PDA

View Full Version : Is Rand our man or not?




Dogsoldier
02-10-2014, 10:36 PM
I made a comment on yahoo the other day and I went back and looked at it later and it had 30 thumb downs hidden for low ratings. I said "Rand Paul 2016".

I never had that happen when I supported Ron with "Ron Paul 2012" actually it was quite the opposite.

I'm just wondering why Rand doesn't generate the same enthusiasm as Ron.

As Ron Paul supporters are we not obligated to vote for Rand? I don't see how we can afford not to. It is Ron's son and they agree on 99% of the issues.

This is as close as we can get to putting Ron Paul himself in the white house as far as I can tell.

I'm sensing a lot of negativity from many public arenas. The neocons will be fighting us tooth and nail to make Bush or Christie the nominee. We have the nomination fight and then the presidency. Just the nomination process alone will be brutal. Do we have our $hit together or not?

I for one do not want to waste my time as a delegate if were gonna do this half a$$.

I've made the decision that I'm going to give Rand a chance because I don't see a better course of action. He will either continue what his father started or he will be the last republican I ever vote for. (At least I don't see too many future Ron Pauls coming up after Rand but time will tell)

What say you?

Michael Landon
02-10-2014, 10:44 PM
Rand doesn't appeal to Democrats the way Ron Paul did.

- ML

LibertyEagle
02-10-2014, 10:46 PM
I am supporting him.

fr33
02-10-2014, 10:57 PM
My 2 cents. Become a delegate and participate in the party if you think you can make a difference at more local level of politics. (Unless you live in an early caucus state which could help Rand some). Rand won't win the nomination without the popular vote. That's why he's doing what he's doing.

I'll support him unless someone else better comes along. So far it looks like Gary Johnson will probably try another LP run and Ventura as an independent. Both of those have more baggage than Rand does IMO.

VIDEODROME
02-10-2014, 11:01 PM
My 2 cents. Become a delegate and participate in the party if you think you can make a difference at more local level of politics. (Unless you live in an early caucus state which could help Rand some). Rand won't win the nomination without the popular vote. That's why he's doing what he's doing.

I'll support him unless someone else better comes along. So far it looks like Gary Johnson will probably try another LP run and Ventura as an independent. Both of those have more baggage than Rand does IMO.

I didn't think Gary was that eager to go through this kind of bullshit again.

fisharmor
02-10-2014, 11:18 PM
What say you?

Stick around, create an avatar, and keep reading.
If you're genuinely interested in finding out why some of us have reservations about Rand then you'll find out.

However, if you're just asking because you honestly think there's an actual obligation to vote for him, and you're really not interested in why we have reservations, then let me cut straight to the end of the conversation with a canned response:
If you're really not interested in putting any thought into why we're not giant fans of his, then you stand zero chance of convincing us.

Dogsoldier
02-10-2014, 11:28 PM
No I get why there are reservations. I have the same reservations. I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt though all things considered. We've come this far.....If Rand is a dud...well lesson learned.....

I am convinced that Rand maybe the republicans last hope.

Natural Citizen
02-10-2014, 11:37 PM
No I get why there are reservations. I have the same reservations. I've decided to give him the benefit of the doubt though all things considered. We've come this far.....If Rand is a dud...well lesson learned.....

I am convinced that Rand maybe the republicans last hope.

Well. For me it's not really about Republicans, per se. I mean, look at what just happened with the Farm Bill. They go out of their way to proudly wear the label they're given. Will have to continue working from the bottom up to make any real difference.

Rand is about the best bet right now though. I've got my pet peeves with him but it's not just him. It's all of them. And they're only going to survive on these social issues being pawned off by msm and some of these PACs as the headliner for so long. The championship kitchen is going to get hot this time around and if he's to fail then I think it will be by those hands more so than his. Big, big voter turnout this time around, I think, and from all walks of life.

TheTyke
02-11-2014, 12:00 AM
Of course I'm with Rand! And enthusiastically so. Was there ever any doubt?

RickyJ
02-11-2014, 12:25 AM
I say it's 2014, way too early to get behind anyone for president right now. Also, you should have noticed by now that the most popular candidate does not always win in a rigged system.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 12:40 AM
Stick around, create an avatar, and keep reading.
If you're genuinely interested in finding out why some of us have reservations about Rand then you'll find out.

However, if you're just asking because you honestly think there's an actual obligation to vote for him, and you're really not interested in why we have reservations, then let me cut straight to the end of the conversation with a canned response:
If you're really not interested in putting any thought into why we're not giant fans of his, then you stand zero chance of convincing us.

Uh, you don't represent "we".

Bman
02-11-2014, 01:36 AM
I say there will be an election in 2016. I say some people will decide to vote, some people will decide not to vote. I say some people will vote to win, some people will vote to say I want no one to win. I say vote however the fuck you want so you can rationalize your decision or don't.

Personally, I'll vote for Rand in the primary and if he wins it I'll vote for him in the general.

singe22
02-11-2014, 03:14 AM
It may sound dumb to others but, the fact that rand endorsed Romney and bailed on his father before the primaries officially ended wont ever sit well with me. And i strongly feel that's what will be the i gotcha that the establishment will put in his face. He bailed on his father, whats stopping him from bailing on you. Its not like Ron was some father who wasn't part of his life and didn't pay child support.

Now people will argue it was a political move. Well lately i see too many "Political" moves by Rand. More of the same.

No one but RON PAUL.

twomp
02-11-2014, 03:33 AM
Admittedly I was skeptical of Rand after the Mitt Romney endorsement. It felt like he took the wind out of our sails. It was always a long shot for Ron Paul to win the nomination but when Rand did the endorsement, it was so disheartening. But that all changed when Rand had that 13 hour filibuster. After I got off work, I sat at home watching CSPAN for 6 hours in amazement of the man. It was the more CSPAN than i've watched in my life combined. Since then, my doubts have been erased.

Rand Paul 2016. NOBP!

Natural Citizen
02-11-2014, 05:47 AM
Admittedly I was skeptical of Rand after the Mitt Romney endorsement. It felt like he took the wind out of our sails. It was always a long shot for Ron Paul to win the nomination but when Rand did the endorsement, it was so disheartening. But that all changed when Rand had that 13 hour filibuster. After I got off work, I sat at home watching CSPAN for 6 hours in amazement of the man. It was the more CSPAN than i've watched in my life combined. Since then, my doubts have been erased.

Rand Paul 2016. NOBP!

Yeah, except we still have drones all over the place. Heck, even the notion of using them to deliver junk to people has been thrown out there just to cozy people up to them being around and streamlined. You know? Seems like consumers are always the easy pathway to applying tyranny. And now they're talking about knocking off an American citizen some place. That was all well and good what Rand did but at the end of the day, What did he accomplish? Drone warfare is alive and well. Flourishing even. New and improved models are rolling out almost daily.

Occam's Banana
02-11-2014, 09:58 AM
As Ron Paul supporters are we not obligated to vote for Rand?

We are not.

As Ron Paul supporters, Rand is obligated to give us a reason to vote for him.

erowe1
02-11-2014, 10:07 AM
I made a comment on yahoo the other day and I went back and looked at it later and it had 30 thumb downs hidden for low ratings. I said "Rand Paul 2016".

I never had that happen when I supported Ron with "Ron Paul 2012" actually it was quite the opposite.

I'm just wondering why Rand doesn't generate the same enthusiasm as Ron.


Your experience proves that Rand generates more enthusiasm than Ron, not less.

silverhandorder
02-11-2014, 10:15 AM
Meh politics does not work. I support Rand because I like him and his father. However they have to sell out to win and they have to surround them selves with Jesse bentons. If you want to be free get rich voting will never get you free.

SilentBull
02-11-2014, 10:27 AM
Rand Paul is THE man, period.

klamath
02-11-2014, 10:30 AM
I made a comment on yahoo the other day and I went back and looked at it later and it had 30 thumb downs hidden for low ratings. I said "Rand Paul 2016".

I never had that happen when I supported Ron with "Ron Paul 2012" actually it was quite the opposite.

I'm just wondering why Rand doesn't generate the same enthusiasm as Ron.

As Ron Paul supporters are we not obligated to vote for Rand? I don't see how we can afford not to. It is Ron's son and they agree on 99% of the issues.

This is as close as we can get to putting Ron Paul himself in the white house as far as I can tell.

I'm sensing a lot of negativity from many public arenas. The neocons will be fighting us tooth and nail to make Bush or Christie the nominee. We have the nomination fight and then the presidency. Just the nomination process alone will be brutal. Do we have our $hit together or not?

I for one do not want to waste my time as a delegate if were gonna do this half a$$.

I've made the decision that I'm going to give Rand a chance because I don't see a better course of action. He will either continue what his father started or he will be the last republican I ever vote for. (At least I don't see too many future Ron Pauls coming up after Rand but time will tell)

What say you?Simple as the fact that the tiny but obsessed group of RP supporters aren't searching the web for ANY mention of Ron Paul and then spamming the hell out of it.
Ron was never considered a serious threat so few people tried to attack him in internet posts. Rand is commonly considered one of the front runners for the presidency and therefore a threat.

NOVALibertarian
02-11-2014, 11:15 AM
It may sound dumb to others but, the fact that rand endorsed Romney and bailed on his father before the primaries officially ended wont ever sit well with me. And i strongly feel that's what will be the i gotcha that the establishment will put in his face. He bailed on his father, whats stopping him from bailing on you. Its not like Ron was some father who wasn't part of his life and didn't pay child support.

Now people will argue it was a political move. Well lately i see too many "Political" moves by Rand. More of the same.

No one but RON PAUL.

These "No one but RON PAUL" comments is why some people view the Revolution as more of a cult than an actual movement.

