Rand Paul on Bradley Manning Verdict: “I don’t have a lot of sympathy

[Big Hoss]

[Mod note- account banned as it was a sockpuppet from previously banned account]


http://dlmagazine.org/2013/08/rand-paul-bradley-manning-verdict-i-lot-sympathy/
So does this change anyone's view of him? Still plan on voting for him? This compared with he threw his father under the bus,endorsed Willard,Called Libertarians pot smokers who want to run around naked and his obvious hate for Islam is to much for me to back him.What about you?

[LibertyEagle]

You joined to share this? Interesting.

I would like to see the entire speech/interview so I could see the excerpted quotes in context.

[matt0611]

I'll still vote for him, I think I know where his heart is.

And lol @ "threw his father under the bus", Rand did no such thing. Such hyperbole...

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not happy with the statement, but yes.

[EBounding]

No, I'm going to vote for Hillary.

[Rudeman]

Yes. Interesting that the only no vote is by someone who just joined and started this thread.

[z9000]

Rand Paul is making interesting moves.

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't make assumptions about Rand's heart though. Most likely he believes Manning should be punished. At least with Snowden we're getting hints that Rand is sympathetic, but I don't think that's the case with Manning.

I don't think we should give Rand a pass here though. We should vocally dissent from his stance.

But ... am I going to vote for him? Of course. He's still the best hope for liberty in 2016 that we have.

[KingRobbStark]

I don't care what he says, I only care about how he votes.

[TheTyke]

What a craftily written article (complete with photoshopped attack picture,) and transparent attempt to undermine Rand. The "I don't have a lot of sympathy" quote, if indeed it's actually a quote, has no context or surrounding words at all - not even the topic is clear. The worst he is actually quoted as saying is "I don't support that" after a a discussion of HOW Manning's revelations were done. Then, then in the quote he OBSERVES that Snowden would be jailed if he came here.. but the article says "the Senator would still have Snowden incarcerated for breaking the law."

Rand chooses his words carefully and has in many interviews. They just make up whatever makes him look worse. Worst kind of spin and deception.

[kcchiefs6465]

No, I do not agree with Rand Paul here. His points have been debunked.

Whether or not I vote for him depends on the next three years.

Your poll needs a "maybe."

Frankly I'm not too excited about 2016. Rand Paul as president or not, not a damn thing will change. Top down reconstruction isn't really probable. Perhaps a bottom up approach, concentrating on changing things locally, that is, would be most helpful. Not to be critical of those who see Rand Paul as the solution.. to each their own. No doubt about it he'd be the best president of anyone's lifetime.

[tsai3904]

Rand made shorter but similar remarks during a NH radio interview on July 31.

You can hear it at the 9:47 mark here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?422882-Rand-Paul-on-New-Hampshire-Today-radio-show-7-31-13

[presence]

You joined to share this? Interesting.

I would like to see the entire speech/interview so I could see the excerpted quotes in context.
there was context at the source in the op



Senator Paul makes the remark that many people, including his father, would disagree with him on his belief that Manning did not have political intentions for the Wikileaks scandal.

“With Manning I don’t have a lot of sympathy for what he did and it does have [sic - happen] to be against the law. His doesn’t really seem to be political, you know. I mean he says he is but he just released millions of documents. So they’re not easy questions and I know there are probably people in this audience who disagree with me. I think my dad disagrees with me.”

When DL Magazine asked Dr. Ron Paul, the Senator’s father, about his thoughts over Manning and Snowden, his concerns are focused on the criminality of the government.

“I think there is some criminality here and that’s with the government. He has already been overly punished. He is a whistleblower in my estimation. He has been accused of turning over all this information to the enemy,” said the elder Paul, “He turned it over to the American people and it’s more likely the government thinks of us as the enemy. Now we know a lot that we didn’t know before. He’s been in solitary confinement for two and half years, he’s been tortured. Many of you know what went on.”

[Christian Liberty]

No, I do not agree with Rand Paul here. His points have been debunked.

Whether or not I vote for him depends on the next three years.

Your poll needs a "maybe."

