Rand has a +31 favorability rating among Republicans, compared to -21 for Ron in 2011

[Brett85]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/12/looking-ahead-to-2016.html
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1114925.pdf

[CaptLouAlbano]

It is amazing how virtually the same ideological positions, presented in two different ways can result in such a huge difference in public perception.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It is amazing how virtually the same ideological positions, presented in two different ways can result in such a huge difference in public perception.
That's a 52% net swing and we haven't even begun to really sell Rand to the average voter yet. How you say something matters just as much, if not more, than what you say.

[Brett85]

It is amazing how virtually the same ideological positions, presented in two different ways can result in such a huge difference in public perception.

Some Ron Paul supporters would say that there's a difference on the issues as well. While there probably is some difference, I still think that Ron and Rand probably agree on at least 95% of the issues.

[malkusm]

Rand likes to appear "tough on terrorism" to blend in with the wolves and also because it gives him cover to blast our outrageous foreign aid policy whenever an international event occurs (Bin Laden harbored by Pakistan? End aid to Pakistan! Americans held hostage by Egypt? End aid to Egypt! etc...)

He's so good at it, he's even fooled the less cunning (or less politically savvy) among his father's fanbase.

[Matt Collins]

It is amazing how virtually the same ideological positions, presented in two different ways can result in such a huge difference in public perception.Politics isn't reality, it's the perception of reality.

[AJ Antimony]

It is amazing how virtually the same ideological positions, presented in two different ways can result in such a huge difference in public perception.

Bingo!

[CaptLouAlbano]

Some Ron Paul supporters would say that there's a difference on the issues as well. While there probably is some difference, I still think that Ron and Rand probably agree on at least 95% of the issues.

I'm with you on that, which is why I said "ideological positions" instead of issues or policy positions. Nonetheless, I am sure it won't be long until a certain person will be here with their panties in a bunch telling us how Ron is greater than Rand and how she just can't support him, nor does she care what Hannity's listeners think.

[NewRightLibertarian]

probably because he does things like vote 'yes' on defense appropriation bills for hundreds of billions of dollars

[DylanWaco]

probably because he does things like vote 'yes' on defense appropriation bills for hundreds of billions of dollars

This will be read as a troll, but it shouldn't be because it's true.

To Republicans mass murdering Muslim children is the primary role of government and must be pursued at all cost. Rand is viewed as someone who does not oppose mass murdering Muslim children, by rank and file GOPers. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant.

[itshappening]

probably because he does things like vote 'yes' on defense appropriation bills for hundreds of billions of dollars

Did I miss that one? He hasn't voted on appropriation bills yet.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Did I miss that one? He hasn't voted on appropriation bills yet.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/270973-senate-passes-key-defense-policy-bill-

Rand's also done liberty no favors with his support of the horrendous Feinstein-Lee amendment to the NDAA. I guess all of you Rand worshipers can continue to make believe his shortcomings are some kind of a genius political masterstroke if it makes you all feel better though.

[Brett85]

Nonetheless, I am sure it won't be long until a certain person will be here with their panties in a bunch telling us how Ron is greater than Rand and how she just can't support him, nor does she care what Hannity's listeners think.


probably because he does things like vote 'yes' on defense appropriation bills for hundreds of billions of dollars

Lol. There you go.

[CaptLouAlbano]

probably because he does things like vote 'yes' on defense appropriation bills for hundreds of billions of dollars

Oh yeah that must be it, because the average registered voter followed the roll call on NDAA with great excitement. My wife was at her bridge club the other night and you couldn't get those ladies there to stop yakking about the Feinstein-Lee Amendment. :rolleyes:

[itshappening]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/270973-senate-passes-key-defense-policy-bill-

NDAA is not an appropriation. I think Rand has explained this before.

[Pisces]

This will be read as a troll, but it shouldn't be because it's true.

To Republicans mass murdering Muslim children is the primary role of government and must be pursued at all cost. Rand is viewed as someone who does not oppose mass murdering Muslim children, by rank and file GOPers. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant.

Not a troll post, just one filled with the typical hyperbole that LewRockwell.com and people heavily influenced by that site like to engage in.

[NewRightLibertarian]

NDAA is not an appropriation. I think Rand has explained this before.

Thanks, Rand, for doing your part in saving the Pentagon's biofuels programs. Liberty owes a great debt of gratitude for your service on its behalf.


Not a troll post, just one filled with the typical hyperbole that LewRockwell.com and people heavily influenced by that site like to engage in.

It is not hyperbole, it is fact. Just some facts that many Rand fanboys within the liberty movement want to sweep under the rug.

[DylanWaco]

Not a troll post, just one filled with the typical hyperbole that LewRockwell.com and people heavily influenced by that site like to engage in.

Lew Rockwell has been very hands off toward Rand actually.

[ican'tvote]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/270973-senate-passes-key-defense-policy-bill-

Rand's also done liberty no favors with his support of the horrendous Feinstein-Lee amendment to the NDAA. I guess all of you Rand worshipers can continue to make believe his shortcomings are some kind of a genius political masterstroke if it makes you all feel better though.
This really reminds me of the language people use when they attack Ron for the whole DOMA deal.

[itshappening]

Thanks, Rand, for doing your part in saving the Pentagon's biofuels programs. Liberty owes a great debt of gratitude for your service on its behalf.



It is not hyperbole, it is fact. Just some facts that many Rand fanboys within the liberty movement want to sweep under the rug.

He hasn't voted to spend a penny and will probably vote against the appropriation I think he said.

Go and read his facebook page.

[itshappening]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/270973-senate-passes-key-defense-policy-bill-

Rand's also done liberty no favors with his support of the horrendous Feinstein-Lee amendment to the NDAA. I guess all of you Rand worshipers can continue to make believe his shortcomings are some kind of a genius political masterstroke if it makes you all feel better though.

Was Rand's vote for Feinstein-Lee worse or better than Ron Paul's vote to give the president unlimited authority to wage war against anyone in 2001?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

That vote led to 11 year war and trillion dollar occupation in Afghanistan

[Pisces]

It is not hyperbole, it is fact. Just some facts that many Rand fanboys within the liberty movement want to sweep under the rug.

No it's not. I've never seen any evidence that the vast majority of Republican voters want to mass murder Muslim children. (People's votes don't count as evidence because there's no way to know the subjective intent behind their vote.) Even the Iraq war was sold as helping free the Iraqis from a murderous dictator. That wasn't true, but if there were really that many people eager to kill Muslim children, the propaganda and lies would not have been necessary.

[Brett85]

I don't understand why people think that by voting for a bill, Rand actually agrees with every single thing within that bill. That simply doesn't make any sense. Just consider that someone like Marco Rubio voted for this bill even though he didn't agree with everything in it. Rubio voted against an amendment to get our troops out of Afghanistan, and that amendment passed. Rubio voted against the Feinstein-Lee amendment to ban indefinite detention, and that amendment passed. Do you really think that Rubio now agrees with those two amendments just because he voted for the overall bill?

[DylanWaco]

NDAA authorizes funds for unconstitutional wars. This is a guy who is working a "I'll never vote for an unbalanced budget" gimmick, even though doing so is perfectly constitutional. But he's got no problem "authorizing" funds for unconstitutional wars.

That's his choice of course. But a big part of his appeal to mainstream GOPers is that he is viewed as being pro - or at least not anti - mass murder of Muslim babies.