It astounds me that so many people here are still on the fence about Rand Paul when no other viable alternative exists. Some people will say they would support Ron Paul or Judge Napolitano in 2016 when both will not run. There is no viable alternative to Rand Paul in 2016.

What Rand Paul is doing right now is brilliant. You must make "political" moves if you want to be the one to ascend to the metaphorical Iron Throne. Ron refused to ever make these moves. Whilst that makes him "special" in most people's eyes, it got him nowhere in regards to actually winning. If you want to make political change, you have to win at one point. Rand Paul is a great communicator of our ideas and can appeal to those moderate-liberals who feel disenfranchised by the last eight years of the Obama Administration. He appeals to the Tea Party obviously, and the rest of the GOP voters will march lockstep with whoever is their nominee (SEE: Romney, Mitt).

Is Rand Paul perfect? No. Nobody is. If the Revolution is to achieve victory, we can't hold every candidate to the standards of Ron Paul. If we do, we'll continue to hold onto the dream of a Ron Paul Presidency and never truly move-on. It's like never moving on from your ex because "they were perfect and nobody can compare." Do not let perfect be the enemy of good (or in Rand's case: pretty great). Rand and Ron seem to agree on nearly 90% (if not more) on issues. They might differ on some, but that 10% or so aren't large disagreements. It's not like Rand is hawkish on national security as opposed to Ron's non-interventionalist policy.

tl;dr- Rand is our best shot at winning the White House (and probably will be for the foreseeable future). We can't let this opportunity pass us by because he isn't his father.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 11:23 AM
I'd honestly consider Rand semi-hawkish on Iran, but then, my standards are really high on that front. At least Rand strikes me as trying to avoid war unlike Cruz/Lee and "liberty" candidates of their type. I'm supporting Rand but the "cult" comments don't make any sense, particularly if addressed at people who like Napolitano.

NOVALibertarian
02-11-2014, 11:27 AM
I'm supporting Rand but the "cult" comments don't make any sense, particularly if addressed at people who like Napolitano.

It's more towards the "no one but (Ron) Paul" people. They have their standards set so high that they won't accept anyone else. Because of this, it puts out the image that the Revolution is more about one person (Ron Paul) than an idea.

I consider someone "hawkish" if they seem to actively want war with another nation. The fact that Rand is urging caution against these latest sanctions that they're trying to pass shows me that he doesn't really want war with Iran. Like you mentioned, this is opposed to the line of thinking that Ted Cruz and others in the Republican Party perpetuate.

SilentBull
02-11-2014, 11:32 AM
Those who don't support Rand and compare him to Ron Paul somehow forget the fact that Ron Paul himself fully supports Rand Paul and what he's doing.

Bergie Bergeron
02-11-2014, 11:56 AM
See my signature, again.

thoughtomator
02-11-2014, 12:01 PM
If you got a better man than Rand for the job, throw the name out in the ring and we can have an open, healthy debate as to who will best represent us. Rand gets no family name points, he's got to earn it like everyone else.

Terry1
02-11-2014, 01:20 PM
Unless someone can bring Ron Paul back, I can't imagine supporting anyone other than Rand. Remembering too that Rand understands what it's going to take to get elected which doesn't necessarily mean that what he says to get elected is what he'll do once he is. Rand is more his father than some realize. That's as far as I'm willing to go with that considering prying eyes and all.

Terry1
02-11-2014, 01:40 PM
I'd honestly consider Rand semi-hawkish on Iran, but then, my standards are really high on that front. At least Rand strikes me as trying to avoid war unlike Cruz/Lee and "liberty" candidates of their type. I'm supporting Rand but the "cult" comments don't make any sense, particularly if addressed at people who like Napolitano.

Don't be fooled, Rand knows exactly what those sanctions on Iran are all about as well as Ron does. They have nothing to do with nukes, it's all about the dollar and oil being bought and sold with other currencies. Iran could nuke a city in the U.S. and it wouldn't do near the damage as selling oil in currencies other than the dollar does. If it were all about nukes, I'd be more worried about N. Korea than anyone else.

All those sanctions are doing is provoking instead of using some kind of diplomacy by backing out of their affairs as well as stop funding the enemies of their enemies, which include about all of the Mideast. Stop empire building and bring the money back home if there's any chance of that left at all.

What other possible reason could there be for over 130 different military interventions globally.

Terry1
02-11-2014, 02:11 PM
Ron Paul was the answer and light unto this dark nation. They chose the devil instead and now they're getting just what they chose. I could go on but I don't want to bore anyone. :)

Brian4Liberty
02-11-2014, 02:27 PM
Rand doesn't appeal to Democrats the way Ron Paul did.

- ML

Yeah, the thumbs down is probably coming from the MSNBC leftists. The Marxists, socialists and establishment have been attacking and demonizing Rand. They used to just pretend that Ron didn't exist. Rand will be more polarizing because of this.

ssunlimited
02-11-2014, 02:47 PM
It may sound dumb to others but, the fact that rand endorsed Romney and bailed on his father before the primaries officially ended wont ever sit well with me. And i strongly feel that's what will be the i gotcha that the establishment will put in his face. He bailed on his father, whats stopping him from bailing on you. Its not like Ron was some father who wasn't part of his life and didn't pay child support.

Now people will argue it was a political move. Well lately i see too many "Political" moves by Rand. More of the same.

No one but RON PAUL.

Yeah I think it was a political move. Now Rand gets much media attention and is a popular GOP candidate. I hope he wins.

fisharmor
02-11-2014, 03:01 PM
Uh, you don't represent "we".

I don't represent YOU.
One thing I'm having a lot of trouble getting across is that I'm not the only person who holds these opinions.
Perhaps I'm not writing in English.
:rolleyes:

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 03:29 PM
Uh, you don't represent "we".

No individual person on this site represents the whole. We are individuals, not a hive mind.


We are not.

As Ron Paul supporters, Rand is obligated to give us a reason to vote for him.

This.

Anti Federalist
02-11-2014, 03:59 PM
I think the better question is:

"Are we Rand's people?"

I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron, and one of the primary reasons for that is the subtle hints that "we" are not welcome anyway.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 04:03 PM
What or why exactly wouldn't Rand get just as much Democrat support as his father? They are 99%. Whats the big difference?

"As Ron Paul supporters, Rand is obligated to give us a reason to vote for him."

This is true of any other candidate but were talking about Ron Pauls son here...LOL....Do you honestly think the apple fell so far from the tree?

Rand to me is the GOP's last hope. They better get their $%it together ....or else....RISE OF THE LIBERTARIAN!!! Which is fine by me...

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 04:06 PM
"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 04:08 PM
"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.Rand's most ardent supporters here keep telling us that isn't true. That there are more Reagan/Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans than there are Ron Paul Republicans. That we need to sit down, shut up, and stay out of sight from those coveted Republicans lest we upset them into thinking all of Rand's supporters are dope-smoking 9/11 Truthers.

Make up your minds. If you need us, don't tell us to shut up. We're the ones who brought Rand to the dance, after all.

Anti Federalist
02-11-2014, 04:14 PM
What or why exactly wouldn't Rand get just as much Democrat support as his father? They are 99%. Whats the big difference?

The big difference is that Rand is playing the Establishment Game, you know, Yay Red Team.

We have all been told, ad nauseum, that playing that political game is the only way to win.

That appealing to the "lunatic fringe" of either side is a losing proposition.

When you play that game you get your team behind you...but nobody else.

fisharmor
02-11-2014, 04:20 PM
This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

How old are you?
How many children do you have?

I'm not in it to win 2016.

Ron Paul showed us a change for the next 250 years.

The movement seems hell bent on wiping that glimpse clean from its collective memory and moving forward full steam with the win of a single race.

I'm not sure anyone else can put it in simpler terms than you yourself did right there.

Occam's Banana
02-11-2014, 05:01 PM
I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron
This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.

Then Rand is going to have to do something to light that fire and keep it stoked.
I'm with AF. I support Rand - but he's not exactly inducing paroxysms of enthusiasm.
(Especially when he can't or won't say flat-out that he's opposed to things like the minimum wage ...)

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 05:14 PM
It may sound dumb to others but, the fact that rand endorsed Romney and bailed on his father before the primaries officially ended wont ever sit well with me. And i strongly feel that's what will be the i gotcha that the establishment will put in his face. He bailed on his father, whats stopping him from bailing on you. Its not like Ron was some father who wasn't part of his life and didn't pay child support.

Now people will argue it was a political move. Well lately i see too many "Political" moves by Rand. More of the same.

No one but RON PAUL.

By that time, Ron himself had already bailed and sent out an email about it.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 05:19 PM
How old are you?
How many children do you have?

I'm not in it to win 2016.

Ron Paul showed us a change for the next 250 years.

The movement seems hell bent on wiping that glimpse clean from its collective memory and moving forward full steam with the win of a single race.

I'm not sure anyone else can put it in simpler terms than you yourself did right there.

Yes, Ron sure did and I know I am not alone in not losing sight of that. But, we are not going to go from where we are to that utopia overnight, as much many of us want that. The American people have to be led back to liberty. Some have been so propagandized, that they have forgotten; some never knew.

It is my strong opinion that electing Rand would be a HUGE step in getting us there and he has done a darn good job of avoiding the minefields that his father stepped in over and over again.


Then Rand is going to have to do something to light that fire and keep it stoked.
I'm with AF. I support Rand - but he's not exactly inducing paroxysms of enthusiasm.
(Especially when he can't or won't say flat-out that he's opposed to things like the minimum wage ...)