Frankly I'm not too excited about 2016. Rand Paul as president or not, not a damn thing will change. Top down reconstruction isn't really probable. Perhaps a bottom up approach, concentrating on changing things locally, that is, would be most helpful. Not to be critical of those who see Rand Paul as the solution.. to each their own. No doubt about it he'd be the best president of anyone's lifetime.

I don't see Rand as the solution, but somehow I don't see Rand throwing me in jail for dissent, forcing me (or trying, anyhow) to put a microchip in my body, indefinitely detaining me without trial, you know, that sort of thing...

I have no similar feelings about Rubio, Christie, (Jeb) Bush, or any Democrat with a chance.

I also don't really see Rand clamoring for war anywhere, yes he does say things like "I wouldn't go as far as my dad" but I don't see him vocally advocating for any conflicts except in a hypothetical where one of our allies is outright attacked. Which, I still wouldn't agree with war, but can understand.

As for the Fed, I don't think anyone can get rid of it, but I think Rand would if he could. Or at least, I hope so.

Am I rolling the dice? Yeah, in some respects, but I'm willing to give him a shot. I just started reading his book: "The Tea Party goes to Washington" and he does legitimately seem different from most other people in Washington, or at least he was when he wrote that book.

[Christian Liberty]

//

I know Rand disagrees with Ron on many issues, but unless they flat out haven't discussed it, I can't imagine both of them 100% disagreeing on an issue like this. More likely Rand is telling them what they want to hear. I don't always say that, but I can't imagine Ron Paul's son being OK with locking Bradley Manning up and throwing away the key, and I can't imagine Ron Paul letting Rand say that without openly distancing himself from that stance.

[BlackTerrel]

Yes

[presence]

I don't see Rand as the solution, but somehow I don't see Rand throwing me in jail for dissent


I'll drink to that

[klamath]

I don't think manning did what he did for the good of the American people like snowden. I think he did it for a feeling of personal power. Good info came from the leaks but I don't think manning would have cared if more people died from his leak.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't see Rand as the solution, but somehow I don't see Rand throwing me in jail for dissent, forcing me (or trying, anyhow) to put a microchip in my body, indefinitely detaining me without trial, you know, that sort of thing...

I have no similar feelings about Rubio, Christie, (Jeb) Bush, or any Democrat with a chance.

I also don't really see Rand clamoring for war anywhere, yes he does say things like "I wouldn't go as far as my dad" but I don't see him vocally advocating for any conflicts except in a hypothetical where one of our allies is outright attacked. Which, I still wouldn't agree with war, but can understand.

As for the Fed, I don't think anyone can get rid of it, but I think Rand would if he could. Or at least, I hope so.

Am I rolling the dice? Yeah, in some respects, but I'm willing to give him a shot. I just started reading his book: "The Tea Party goes to Washington" and he does legitimately seem different from most other people in Washington, or at least he was when he wrote that book.
You make good points and I agree. The thing about it is, he will be blackballed and portrayed as a racist. They will not allow him to become president. The people who own these stations have a vested interest (GE, etc.) in there being a possibility of war. There always has to be. How could you justify 600B+ in the DoD budget without an enemy? I don't want to be overly pessimistic as that tends to discourage and I honestly welcome all approaches to try and bring this beast under control but it aint gonna happen. (Rand Paul receiving the nomination) He'll be radical, or extreme, or racist, or... Not to mention his life would definitely be in danger if he ever actually threatened their power structure.

The president doesn't have all the power in the world. Even if he made Congress draft a declaration to go to war, they would. Then what? I prefer the "we just marched in, we can just march out" approach. Tell that to the average American and they think you are insane. Putting down their television remote for a day or two would probably do them some good.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't think manning did what he did for the good of the American people like snowden. I think he did it for a feeling of personal power. Good info came from the leaks but I don't think manning would have cared if more people died from his leak.
Do you have a source? I'm curious as to who died from his leaks. I've read many articles but can't find anything aside from conjecture and rhetoric.

[fisharmor]

I'll still vote for him, I think I know where his heart is.

And lol @ "threw his father under the bus", Rand did no such thing. Such hyperbole...