[itshappening]

NDAA authorizes funds for unconstitutional wars. This is a guy who is working a "I'll never vote for an unbalanced budget" gimmick, even though doing so is perfectly constitutional. But he's got no problem "authorizing" funds for unconstitutional wars.

That's his choice of course. But a big part of his appeal to mainstream GOPers is that he is viewed as being pro - or at least not anti - mass murder of Muslim babies.

Ron voted for mass murder too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Not everyone is perfect.

[Pisces]

Lew Rockwell has been very hands off toward Rand actually.

I know. I was just referring to all the times I see LRC fans use the cliche that people have supported neocon candidates because they want to "bomb brown people". It's starting to sound really hackneyed. Besides, neoconservative foreign policy is really not about racism. Serbians are not "brown people". LRC is just "pandering" to leftists with that sort of language.

[Brett85]

NDAA authorizes funds for unconstitutional wars. This is a guy who is working a "I'll never vote for an unbalanced budget" gimmick, even though doing so is perfectly constitutional. But he's got no problem "authorizing" funds for unconstitutional wars.

That's his choice of course. But a big part of his appeal to mainstream GOPers is that he is viewed as being pro - or at least not anti - mass murder of Muslim babies.

Ron actually voted for an unconstitutional war. Isn't that worse than simply voting to fund an unconstitutional war?

[itshappening]

LRC are hypocrites. Ron Paul voted for AUMF in 2001 because it was politically expedient to do. If he hadn't voted yea it would have cost him his seat in congress. And that vote led to the Afghanistan war and occupation that has killed thousands of US military and civilians and has cost a trillion dollars.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Ron voted for mass murder too

I think you might have better luck using leftist rhetoric like DylanWaco likes to do.

So instead of saying Ron voted for mass murder too, you might want to say Ron voted for the mass murder or poor, defenseless Muslim babies, wrapped up in their cute little jammies.

[DylanWaco]

No it's not. I've never seen any evidence that the vast majority of Republican voters want to mass murder Muslim children. (People's votes don't count as evidence because there's no way to know the subjective intent behind their vote.) Even the Iraq war was sold as helping free the Iraqis from a murderous dictator. That wasn't true, but if there were really that many people eager to kill Muslim children, the propaganda and lies would not have been necessary.

After canvassing and working in and around politics for the last ten of the last twelve years I would say the number of mainstream GOPers who are in favor of dropping nukes on all of the Muslim World is shockingly high. When I was making a pitch about Ron to a very prominent GOP family in my area right before the primary they flat out asked me in front of dozens of people if he would favor "nuking Iran if it came to that." I've had elected GOP officials tell me they would kill every Muslim on Earth if they could. This is not a fringe of the GOP

[klamath]

Lew the racist newsletter editor.. Let's form a coalition with david Duke, that will be the master stroke.

[DylanWaco]

I think you might have better luck using leftist rhetoric like DylanWaco likes to do.

So instead of saying Ron voted for mass murder too, you might want to say Ron voted for the mass murder or poor, defenseless Muslim babies, wrapped up in their cute little jammies.

This is actually important to note to. Rand's strategy is to tell the left to fuck off and die. This will help him in a GOP filled with people like Lou who likely have no problem with killing Muslim children so long as they can get mild regulatory reform. It means he will get closer to the nomination before he inevitably loses.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Lew the racist newsletter editor.. Let's form a coalition with david Duke, that will be the master stroke.

This thread isn't about Lew Rockwell, it is about Rand Paul. Please stop trying to confuse the subject to try and deflect well-deserved and much needed criticism of Rand.

[Pisces]

After canvassing and working in and around politics for the last ten of the last twelve years I would say the number of mainstream GOPers who are in favor of dropping nukes on all of the Muslim World is shockingly high. When I was making a pitch about Ron to a very prominent GOP family in my area right before the primary they flat out asked me in front of dozens of people if he would favor "nuking Iran if it came to that." I've had elected GOP officials tell me they would kill every Muslim on Earth if they could. This is not a fringe of the GOP

I don't doubt what you say, but that is all anecdotal. Plus, you're more likely to take note of and remember the people that say extreme things, especially if they say things that deeply offend you.

[twomp]

Was Rand's vote for Feinstein-Lee worse or better than Ron Paul's vote to give the president unlimited authority to wage war against anyone in 2001?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

That vote led to 11 year war and trillion dollar occupation in Afghanistan

This is one of those arguments that has been played to DEATH. Are you saying Rand Paul can never do anything wrong because Ron Paul voted for AUMF?

Person A: Rand Paul voted for sanctions against Iran.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

Person A: Rand Paul voted for Feinstein-Lee amendment.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

Person A: Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

So from now on whenever Rand Paul votes against something people don't like, are you going to just bring up that 1 Ron Paul vote over and over and over?

[DylanWaco]

Ron actually voted for an unconstitutional war. Isn't that worse than simply voting to fund an unconstitutional war?

Serious question. How many of you "Jim DeMint rulz!" types opposed the AUMF? I did. And I have gone on record more than once in public forums saying that Ron's vote for it was inexcusable bullshit. But I'd be interested how many of the guys running with that bit as the new way to insulate Rand from any criticism actually can say they opposed it. My guess is virtually none.

[NewRightLibertarian]

So from now on whenever Rand Paul votes against something people don't like, are you going to just bring up that 1 Ron Paul vote over and over and over?

I guess their argument is that since Ron's made some lousy votes that we should pipe down when Rand does the same. This is a ridiculous notion. We in the liberty movement need to reject hero worship and hold our politicians feet to the fire unless we want to watch ourselves become no better than what we are fighting against.

[Pisces]

Feinstein-Lee was not a terrible amendment. It was incomplete in that it didn't protect everyone, but it didn't make things worse.

[DylanWaco]

I must admit that I find it funny that people are so quick to fly in screaming about how Ron made mistakes to and defending Rand's vote when I had gone out of my way in this thread not to make a value judgment about Rand's votes and to purely talk about perceptions. Does anyone REALLY doubt that Rand being perceived as being much more hawkish than Ron is a major factor in his polling better with the GOP?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Feinstein-Lee was not a terrible amendment. It was incomplete in that it didn't protect everyone, but it didn't make things worse.

You are incorrect. It made things worse by affirming Congressional ability to indefinitely detain Americans without a trial and completely ignoring due process rights enshrined in the Constitution.

[klamath]

This is one of those arguments that has been played to DEATH. Are you saying Rand Paul can never do anything wrong because Ron Paul voted for AUMF?

Person A: Rand Paul voted for sanctions against Iran.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

Person A: Rand Paul voted for Feinstein-Lee amendment.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

Person A: Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

So from now on whenever Rand Paul votes against something people don't like, are you going to just bring up that 1 Ron Paul vote over and over and over?
Do you really want to go down that route? The AUMF is brought up because it is the direct corelation to Rands sanction vote it is NOT however the only shitty vote or action RP ever did and you keep this line of posting and they will be brought out.

[BlackTerrel]

Doesn't surprise me at all. Rand chooses his words far more carefully. He also saves his best for the most important battles.

[klamath]

You are incorrect. It made things worse by affirming Congressional ability to indefinitely detain Americans without a trial and completely ignoring due process rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The AUMF IS the basis in law they use for indefinate detentions.

[NoOneButPaul]

I guess their argument is that since Ron's made some lousy votes that we should pipe down when Rand does the same. This is a ridiculous notion. We in the liberty movement need to reject hero worship and hold our politicians feet to the fire unless we want to watch ourselves become no better than what we are fighting against.

