POLL: Rand endorsing Romney...Good or Bad?

[Perry]

Let's try and keep the debate and passionate opinions in other threads.
I would just like to see a consensus on whether people think this is good or bad.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Anyone that isn't a complete political fool knows that you need to support the party's candidates if you expect to make any headways. The endorsement did not change Rand, only the nutjobs on this forum believe that. And the nutjobs never had real influence anyways, thankfully!

[libertyfan101]

Rand sold out. Learn more from your father.

[Perry]

Anyone that isn't a complete political fool knows that you need to support the party's candidates if you expect to make any headways. The endorsement did not change Rand, only the nutjobs on this forum believe that. And the nutjobs never had real influence anyways, thankfully!

Does that include Ron Paul who says he would not support Romney?

Dang. really is an even split with more people undecided than anything.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

We're not gonna know for awhile.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yay undecided!

[jclay2]

How can you believe that this action is good for the movement in any way. Look for yourselves at the poll, it is dividing us!

[Brian4Liberty]

"Undecided" <> "Don't give a shit".

You need a new option.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

How can you believe that this action is good for the movement in any way. Look for yourselves at the poll, it is dividing us!

It's the nature of passionate people, and confusion. A wait and see approach would do some people a lot of good, as I seem to see a bunch of heads exploding lately.

[paulpwns]

I support Rand and Romney over the Obama machine.

[DamianTV]

Im not on the Ron Paul Forums because I support or dont support Rand. I am here because I support Ron Paul.

[ProIndividual]

I support Rand and Romney over the Obama machine.

So you'd support not having a liberty candidate until 2020 or 2024, instead of 2016...genius. The movement died a little in that one comment.

Clue for those who have no comprehension of game theory:

If the Republicans win, we can't run a liberty candidate until 2020 or 2024 (no modern challenge in the Republican Party of its incumbant President has succeeded). That means setting back the liberty movement in that all important office 8-12 years instead of 4 years.

Vote Romney/Rand = 4-8 year unnecessary setback for liberty

Digest the mathematical realities, and get to NOT voting Republican for President unless it's Ron Paul. You'd be better off voting Obama than Romney, logically.

[soulcyon]

I've yet to make my mind up about Rand Paul. He doesn't have the same enthusiasm as his dad, but I'm sure he has his reasons for jumping into politics as well.

Until then, I'll be stocking up on real Gold and silver pieces xD

[papitosabe]

Anyone that isn't a complete political fool knows that you need to support the party's candidates if you expect to make any headways. The endorsement did not change Rand, only the nutjobs on this forum believe that. And the nutjobs never had real influence anyways, thankfully!



Does that include Ron Paul who says he would not support Romney?


looks like perry just debunked you...and also, RP didn't support Mccain in 08...


I support Rand and Romney over the Obama machine.

I think Romney would bring more war to the middle east...why do you think Romney would be better than Obama?


So you'd support not having a liberty candidate until 2020 or 2024, instead of 2016...genius. The movement died a little in that one comment.

Clue for those who have no comprehension of game theory:

If the Republicans win, we can't run a liberty candidate until 2020 or 2024 (no modern challenge in the Republican Party of its incumbant President has succeeded). That means setting back the liberty movement in that all important office 8-12 years instead of 4 years.

Vote Romney/Rand = 4-8 year unnecessary setback for liberty

Digest the mathematical realities, and get to NOT voting Republican for President unless it's Ron Paul. You'd be better off voting Obama than Romney, logically.

^^^^^^THIS

[Dogsoldier]

Just to be clear.I am undecided.I will NOT support a Romney/Rand ticket because its not a Rand/whoever ticket or a Ron Paul/whoever ticket.

Going on just the info I have now which is not alot and no more then any of you...This was not a good move for Rand OR for the liberty movement.

[Vessol]

It's bad. Rand single-handedly has dealt the most devastating blow to this movement than any before.

I'm still stunned and don't know where to go from here. I feel like the last 4 years of my time studying, donating my time and money, for all this, has just been..cleaved in two almost.

I'm going to still go to Porcfest and socialize with freedom-lovers, eventually move up there, be a part of local activism maybe. Do more studying. But I won't support anything that ever has anything to do with Rand Paul again.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Can I say...I told you so?

[Vessol]

Can I say...I told you so?

Most certainly, and you'd be right. I decided to support RP2012 because I felt that I owed the man for all that he introduced me to..