The saddest part about statements like this is that whereas Ron actually was still in the race at the time, Rand hasn't even confirmed that he's even interested in running, yet you all are toasting his inauguration.

[supermario21]

I heard this question and answer. It was when Rand was taking questions at Cato University and the author of this article asked a rather hastily worded question about Manning and Snowden. Rand did say these things about Manning, but to be honest I don't think very many people disagreed with him. It was totally on the spot as well. He's definitely been more favorable to Snowden than Manning.

[Christian Liberty]

You make good points and I agree. The thing about it is, he will be blackballed and portrayed as a racist. They will not allow him to become president. The people who own these stations have a vested interest (GE, etc.) in there being a possibility of war. There always has to be. How could you justify 600B+ in the DoD budget without an enemy? I don't want to be overly pessimistic as that tends to discourage and I honestly welcome all approaches to try and bring this beast under control but it aint gonna happen. (Rand Paul receiving the nomination) He'll be radical, or extreme, or racist, or... Not to mention his life would definitely be in danger if he ever actually threatened their power structure.

That last sentence is what makes me say, he HAS to pick someone more radical than him as his VP. Amash or Massie at the least, if not Napolitano or Woods. Going with Mike Lee is asking to get assassinated (Not by Lee, obviously, but by establishment banksters that would prefer Lee over Paul.) Going with Ted Cruz is SERIOUSLY asking for it (The bankers would HUGELY prefer a hawk like Cruz over a moderate like Paul.)


The president doesn't have all the power in the world. Even if he made Congress draft a declaration to go to war, they would. Then what? I prefer the "we just marched in, we can just march out" approach. Tell that to the average American and they think you are insane. Putting down their television remote for a day or two would probably do them some good.

I personally see no reason the President can't just refuse to deploy troops. Just say "No, we'll let them come over here, screw you for being stupid enough to declare war on those people that weren't a threat to us." I don't think the nation in question, whoever the boogeyman was, would come over here knowing that the President wasn't hostile. Ron would certainly be more tactful in saying "No" than that, and I'm not sure Rand would say no at all under those conditions.

For better or worse, the President pretty much IS in control of the foreign policy, or at least that's what it feels like. Domestic policy is another story, I don't think Rand can unilaterally kill social security or medicare/medicaid or the Fed or the likes of that, but foreign policy and personal liberties he'd have a lot of latitude. Heck, the President could refuse to enforce tax laws, but I don't think Rand would go that far.

The question isn't so much what could the President get away with, but what will Rand do?

I think he means well, but I don't think he'd be as "aggressive" as I would in dismantling government either.

[klamath]

Do you have a source? I'm curious as to who died from his leaks. I've read many articles but can't find anything aside from conjecture and rhetoric.

I didn't say anyone died. I don't think he would have cared. The way he released it and was caught revealed a lot about his character. Totally different from snowden.

[Christian Liberty]

The saddest part about statements like this is that whereas Ron actually was still in the race at the time, Rand hasn't even confirmed that he's even interested in running, yet you all are toasting his inauguration.

For the record, I'm not. I'd put Rand's odds of winning at under 10%, although his chances of running are probably 95% or higher.

I'm not 100% on board with Rand either, as I've said, he doesn't go nearly far enough on issues. But honestly, Rand is at least good. Not wonderful, but certainly good. And in a climate of evil people who are actively looking for people to kill and people to add to the terrorist list and whatnot... I don't know what else to do.

As I said, I don't see Rand Paul arresting anyone without trial, certainly not killing anyone without trial, or anything like that.

I don't think Rand Paul is the solution to all of our ills, but he may be a survival measure.

I'll also point out: I've been through my anti-Rand phase as well. Look up my old posts. I've attacked him, and hard. Heck, I still will when appropriate. Rand is completely off here. Heck, Ron Paul might be nicer about this than I am, but even if "American servicemen" died because of Manning's actions... that wouldn't change a thing for me. So murderers die when invading a country, Bradley Manning helps the "enemy" defend their country, so what? I don't go around looking for military or ex-military to bash, if I met one I'd treat them the way I'd treat anyone else, but if they die while invading another country, their blood is on their own heads, and the heads of their commanders. That Bradley Manning should feel guilt for that is absolutely insane. The only think Manning should feel guilt for is joining the military in the first place, although I'd say he's probably atoned for that (If Sola_Fide is watching this thread, I don't mean that last part literally:p)

So, yeah, Rand is wrong here, even if Bradley Manning did endanger someone's life by his leaks. That said, I don't expect him to go as far as I do, and despite the fact that Rand is wrong here, he is right or at least close far, far more often than he's completely off like he is here.