If he wasn't going to run for President, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But, he is, and I feel confident what he is doing is trying to avoid giving the other side ready-made snippets to make him look like a cold-hearted asshole. You know how elections are. You don't have time to spend even 5 minutes explaining your rationale. It's all about soundbytes. Do you remember how Rand played it when he ran for Senate? Most of the time he would just say when news media would try to get him to say something incriminating, something like... I don't know why people wouldn't want to have their taxes lowered. It really gave them nowhere to go and the opposition didn't get a soundbyte to hit him with in campaign ads.

I detest politics. But, that is what is going on here. I feel very confident of that.

Take a broader look at what Rand has done since he's been in the Senate. Think about the conversations in this country that would not have been had, had he not been there and not been in the committees he has been in. He has done a great deal to change the conversation in this country. Everyday people are talking about issues that I haven't heard them talk about in so very long.

If Rand would act in the manner that many on these forums want him to act, it might make us cheer, but the rest of America, whose ears are open to him right now, would shut right down. I thought we were smarter than that. It is so depressing sometimes to come on here .

Michael Landon
02-11-2014, 06:05 PM
I'm fairly certain that I'll never vote for another Republican in my life. The Republican party is controlled by a bunch of Rockefeller liberals who will stop at nothing to eradicate conservatives from the Republican Party.

I'll be voting for either the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates going forward.

- ML

klamath
02-11-2014, 06:21 PM
"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.Having the fire couldn't beat Romney. It could barely even break 10% of the Republican vote.

Occam's Banana
02-11-2014, 06:26 PM
If he wasn't going to run for President, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But, he is, and I feel confident what he is doing is trying to avoid giving the other side ready-made snippets to make him look like a cold-hearted asshole. You know how elections are. You don't have time to spend even 5 minutes explaining your rationale. It's all about soundbytes. Do you remember how Rand played it when he ran for Senate? Most of the time he would just say when news media would try to get him to say something incriminating, something like... I don't know why people wouldn't want to have their taxes lowered. It really gave them nowhere to go and the opposition didn't get a soundbyte to hit him with in campaign ads.

I detest politics. But, that is what is going on here. I feel very confident of that.

Take a broader look at what Rand has done since he's been in the Senate. Think about the conversations in this country that would not have been had, had he not been there and not been in the committees he has been in. He has done a great deal to change the conversation in this country. Everyday people are talking about issues that I haven't heard them talk about in so very long.

If Rand would act in the manner that many on these forums want him to act, it might make us cheer, but the rest of America, whose ears are open to him right now, would shut right down. I thought we were smarter than that. It is so depressing sometimes to come on here .

I don't disagree - and as gratifying as it would be if he did so, I was NOT demanding that Rand say what I would like to hear him say the way I would like to hear him say it.

That Rand must needs mince words and wrap up everything he says in layers of waffle is as may be - but even granting the necessity of this, it should not be even the slightest bit difficult for anyone around here to understand why this is just NOT going to inspire ardent passions of Ron-Paul-like proportions ...

klamath
02-11-2014, 06:28 PM
I don't have the drive for Rand that I had in 2007 for RP but then again I wouldn't have the drive for Ron even if he was younger and running again. I would have less drive for Ron than I do now for Rand. There is quite a block of us that would not ever again waste our money or time on another RP campaign. The 2007 magic of the RP campaign is gone forever and for me it was mostly gone in 2012.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 06:44 PM
I don't disagree - and as gratifying as it would be if he did so, I was NOT demanding that Rand say what I would like to hear him say the way I would like to hear him say it.

That Rand must needs mince words and wrap up everything he says in layers of waffle is as may be - but even granting the necessity of this, it should not be even the slightest bit difficult for anyone around here to understand why this is just NOT going to inspire ardent passions of Ron-Paul-like proportions ...

I know and you have never been one to demand that. Sorry if it sounded that way; I was really speaking to the audience that does, when I said that.

I guess to me, Rand is even more exciting than Ron. Because Rand has a chance, albeit slim; Ron never did. Someone like Rand is what I was praying for; someone who could use the language that others, besides us, would understand. Something, anything, that would get through to them. Honestly, it may already be way too late; I think we are going to have some very tough times in this country. But, maybe, just maybe, he and others like him just might be able to be positioned such that they can do a lot to keep us out of full-fledged world government. I pray so, anyway. If not for me, for my nephews and their children.

Anti Federalist
02-11-2014, 06:45 PM
I don't have the drive for Rand that I had in 2007 for RP but then again I wouldn't have the drive for Ron even if he was younger and running again. I would have less drive for Ron than I do now for Rand. There is quite a block of us that would not ever again waste our money or time on another RP campaign. The 2007 magic of the RP campaign is gone forever and for me it was mostly gone in 2012.

Yes.

We know.

You've made that very clear, numerous times.

We suck, we're all well aware of that.

Thank you for pointing that out, yet again.

Moving on...

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 06:49 PM
Yes.

We know.

You've made that very clear, numerous times.

We suck, we're all well aware of that.

Thank you for pointing that out, yet again.

Moving on...

He didn't say that at all. In fact, I have seen you express much more quittertarianism than Klamath ever has.

NoOneButPaul
02-11-2014, 06:54 PM
By that time, Ron himself had already bailed and sent out an email about it.

The part conveniently forgotten...

I think the reason I do not have as much passion for Rand (though I like him, support, and will vote for him - I dunno that i'll donate or volunteer) is that he's now trying to play the system's game so he can beat them in their own system. I personally think it's the wrong way to go. So many people do not vote, do not participate in politics, and do not want any part of the same. Had Rand continued on his father's path he would have gained more of these people and caused more passionate supporters that over the course of many elections would have bred more and more voters (especially as the system crumbles the way the Austrians predict).

I'm not going to say his way of doing things is wrong because it so far it's working on a national scale, but the problem is I don't think he's going to get the extremists who carried Ron in 2008 and 2012. The question boils down to whether or not catering to the right and mainstream will offset the loss of extremists that won't support him.

I suspect when he has to turn into a politician in 2016 a lot of us will come to dislike him because he'll have to play the game and we'll see the extremists lose their nerve when he does.

Then again... they are a driving force... he's playing a real big balancing act.

klamath
02-11-2014, 06:55 PM
Yes.

We know.

You've made that very clear, numerous times.

We suck, we're all well aware of that.

Thank you for pointing that out, yet again.

Moving on...Since I am bored I hit the show ignored post button. Yep waste of forefinger effort.

dinosaur
02-11-2014, 07:04 PM
The part conveniently forgotten...

I think the reason I do not have as much passion for Rand (though I like him, support, and will vote for him - I dunno that i'll donate or volunteer) is that he's now trying to play the system's game so he can beat them in their own system. I personally think it's the wrong way to go. So many people do not vote, do not participate in politics, and do not want any part of the same. Had Rand continued on his father's path he would have gained more of these people and caused more passionate supporters.

I'm not going to say his way of doing things is wrong because it so far is working on a national scale, but the problem is I don't think he's going to get the extremists who carried Ron in 2008 and 2012. The question boils down to whether or not catering to the right and mainstream will offset the loss of extremists that won't support him.

I suspect when he has to turn into a politician in 2016 a lot of us will come to dislike him because he'll have to play the game and we'll see the extremists lose their nerve when he does.

Then again... they are a driving force... he's playing a real big balancing act.

When I hear Rand speak, I hear something different than "catering" and the "balancing act." I see "communicating with" and "bypassing media brainwashing." The brainwashed have to be approached carefully. The "game" that Rand is playing is one of trying to get a message through the media. To do this, he has to avoid the traps of the left-right paradigm. What he is doing is framing issues in a way that bypass this paradigm and prevent people from emotionally reacting to what he says based on their brainwashing. Ron did something similar, but he captured a different audience. The audience that Rand is preaching to is one that we need, and one that I believe shares our values but is a little lost.

I'm every bit as excited about Rand, probably more. I like them both, like both styles. But I will probably give more this time around.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 07:39 PM
"Having the fire couldn't beat Romney. It could barely even break 10% of the Republican vote. "

The liberty movement grew big time though. Not to mention all the cheating that the Santorum and Romney camps did.

If we had a do over of that last election with the same candidates there is no doubt in my mind we would take at least half the states.

Most of the delegates here that came to our caucus were new to the process and mostly singles that didn't bring anyone with them (me included). Nobody had any experience. Speaking for our area we could easily quadruple our numbers if we had a redo. No question in my mind.

DFF
02-11-2014, 07:40 PM
Not sure what to think of Rand. He's kind of a Ron Paul/Neocon hybrid. I guess 50% of the old man is better than none though!

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 07:44 PM
Silly question of the night:

Some here worry a lot about the image this board gives to the media and/or future potential Rand supporters with regard to libertarian political positions, conspiracy theories, etc.

Yet, it never seems to concern those same people (in most cases, literally the same people) that the GOP establishment could be lurking when it comes to disclosing how Rand is supposedly "playing their game" or hoodwinking them into thinking he supports one thing when he is really just "one of us."

Question of the night is: WHY?

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 07:46 PM
"Having the fire couldn't beat Romney. It could barely even break 10% of the Republican vote. "

The liberty movement grew big time though. Not to mention all the cheating that the Santorum and Romney camps did.

If we had a do over of that last election with the same candidates there is no doubt in my mind we would take at least half the states.

Most of the delegates here that came to our caucus were new to the process and mostly singles that didn't bring anyone with them (me included). Nobody had any experience. Speaking for our area we could easily quadruple our numbers if we had a redo. No question in my mind.
They say the liberty movement grew...I dunno, I tend to think "they" just changed what it means to be for liberty to make it fit more people. Just my observation.