I've come to like Rand after really disliking him these past couple years. But I absolutely agree with this, I do think some of the Rand hating is going stupid overboard but I'm glad to see it.

[Brett85]

Person A: Rand Paul voted for Feinstein-Lee amendment.
Person B: SO? Ron Paul voted for AUMF.

It's nice to know that you would've voted with Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte in favor of indefinitely detaining American citizens.

[Pisces]

You are incorrect. It made things worse by affirming Congressional ability to indefinitely detain Americans without a trial and completely ignoring due process rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Some have interpreted it that way. Do any of the people who have made that interpretation have a background and expertise in Constitutional and national security law? Justin Amash is an attorney but I think he mainly practiced business law. (I'm not knocking him; I'm just saying he doesn't necessarily have the last word on this.) I believe even Justin just says that the law is incomplete, though.

[BlackTerrel]

This will be read as a troll, but it shouldn't be because it's true.

To Republicans mass murdering Muslim children is the primary role of government and must be pursued at all cost. Rand is viewed as someone who does not oppose mass murdering Muslim children, by rank and file GOPers. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant.

Calm down. You're engaging in irrational hyperbole. I doubt the majority of the NASCAR crowd list mass murder of Muslim children as their #1 goal in life.


That's his choice of course. But a big part of his appeal to mainstream GOPers is that he is viewed as being pro - or at least not anti - mass murder of Muslim babies.

And why would anyone think that Rand is pro mass murder of Muslim babies?


I've had elected GOP officials tell me they would kill every Muslim on Earth if they could.

Really? Get this on tape next time. You'll get a few million YouTube hits at least.

[Brett85]

Serious question. How many of you "Jim DeMint rulz!" types opposed the AUMF? I did.

No, I don't oppose it, although I think a full declaration of war would've been better. But, since people like yourself constantly criticize Rand for voting to fund an "unconstitutional war," I think it's important to point out that Ron voted for an "unconstitutional war." That usually shuts those people up.

[Brett85]

Does anyone REALLY doubt that Rand being perceived as being much more hawkish than Ron is a major factor in his polling better with the GOP?

Much more hawkish? What a joke. He's probably the most "dovish" U.S Senator we have.

[Pisces]

I must admit that I find it funny that people are so quick to fly in screaming about how Ron made mistakes to and defending Rand's vote when I had gone out of my way in this thread not to make a value judgment about Rand's votes and to purely talk about perceptions. Does anyone REALLY doubt that Rand being perceived as being much more hawkish than Ron is a major factor in his polling better with the GOP?

Yes, but a person can be hawkish without their main priority being murdering Muslim babies. If you had just said that many Republicans like Rand better because they think he is more hawkish than his father, I doubt many people here would have had a problem with that. Besides, you can sound hawkish in comparison to Ron and still be a non-interventionist.

[klamath]

Now since I think about it we didn't need the AUMF. Since sanctions are an act of war we are just defending ourselves against the oil embargo of the '70's. Took us a while but make an act of war against us or you will get your asses kicked....

[Maximus]

The important thing about this, is that how you present your argument matters infinitely more than the argument itself.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Some have interpreted it that way. Do any of the people who have made that interpretation have a background and expertise in Constitutional and national security law?

Yes- http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/30/the-feinstein-fumble-indefinite-detention-remains/

[DylanWaco]

No, I don't oppose it, although I think a full declaration of war would've been better. But, since people like yourself constantly criticize Rand for voting to fund an "unconstitutional war," I think it's important to point out that Ron voted for an "unconstitutional war." That usually shuts those people up.

"They did it too!" is usually the point when you realize that you have no good argument for your hero's behavior.

[DylanWaco]

Much more hawkish? What a joke. He's probably the most "dovish" U.S Senator we have.

Is that the perception mainstream GOPers have of him?

[Pisces]

Yes- http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/30/the-feinstein-fumble-indefinite-detention-remains/

I've read this before. Mike Lee is also a Constitutional scholar. He doesn't agree with the Tenth Amendment Center. Neither do the lawyers on the Lawfare blog (Lawfare is an academic blog specializing in national security law.) They all believe that the amendment protects American citizens and permanent residents from indefinite detention. Why are you so sure that the Tenth Amendment Center is right on this?

[Feeding the Abscess]

I've read this before. Mike Lee is also a Constitutional scholar. He doesn't agree with the Tenth Amendment Center. Neither do the lawyers on the Lawfare blog (Lawfare is an academic blog specializing in national security law.) They all believe that the amendment protects American citizens and permanent residents from indefinite detention. Why are you so sure that the Tenth Amendment Center is right on this?

You know what else protects American citizens from indefinite detention, and even being assassinated? Yeah, that didn't stop them either. So why would a flim-flam amendment that numerous Senators realized was a fraud do anything differently?

[Pisces]

You know what else protects American citizens from indefinite detention, and even being assassinated? Yeah, that didn't stop them either. So why would a flim-flam amendment that numerous Senators realized was a fraud do anything differently?

Just because a President can act lawlessly doesn't mean the amendment was just "flim-flam". Which Senators thought the amendment was a fraud? The Wall Street Journal certainly didn't think so as they ran an editorial against it. Graham and McCain only voted for it after they knew it had the votes. They wanted to put their spin on it in hopes people would be fooled into thinking the amendment was meaningless.

[Brett85]

Is that the perception mainstream GOPers have of him?

I don't think GOP voters think that someone with the last name of "Paul" is "hawkish" on foreign policy issues. They may think that he's not quite as anti war as Ron, but not "hawkish."

[NewRightLibertarian]

I've read this before. Mike Lee is also a Constitutional scholar. He doesn't agree with the Tenth Amendment Center. Neither do the lawyers on the Lawfare blog (Lawfare is an academic blog specializing in national security law.) They all believe that the amendment protects American citizens and permanent residents from indefinite detention. Why are you so sure that the Tenth Amendment Center is right on this?

Mike Lee's assertion that NDAA 2012 didn't allow for indefinite detention of American citizens was a falsehood, and that's what the whole defense of the Feinstein amendment was based on. Lee's an imbecile if he thinks that the feds will have any type of restraint in interpreting the scope of their new powers. He and Rand have either been played as fools or they are sell outs.

[Pisces]

Mike Lee's assertion that NDAA 2012 didn't allow for indefinite detention of American citizens was a falsehood, and that's what the whole defense of the Feinstein amendment was based on. Lee's an imbecile if he thinks that the feds will have any type of restraint in interpreting the scope of their new powers. He and Rand have either been played as fools or they are sell outs.

What Mike Lee has said is that the Bush and Obama administrations believe that it is the AUMF that allows for indefinite detention and not just NDAA 2012. That is why the first section of the Feinstein-Lee amendment is worded the way it is. I'm not 100% sure that the courts will interpret the amendment the way Lee et al do. I have had just enough experience reading legalese to know that what seems to make sense to a laymen is often wrong. I just don't think that the Wall Street Journal, McCain and Graham would have fought against this amendment if it didn't provide some protection against indefinite detention.

[thequietkid10]

Politics isn't reality, it's the perception of reality.

quoted for truth

[itshappening]

No one has been detained under NDAA yet. We have to wait for a case to truly see what the judges will make of it.