As for his comments about his dad, without that the entire political maneuver would have been useless. For better or worse, convincing people that he's different than his dad is part of his strategy.

[TheTyke]

Ahh... my mistake. I skipped over the link to page 2 thinking it was noise on the page. There is some context there.

[twomp]

Being upset at Manning for revealing what our government is doing in secret is like being upset at your friend for telling you that your wife/husband cheated on you.

[Christian Liberty]

Being upset at Manning for revealing what our government is doing in secret is like being upset at your friend for telling you that your wife/husband cheated on you.

Yep. +rep.

[Dr.3D]

Being upset at Manning for revealing what our government is doing in secret is like being upset at your friend for telling you that your wife/husband cheated on you.
I think it's more about people being worried that their friend told everybody in town about it too.

[ClydeCoulter]

I didn't say anyone died. I don't think he would have cared. The way he released it and was caught revealed a lot about his character. Totally different from snowden.

Wow, your signature doesn't seem to match what Manning released. Collateral Damage among other things.
You don't know what Manning tried to do or why. Do you?

[ClydeCoulter]

I think it's more about people being worried that their friend told everybody in town about it too.

In this case, everybody in town already knew she was a slut, they all slept with her. Bad when you're the last to know. :)

[Dr.3D]

In this case, everybody in town already knew she was a slut, they all slept with her. Bad when you're the last to know. :)
And they seem to be burning her underwear on the news daily.

[FrankRep]

Divide and Conquer is Alive and Well on Ron Paul Forums.

[kcchiefs6465]

I don't think manning did what he did for the good of the American people like snowden. I think he did it for a feeling of personal power. Good info came from the leaks but I don't think manning would have cared if more people died from his leak.


I didn't say anyone died. I don't think he would have cared. The way he released it and was caught revealed a lot about his character. Totally different from snowden.
You implied that people died from the leaks with the usage of the word "more."

You have no way of determining whether or not he would care. If they could show him one person that directly died as a result of his leaks, which they can't, I think he would have been upset about it. Weighing that against the greater good I don't know how he would feel. Certainly he would care about it on some level or another. Personally I'd argue that the American people knowing what was going on in Iraq and the systemic abuses of human rights outweighs a lot. It should have been released and did not compromise national security in the least. It embarrassed a lot of people, is all.

I have no reason to judge his reasons for releasing them. Whether or not he was personally against it, as most anyone would have to be, or whether he did it to get back at the US military for DADT makes no difference. That the information was made public is what matters. The reasons behind and how he was caught have little relevance to me.

It is very much different from Snowden for many reasons. It is very much similar to Snowden's leaks as well. I judge them individually and commend both for their sacrifices.

[kcchiefs6465]

Divide and Conquer is Alive and Well on Ron Paul Forums.
This is bringing about uniformity how?

Or are you simply trying to stifle legitimate discussion?

[enhanced_deficit]

Reserving judgement for now on such statements but there is residual goodwill still and among things Rand has going for him is that he campaigned for Ron Paul.

[mczerone]

Divide and Conquer is Alive and Well on Ron Paul Forums.

If Rand wanted his father's support to unite behind him, he should stay appealing to all of them.

[Natural Citizen]

He's definitely been more favorable to Snowden than Manning.

