron. No sense in wasting Rand's chance against an incumbent President. Rand needs time to build a power base anyway.

I wouldn't say "Rand's chance". It's pretty rare for Republicans to get the nomination when they run the first time. Run, do well, then run again and win. Democrats often select first time runners, Republicans less so.

Mini-Me

05-08-2010, 09:34 AM

The problem with earmarks is not the amount of spending, but the corruption and bribery that it entails. People shouldn't vote for representatives simply because they bring a lot of goodies with taxpayer dollars. But that is what earmarks encourage.

This is a good point. Has anyone ever tried making an "earmark" for returning a district's "fair share" of pork money back to municipal treasuries instead? Any Congressperson who did that would avoid the special interest corruption problem, and their own district couldn't exactly complain about it.

Stop Making Cents

05-08-2010, 09:37 AM

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

Seemed to work for Barry Soetero ;)

Stop Making Cents

05-08-2010, 09:38 AM

This is a good point. Has anyone ever tried making an "earmark" for returning a district's "fair share" of pork money back to municipal treasuries instead? Any Congressperson who did that would avoid the special interest corruption problem, and their own district couldn't exactly complain about it.

That's a great idea - how about earmarking money in the form of rebates to people that pay property taxes?

CasualApathy

05-08-2010, 10:11 AM

Ron, no question about it.

And he will do a hell of a lot better this time around. As will we.

Aratus

05-08-2010, 10:38 AM

tangent4ronpaul

05-08-2010, 11:35 AM

Ron Paul 2012
Rand Paul 2020

-t

Spider-Man

05-08-2010, 09:44 PM

Rand because he could win.

This.

JaredMcC

05-27-2010, 08:40 AM

Ron, because Rand would have to announce his candidacy after a month in office and it'd be absurd. We'd have a far better bet with him in the Senate for a while.

Obama did it.

JaredMcC

05-27-2010, 08:40 AM

WHY NOT BOTH? we can have TWO or THREE LIBERTY CANDIDATEs run, if all are under
a pact to fold discretely to a standard bearer come the CONVENTION! we all know that
Rand's victory will have the media gushing ALL OVER him and some MIGHT quibble over
the idea of a 70something potus being our commander-in-chief, for this is a tough choise!

If both ran it would split the vote. Thats the last thing we need.

Fredom101

05-27-2010, 09:13 AM

Not a lot of big fans of the unprincipled Rand here.

Ninja Homer

05-27-2010, 09:30 AM

I'd like to see it flooded with liberty candidates... change the face of the election, the direction of the presidential race, control the issues that are brought to light, and wake some people up. As the race goes on, the lowest polling liberty candidates drop out 1 by 1 and direct their support to the remaining liberty candidates. It's time to take over, and this is how it's done.

SooperDave

05-27-2010, 09:31 AM

this should be a shutout victory for Ron

Ninja Homer

05-27-2010, 09:47 AM

If Ron and Rand BOTH run, I believe that'd be the first father and son in history to run against each other. That alone would cause a media explosion resulting in a huge burst of publicity and $millions worth of free air time. I couldn't think of a better way to start a campaign.

Splitting the vote for straw polls wouldn't matter. If anything, it would generate talk among political analysts that you should be looking at the combined polling numbers of Ron and Rand, because eventually one of them would be endorsing the other, and their support would be combined.

Ron alone changed many talking points in the '08 debates. 2 or more like-minded candidates would change the talking points exponentially.

RM918

05-27-2010, 11:53 AM

Obama did it.

Not at all. Obama was a senator from 2005 onward.

Mach

05-27-2010, 12:06 PM

WHY NOT BOTH? we can have TWO or THREE LIBERTY CANDIDATEs run, if all are under
a pact to fold discretely to a standard bearer come the CONVENTION! we all know that
Rand's victory will have the media gushing ALL OVER him and some MIGHT quibble over
the idea of a 70something potus being our commander-in-chief, for this is a tough choise!

You beat me to it... two or three at first, spreading THE message, that's a lot of news coverage, then, when the first two drop out you know who the voters will vote for..... call it.... Flooding with Freedom. :D

Just one? Ron Paul