[LibertyEagle]

Mike Lee's assertion that NDAA 2012 didn't allow for indefinite detention of American citizens was a falsehood, and that's what the whole defense of the Feinstein amendment was based on. Lee's an imbecile if he thinks that the feds will have any type of restraint in interpreting the scope of their new powers. He and Rand have either been played as fools or they are sell outs.

Have you tried contacting Paul's office and asking about this?

[LibertyEagle]

No one has been detained under NDAA yet. We have to wait for a case to truly see what the judges will make of it.

Uh, I'd rather not wait and see. Thanks.

[LibertyEagle]

Here's something I don't understand. If Ron voted for or against something, that to me didn't sound right, I took the time to contact his office and get answers to my questions. I am sure some of you did the same. So why won't you do the very same thing for Rand, before jumping to conclusions and calling him a traitor? I know some of you who HAVE jumped to conclusions also had a huge problem with Republicans booing the Golden Rule. Perhaps you should follow it too, eh?

[69360]

Look how badly the paid trolls have derailed yet another thread. This started out as a thread about how good Rand's favorables are. Don't let paid misinformation posters distract you. We still have 2-3 years for all of you real supporters to learn to recognize and ignore these people.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Look how badly the paid trolls have derailed yet another thread. This started out as a thread about how good Rand's favorables are. Don't let paid misinformation posters distract you. We still have 2-3 years for all of you real supporters to learn to recognize and ignore these people.
Disruption and sowing disunity is their M.O.

[BlackTerrel]

Look how badly the paid trolls have derailed yet another thread. This started out as a thread about how good Rand's favorables are. Don't let paid misinformation posters distract you. We still have 2-3 years for all of you real supporters to learn to recognize and ignore these people.

I'm all for Rand but where is the budget to pay people to come to an internet forum to say negative things about Rand 4 years before an election?

Seems a bit hard to believe.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I'm all for Rand but where is the budget to pay people to come to an internet forum to say negative things about Rand 4 years before an election?

Seems a bit hard to believe.

But how else could anyone criticize the infallible Rand Paul and his brilliant political vision? No possible way they couldn't like his greenlighting of a $600+ billion dollar military spending bill, they must be on the payroll of the powers that be!

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm all for Rand but where is the budget to pay people to come to an internet forum to say negative things about Rand 4 years before an election?

Seems a bit hard to believe.

I don't believe they are paid either. But one thing we do need to keep in perspective - they are people sitting behind a keyboard getting their kicks by bashing public figures on an internet forum. In the real world, they don't matter.

I see a lot of enthusiasm for Rand in the real world. His name came up quite a bit at our local GOP club December meeting. DeMint's does too as a potential 2016 candidate, and since I am in SC it is only natural that it would.

I'm at the point on here where I am ignoring more and more of these folks that seek to put down Rand or others when the topic at hand is something positive, as this one was. Like I said, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things and the more attention people pay to them the more they feel validated.

[Brett85]

I don't believe they are paid either. But one thing we do need to keep in perspective - they are people sitting behind a keyboard getting their kicks by bashing public figures on an internet forum. In the real world, they don't matter.

I see a lot of enthusiasm for Rand in the real world. His name came up quite a bit at our local GOP club December meeting. DeMint's does too as a potential 2016 candidate, and since I am in SC it is only natural that it would.

I'm at the point on here where I am ignoring more and more of these folks that seek to put down Rand or others when the topic at hand is something positive, as this one was. Like I said, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things and the more attention people pay to them the more they feel validated.

It's probably not necessary to pay attention to people who call themselves "libertarians" but would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Jesse Ventura over Rand Paul.

[DylanWaco]

Look how badly the paid trolls have derailed yet another thread. This started out as a thread about how good Rand's favorables are. Don't let paid misinformation posters distract you. We still have 2-3 years for all of you real supporters to learn to recognize and ignore these people.

Is acid legal?

[DylanWaco]

Worth noting that people inside Rand's obvious have been instructed to ignore all criticism and plow forward.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I'm at the point on here where I am ignoring more and more of these folks that seek to put down Rand or others when the topic at hand is something positive, as this one was. Like I said, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things and the more attention people pay to them the more they feel validated.

In other words, just stick your fingers in your ears and say 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA' rather than listen to criticism your sacred cow. My oh my is it ever disgusting to watch the liberty movement be warped into Republican-lite.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Worth noting that people inside Rand's obvious have been instructed to ignore all criticism and plow forward.

Exactly. There is not a single thing that you could say that will change my desire to fully support Rand if he chooses to run in 2016. He will get a big fat check from myself and my wife, my endorsement as a county committeeman and hundreds of hours of volunteer effort by myself and many of my contacts here in my precinct.

[CaptLouAlbano]

In other words, just stick your fingers in your ears and say 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA' rather than listen to criticism your sacred cow. My oh my is it ever disgusting to watch the liberty movement be warped into Republican-lite.

As opposed to watching the liberty movement being morphed into an even more irrelevant version of the LP? I'll continue on the path that I have been on for decades, but thanks for your concern.

[DylanWaco]

I'm not trying to convince people otherwise. If folks want to give him money, vote for him, et. they are free too. In fact my early comments in this thread were meant to illustrate why it is I believe Rand polls fairly well with mainstream GOPers.

If I was advising Rand on how to win a Republican primary I would tell him to do exactly what he is doing now. I don't think it will be enough for a variety of reasons, but his positioning is where it needs to be to have a shot in the modern Republican Party.

[NewRightLibertarian]

As opposed to watching the liberty movement being morphed into an even more irrelevant version of the LP? I'll continue on the path that I have been on for decades, but thanks for your concern.

Good luck. Hey, maybe you'll get Rand into the Presidency and then he'll be blamed for the upcoming economic collapse. Then you'll really have accomplished something for liberty with your political activism, right?

[cajuncocoa]

In other words, just stick your fingers in your ears and say 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA' rather than listen to criticism your sacred cow. My oh my is it ever disgusting to watch the liberty movement be warped into Republican-lite.No kidding. :(

[mad cow]

It's probably not necessary to pay attention to people who call themselves "libertarians" but would vote for Dennis Kucinich or Jesse Ventura over Rand Paul.

Don't forget,Bob Barr is only 64.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Good luck. Hey, maybe you'll get Rand into the Presidency and then he'll be blamed for the upcoming economic collapse. Then you'll really have accomplished something for liberty with your political activism, right?

Maybe so. And if that is the case you can pat yourself on the back for being right. You'll be the soothsayer of internet forum land.

[LibertyEagle]

But how else could anyone criticize the infallible Rand Paul and his brilliant political vision? No possible way they couldn't like his greenlighting of a $600+ billion dollar military spending bill, they must be on the payroll of the powers that be!

What the ever loving hell are you talking about? That bill he just voted on WAS NOT a spending bill.

[Shane Harris]

His favorables are still lower than almost everyone else's. Also consider that once you're actually in a race and the voters know who these people are all of the favorables drop. Its apparent in the Ron Paul you provided. Everyone's favorables are lower compared to the Rand poll. It would be nice to know what Ron's favorables would have been in 2005, since that would be a more accurate comparison.

[Natural Citizen]

What the ever loving hell are you talking about? That bill he just voted on WAS NOT a spending bill.

Senate Passes $631 Billion U.S. Defense Legislation (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-04/senate-passes-631-billion-u-s-defense-legislation.html)
Senate passes $631B defense policy bill 98-0 (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/270973-senate-passes-key-defense-policy-bill-)




I'd recommend that people actually spend the time to read these...completely.