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Most certainly, and you'd be right. I decided to support RP2012 because I felt that I owed the man for all that he introduced me to..

The campaign aside, I've been scorned on this forum for daring to utter blasphemy's against Rand. You know, it's a bitch being right so much, when I'd much rather turn out to be wrong. The Rand apologista's though will rationalize anything he does just like your typical O-bot, or partisan-hack / apparatchik. I said time and again Rand wasn't any good to the movement and people hitching their wagon to him just because his name is 'Paul' was fucking stupid and my example I always used was Buffet. Come on folks -- You NEED to support Warren Buffet because his dad was Howard and obviously just because his name is Buffet he's going to be a principled radical libertarian.

Not many listened, and it wasn't too popular. Maybe they'll wake up one day and reflect on their betrayal of basic moral, ethical, and philosophical principles which should be placed above any man.

[Vessol]

Not many listened, and it wasn't too popular. Maybe they'll wake up one day and reflect on their betrayal of basic moral, ethical, and philosophical principles which should be placed above any man.

I certainly hope so. There's so many people out there to whom these philosophical principles of liberty and non-aggression have become the focal point of their life. I hope that this wedge doesn't destroy that. I feel more exhausted in this past day than I have in months. I saw it coming, I had reservations when it came to Rand before, but when it came I guess I wasn't prepared. Especially not for all those who seem to think this is good in any way.

[Don Lapre]

I think the endorsement hurts the movement in as far as people (maybe mistakenly?) identified Rand as... "one of us," so to speak - and this appears to be a pretty significant sell-out from a very large playah on our team.

But I think some of this... shock... comes only because perhaps many of us projected an ideology and an approach onto Rand that he perhaps does not (or is not ready to) truly own.



Perspective.

Is it not true that a younger Ron Paul (as Rand is now) once endorsed Ronald Reagan?

And surely Ron knew at that time that RR was not nearly as ideologically pure as Ron Paul himself.

Sometimes maybe you sort of have no choice but to... play the game a little bit.
And maybe Rand believes that is the case at this point in time.

Didn't Ron Paul also endorse G. Bush in 2000?


Or am I wrong about those two endorsements?


I dunno.

Just trying to feel my way through things right now.

[Fort Lauderdale]

Vice President Rand Paul or Ron Paul will make Mitt Romney end the fed, close all U.S. military bases around the world, bring all the troops home, close the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Interior, Education, and Housing and Urban Development, which would cut $2 trillion in spending. Paul to Romney: You do what I tell you to do! ...And when all U.S. military bases around the world have been permanently closed, and all the U.S. troops have been brought back home, there will be a parade on the streets New York City for the troops. Leading up to the parade, all networks will show a video montage of U.S. troops in action and then troops boarding planes and ships heading home to the U.S., with Mama, I'm Coming Home by Ozzy Osbourne playing in the background. The U.S. troops will then be sent to patrol our air and sea ports and our borders with Canada and Mexico. That is how terrorism will be defeated!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvNXF7aGP2s

[Don Lapre]

One more quick thought...

Is it possible that Rand (and/or Ron?) are of the opinion that Romney is actually going to be an effective (in the eyes of the general public) president, and that it would be a form of suicide for Rand, at a very young political age, to stand out on a limb within his own party in opposition to that?

[Butchie]

Anyone that isn't a complete political fool knows that you need to support the party's candidates if you expect to make any headways. The endorsement did not change Rand, only the nutjobs on this forum believe that. And the nutjobs never had real influence anyways, thankfully!

Oh, you are right about one thing, to be a politician you do need to sell out alright, but where does that get you? You don't take them over, they take you over, Tea Party and Pat Robertson Evangelicals are perfect examples of this.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

One more quick thought...

Is it possible that Rand (and/or Ron?) are of the opinion that Romney is actually going to be an effective (in the eyes of the general public) president


I doubt either of them think that, and it would be hard to find anyone on this board that thinks that. More likely we continue the economic slide no matter who is president, since they both have the same contributors and same positions. I hope it stays slow and painful instead of a fast breakdown, so people have more opportunities to adjust instead of starve.

[DeMintConservative]

One more quick thought...

Is it possible that Rand (and/or Ron?) are of the opinion that Romney is actually going to be an effective (in the eyes of the general public) president, and that it would be a form of suicide for Rand, at a very young political age, to stand out on a limb within his own party in opposition to that?