I wouldn't say he's more favorable. I think Both men 's handywork equates to the same skullduggery. Rand kind of gets to backstep a bit with Snowden to appear more sympathetic for the bleeding hearts but certainly knows where the buck stops. I say the buck because it's easy to use the old "state secret" gag but essentially what we have is a merge of corporation and state. So then it seems like the only cheerios that got peed on were those of the fear factory. Security industry is boomin. Literally, unfortunately,and well...maybe it wasn't such a far cry to say that entities definitely hate us for our freedom. Might cut in on the take. You know? Growth, I think they call it. Is a hoot... :rolleyes:

[compromise]

As I said in the other thread, most grassroots Republicans view a Snowden endorsement favorably, but an Assange endorsement unfavorably. As a result, the establishment can attack Rand on Assange but not on Snowden. Rand is trying to avoid this by distancing himself from Manning in order to have Assange withdraw his support, as many in Assange's largely left-wing fan base are already wishing for him to do.

If you look at the article, there's a lot of spin. It seems like rather than Rand saying he wanted to lock Snowden up, as the article suggests, Rand wanted Snowden to flee and not tell a Congressman as if Snowden did, he would be incarcerated. Due the Bruce Fein connection, we know Rand is personally very supportive of Snowden.

[enhanced_deficit]

As I said in the other thread, most grassroots Republicans view a Snowden endorsement favorably, but an Assange endorsement unfavorably. As a result, the establishment can attack Rand on Assange but not on Snowden. Rand is trying to avoid this by distancing himself from Manning in order to have Assange withdraw his support, as many in Assange's largely left-wing fan base are already wishing for him to do.

Are you a Rand supporter and are you implying that he takes a public opinion poll before adopting a position on an issue with aim to avoid attacks from "establishment"?

[compromise]

Are you a Rand supporter and are you implying that he takes a public opinion poll before adopting a position on an issue with aim to avoid attacks from "establishment"?

I'm implying Rand is a genius when it comes to the rhetoric he uses and his overall political strategy.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The saddest part about statements like this is that whereas Ron actually was still in the race at the time

This meme was being pushed by the people who seemed to think Ron Paul could/would storm into the RNC and take the microphone from Romney during his acceptance speech, and become the GOP presidential nominee by spontaneous, unanimous universal acclaim.

Ron Paul announced he was suspending active campaigning on May 14, 2012. Romney became the presumptive nominee when he won Texas on May 29, 2012. Rand Paul endorsed Romney on Hannity's show on June 7, 2012.

In no way, shape or form, outside the fantasy land of some die-hards here and on DailyPaul.com, was Ron Paul still a real candidate for the GOP nomination in June 2012. Paul himself said as much. Sorry if he didn't do the super-secret wink to let True Supporters™ know.

[Big Hoss]

You joined to share this? Interesting.

I would like to see the entire speech/interview so I could see the excerpted quotes in context.
I joined because I enjoy liberty politics and politicians. I hate Rand and this is just part of the reason why.


I'll still vote for him, I think I know where his heart is.

And lol @ "threw his father under the bus", Rand did no such thing. Such hyperbole...
Actually he did. Keep the blinders on,its what politicians depend on.

No, I'm going to vote for Hillary.
Mine as well. Not much difference when you get down to it.


Endorsing Mitt, moderating a stance on marijuana, and distancing oneself from Manning is how you win a primary. Using the system as a means to an end is the best chance we have. Of course I will still support Rand Paul.
Its how you kiss butt to get elected to higher office,sad when his father managed to stay getting elected while keeping his principles...Rand has none.


Divide and Conquer is Alive and Well on Ron Paul Forums.
Go ahead vote for him lock and step...Hitler was elected the same way.:)

If Rand wanted his father's support to unite behind him, he should stay appealing to all of them.
Yep.

[Big Hoss]

Oh appreciate the 2 positive reps. Its disheartening to see so many who gladly stay blinded by this messiah of theirs and can't be shown the truth no matter what.Your neg reps are battle scars I am happy to take. :)

[Brett85]

Oh appreciate the 2 positive reps. Its disheartening to see so many who gladly stay blinded by this messiah of theirs and can't be shown the truth no matter what.Your neg reps are battle scars I am happy to take. :)

Apparently you've posted here before under a different user name if you understand the rep system.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Go ahead vote for him lock and step...Hitler was elected the same way.:)

Lovely.

Rand Paul is better off without you.

(This thread's poll is currently at 35-2.)