Smith-Amash Amendment (http://theintolerableacts.org/docs/Smith-amendment-to-4310-HASC.pdf)
The Feinsten-Lee Amendment (formerly known as the Due Process Guarantee Act) (https://www.pandaunite.org/Feinstein-Lee-Amendment.pdf)
Rand Paul's Proposed 2013 NDAA Amendment: (https://www.pandaunite.org/Rand-Paul-Amendment.doc)
NDAA Section 1033(a) (https://www.pandaunite.org/Section1033a.doc)

[LibertyEagle]

Explanation of NDAA Vote
by Rand Paul on Friday, December 7, 2012 at 1:57pm ·
I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain.

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can't be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill.

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn't it.

Amash's Amendment failed badly. Lee's bill isn't perfect, but it damn sure is a first step. What would you prefer, to keep putting up Amash's amendment and having it fail and not make ANY progress whatsoever?


which nominally was supposed to ban open-ended military detention of American citizens captured on American soil, but was so awkwardly worded and filled with loopholes that proponents of the detention voted for it because they believe it will make it even easier for the military to capture Americans under the new law.

Bullshit. McCain and company fought like hell against Lee's Amendment.

[Natural Citizen]

Amash's Amendment failed badly. Lee's bill isn't perfect, but it damn sure is a first step. What would you prefer, to keep putting up Amash's amendment and having it fail and not make ANY progress whatsoever?



Bullshit. McCain and company fought like hell against Lee's Amendment.

The first thing above all else is to not keep these particular discussions out of the open. That's more important than anything "at this point". All of this cheerleading and booing back and forth without substance serves nothing. Get it out there. That's what I would do. If you don't then it only serves to maintain the sheep who would lack a shephard. The model of making like crickets relevant to substance only ensures they'll find their way to where the free grazing is plentiful. Cripes, I go through these Rand threads and find nothing at all of substance. You need substance. Create your own platform. Rand will fend for himself. Which is an entirely different platform outside of these public boards that serve a much different and specific purpose.

[LibertyEagle]

The first thing above all else is to not keep these particular discussions out of the open. That's more important than anything "at this point". All of this cheerleading and booing back and forth without substance serves nothing. Get it out there. That's what I would do. If you don't then it only serves to maintain the sheep who would lack a shephard. The model of making like crickets relevant to substance only ensures they'll find their way to where the free grazing is plentiful. Cripes, i go through these Rand threads and find nothing at all of substance. You need substance. Create your own platform. Rand will fend for himself.

Please troll outside of Rand's subforum. Thank you.

[Natural Citizen]

Please troll outside of Rand's subforum. Thank you.

Trolling, huh. Ok. I'll remember that.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Lee's bill isn't perfect, but it damn sure is a first step.

Lee's bill is a first step in enshrining the government's 'right' to indefinitely detain Americans without a trial, as long as the Congress gives it the A-OK (as it does from the 2012 NDAA regardless of whatever blather Lee releases)

[LibertyEagle]

Lee's bill is a first step in enshrining the government's 'right' to indefinitely detain Americans without a trial, as long as the Congress gives it the A-OK (as it does from the 2012 NDAA regardless of whatever blather Lee releases)

There appears to be quite a difference of opinion on that. It certainly makes me uncomfortable and I want to do more research. I'd suggest others do that too, before they continue their accusations.

[NewRightLibertarian]

There appears to be quite a difference of opinion on that. It certainly makes me uncomfortable and I want to do more research. I'd suggest others do that too, before they continue their accusations.

The difference of opinion from my line of thinking seems to rest in the belief that the feds will interpret the 2012 NDAA as not giving them the right to indefinitely detain citizens because of a throwaway line in the bill that says no American citizens rights will be violated. The throwaway line is just more 'it's only going to be used on the bad guys' propaganda that the feds use to quell resistance to their dictatorial powergrabs IMO. The fact that some of the worst bastards in the government supported it should be a dead giveaway of the true nature of the amendment.

[Pisces]

The difference of opinion from my line of thinking seems to rest in the belief that the feds will interpret the 2012 NDAA as not giving them the right to indefinitely detain citizens because of a throwaway line in the bill that says no American citizens rights will be violated. The throwaway line is just more 'it's only going to be used on the bad guys' propaganda that the feds use to quell resistance to their dictatorial powergrabs IMO. The fact that some of the worst bastards in the government supported it should be a dead giveaway of the true nature of the amendment.

This is an article that argues that Feinstein-Lee does protect citizens and legal permanent residents from indefinite detention: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/12/domestic-detention-of-non-citizens-and-the-not-so-negative-implications-of-the-new-feinstein-amendment/


As Wells and Steve noted last week, the Senate approved the “Feinstein Amendment” to the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Amendment, if enacted, would impose a clear statement rule for the detention of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) apprehended within the United States, the effect of which would guarantee that such individuals could not be “detained without charge or trial,” even if they are suspected of being part of al-Qaeda. As Steve explained, the Amendment would expressly provide that such military detention authority cannot be inferred from a declaration of war or an authorization to use military force, but must instead be expressly conferred by Congress—a standard that no existing statute satisfies.

There is a lot more commentary about the amendment on this site. I can't say with 100% certainty that these people are right, but it does show that there are two sides to this issue. The author of this piece, Steve Vladeck, was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the Bush administration's use of military tribunals at Gitmo so he probably knows a thing or two about this. His bio can be found here: http://www.wcl.american.edu/faculty/vladeck/

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't believe they are paid either. But one thing we do need to keep in perspective - they are people sitting behind a keyboard getting their kicks by bashing public figures on an internet forum. In the real world, they don't matter.

I see a lot of enthusiasm for Rand in the real world. His name came up quite a bit at our local GOP club December meeting. DeMint's does too as a potential 2016 candidate, and since I am in SC it is only natural that it would.

I'm at the point on here where I am ignoring more and more of these folks that seek to put down Rand or others when the topic at hand is something positive, as this one was. Like I said, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things and the more attention people pay to them the more they feel validated.
Ignoring them is easy, but I fear for the new people that visit this forum. I don't want them being the welcoming committee or the face of this movement going forward. Their road leads to disillusionment and despair. We should be putting our best foot forward, not the doom and gloomers.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Exactly. There is not a single thing that you could say that will change my desire to fully support Rand if he chooses to run in 2016. He will get a big fat check from myself and my wife, my endorsement as a county committeeman and hundreds of hours of volunteer effort by myself and many of my contacts here in my precinct.
Add me to that list too, I'm 100% behind Rand going forward. It's time to turn the page.

[KingNothing]

You know what else protects American citizens from indefinite detention, and even being assassinated? Yeah, that didn't stop them either. So why would a flim-flam amendment that numerous Senators realized was a fraud do anything differently?

Why would any law? I think it's pretty clear that no law restraining government actually matters anymore.

[KingNothing]

What the ever loving hell are you talking about? That bill he just voted on WAS NOT a spending bill.

The criticism from the lunatics would be worthwhile if it were actually true. We do sincerely need people who play devil's advocate and hold our politicians who may have a cult-like following accountable, but we don't need misinformed bashing.

Rand should be ripped for voting for the sanctions on Iran, but this recent bashing levied against him over NDAA and his plan to make Democrats own the tax increase is completely insane.