Feeding the Abscess
02-11-2014, 07:49 PM
I don't have the drive for Rand that I had in 2007 for RP but then again I wouldn't have the drive for Ron even if he was younger and running again. I would have less drive for Ron than I do now for Rand. There is quite a block of us that would not ever again waste our money or time on another RP campaign. The 2007 magic of the RP campaign is gone forever and for me it was mostly gone in 2012.

The people running the show in 2012 are going to be running the show for Rand in 2016.

dinosaur
02-11-2014, 07:57 PM
Silly question of the night:

Some here worry a lot about the image this board gives to the media and/or future potential Rand supporters with regard to libertarian political positions, conspiracy theories, etc.

Yet, it never seems to concern those same people (in most cases, literally the same people) that the GOP establishment could be lurking when it comes to disclosing how Rand is supposedly "playing their game" or hoodwinking them into thinking he supports one thing when he is really just "one of us."

Question of the night is: WHY?

I think the GOP establishment already knows what is going on. They don't want Rand. They know how the game is played.

klamath
02-11-2014, 07:59 PM
"Having the fire couldn't beat Romney. It could barely even break 10% of the Republican vote. "

The liberty movement grew big time though. Not to mention all the cheating that the Santorum and Romney camps did.

If we had a do over of that last election with the same candidates there is no doubt in my mind we would take at least half the states.

Most of the delegates here that came to our caucus were new to the process and mostly singles that didn't bring anyone with them (me included). Nobody had any experience. Speaking for our area we could easily quadruple our numbers if we had a redo. No question in my mind.you are dreaming. RP could NOT even win his home town county let alone his own congressional district. Mitt Romney beat RP by 29 freaking percentage points in Brazoria county. He had over 30 years to get his message to those people and probably had met almost all of them.

klamath
02-11-2014, 08:03 PM
The people running the show in 2012 are going to be running the show for Rand in 2016. That maybe true and if I see Rand running a campaign as pathetically as Ron did I will set out another campaign.

Dianne
02-11-2014, 08:16 PM
You have to remember, one of the first things Obozo did was hire peeps just to surf the internet in order to debunk anything negative anyone had to say about his narcissistic self ... You probably caught some of his "hired hands", who do nothing but thumbs down anything said by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Cruz.

Although I must say, Rand is not his Dad by any means .. It will take months for me to recover from his endorsement of Mitch McConnell. He should have just kept his mouth shut.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 08:16 PM
LOL....Must have been some serious cheating going on there. That doesn't add up at all...

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:17 PM
Yes, Ron sure did and I know I am not alone in not losing sight of that. But, we are not going to go from where we are to that utopia overnight, as much many of us want that. The American people have to be led back to liberty. Some have been so propagandized, that they have forgotten; some never knew.

It is my strong opinion that electing Rand would be a HUGE step in getting us there and he has done a darn good job of avoiding the minefields that his father stepped in over and over again.



If he wasn't going to run for President, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. But, he is, and I feel confident what he is doing is trying to avoid giving the other side ready-made snippets to make him look like a cold-hearted asshole. You know how elections are. You don't have time to spend even 5 minutes explaining your rationale. It's all about soundbytes. Do you remember how Rand played it when he ran for Senate? Most of the time he would just say when news media would try to get him to say something incriminating, something like... I don't know why people wouldn't want to have their taxes lowered. It really gave them nowhere to go and the opposition didn't get a soundbyte to hit him with in campaign ads.

I detest politics. But, that is what is going on here. I feel very confident of that.

Take a broader look at what Rand has done since he's been in the Senate. Think about the conversations in this country that would not have been had, had he not been there and not been in the committees he has been in. He has done a great deal to change the conversation in this country. Everyday people are talking about issues that I haven't heard them talk about in so very long.

If Rand would act in the manner that many on these forums want him to act, it might make us cheer, but the rest of America, whose ears are open to him right now, would shut right down. I thought we were smarter than that. It is so depressing sometimes to come on here .

I bolded the thing that's most relevant to me, and it illustrates where some of us are coming from.

Don't get me wrong, barring something really awful, I'll vote for Rand. Occasionally I get mad at him, but I respect what he's trying to do.

Here's the thing though, he won't just be able to flip his ideology the moment he gets in the White House. What we see, going into the election, is what we get. At best.

I simply don't have the same enthusiasm for Rand because I don't think the message is the same. Similar, sure, but not the same. It is what it is. Rand is who he is. He'll probably win a lot more people this way. Doesn't mean I like it.


I'm fairly certain that I'll never vote for another Republican in my life. The Republican party is controlled by a bunch of Rockefeller liberals who will stop at nothing to eradicate conservatives from the Republican Party.

I'll be voting for either the Libertarian or Constitution Party candidates going forward.

- ML

I don't know where you live, but Greg Brannon in NC is looking really, really solid. He's a Republican. Justin Amash and Tom Massie are solid.

I agree with you mostly, but there are exceptions, IMO.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:18 PM
You have to remember, one of the first things Obozo did was hire peeps just to surf the internet in order to debunk anything negative anyone had to say about his narcissistic self ... You probably caught some of his "hired hands", who do nothing but thumbs down anything said by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Cruz.

Although I must say, Rand is not his Dad by any means .. It will take months for me to recover from his endorsement of Mitch McConnell. He should have just kept his mouth shut.

I happen to think a couple people here were hired to defend Cruz and Lee.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 08:20 PM
They say the liberty movement grew...I dunno, I tend to think "they" just changed what it means to be for liberty to make it fit more people. Just my observation.

What does it mean to you, "to be for liberty"? How do you define that?

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 08:22 PM
Here's the thing though, he won't just be able to flip his ideology the moment he gets in the White House. What we see, going into the election, is what we get. At best.

Of course he won't. I don't know why anyone believes that he will/can. For one thing, he will want to be re-elected. He will have to keep this game going for at least another 6 years.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 08:22 PM
you are dreaming. RP could NOT even win his home town county let alone his own congressional district. Mitt Romney beat RP by 29 freaking percentage points in Brazoria county. He had over 30 years to get his message to those people and probably had met almost all of them.

This is true. I don't know why anyone here still has the delusion that Ron could have won.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 08:25 PM
Of course he won't. I don't know why anyone believes that he will/can. For one thing, he will want to be re-elected. He will have to keep this game going for at least another 6 years.

No President, especially a constitutional president, will be able to change things overnight. Not even Ron. I remember when Ron was asked in a Q and A he held, what he would do if elected President. Ron hemmed and hawed and then said, there's not much I could do. If that is the measuring stick so many hold around here, it will be pretty damned easy for Rand to beat that.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 08:26 PM
What does it mean to you, "to be for liberty"? How do you define that?
To speak boldly about the stances on the issues the way Ron did. END the Fed (not just audit), blowback, closing military bases, cutting $1 trillion from budget, ending the Dept of Education and EPA, etc.

klamath
02-11-2014, 08:27 PM
LOL....Must have been some serious cheating going on there. That doesn't add up at all...Nope. All you had to do was your own polling of people in your area...not friends or family as people tent to hang with those that they agree with. Most people did NOT vote for RP.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 08:27 PM
To speak boldly about the stances on the issues the way Ron did. END the Fed (not just audit), blowback, cutting $1 trillion from budget, ending the Dept of Education and EPA, etc.

Ok, so SPEAKING is the end all. DOING doesn't matter at all. Ok, got it.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:27 PM
What does it mean to you, "to be for liberty"? How do you define that?

I'd define it as accepting the NAP. Yeah, that's a small number, but so what? I do agree with trying to extend the tent to those who usually support liberty though, as long as we can do so without compromising what we believe in. In my mind there's room for any small government people who oppose warmongering, but I wouldn't necessarily consider all of those people to be "for liberty" if they still support some aggression.



Of course he won't. I don't know why anyone believes that he will/can. For one thing, he will want to be re-elected. He will have to keep this game going for at least another 6 years.

This is really my issue here. What we see is what we get, at best.


This is true. I don't know why anyone here still has the delusion that Ron could have won.

I don't think he would have won, but Romney's cheating still makes me hate the GOP more. We're a bigger force than the GOP is willing to admit.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 08:28 PM
Ok, so SPEAKING is the end all. DOING doesn't matter at all. Ok, got it.
Well, a candidate has to talk about what he plans to do to get support....got it?

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:28 PM
Ok, so SPEAKING is the end all. DOING doesn't matter at all. Ok, got it.

Doing matters, but speaking makes a big difference to. Ron used his campaign to educate. I don't necessarily feel like Rand is doing enough of that.

dinosaur
02-11-2014, 08:41 PM
Doing matters, but speaking makes a big difference to. Ron used his campaign to educate. I don't necessarily feel like Rand is doing enough of that.

Drones? The 4th amendment? Syria? The NSA? He is educating and changing the national conversation. If Rand did things the exact same way that Ron did, he would be reaching the exact same people.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 08:47 PM
Drones? The 4th amendment? Syria? The NSA? He is educating and changing the national conversation. If Rand did things the exact same way that Ron did, he would be reaching the exact same people.

I really don't understand how anyone with half a brain could disagree with Rand on those things.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 08:58 PM
"Nope. All you had to do was your own polling of people in your area...not friends or family as people tent to hang with those that they agree with. Most people did NOT vote for RP. "

Then how did he get elected so many times in a row? Given that we have video proof that cheating happened all over the place I don't think its a stretch.

Also I didn't say he could have won LAST TIME. Although minus the cheating theres no telling how much better we could have done.

I'm saying if we had a chance for a redo in 2016 with same candidates. There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?

(yes I know a redo won't happen)

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 09:06 PM
Well, a candidate has to talk about what he plans to do to get support....got it?

Ron said he couldn't do much of anything and you supported him, as I recall.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 09:08 PM
I really don't understand how anyone with half a brain could disagree with Rand on those things.