[Christian Liberty]

Oh appreciate the 2 positive reps. Its disheartening to see so many who gladly stay blinded by this messiah of theirs and can't be shown the truth no matter what.Your neg reps are battle scars I am happy to take. :)

For the record, I don't consider Rand "The messiah" or even anywhere near a perfect politician. Just far, far better than the other options. I do think that Rand's comments here were disappointing.

[Christian Liberty]

Lovely.

Rand Paul is better off without you.

(This thread's poll is currently at 35-2.)

Keep in mind that some of us (Or at least one of us, me) voted yes in spite of what he said about Manning. I'm not OK with it. The OP's criticism is valid, but I'm still voting for Rand.

[matt0611]

For the record, I don't consider Rand "The messiah" or even anywhere near a perfect politician. Just far, far better than the other options. I do think that Rand's comments here were disappointing.

Same.

I refuse to say "no I won't vote for Rand" because of some comments he makes about someone that will have about zero effect on how he votes and governs.

I don't believe Rand is someone who will solve all of our problems for us, just a much better alternative then what's in there now. Ultimately its up to us to fix things, one man can only do so much, even a senator or president.

But Rand wants to be President and there are not enough of "awake" people to appeal to, that's why he is trying to appeal to mainstream republicans as well, much more than Ron tried to do. I understand it and I'm fine with it. He'll get my vote when the time comes because I understand what he's trying to do.

[Big Hoss]

This meme was being pushed by the people who seemed to think Ron Paul could/would storm into the RNC and take the microphone from Romney during his acceptance speech, and become the GOP presidential nominee by spontaneous, unanimous universal acclaim.

Ron Paul announced he was suspending active campaigning on May 14, 2012. Romney became the presumptive nominee when he won Texas on May 29, 2012. Rand Paul endorsed Romney on Hannity's show on June 7, 2012.

In no way, shape or form, outside the fantasy land of some die-hards here and on DailyPaul.com, was Ron Paul still a real candidate for the GOP nomination in June 2012. Paul himself said as much. Sorry if he didn't do the super-secret wink to let True Supporters™ know.
He had not dropped out of the race like everyone else had and was still on ALL ballots left and was also still accumulating delegates to try and win at the convention. He should have just stayed silent on it all.Instead he stabbed his father in the back.


Apparently you've posted here before under a different user name if you understand the rep system.
Uh it told me I had 9 notifications when I signed in. Its pretty obvious what a red rep is and what a green one is when the red ones have stupid little comments like a child who just got scolded.

Lovely.

Rand Paul is better off without you.

(This thread's poll is currently at 35-2.)
Good because he will never have my vote. At this present time I won't be voting.

[jmdrake]

I wouldn't make assumptions about Rand's heart though. Most likely he believes Manning should be punished. At least with Snowden we're getting hints that Rand is sympathetic, but I don't think that's the case with Manning.

I don't think we should give Rand a pass here though. We should vocally dissent from his stance.

But ... am I going to vote for him? Of course. He's still the best hope for liberty in 2016 that we have.

I will vote for Rand too. But I'm on the fence on whether I will volunteer or donate to him. Did you read the linked article? Rand makes it sound like he believes Snowden should be punished as well just because "He broke the law." Well...some laws are invalid because they are unconstitutional. Donating to Ron Paul even though he had no chance to win made sense because he was consistently promoting liberty. So I didn't feel like my money was wasted. If I donate to Rand and he doesn't absolutely win and he sticks with the on again/off again pro liberty message, I will feel like I should have given my money to Ben Swann. A lot will ride on the roll of an unrepentant Jesse Benton in the campaign.

[radiofriendly]

Send this kinda stuff over to the DailyPaul lol.

- I'm not saying we shouldn't look at the quote and the story---but for just a divide and conquer poll to be put up...is silly.

[newbitech]

I find it laughable that it is possible that the willy nilly releasing of millions of "state secrets" *might* have put some spies at risk, and people have a huge problem with this national security risk, treasonous, yada yada... YET,

our interventionist foreign policy kills and maims hundreds of thousands of soldiers, diplomats, contractors, and civilians for decades, and its all ho hum, whateva!