[Confederate]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-appropriations/270973-senate-passes-key-defense-policy-bill-

Rand's also done liberty no favors with his support of the horrendous Feinstein-Lee amendment to the NDAA. I guess all of you Rand worshipers can continue to make believe his shortcomings are some kind of a genius political masterstroke if it makes you all feel better though.

NDAA is not an appropriations bill.

[KingNothing]

and not make ANY progress whatsoever?


They seem to HATE moving the ball in the right direction, which is odd because the progressives and neocons have used incrementalism with great effect.

[LibertyEagle]

They seem to HATE moving the ball in the right direction, which is odd because the progressives and neocons have used incrementalism with great effect.

Because as I recall, the Wizard of Rothbard told them not to use incrementalism.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Because as I recall, the Wizard of Rothbard told them not to use incrementalism.

And therein lies the issue. Some are married to a failed strategy and refuse to admit their failure.

I think also at issue is the fact that some people have their own version of libertarianism and believe that everyone who describes themselves as a libertarian should subscribe to their views. They fail to accept the reality that people can be pro-liberty but have differences of opinion on issues, strategy, etc. They want a one-size-fits-all libertarianism that they create in their own minds.

In another thread someone stated that "Rand was not winning hearts and minds with OUR principles". My retort is that he is winning hearts and minds with HIS principles. In that sense some try to make Rand in their own image, rather than simply letting Rand be his own man, and accepting the fact that no one is going to agree with him (or anyone for that matter) 100%.

[KingNothing]

Because as I recall, the Wizard of Rothbard told them not to use incrementalism.

Yep. That is clearly foolish, though.

[AuH20]

Because as I recall, the Wizard of Rothbard told them not to use incrementalism.



And remember that the Wizard of Rothbard had impeccable judgement as exhibited by his endorsement of all-around despot LBJ.

[KingNothing]

And therein lies the issue. Some are married to a failed strategy and refuse to admit their failure.

I think also at issue is the fact that some people have their own version of libertarianism and believe that everyone who describes themselves as a libertarian should subscribe to their views. They fail to accept the reality that people can be pro-liberty but have differences of opinion on issues, strategy, etc. They want a one-size-fits-all libertarianism that they create in their own minds.

In another thread someone stated that "Rand was not winning hearts and minds with OUR principles". My retort is that he is winning hearts and minds with HIS principles. In that sense some try to make Rand in their own image, rather than simply letting Rand be his own man, and accepting the fact that no one is going to agree with him (or anyone for that matter) 100%.

I'm an anarchist. In spite of my personal beliefs, though, we will have government for the foreseeable future. Within the current framework, Ron Paul was acceptable to me because he was the best significant politician during his tenure. Doesn't that sentiment apply to Rand, now that his father has retired? Given that we WILL have a government, what reason is there to not support the man within it who most closely aligns with our views? Why not try to popularize him, thereby normalizing those views? Once we do that, once views that are close to what we believe become mainstream, we could then focus on sort of a verbatim compliance to our minimalist ideals.

This belief that we can elect so many Ron Paul's to office throughout the country that we'll usher in immediate change is a fallacy. Ron was a stepping stone to goal far down the road. Rand is just the same in that regard. And it is because of that ---Rand is NOT the goal--- we should value those who remind us that we have not arrived, and will still have work to do even if Rand wins the presidency some day.... but his harshest critics should have a footing in reality.

[July]

Yep. That is clearly foolish, though.

I don't think Murray was against incrementalism because it was gradual, but because he feared libertarians would eventually lose sight of the goal if there was no one standing for principle and advocating the pure message in full.

[KingNothing]

I don't think Murray was against incrementalism because it was gradual, but because he feared libertarians would eventually lose sight of the goal if there was no one standing for principle and advocating the pure message in full.

That's basically what I expressed above, which makes sense because I probably stole it from him.

[July]

That's basically what I expressed above, which makes sense because I probably stole it from him.

Yeah, I think you got it right. Murray warned libertarians not to forget what the goal was, and not to avoid taking the speediest route available when possible....but I think some miss the point. He wasn't saying change wasn't possible.

[twomp]

Do you really want to go down that route? The AUMF is brought up because it is the direct corelation to Rands sanction vote it is NOT however the only shitty vote or action RP ever did and you keep this line of posting and they will be brought out.

Yes, I do want to go down that route. So please, bombard us with your 10,000 posts about Ron Paul voting for AUMF every time someone is unhappy when Rand Paul votes a certain way.

Also, please notice, I rarely have anything bad to say about Rand Paul. As I've said before, I don't like some of his votes but it doesn't mean when it comes time to vote, that I wouldn't vote for him. You just won't see me standing over a bridge in the rain holding Rand Paul signs like I did for Ron Paul though.

I do find it amusing that you seem to beat down this AUMF thing EVERY TIME someone complains about Rand Paul voting a certain away. So by all means, show it to me, link me another link about Ron Paul voting for AUMF. I mean I'm sure the 1,000th time will make a difference right?

[Karsten]

Among Republicans.

My liberal friends and family, who I got to respect if not vote for Ron Paul in some cases (though they were not willing to change their party affiliation to do so), have 0 respect for Rand. So although Rand may have an easier time in the primaries (the media will beat up on him though), he will have a harder time in the general than Ron would have had (although unfortunately we never got to see that happen).

I realize we need help with the Republicans, but I kind of wish the disconnect wasn't so great. Everything I post on facebook about Rand is half liked and half bashed.

[LibertyEagle]

I do find it amusing that you seem to beat down this AUMF thing EVERY TIME someone complains about Rand Paul voting a certain away. So by all means, show it to me, link me another link about Ron Paul voting for AUMF. I mean I'm sure the 1,000th time will make a difference right?

No more than the crazed behavior of those who run around calling Rand a traitor without even fact-checking what they are howling about.

[mad cow]

Among Republicans.

My liberal friends and family, who I got to respect if not vote for Ron Paul in some cases (though they were not willing to change their party affiliation to do so), have 0 respect for Rand. So although Rand may have an easier time in the primaries (the media will beat up on him though), he will have a harder time in the general than Ron would have had (although unfortunately we never got to see that happen).

I realize we need help with the Republicans, but I kind of wish the disconnect wasn't so great. Everything I post on facebook about Rand is half liked and half bashed.

So you're saying that there's a chance that Rand Paul might not carry California in the general in 2016?

[Karsten]

Although the one good thing I see with Rand as opposed to Ron is that the Rand campaign won't have such a huge following of anarchists and conspiratorial theorists (and people who aren't all there)... and heck, even fewer libertarians.

I'm a libertarian, and I consider myself a moderate libertarian, not really an anarchist. The problem with the more extreme libertarians is that they DO NOT VOTE. There were more registered libertarians in Iowa than were needed for a POPULAR VOTE victory (and that's what we need -- a POPULAR VOTE victory, for MOMENTUM... I don't want to hear in 2016 that it's all about the delegates. It is, but you get them with momentum). We also did poorly in Keene, the capital of the free state project. These anarchist/libertarian purists just don't campaign and vote hard because they don't believe in politics. It will be nice having supporters who are more serious about politics.

[Karsten]

So you're saying that there's a chance that Rand Paul might not carry California in the general in 2016?

I'm saying Ron Paul could have, if it was Ron vs. Obama in 2012. The map would have looked totally different than usual because Ron would have been able to play for the young, minorities, independents, and even liberals.

Rand will be playing for the same states that Romney/Mccain/Bush have sought after. The map won't change that much.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Among Republicans.