Yes, but it still is in the way you frame the issues, whether it will sink in with various people.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 09:13 PM
Ron said he couldn't do much of anything and you supported him, as I recall.
You recall correctly. Apples and oranges. If you look back over the posts that led us here, you will see that this was not about who I will or won't support; it started as a comment on whether the liberty movement is really expanding, or (my opinion) issues are watered down to make it appear to be expanding.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 09:14 PM
I'd define it as accepting the NAP. Yeah, that's a small number, but so what?

There is no reason to compromise what you personally believe in. But, I'm sure you realize that we aren't going to be able to convince the vast majority of people to go from where we are today to the NAP overnight, right?


I do agree with trying to extend the tent to those who usually support liberty though, as long as we can do so without compromising what we believe in. In my mind there's room for any small government people who oppose warmongering, but I wouldn't necessarily consider all of those people to be "for liberty" if they still support some aggression.

Pretty nice of you, since you have just defined Ron Paul there. :rolleyes:

klamath
02-11-2014, 09:16 PM
"Nope. All you had to do was your own polling of people in your area...not friends or family as people tent to hang with those that they agree with. Most people did NOT vote for RP. "

Then how did he get elected so many times in a row? Given that we have video proof that cheating happened all over the place I don't think its a stretch.

Also I didn't say he could have won LAST TIME. Although minus the cheating theres no telling how much better we could have done.

I'm saying if we had a chance for a redo in 2016 with same candidates. There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?

(yes I know a redo won't happen)
They were voting for him as a congressmen. He did stuff for his district which included bringing home earmarks and taking care of veterans. Voting for him as CIC is an entirely different thing.
If Ron was going to win any states he would have done it last election. Running again would see his numbers plunge. RP did his best peak in 2012. Running again would destroy his legasy because he would become a joke.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 09:21 PM
Ron said he couldn't do much of anything and you supported him, as I recall.
I disagree though that Ron "couldn't do much of anything."

Are you kidding? Look at all the people he woke up....and so many young people. He educated so many about economics, foreign policy, basic libertarian principles, the sanctity of life as it pertains to real liberty. And he's STILL educating people! He's doing the part that is most important, in my opinion. As my sig line says, without education, any and all gains will be only temporary.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 09:23 PM
You recall correctly. Apples and oranges. If you look back over the posts that led us here, you will see that this was not about who I will or won't support; it started as a comment on whether the liberty movement is really expanding, or (my opinion) issues are watered down to make it appear to be expanding.

Actually, you did make some comments about Rand in regards to this issue and that is why we went through this series of questions. I wish you'd look back over them, because I don't think you are being fair on this with regard to him.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 09:25 PM
I disagree though that Ron "couldn't do much of anything."

Those were his words, Cajun; not mine.


Are you kidding? Look at all the people he woke up....and so many young people. He educated so many about economics, foreign policy, basic libertarian principles, the sanctity of life as it pertains to real liberty. And he's STILL educating people! He's doing the part that is most important, in my opinion. As my sig line says, without education, any and all gains will be only temporary.

Again... this was all talking. Which is why I asked you what was most important to you; talking or doing?

klamath
02-11-2014, 09:29 PM
Running and winning is the single greatest educational moment that can be done. Nothing changes peoples minds faster. As a example, 5 years ago California the most liberal, most gay state voted to ban same sex marriage. When Obama pushed the agenda a few year later the entire resistance to SSM is falling nationwide.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 09:30 PM
Those were his words, Cajun; not mine.



Again... this was all talking. Which is why I asked you what was most important to you; talking or doing?I know they weren't your words, but I still disagree.

i also already answered about talking vs. doing....both are important.

LE, I don't think we're as far apart on this one as you're trying to make it seem.

cajuncocoa
02-11-2014, 09:35 PM
Actually, you did make some comments about Rand in regards to this issue and that is why we went through this series of questions. I wish you'd look back over them, because I don't think you are being fair on this with regard to him.
*sigh* LE, I'm voting for Rand; he still has my support. He doesn't have my 100% agreement with all of his rhetoric, however, and his most ardent supporters are a bit annoying with their hypersensitivity to any criticism. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 09:41 PM
"RP did his best peak in 2012. Running again would destroy his legasy because he would become a joke. "

Agree to disagree.

" There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?"

?? Couldn't or wouldn't?.....I know I could and it wouldn't take much effort either. RP name grew big time here. I'd start with family....then friends......friends of friends=quadrupled easy. That's just counting people I know....I can only cover my area though.

That's why I asked the question-Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?



Too bad a redo isn't possible.

dinosaur
02-11-2014, 09:44 PM
I really don't understand how anyone with half a brain could disagree with Rand on those things.

FF - you're young, right? You weren't there for all the media manipulation. Ron Paul reached people who already had a healthy distrust of the current system, hence the young and independent thinkers. But there are plenty of people out there who agree with us in principle, but got scared off when the media was able to make Ron look "liberal." Smart people can be victims of group think. Bush got a lot of people to go along with things like the patriot act and no child left behind; and these were the same people who valued small government. It's complicated, but it has a lot to do with the bogeymen that the media set up. Back when conservatives started distrusting the network media, new alternative talk radio media sprang up. This new media appeared to champion small government and individual freedom, then slowly and subtly started to set up a new left-right divide. The younger generation is more cynical and distrusting for good reason, but the older generation is stuck in a more innocent time in some respects. They trust more, and therefore you have to be careful about the approach.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 09:46 PM
There is no reason to compromise what you personally believe in. But, I'm sure you realize that we aren't going to be able to convince the vast majority of people to go from where we are today to the NAP overnight, right?



Of course not. Heck, I'd argue you aren't 100% convinced, and you're a heck of a lot closer than the average person.

That's still what I believe would qualify though. Rejecting ALL aggression. If you (general sense) support aggression of any type, you aren't really for liberty. You might be for liberty on certain, even most, issues, but I wouldn't consider you a libertarian in the absolute sense.


Pretty nice of you, since you have just defined Ron Paul there. :rolleyes:

I'm not really sure why you are rolling your eyes.

Imagine a hypothetical person, Person B. He's with the liberty movement on a lot of issues, is opposed to war, opposed to high taxes, etc. But he supports government roads, local public schools, and laws against drugs.

Could I work with this person? Yeah, probably. Does he really support liberty? No, at least not IMO.

Now, WRT Ron, I don't know if he's a full fledged ancap or not, but if not, he's pretty darn close. I've never heard him say anything to the effect of "Well, obviously we need taxes for this reason" or "obviously we can't let people (insert victimless crime here.)" I'm not saying I agree with him on every last position he takes, but its pretty darn close.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 09:49 PM
I know they weren't your words, but I still disagree.

i also already answered about talking vs. doing....both are important.

LE, I don't think we're as far apart on this one as you're trying to make it seem.

I think Ron has a high view of his son, and a low view of himself. I think that's why he supports his son 99% and comes across as being so humble when he knows he right. I don't think we can take Ron's words about himself and assume that they are absolutely true.

There's quite a darn bit Ron could do as chief executive, but how much he would do I'm genuinely not sure. I'm not sure, for instance, whether he'd start pardoning people who kill government agents who try to take away their freedom, and flat out, no reservations stop enforcing laws that were unlibertarian and unconstitutional. Because, he could do those things, but he might not feel comfortable moving that quickly, and even if he did, he'd likely be impeached and thrown out.

klamath
02-11-2014, 09:54 PM
"RP did his best peak in 2012. Running again would destroy his legasy because he would become a joke. "

Agree to disagree.

" There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?"

?? Couldn't or wouldn't?.....I know I could and it wouldn't take much effort either. RP name grew big time here. I'd start with family....then friends......friends of friends=quadrupled easy. That's just counting people I know....I can only cover my area though.

That's why I asked the question-Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?



Too bad a redo isn't possible.
No I don't think I could get anymore votes. In fact the numbers he had before would be down. The only people left that would vote for him is the perpetual voters that want to make a statement by voting for someone they know won't win, like mickey mouse etc. Anybody that seriously wants to take part in electing a president will not vote for Ron again.

fr33
02-11-2014, 09:55 PM
" There is no reason why we couldn't take t least half the states. As I said before given what I know now we could easily quadruple our numbers here where I am.

Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?"

?? Couldn't or wouldn't?.....I know I could and it wouldn't take much effort either. RP name grew big time here. I'd start with family....then friends......friends of friends=quadrupled easy. That's just counting people I know....I can only cover my area though.

That's why I asked the question-Do any of you doubt that you couldn't do the same in your area?

No, I don't think we could.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 10:07 PM
"No, I don't think we could. "

"No I don't think I could get anymore votes."

We must live in completely different areas...LOL...I'm in Missouri. At our local county caucus there was maybe 100 people for the whole county. The vast majority of people don't even know what the caucus is for. A couple counties next to ours went overwhelmingly for RP.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 10:11 PM
No I don't think I could get anymore votes. In fact the numbers he had before would be down. The only people left that would vote for him is the perpetual voters that want to make a statement by voting for someone they know won't win, like mickey mouse etc. Anybody that seriously wants to take part in electing a president will not vote for Ron again.

The more I think about this, the more I really do not wish to take part in electing a president. I'll vote for Rand if he gets to the general, but really, we need congressmen and senators more than we do the President. The President is a lot of power in one man, and thus easily corrupted. We need to change the system, not one man.

klamath
02-11-2014, 10:18 PM
"No, I don't think we could. "

"No I don't think I could get anymore votes."