It'd be political suicide regardless of the effectiveness of Romney's presidency.

I find it amazing the number of people here who believe that it's a good idea to antagonize 90% of their own party. In fact, people need to make up their minds: either they see the GOP as their house or they see it as the HQ of their enemies. If it's the later, there's no point in trying to persuade Republicans to join you. Parties are nothing besides the people in it. I mean, when people here talk about "taking over the GOP" what the heck they actually mean? This isn't some RPG where the goal is to conquer territory. A party without its loyalists and voters is completely useless. The only way of advancing the public policies you defend is by persuading others of their goodness or having them as allies by finding compromises. Those you are hostile towards won't be sympathetic to your persuasion efforts and won't be open to coalitions.

Rand Paul made his choice - the only possible one for someone who actually cares about implementing the policy prescriptions he believes and who understand participating in the political process as more than an ego trip.

And there's no way whatsoever Ron Paul doesn't endorse Romney. Maybe not a straight forward endorsement like Rand's, but at least he'll publicly disclose his voting orientation.

[The Gold Standard]

Whether or not Ron endorses Romney, I refuse to believe there is any way in hell he will actually vote for him.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I find it amazing the number of people here who believe that it's a good idea to antagonize 90% of their own party. In fact, people need to make up their minds: either they see the GOP as their house or they see it as the HQ of their enemies. If it's the later, there's no point in trying to persuade Republicans to join you.


I don't even see them as republicans, just as people. People who call themselves democrats will have to learn as well. They can learn the easy way or the hard way. Unfortunately, it may just be the hard way as we watch our globalist policing policies turn inward toward a really ugly police state.




And there's no way whatsoever Ron Paul doesn't endorse Romney. Maybe not a straight forward endorsement like Rand's, but at least he'll publicly disclose his voting orientation.

Ron has repeatedly said he won't endorse Romney, and he has a long record of doing what he says he'll do. There won't be any Romney endorsement coming from Ron.

I'm not even sure how straightforward Rand's endorsement was, since it keeps starting with "He's not my first choice..."

[DeMintConservative]

I don't even see them as republicans, just as people. People who call themselves democrats will have to learn as well. They can learn the easy way or the hard way..

That just sounds creepy and silly.

In the real world, the only way for Paul's ideas, at least some of them, to grow politically is within the GOP. He's understood that - that's why he quit the 3rd party nonsense. Rand Paul wants more than a platform to advocate, so he understands he needs to be in the party. And being in a political party means putting your ass in line when the time comes. It's the minimum requirement. Otherwise, you can forget about growing your platform politically.




Ron has repeatedly said he won't endorse Romney, and he has a long record of doing what he says he'll do. There won't be any Romney endorsement coming from Ron.

I'm not even sure how straightforward Rand's endorsement was, since it keeps starting with "He's not my first choice..."

He wasn't mine either and I fully support him now. Ron Paul won't declare an endorsement as Rand did. He certainly won't campaign. But he'll say Romney is less bad than Obama and that he'll vote for him.

Heck, his campaign just said something akin to that a few days ago.

[MelissaCato]

I think it was bad, very bad. Hate me today, hate me tomorrow.

Rand agreed with the MSM rhetoric that Mittens secured the GOP nomination. The GOP convention in Tampa isn't until Aug. Anything can happen.

Now, all I hear from family, friends, co-workers (people that took years to convince Ron Paul is the man, people who said supporting Ron Paul is dangerous, RP is the champion of the constitution, pro liberty with no BS/compromise) are laughing and telling me they told me so, the constitution is dead, no politition is honest, his own son doesn't even support him .. I mean it's complete betrayal if you care to know what I think. I had most those people believing in Ron Paul, the constitution, donating to his MONEYBOMBS, Ron Paul 2012 in it to win it ... after this with Rand ... well, I dunno what...

I know my dad is scared for me .. he told me not to get involved with politics especially supporting Ron Paul way back when .. he demanded me to just stay away from anyone supporting the Constitution in public. He thought Ron Paul was some sort of plant to round up all the constitutionalists and diehards (which I am) .. I needed to do my own thing so I joined the Ron Paul camp.

I seriously hope Ron Paul and Rand Paul didn't cut a deal, I do not wanna be rounded up and killed because I didn't listen to my dad. I honestly only got involved because I thought it was the right thing to do for America. Just saying.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

That just sounds creepy and silly.