[jmdrake]

I find it laughable that it is possible that the willy nilly releasing of millions of "state secrets" *might* have put some spies at risk, and people have a huge problem with this national security risk, treasonous, yada yada... YET,

our interventionist foreign policy kills and maims hundreds of thousands of soldiers, diplomats, contractors, and civilians for decades, and its all ho hum, whateva!

True. Rand isn't doing a good job promoting liberty when he says stuff like this. That said, I think he's lying. And ironically that gives me hope that he really is good.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1-0o0cSw24

[Christian Liberty]

I will vote for Rand too. But I'm on the fence on whether I will volunteer or donate to him. Did you read the linked article? Rand makes it sound like he believes Snowden should be punished as well just because "He broke the law." Well...some laws are invalid because they are unconstitutional. Donating to Ron Paul even though he had no chance to win made sense because he was consistently promoting liberty. So I didn't feel like my money was wasted. If I donate to Rand and he doesn't absolutely win and he sticks with the on again/off again pro liberty message, I will feel like I should have given my money to Ben Swann. A lot will ride on the roll of an unrepentant Jesse Benton in the campaign.

I read the article, and I also know what Rand said when the Snowden thing first came out. He seemed more sympathetic to Snowden, but not as much as I would have liked.

As I already said, I don't even really care if someone did die because of the leaks. The bottom line is, any American that was killed "over there" was a murderer anyway. Rand Paul cannot say that, heck, Ron Paul wouldn't even say that. Considering the different premises he's using, I honestly don't know what conclusion he should come to about Manning. I don't know if any lives were endangered becauuse of that or not. Snowden, on the other hand, is obvious.

I probably won't donate, but that's more because I don't have anything and still won't in 4 years (I'll still be in college) than anything else. I'll likely try to persuade people to vote for Rand, but that's about all I've got.

That said, I'm not really happy with what Rand said. I just know that, as someone said, it doesn't really make a difference regarding how he will govern. Personally I view both Manning and Snowden as heroes, and I believe Manning was probably tortured.

Now, regarding Benton, I suspect he's a snake. His repentance for screwing over McConnell was absolutely ridiculous. Mitch needs to go.

[libertarian101]

Smart move by Rand.

[Meritocrat]

It's going to be very difficult for principled libertarians to support Rand Paul. But I still think that it's a good idea because having a frontrunner in the race for president who aligns himself with libertarians and has a good number of libertarian position stands to shift the entire landscape. This means more consitutional republicans, more strict libertarians and more voluntaryists. I'm confident it will help the movement as a whole. It's hard to support pragmatists like Rand, but they are good for the cause. When Ron stops associating with Rand, then I'll abandon him. He's absolutely wrong about Manning and I think that he knows it. He's doing what he has to do get on the inside.

[klamath]

Wow, your signature doesn't seem to match what Manning released. Collateral Damage among other things.
You don't know what Manning tried to do or why. Do you?It just shows you don't know what war is. You don't get in one unless you ABSOLUTELY have to. For you and others getting a look into the shadows of war it was a good thing which I said in the beginning. However it does not change how I view Manning and his intentions on releasing the information. I don't think they were under the most honorable reasons like Snowden.

[fr33]

I should listen to the whole speech first but Rand should use that oppurtunity to criticize the Iraq and Afghanistan failures. Manning is being held accountable for violating the red tape but many of his superiors are guilty of murder and even worse things. But they instead get rewarded for it.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Guessing this poll isn't going the way the OP had hoped.


Instead he stabbed his father in the back.

Quick, someone inform Ron Paul of this: he's still supporting Rand Paul for President. :rolleyes:

Why do the True Supporters go against Ron Paul's wishes the most?

[newbitech]

Guessing this poll isn't going the way the OP had hoped.

He's got my vote, even if I disagree with some of the jibber jabber that comes out his mouth.

[libertarian101]

Manning himself has apologised and pleaded guilty, so why should Rand defend him and hinder his chance of accomplishing other important things? Even though it would have been better for Rand to use different words in order not to antagonise the anarchist in liberty movement, it's still smart move to distance himself from Manning and Assange.