We must live in completely different areas...LOL...I'm in Missouri. At our local county caucus there was maybe 100 people for the whole county. The vast majority of people don't even know what the caucus is for. A couple counties next to ours went overwhelmingly for RP.If RP was going to win he would have won Iowa. He had it in the bag on DEC 21 2012 then proved very poor at handling a hostile media. RP lost Iowa because he allowed the media to get under his skin on the newsletters deal and appeared to walk out of an interview asking about it. To swing voters that says guilt. He was on his way down in the polls a week before the santorum surge was hyped by the news.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 10:20 PM
Of course not. Heck, I'd argue you aren't 100% convinced, and you're a heck of a lot closer than the average person.
I'm not a pacifist. Some people confuse the two issues. I'm not sure if you are one of those or not..


That's still what I believe would qualify though. Rejecting ALL aggression. If you (general sense) support aggression of any type, you aren't really for liberty. You might be for liberty on certain, even most, issues, but I wouldn't consider you a libertarian in the absolute sense.
Again, I'm not a pacifist. I damn well believe in defense and if someone attacks us, I believe in knocking the snot out of them.

You know what I call someone who would just sit there and not do anything if an attack was imminent or was occurring? A pussy. Libertarian has nothing to do with it.


I'm not really sure why you are rolling your eyes.
Because it was mighty fine of you to permit Ron to be in his own movement..


Imagine a hypothetical person, Person B. He's with the liberty movement on a lot of issues, is opposed to war, opposed to high taxes, etc. But he supports government roads, local public schools, and laws against drugs.

Could I work with this person? Yeah, probably.
Mighty white of you. Look, your nirvana isn't going to come overnight. Nor, are you going to get everyone on-board with everything you believe at first, if ever.


Does he really support liberty? No, at least not IMO.
So, if someone believes in a few minimal roads being put in by their local government at the behest of their voters, in your eyes would make them against liberty? Sorry, but that deserves an :rolleyes:


Now, WRT Ron, I don't know if he's a full fledged ancap or not, but if not, he's pretty darn close.
I do. I am really sure. If you don't believe me, ask his best friend, Lew Rockwell.


I've never heard him say anything to the effect of "Well, obviously we need taxes for this reason" or "obviously we can't let people (insert victimless crime here.)" I'm not saying I agree with him on every last position he takes, but its pretty darn close.

klamath
02-11-2014, 10:24 PM
The more I think about this, the more I really do not wish to take part in electing a president. I'll vote for Rand if he gets to the general, but really, we need congressmen and senators more than we do the President. The President is a lot of power in one man, and thus easily corrupted. We need to change the system, not one man. As I pointed out earlier the absolute best way to change people minds is to elect a president. but that is fine you don't have to take part. Do what ever you want and that right there proves we still have a fairly free system. When someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to vote for Rand, let me know.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 10:34 PM
I'm not a pacifist. Some people confuse the two issues. I'm not sure if you are one of those or not..


Again, I'm not a pacifist. I damn well believe in defense and if someone attacks us, I believe in knocking the snot out of them.

You know what I call someone who would just sit there and not do anything if an attack was imminent or was occurring? A pussy. Libertarian has nothing to do with it.


I didn't say anything about defense. To my understanding of what you believe, you still believe in some level of taxation, and you don't believe local governments are inherently wrong to pass laws against victimless vices such as prostitution. If I'm wrong on either of these points, please correct me.

I'm not sure where you got anything whatsoever about being opposed to defense or a pacifist from my post. I'm not a pacifist, BTW.


Because it was mighty fine of you to permit Ron to be in his own movement..

I doubt Ron would claim ownership of the movement, but that aside, you asked a question and I gave you my opinion. Then you pretend to be offended because we answered you. This is frankly rude.


Mighty white of you. Look, your nirvana isn't going to come overnight. Nor, are you going to get everyone on-board with everything you believe at first, if ever.



So, if someone believes in a few minimal roads being put in by their local government at the behest of their voters, in your eyes would make them against liberty? Sorry, but that deserves an :rolleyes:


Yes, it does, at least on that one issue. You use euphemisms to hide the true evil of what's being proposed, but what is really being proposed when "public roads" are being proposed is that money will be taken from taxpayers at gunpoint in order for the government to build roads. Yes, that is anti-liberty. Of course, the individual proposing it may not fully understand what he proposes, but its still anti-liberty.

Its funny, because I got frustrated with Eric Peters when he said something to this effect less than a year ago. I've gotten a lot more radical in a fairly short time.


I do. I am really sure. If you don't believe me, ask his best friend, Lew Rockwell.

I'll ask him.


As I pointed out earlier the absolute best way to change people minds is to elect a president. but that is fine you don't have to take part. Do what ever you want and that right there proves we still have a fairly free system. When someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to vote for Rand, let me know.

I suspect that electing a President could, however, tie half-hearted ideas with the "liberty movement" if the liberty-movement president doesn't stick by his convictions.

I don't see how not having to vote for Rand (For the record, I intend to vote for Rand) makes us free...

klamath
02-11-2014, 10:41 PM
I didn't say anything about defense. To my understanding of what you believe, you still believe in some level of taxation, and you don't believe local governments are inherently wrong to pass laws against victimless vices such as prostitution. If I'm wrong on either of these points, please correct me.

I'm not sure where you got anything whatsoever about being opposed to defense or a pacifist from my post. I'm not a pacifist, BTW.


I doubt Ron would claim ownership of the movement, but that aside, you asked a question and I gave you my opinion. Then you pretend to be offended because we answered you. This is frankly rude.


Mighty white of you. Look, your nirvana isn't going to come overnight. Nor, are you going to get everyone on-board with everything you believe at first, if ever.




Yes, it does, at least on that one issue. You use euphemisms to hide the true evil of what's being proposed, but what is really being proposed when "public roads" are being proposed is that money will be taken from taxpayers at gunpoint in order for the government to build roads. Yes, that is anti-liberty. Of course, the individual proposing it may not fully understand what he proposes, but its still anti-liberty.

Its funny, because I got frustrated with Eric Peters when he said something to this effect less than a year ago. I've gotten a lot more radical in a fairly short time.


I'll ask him.



I suspect that electing a President could, however, tie half-hearted ideas with the "liberty movement" if the liberty-movement president doesn't stick by his convictions.

I don't see how not having to vote for Rand (For the record, I intend to vote for Rand) makes us free...you still have a choice. And by the same token I think electing someone insanely radical will seal the tomb of freedom for centuries but again we are still free to express our opinions and haven't been thrown in the gulag yet.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 10:47 PM
you still have a choice. And by the same token I think electing someone insanely radical will seal the tomb of freedom for centuries but again we are still free to express our opinions and haven't been thrown in the gulag yet.

Well, yeah, I'm with you that we're not as bad off as, say, North Korea, but I'd construct that as being less unfree, not more free.

I don't know how long it will take, but it won't be difficult for the US to indirectly arrest people for their speech simply by making all kinds of laws that can't possibly be followed and then, when they want to get someone, bring up some barely known law instead of the speech violation. The "law and order" types will accept it.

@LibertyEagle- Do you have an email address to contact Rockwell? I check LRC and I didn't immediately find one. Otherwise, I'm not really sure how I can contact him in order to ask him that question.

Dogsoldier
02-11-2014, 10:54 PM
"the more I really do not wish to take part in electing a president."

I had a blast but only because I believed whole heartedly in Ron Paul. He was the first person that had ever run for president that represented me. He may be the last. I'd do it again in a heart beat if were talking Ron Paul...I wish I had the chance.

Neil Desmond
02-11-2014, 10:59 PM
I don't know yet, but I think I'm leaning towards giving Rand a chance. I think it would be a waste to not support him as long as he's substantially on the side of libertarianism and doesn't have negative drawbacks that are too significant to let slide. If he becomes POTUS and does a decent job, proves himself worthy, I'll advocate for re-electing him. If not, I'll see if I can find someone else who will and support that person instead.

Yeah, he campaigned for Romney. I didn't want Romney to be the Republican candidate and I didn't vote for him, but that to me is not necessarily a good reason to say forget Rand. He said he'd support whoever was the Republican candidate, and he stuck to his commitment to do so. I didn't like it & it wasn't a pleasant pill to swallow; but at the same time I recognize the wisdom in that "move".

We all have to be wise in the moves we make no matter who we are. In order to be able to advance to POTUS, one has to make friends who'll support them in their mission; that's exactly what he's doing by calling himself a Republican and saying he'll support the candidate. You can call it a sacrifice or dues to pay; we all have to make sacrifices and pay our dues.

Now he stands a great chance of becoming POTUS. He scratched the GOP's back, and pretty soon it'll be the GOP's turn to scratch his back. The way I see it, they damn well better scratch his back, do a good job at it, and not dare so much as think of putting a knife in it (figuratively speaking, just to be clear). Many on the right have demonstrated what seems to be a sincere affinity for him as a fellow Republican, so basically the GOP is compelled to reciprocate; if they don't, they'd probably be taking a terrible risk of being done for permanently (because it'll look like a blob with no backbone or principles to voters on the right).

Nobody's perfect, so why should Rand have to be so perfect? As we get closer to 2016, think of the big picture, cleverness & beauty in what he's doing, and what the alternative option is before dismissing Rand.


"I'll support him, but not with the fire I did with Ron"

This is what I'm talking about....Were going to need that fire if were going to win the nomination and then beat Hillary.
Because of her poor handling of Benghazi, I simply can't imagine her being a viable contender against Rand. I feel like she's just someone TPTB are dangling in front of everyone to make them think she can be anything of the sort, while they quietly search for or mold and polish someone to deploy onto the campaign trail as their candidate.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 11:01 PM
I didn't say anything about defense. To my understanding of what you believe, you still believe in some level of taxation,
Do you consider tariffs, taxes? Because I am not against those in a limited sense. Ron Paul has spoken of these too.


and you don't believe local governments are inherently wrong to pass laws against victimless vices such as prostitution. If I'm wrong on either of these points, please correct me.
I wouldn't make it a crime to be a prostitute, no. But, I am not against local ordinances that houses of ill repute have to be outside of city limits.