My liberal friends and family, who I got to respect if not vote for Ron Paul in some cases (though they were not willing to change their party affiliation to do so), have 0 respect for Rand. So although Rand may have an easier time in the primaries (the media will beat up on him though), he will have a harder time in the general than Ron would have had (although unfortunately we never got to see that happen).

I realize we need help with the Republicans, but I kind of wish the disconnect wasn't so great. Everything I post on facebook about Rand is half liked and half bashed.

Liberals would have turned on Ron at the drop of a dime because he doesn't support their precious welfare state. They only 'supported' him because they felt he wasn't a threat. The truly anti-interventionist left is a very small and dwindling minority of those within their ranks.

[Karsten]

Liberals would have turned on Ron at the drop of a dime because he doesn't support their precious welfare state. They only 'supported' him because they felt he wasn't a threat. The truly anti-interventionist left is a very small and dwindling minority of those within their ranks.

I don't know... I knew several liberals who were VERY liberal (and not in the classical sense) on economics, and who really got into Ron Paul (not as much as me, but with respect and interest). They never let go of their liberal economic beliefs, but they did like Ron.

[Karsten]

...And I can think of many examples of RP supporters who, given the choice between Obama and Mccain or Romney, chose Obama. You could see it even on these forums. I was even tempted to in 2008, because of my dislike for Mccain and Bush. I was a Democrat before these 2 recent Ron Paul campaigned, and many people I knew were. We didn't all come from the right.

[mad cow]

I don't believe any Republican could have carried California in 2012.
I don't believe any Republican will carry California in 2016.
It would be a waste of time and money to even campaign there.

[Brett85]

Among Republicans.

My liberal friends and family, who I got to respect if not vote for Ron Paul in some cases (though they were not willing to change their party affiliation to do so), have 0 respect for Rand. So although Rand may have an easier time in the primaries (the media will beat up on him though), he will have a harder time in the general than Ron would have had (although unfortunately we never got to see that happen).

I realize we need help with the Republicans, but I kind of wish the disconnect wasn't so great. Everything I post on facebook about Rand is half liked and half bashed.

Rand doesn't need to get the votes of liberal Democrats to become President. He just needs to win Republicans and independents and he'll win comfortably.

[Brett85]

The truly anti-interventionist left is a very small and dwindling minority of those within their ranks.

I agree. Lately I've been debating my liberal relatives on foreign policy issues and it seems like I'm debating Sean Hannity or Mark Levin.

[July]

I agree. Lately I've been debating my liberal relatives on foreign policy issues and it seems like I'm debating Sean Hannity or Mark Levin.

Yeah me too, the left has definitely undergone a purging of the old anti-war and pacifist element.

[Pisces]

Yeah me too, the left has definitely undergone a purging of the old anti-war and pacifist element.

The left has done this before. In the 1930's they promoted a "popular front" against Hitler, even to the point of encouraging the U.S. to go to war against him. They changed their tune completely after Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. Then they were suddenly against war and U.S. and British imperialism.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Rand doesn't need to get the votes of liberal Democrats to become President. He just needs to win Republicans and independents and he'll win comfortably.

Correct, though I will expand it to say that Rand can also capture the southern and rural Dems along with a decent chunk of the "blue collar" bloc, if he can communicate a positive and optimistic future for our country much the same way Reagan did in 1980.

[Dystopian]

I'm not surprised. He has closed door meetings with Bill Kristol and actively supported and campaigned for Romney. He talks in Fox News soundbites and only takes a stand on "safe" liberty issues. He only throws a few bones at us periodically to keep the $$$ coming in to Paul/Benton inc.

[Brett85]

He has closed door meetings with Bill Kristol.

Lol. Where do they meet and how often?

[Dystopian]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rands-secret-rendezvous/

He's also making a tour to Israel to go kiss Zionist ass. Of course Republican idiots are going to eat that shit up.

[Bastiat's The Law]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rands-secret-rendezvous/

He's also making a tour to Israel to go kiss Zionist ass. Of course Republican idiots are going to eat that shit up.
http://zipmeme.com/uploads/generated/g1328912371281345891.jpg

[Brett85]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rands-secret-rendezvous/

He's also making a tour to Israel to go kiss Zionist ass. Of course Republican idiots are going to eat that shit up.

I read about that back when Rand was running for the Senate. It's just that you said that Rand has close door meetings with Bill Kristol, not had. Also, he's visiting multiple countries on his trip, not just Israel. He said he wants to hear from all sides.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I read about that back when Rand was running for the Senate. It's just that you said that Rand has close door meetings with Bill Kristol, not had. Also, he's visiting multiple countries on his trip, not just Israel. He said he wants to hear from all sides.
Israel isn't monolithic. Rand pointed this out before when he absolutely schooled Wolf Blitzer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y6MdSxYKf8

[BlackTerrel]

I don't believe they are paid either. But one thing we do need to keep in perspective - they are people sitting behind a keyboard getting their kicks by bashing public figures on an internet forum. In the real world, they don't matter.

I see a lot of enthusiasm for Rand in the real world. His name came up quite a bit at our local GOP club December meeting. DeMint's does too as a potential 2016 candidate, and since I am in SC it is only natural that it would.

I'm at the point on here where I am ignoring more and more of these folks that seek to put down Rand or others when the topic at hand is something positive, as this one was. Like I said, they don't matter in the grand scheme of things and the more attention people pay to them the more they feel validated.

I agree.

My point was that dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as a "paid agent" is boring and counter productive. Let's be real here.

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/rands-secret-rendezvous/

He's also making a tour to Israel to go kiss Zionist ass. Of course Republican idiots are going to eat that shit up.

He's not only meeting with them. He's also meeting with the head of the PLO and someone else, I don't recall.

[MRoCkEd]

I'm not surprised. He has closed door meetings with Bill Kristol and actively supported and campaigned for Romney. He talks in Fox News soundbites and only takes a stand on "safe" liberty issues. He only throws a few bones at us periodically to keep the $$$ coming in to Paul/Benton inc.

RE: Meeting with Kristol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/h2/hnew1/buzzfeedpolitics/rand-paul-asked-bill-kristol-about-the-mossad

RE: Supporting Romney
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/opinion/rand-paul-romney-foreign-policy/index.html

RE: Israel
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/27/2742734/rand-paul-end-foreign-aid-including-israel

[Bastiat's The Law]

I agree.

My point was that dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as a "paid agent" is boring and counter productive. Let's be real here.
Regardless of what the defeatists are, be it trolls or paid provocateurs, its a rather inefficient use of time to engage these people when we could be promoting Rand to much lower hanging fruit who actually vote in republican primaries.

[KingNothing]

Among Republicans.

My liberal friends and family, who I got to respect if not vote for Ron Paul in some cases (though they were not willing to change their party affiliation to do so), have 0 respect for Rand. So although Rand may have an easier time in the primaries (the media will beat up on him though), he will have a harder time in the general than Ron would have had (although unfortunately we never got to see that happen).

I realize we need help with the Republicans, but I kind of wish the disconnect wasn't so great. Everything I post on facebook about Rand is half liked and half bashed.

I think one of the reasons "average" people took to Ron -and they did- is that each political party and the media tried to paint him as a nut, cold-hearted, stupid, or racist and he clearly is NONE of those things. People felt bad for him, because they saw him as a man who was trying to do the right thing but was getting hammered because of it.