History is full of countries that fall apart, or become so oppressive, no one wants to be there. It's not creepy or silly, but real life. The actions of the feds and federal reserve over the last 20 years could quite possibly lead to a real monetary system breakdown. A lot of people could starve over it. You can call it creepy or silly, but I'd call it learning the hard way.

[V3n]

It's disgusting, but it needed to be done. That's the game. The game is disgusting.

http://i.imgur.com/T2nys.jpg


edit: pic added

[DeMintConservative]

History is full of countries that fall apart, or become so oppressive, no one wants to be there. It's not creepy or silly, but real life. The actions of the feds and federal reserve over the last 20 years could quite possibly lead to a real monetary system breakdown. A lot of people could starve over it. You can call it creepy or silly, but I'd call it learning the hard way.

That's not what I thought as creepy or silly.

I do fear that if the fiscal gap situation isn't addressed, the ultimate solution will eventually come in the form of hyperinflation and the unavoidable massive destruction of wealth and standards of living that such a scenario implies.

The only way of avoiding such a situation is by implementing different public policies.

The only way of getting in position to implement those public policies in a democratic constitutional republic is through persuasion or coalition building and adopting a gradualist approach. Also support any political solutions that at least delay the process - like having Romney nominating judges instead of Obama.

The only way of doing that is within a party. And that implies not antagonizing 90% of your own party.

And that's basically what Rand Paul is doing.

Do you have a better alternative? One that doesn't imply erm far-fetched scnearios like infiltrating the electoral college and then electing Ron Paul (and then, I guess, somehow hypnotize Congressmen and Senators)? I don't think there's one.

Of course, lots of people see politics as an arena to express their emotions and fighting for their culture. Or as some sort of secular religion. Or as a way of satisfying their instincts and their ego. Some people take satisfaction of being in the minority, of playing the watchdog role.

Rand Paul seems to be interested in actually implementing the policies he believes in. And he's pursuing the only available path for that.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

The only way of avoiding such a situation is by implementing different public policies.


This is why I say people need to be convinced. (not simply republicans or democrats) If they aren't convinced with words, they may find themselves convinced by a lack of food at some point. It is people forcing discussions of a fed audit and policy change, not political parties. They are largely content to keep pointing fingers at each other instead of addressing root causes.

[DeMintConservative]

You can't convince people you antagonize and are openly hostile towards. It makes the entire persuasion game a lot more difficult. In fact, within the political context, it makes it impossible. If Paul didn't endorse Romney, his political career would be finished.

Plus, you don't need the support of a majority for every single of your policies in a 2 party system because of the coalition building aspect. Romney and Rand Paul and lots of other guys disagree with each other plenty but Romney supported Paul's quest to become a Senator, now Paul supports him. That's what a party is. It's a vehicle to implement public policies. Either you use this vehicle or you're left with none.

[SilentBull]

If you really care about changing the party, it's good. If all you want is to remain "rebels" and you are only interested talking about liberty without changing anything, it's bad.

[DeMintConservative]

If you really care about changing the party, it's good. If all you want is to remain "rebels" and you are only interested talking about liberty without changing anything, it's bad.

Succinct and to the point. Fully agreed.

[Vessol]

If you really care about changing the party, it's good. If all you want is to remain "rebels" and you are only interested talking about liberty without changing anything, it's bad.

How are we going to change the party when the country is heading to an economic collapse within the next half decade?

[soulcyon]

I mean, when people here talk about "taking over the GOP" what the heck they actually mean? This isn't some RPG where the goal is to conquer territory.lmao... That made my day

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I mean, when people here talk about "taking over the GOP" what the heck they actually mean? This isn't some RPG where the goal is to conquer territory.

I think everyone else understands it is a matter of taking the party over ideologically. But it's not really taking it over. It's taking it back. Republicans enjoyed support for 40 years by claiming they were for smaller government without ever really getting a chance to implement it. They've since had plenty of chances and failed miserably. Not only did they fail, but they appear to have never even tried.

But the problem is this... once people have made a decision, they usually stick with that decision even when facing new information. This is why unscrupulous sales people will often get someone to agree to deal, and then later change the deal. The buyer accepts the change because they've already committed to the purchase. This is essentially what the GOP has done. They've enjoyed support based on the fact that people committed to their small government message. The fact is that they never lived up to it, yet still enjoy support because people have needs for commitment and consistency. This is the same reason democrats get away with their own lies.