I'm not sure where you got anything whatsoever about being opposed to defense or a pacifist from my post. I'm not a pacifist, BTW.
Have to check around here. Because there are some pacifists.


I doubt Ron would claim ownership of the movement, but that aside, you asked a question and I gave you my opinion. Then you pretend to be offended because we answered you. This is frankly rude.
Actually, I thought it was a bit strange that you inserted yourself in a conversation that I was clearly having with CajunCocoa. I never asked you anything at all.


Yes, it does, at least on that one issue. You use euphemisms to hide the true evil of what's being proposed, but what is really being proposed when "public roads" are being proposed is that money will be taken from taxpayers at gunpoint in order for the government to build roads. Yes, that is anti-liberty. Of course, the individual proposing it may not fully understand what he proposes, but its still anti-liberty.
I'm not an anarchist. I realize that is your flavor of the month. No one is talking about using guns, but you. I am talking about basic roads through the town. People would vote whether to have them or not. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if I thought it was a workable solution. But, frankly, we are so far from getting government limited down to this level, that I would think we had more important things to do than to pontificate about our navels.


Its funny, because I got frustrated with Eric Peters when he said something to this effect less than a year ago. I've gotten a lot more radical in a fairly short time.

Thing is, it's going to take much more than getting lost in philosophy land if you want to make any real changes in the direction of this country.


I'll ask him.

cool


I suspect that electing a President could, however, tie half-hearted ideas with the "liberty movement" if the liberty-movement president doesn't stick by his convictions.

I don't see how not having to vote for Rand (For the record, I intend to vote for Rand) makes us free...
I have no idea what you are talking about here.

LibertyEagle
02-11-2014, 11:31 PM
@LibertyEagle- Do you have an email address to contact Rockwell? I check LRC and I didn't immediately find one. Otherwise, I'm not really sure how I can contact him in order to ask him that question.

Look at the bottom of the screen on the lewrockwell.com site. You should see a link for "contact". Click it.

Christian Liberty
02-11-2014, 11:32 PM
Do you consider tariffs, taxes? Because I am not against those in a limited sense. Ron Paul has spoken of these too.


Tariffs are better because at least they can be avoided and aren't extracted directly from the citizenry. I'd ultimately like to see these abolished too, but I'd honestly be thrilled if that was the only kind of taxation we had to deal with.


I wouldn't make it a crime to be a prostitute, no. But, I am not against local ordinances that houses of ill repute have to be outside of city limits.


In what sense are you not against them? Are you not morally opposed to them? Or are you simply saying you agree with decentralization?


Have to check around here. Because there are some pacifists.


I know, but I sure as heck am not one of them.


Actually, I thought it was a bit strange that you inserted yourself in a conversation that I was clearly having with CajunCocoa. I never asked you anything at all.


Well, you asked on the public forum. I suspect if you had only wanted her answer you would have PMed her.


I'm not an anarchist.

I've deliberately decided not to use that term, personally, for strategic reasons primarily. I believe in the abolition of the State, however.


No one is talking about using guns, but you. I am talking about basic roads through the town.

OK, so how are the roads being paid for? What if someone doesn't want to pay for them?


People would vote whether to have them or not. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, if I thought it was a workable solution.

I still want to read Block's book on this, as its an issue I don't know nearly enough about. But just as a simple answer, why couldn't someone else build the roads, without being funded by private taxation? That strikes me as the obvious solution.


But, frankly, we are so far from getting government limited down to this level, that I would think we had more important things to do than to pontificate about our navels.


I agree that there are bigger issues to discuss first. But, if someone supports using aggression to raise money to build roads, I would consider that person to not really be a supporter of liberty. I'm not sure what definition of 'public" you use though, there might be a definition of "public" that would not involve such aggression so I'll give you a chance to propose one.


Thing is, it's going to take much more than getting lost in philosophy land if you want to make any real changes in the direction of this country.


I sort of disagree on this. Ultimately, pragmatic arguments don't work. We need to stick to moral principles, or else our views are just as subjective as anyone else's. Hence why I am an "anarchist", because I stick to principle, all the time.



cool


I shot him a message.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

If Rand Paul is elected President, and fails, it will reflect poorly on our ideas, even if Rand doesn't actually follow those ideas, or is prevented from doing so by congress. That was ultimately my point, but looking back, I worded it really, really poorly. Sorry about that:(

compromise
02-12-2014, 08:20 AM
Do you consider tariffs, taxes? Because I am not against those in a limited sense. Ron Paul has spoken of these too.

If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

As for the OP's question, yes, Rand is our man. Rand has wide support, as shown by the Colorado poll where he's leading Clinton. His support for common sense immigration reform and mandatory minimum sentencing reform has bi-partisan appeal. I believe Rand is better than Ron Paul, because he does not carry the same amount of baggage of Ron. 95%+ of people who voted for Ron in the real world support Rand. 85-90% of the people on this site support Rand. Rand may not be so popular among the far-left of the Democratic Party or the radical anarchist Kokesh crowd as Ron, but many of these people never really voted for Ron anyway because they weren't registered Republicans.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 08:39 AM
If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

You don't have the "right" to make every country in the world practice free trade with you.

erowe1
02-12-2014, 08:43 AM
If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.


Ron Paul is definitely anti-tariff.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/03/ron-paul/protectionism-vs-liberty/

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 09:59 AM
If that's true, Ron Paul is an idiot. I can understand him opposing FTAs (even though I disagree with him there), but tariffs are clear infringements upon our rights to free trade.

First of all, "idiot" is not a word to describe Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not.

Second of all, if we were talking about protective tariffs, I would agree with you. But if you are going to have taxes (Note: I am opposed to taxation on principle) tariffs are better than income, sales, or property taxes because they can be avoided. Income taxes, you basically have to pay to live. Sales taxes, same. Property taxes make you a slave on your own land. But tariffs can be avoided by buying things in the US. That doesn't make them right. If I told you "trade with X, Y, or Z, or, if you want to trade with anyone else, you have to give me a 10% cut" that would clearly be wrong. But its still better for you than if I just took 10% of everything you earned.


As for the OP's question, yes, Rand is our man. Rand has wide support, as shown by the Colorado poll where he's leading Clinton. His support for common sense immigration reform and mandatory minimum sentencing reform has bi-partisan appeal. I believe Rand is better than Ron Paul, because he does not carry the same amount of baggage of Ron. 95%+ of people who voted for Ron in the real world support Rand. 85-90% of the people on this site support Rand. Rand may not be so popular among the far-left of the Democratic Party or the radical anarchist Kokesh crowd as Ron, but many of these people never really voted for Ron anyway because they weren't registered Republicans.

But Rand's positions are more moderate than those of Ron Paul. I support Rand, but I think its ridiculous to say he's somehow "better" than Ron.

compromise
02-12-2014, 10:47 AM
First of all, "idiot" is not a word to describe Ron Paul, whether you agree with him or not.

Second of all, if we were talking about protective tariffs, I would agree with you. But if you are going to have taxes (Note: I am opposed to taxation on principle) tariffs are better than income, sales, or property taxes because they can be avoided. Income taxes, you basically have to pay to live. Sales taxes, same. Property taxes make you a slave on your own land. But tariffs can be avoided by buying things in the US. That doesn't make them right. If I told you "trade with X, Y, or Z, or, if you want to trade with anyone else, you have to give me a 10% cut" that would clearly be wrong. But its still better for you than if I just took 10% of everything you earned.


But Rand's positions are more moderate than those of Ron Paul. I support Rand, but I think its ridiculous to say he's somehow "better" than Ron.

I think Glenn Beck's scale works well here:

Hillary--[Our current political position]--Christie-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rand---Ron

Even if Rand is not as libertarian as Ron, he is still light years more libertarian than Christie or Hillary and therefore the direction he would shift the US would be the same direction Ron would shift the US in if he were President. Both Ron and Rand are more libertarian than Congress would allow their policies to be as President. Therefore it does not matter if we have Ron or Rand. If we get beyond Rand's "point of libertarianism", then we can argue whether we agree with Ron more or Rand more. Until then, we must support Rand, as he's the only one of the two who can win.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 10:51 AM
I think Glenn Beck's scale works well here:

Hillary--[Our current political position]--Christie-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rand---Ron

Even if Rand is not as libertarian as Ron, he is still light years more libertarian than Christie or Hillary and therefore the direction he would shift the US would be the same direction Ron would shift the US in if he were President. Both Ron and Rand are more libertarian than Congress would allow their policies to be as President. Therefore it does not matter if we have Ron or Rand. If we get beyond Rand's "point of libertarianism", then we can argue whether we agree with Ron more or Rand more. Until then, we must support Rand, as he's the only one of the two who can win.

I don't think Rand is quitee that close to Ron, but I agree with the point. Hence why I support Rand. I'd still prefer Ron though.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 10:58 AM
Ron Paul is definitely anti-tariff.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2002/03/ron-paul/protectionism-vs-liberty/

Ron has mentioned tariffs in interviews more than a couple of times, as a way of funding the federal government.


Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#cite_note-google_interview-19

erowe1
02-12-2014, 10:59 AM
Ron has mentioned tariffs in interviews more than a couple of times, as a way of funding the federal government.


As I would expect anyone who is anti-tariff, like he is, to do.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 11:02 AM
As I would expect anyone who is anti-tariff, like he is, to do.

Huh? Can you explain this?