[jmdrake]

Manning himself has apologised and pleaded guilty, so why should Rand defend him and hinder his chance of accomplishing other important things? Even though it would have been better for Rand to use different words in order not to antagonise the anarchist in liberty movement, it's still smart move to distance himself from Manning and Assange.

I'm not an anarchist. Rand's words on this still piss me off. Assange, Manning and Snowden are heros. Yeah I know that doesn't play well with the teocon movement. Apparently these people are fine with children being killed by helicopter gunships and ambulance workers coming to their rescue being killed as well as long as it happens "over there" and a republican is president. They're more (slightly) sympathetic to Snowden only because they have recently seen the tyranny of the IRS and figure the NSA power might be being abused in the same way. But I get queasy having to be lined up with people like Mark Levin who support Rand, at least for now, but do not support liberty.

[69360]

I would have like to see the unedited text of this "interview" or did they just pull random quotes from other sources for their article?

So Rand said he had little sympathy for Manning or Snowden getting jail time? So what I don't either. They both knew they were facing jail and still did what was right. I would have done the same as Snowden, Manning could have handled it a little better, editing what he released to keep people safe.

[AuH20]

I assuming Rand is talking about sympathy for violating the UCMJ. No one put a gun to Bradley Manning's head to enlist. Hell, I almost enlisted and was directly warned by a serviceman friend not to. The ridiculous sentence is another thing entirely.

[supermario21]

I would have like to see the unedited text of this "interview" or did they just pull random quotes from other sources for their article?

So Rand said he had little sympathy for Manning or Snowden getting jail time? So what I don't either. They both knew they were facing jail and still did what was right. I would have done the same as Snowden, Manning could have handled it a little better, editing what he released to keep people safe.


These were quotes from a Q and A after a speech Rand gave to the Cato Institute on July 30th, so he would have had no clue about an Assange endorsement. I also think this was the day Manning was found guilty of everything but aiding the enemy. The answer was more long-winded but you could tell Rand wasn't really prepared for a question like that. Also it was pretty slanted in favor of Manning (the question). On Manning, he pretty much said he had little sympathy for him. For Snowden, he first said that he shouldn't come back if he's facing life in prison or the death penalty, that the NSA and not Snowden are the wrongdoers. He added that those saying Snowden could be protected in his office were wrong. I think Rand alluded to civil disobedience. I saw another article where he said something like how MLK served a day in jail, that's probably what he was thinking about for Snowden. I wish Rand were a little more pro-Manning but this is more of a hit than anything.

[kcchiefs6465]

I find it laughable that it is possible that the willy nilly releasing of millions of "state secrets" *might* have put some spies at risk, and people have a huge problem with this national security risk, treasonous, yada yada... YET,

our interventionist foreign policy kills and maims hundreds of thousands of soldiers, diplomats, contractors, and civilians for decades, and its all ho hum, whateva!
Yes, I'm sure the millions who have died as a direct result of our policies have no bearing on whether or not our troops or embassies are safe around the world.

They claim American lives were put in danger by Manning releasing information about what our government was doing. They of course can't specifically cite how or when, but whatever. Then they claim American lives are safer while continuously using drone strikes which are resulting in the deaths of many innocent people. (Abyan, for example) Or for backing military dictatorships oppressing people, or for any of the other hundreds of immoral things our government is doing weekly. It's amazing they can actually spout that bullshit with a straight face. No doubt in my mind they don't believe a sentence of it.

[eduardo89]

I completely agree with Rand.

[HigherVision]

I don't really see what better alternative we have.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not an anarchist. Rand's words on this still piss me off. Assange, Manning and Snowden are heros. Yeah I know that doesn't play well with the teocon movement. Apparently these people are fine with children being killed by helicopter gunships and ambulance workers coming to their rescue being killed as well as long as it happens "over there" and a republican is president. They're more (slightly) sympathetic to Snowden only because they have recently seen the tyranny of the IRS and figure the NSA power might be being abused in the same way. But I get queasy having to be lined up with people like Mark Levin who support Rand, at least for now, but do not support liberty.

I feel similar.


I completely agree with Rand.

You would:rolleyes:

[Feeding the Abscess]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152623170946686&set=a.10150115112081686.277590.6233046685&type=1&theater