The hardcore democrats in my family had a real, heartfelt respect for Ron. Some of them feel the same for Rand, but it is not the same.

[KingNothing]

Israel isn't monolithic. Rand pointed this out before when he absolutely schooled Wolf Blitzer.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y6MdSxYKf8


Impossible to watch that and not come away thinking Rand, like his father, is actually too smart for politics.

[supermario21]

But respect doesn't translate to votes. In all honesty, Rand is having more success than Ron did because I don't think Rand is letting the conspiracy crowd/anarchist types take him down. Sometimes I think they latched onto Ron and it may have hurt him with sympathetic Republicans, who will look at Rand just because of the way he is projecting himself. Rand is just educating himself on his own by doing this trip and some of you are acting like it means he is a neocon. Just like his brief "conversation" with Bill Kristol. If anything, some of these moments cement his positions, such as his Mossad point with Kristol. Rand hasn't changed. Remember when he took on the neocon Tobin at Commentary and did so willingly. All these things build credibility with Republican voters who will not look at Rand like he is a kook. Look, I loved Ron (And still do) as many of you did but I think Rand is just trying to shake off his fringe-element image and taking these trips and having legitimate dialogue on these issues helps him more than it hurts him with a couple DP'ers who think that taking a trip to Israel (actually the ENTIRE Middle East) and saying a few words to Bill Kristol is akin to George Bush rushing to war in Iraq.

[KingNothing]

But respect doesn't translate to votes. In all honesty, Rand is having more success than Ron did because I don't think Rand is letting the conspiracy crowd/anarchist types take him down. Sometimes I think they latched onto Ron and it may have hurt him with sympathetic Republicans, who will look at Rand just because of the way he is projecting himself. Rand is just educating himself on his own by doing this trip and some of you are acting like it means he is a neocon. Just like his brief "conversation" with Bill Kristol. If anything, some of these moments cement his positions, such as his Mossad point with Kristol. Rand hasn't changed. Remember when he took on the neocon Tobin at Commentary and did so willingly. All these things build credibility with Republican voters who will not look at Rand like he is a kook. Look, I loved Ron (And still do) as many of you did but I think Rand is just trying to shake off his fringe-element image and taking these trips and having legitimate dialogue on these issues helps him more than it hurts him with a couple DP'ers who think that taking a trip to Israel (actually the ENTIRE Middle East) and saying a few words to Bill Kristol is akin to George Bush rushing to war in Iraq.


Completely agree with this excellent post. Rand is winning over the people who vote. That is what matters, and he is doing it without selling out.

[klamath]

But respect doesn't translate to votes. In all honesty, Rand is having more success than Ron did because I don't think Rand is letting the conspiracy crowd/anarchist types take him down. Sometimes I think they latched onto Ron and it may have hurt him with sympathetic Republicans, who will look at Rand just because of the way he is projecting himself. Rand is just educating himself on his own by doing this trip and some of you are acting like it means he is a neocon. Just like his brief "conversation" with Bill Kristol. If anything, some of these moments cement his positions, such as his Mossad point with Kristol. Rand hasn't changed. Remember when he took on the neocon Tobin at Commentary and did so willingly. All these things build credibility with Republican voters who will not look at Rand like he is a kook. Look, I loved Ron (And still do) as many of you did but I think Rand is just trying to shake off his fringe-element image and taking these trips and having legitimate dialogue on these issues helps him more than it hurts him with a couple DP'ers who think that taking a trip to Israel (actually the ENTIRE Middle East) and saying a few words to Bill Kristol is akin to George Bush rushing to war in Iraq.
If you are running for the president of the USA you are looking to become the face of our nation to the world. Face to face meetings with world leaders is a very positive thing. "If I win I want to be friends and trade with you but I don't want to tell you what to do" would be a powerful statement to make face to face with other world leaders. I think if Ron would have done this he could have shaken the isolationist label reinforced the noninterventionist image.

[KingNothing]

But I still think the biggest reason Ron lost is that people thought he could not win. Had he managed to pull off a first in Iowa that might have changed.

[KingNothing]

If you are running for the president of the USA you are looking to become the face of our nation to the world. Face to face meeting with world leader is a very positive thing. "If I win I want to be friends and trade with you but I don't want to tell you what to do" would be a powerful statement to make face to face with other world leaders. I think if Ron would have done this he could have shaken the isolationist label reinforced the noninterventionist image.


Part of this comes with the position. Ron was just a congressman, not a Senator and he had to build an entire brand. One step at a time, ya know? To his credit, Rand has done a FLAWLESS job at standing on the shoulders of a giant. He is now doing the things his father could not do, with unmatched skill.

[AuH20]

Ron mastered and utilized a leftist lexicon to his personal advantage, especially after the Republican party cut him adrift. Let's face facts. I didn't really have a problem with it, but I think that many of these leftward souls didn't read the fine print for what the man truly stood for. He was always a Paleolibertarian and the son is very much the same. Sure, Rand emphasizes his Republican side more than Ron, but they're still very much father and son philosophically speaking.

[AuH20]

Liberals would have turned on Ron at the drop of a dime because he doesn't support their precious welfare state. They only 'supported' him because they felt he wasn't a threat. The truly anti-interventionist left is a very small and dwindling minority of those within their ranks.

True. Ron was just a useful sound board conveniently utilized to bash the Republican Party. He was tolerated.

[trey4sports]

Regardless of what the defeatists are, be it trolls or paid provocateurs, its a rather inefficient use of time to engage these people when we could be promoting Rand to much lower hanging fruit who actually vote in republican primaries.

yeah. the truth is that we must make sure joe bagofdonuts thinks hed like to drink a beer with rand and that he's "not as crazy as his dad." that is the unfortunate state of affairswe have to deal with when courting the average american republican voter.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I read about that back when Rand was running for the Senate. It's just that you said that Rand has close door meetings with Bill Kristol, not had. Also, he's visiting multiple countries on his trip, not just Israel. He said he wants to hear from all sides.

Rand's meeting with Kristol wasn't some type of an asskissfest on his part from my understanding. I don't think Rand is Hitler or even that he is doing a bad job as a Senator just that his current course of action is incredibly misguided. I think that he is surrounded by influences that are not giving him sound advice on how to advance liberty and that his ardent supporters around here are doing everything they can to deflect legitimate criticism about him.

[Bastiat's The Law]

They seem to HATE moving the ball in the right direction, which is odd because the progressives and neocons have used incrementalism with great effect.
The history of the last hundred years proves this correct. Very effective method. Even on a short timescale its still effective, Howard Dean spoke about using incrementalism over the span of his governorship to install child healthcare paid for by the state of Vermont. He gleefully proclaimed how nobody will dare propose to take away a perceived benefit now.

[Slutter McGee]

Let me get this straight

Rand is marketing himself in a way that might give him a chance to win despite consistently voting against action in Libya, lowering government spending, against the Patriot Act among another half dozen things...and our response is...ARRRRRRRRRRGGHHHHHH. traitor. neocon ISRAEL AHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Shakes head sadly,

Slutter McGee

[Brett85]

Let me get this straight

Rand is marketing himself in a way that might give him a chance to win despite consistently voting against action in Libya, lowering government spending, against the Patriot Act among another half dozen things...and our response is...ARRRRRRRRRRGGHHHHHH. traitor. neocon ISRAEL AHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Shakes head sadly,

Slutter McGee

That's about right.