In my mind, if you're going to have "taxes", its better to have taxes that can at least be avoided by regular people. Using tariffs to fund the Federal government would at least mean that there is literally no taxation on trade with your own neighbors (Perhaps ignoring the situation where someone lives right on the border) and trade with anyone else in the United States. That's a huge improvement over having to pay rent to the government in order to live on your own land (property taxes) to breathe (Income taxes) or to engage in ANY trade (Sales taxes.)

Occam's Banana
02-12-2014, 11:22 AM
But tariffs can be avoided by buying things in the US.

Actually, they can't be avoided that way. That's sort of the whole point behind so-called "protective" tariffs. And the same thing applies to "revenue" tariffs, too. In the end, a tariff is a tariff - and all tariffs have the same kinds of effects, regardless of the motivations behind them (though they may differ in the degree to which those effects manifest).

For example, if a 10% tariff is set upon imported widgets (whether to "protect" the domestic widget market or for generation of government "revenues"), then domestic widget sources have a 10% margin under which to raise their prices while still remaining price-competitive with respect to imported widgets. So domestic widgets could be jacked up, say, 9% in price and still be a better deal price-wise than foreign widgets - and that 9% would be "pure gravy" proftits for the domestic widget market. Of course, such a price increase would entail some lessening of demand - but if demand is sufficiently inelastic, profits will still go up. And, of course, these higher prices will "spill over" into related areas of the market, as well (e.g., companies that use steel will have to charge higher prices for their products when steel tariffs go up - and/or there can be other seriously deleterious consequences, such as increased unemployment in steel-using sectors). So the price-increasing (and other) effects of tariffs cannot be avoided by "buying American" ...

Whether tariffs are more or less odious & pernicious than other means of revenue generation (such as income, sales & property taxation) is subjective. Only one thing is certain: tariffs are market-distorting redistributions of wealth.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 11:25 AM
Tariffs are better because at least they can be avoided and aren't extracted directly from the citizenry. I'd ultimately like to see these abolished too, but I'd honestly be thrilled if that was the only kind of taxation we had to deal with.

In what sense are you not against them? Are you not morally opposed to them? Or are you simply saying you agree with decentralization?

I know, but I sure as heck am not one of them.

Well, you asked on the public forum. I suspect if you had only wanted her answer you would have PMed her.
Uh, I think it was pretty clear we were having a conversation. Which was why I quoted her. :). It's not that I so much minded you asking me about my conversation with her, but to act so outraged with my response, was, well, rather peculiar.


I've deliberately decided not to use that term, personally, for strategic reasons primarily. I believe in the abolition of the State, however.

OK, so how are the roads being paid for? What if someone doesn't want to pay for them?

I still want to read Block's book on this, as its an issue I don't know nearly enough about. But just as a simple answer, why couldn't someone else build the roads, without being funded by private taxation? That strikes me as the obvious solution.

I agree that there are bigger issues to discuss first. But, if someone supports using aggression to raise money to build roads, I would consider that person to not really be a supporter of liberty.
Perhaps it's not wise to use all or nothing terms to describe another human being. Maybe take each issue by itself. Thoughts run through my head to describe people who take issue with having a few locally-owned roads running through a town and I too have to remember that I'm not being fair to label someone just because of a stance on one issue.


I'm not sure what definition of 'public" you use though, there might be a definition of "public" that would not involve such aggression so I'll give you a chance to propose one.
Here's the thing. I know some people enjoy having these conversations, but I don't. Rome is burning and I don't find it very useful to sit here and pummel my philosophical navel.


I sort of disagree on this. Ultimately, pragmatic arguments don't work. We need to stick to moral principles, or else our views are just as subjective as anyone else's. Hence why I am an "anarchist", because I stick to principle, all the time.
But not to reality. I mean this sincerely. We are not going to go from where we are now to some kind of anarchical utopia. I am not sure if it will ever be practical; not unless the nature of man changes. Some who seem to think that we can, refuse to get involved unless a candidate will stand up and profess their undying love for anarchy, regardless of whether everyone else runs away screaming because he/she is scarier than what we have now. Ron isn't an anarchist, but I will use him for a case in point. For example, When Ron would say he wanted to get rid of the CIA, FBI and all taxes, he was talking about what what should eventually happen. He wouldn't have done it overnight; nor would he have abolished the FED overnight. What I am saying is that he oftentimes mixed the messages of philosophy with what he could do as President and it made him come off, less good than he would have otherwise. He was scary to people. There were even long-time members of this forum, who had been big donors, who, during this last campaign, got the impression from Ron that he wouldn't defend the country. He no longer supports Ron AT ALL, because of it. Ron would have, of course, but he oftentimes didn't connect the dots for people. Saying something extreme and not explaining how it would work in reality land, doesn't convince people to back you; it runs them off. And we all know that today, about all the time they give candidates is enough for a soundbyte. They certainly do not give them time to explain more complex issues.


If Rand Paul is elected President, and fails, it will reflect poorly on our ideas, even if Rand doesn't actually follow those ideas, or is prevented from doing so by congress. That was ultimately my point, but looking back, I worded it really, really poorly. Sorry about that:(

Even if on the slim chance, Rand was elected President, one man wouldn't be able to turn things around by himself. He would need a supportive Congress and more than a term or two. There also has to be massive changes in what people view as the role of government, not to mention their character and overall morality. But, it would be a massive first step.

With anything difficult, there is always a chance it won't work out as ideally as you would like it to. But, if you didn't ever attempt something unless it was a sure bet, you wouldn't get much done in this world.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 11:28 AM
As I would expect anyone who is anti-tariff, like he is, to do.

Actually, Ron talked about the tariffs early in our country's history and he didn't appear to have a problem with them at all.

But, then again, some seem to believe our country is going to go from where we are to some utopia, with no steps in between. It's ridiculous and it makes our movement look out of touch with reality.

erowe1
02-12-2014, 11:31 AM
Actually, Ron talked about the tariffs early in our country's history and he didn't appear to have a problem with them at all.

That's ridiculous. Of course he did. If you think he ever said that there ever have been or ever could be good tariffs, and not just that tariffs could be less bad than the income tax, please find the link.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 11:36 AM
That's ridiculous. Of course he did. If you think he ever said that there ever have been or ever could be good tariffs, and not just that tariffs could be less bad than the income tax, please find the link.

This is another example of confusing philosophical nirvana with what the man actually wanted to do. Sure, tariffs would have been a step in the process. No one said they wouldn't be. But, to act like getting to philosophical nirvana without a series of steps along the way makes it appear like we are unhinged.

erowe1
02-12-2014, 11:43 AM
This is another example of confusing philosophical nirvana with what the man actually wanted to do. Sure, tariffs would have been a step in the process. No one said they wouldn't be. But, to act like getting to philosophical nirvana without a series of steps along the way makes it appear like we are unhinged.

I think you're trying to move the goalposts here. This discussion is the exact opposite of how you're trying to characterize it. I haven't seen anybody object to the idea that nonprotectionist tariffs could be an improvement over the income tax. What people are objecting to is the idea that they're not inherently wrong in all circumstances. It looked like that was what you were getting at when you asked if they counted as taxes.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 11:55 AM
I think you're trying to move the goalposts here. This discussion is the exact opposite of how you're trying to characterize it. I haven't seen anybody object to the idea that nonprotectionist tariffs could be an improvement over the income tax. What people are objecting to is the idea that they're not inherently wrong in all circumstances. It looked like that was what you were getting at when you asked if they counted as taxes.

They aren't wrong as a step. What would be WRONG is acting like we could go from where we are now to nirvana land.

erowe1
02-12-2014, 11:56 AM
They aren't wrong as a step. What would be WRONG is acting like we could go from where we are now to nirvana land.

Keeping the income tax and cutting rates wouldn't be wrong as a step either. But that wasn't the point being discussed.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 11:58 AM
Actually, they can't be avoided that way. That's sort of the whole point behind so-called "protective" tariffs. And the same thing applies to "revenue" tariffs, too. In the end, a tariff is a tariff - and all tariffs have the same kinds effects, regardless of the motivations behind them (though they may differ in the degree to which those effects manifest).

For example, if a 10% tariff is set upon imported widgets (whether to "protect" the domestic widget market or for generation of government "revenues"), then domestic widget sources have a 10% margin under which to raise their prices while still remaining price-competitive with respect to imported widgets. So domestic widgets could be jacked up, say, 9% in price and still be a better deal price-wise than foreign widgets - and that 9% would be "pure gravy" proftits for the domestic widget market. Of course, such a price increase would entail some lessening of demand - but if demand is sufficiently inelastic, profits will still go up. And, of course, these higher prices will "spill over" into related areas of the market, as well (e.g., companies that use steel will have to charge higher prices for their products when steel tariffs go up - and/or there can be other seriously deleterious consequences, such as increased unemployment in steel-using sectors). So the price-increasing (and other) effects of tariffs cannot be avoided by "buying American" ...

I guess this depends whether there's a monopoly in the US or not. If there's not, I don't see how this applies. And if you think the companies would conspire against the public (Which is possible, I suppose) I don't see why this couldn't happen without tariffs too, just across the entire world instead of one country.


Whether tariffs are more or less odious & pernicious than other means of revenue generation (such as income, sales & property taxation) is subjective. Only one thing is certain: tariffs are market-distorting redistributions of wealth.

Yes, I understand. I don't want ANY redistribution of wealth.

Uh, I think it was pretty clear we were having a conversation. Which was why I quoted her. :). It's not that I so much minded you asking me about my conversation with her, but to act so outraged with my response, was, well, rather peculiar.


I don't think I was outraged, but maybe I came across in a way I didn't intend. I apologize for that.


Perhaps it's not wise to use all or nothing terms to describe another human being. Maybe take each issue by itself. Thoughts run through my head to describe people who take issue with having a few locally-owned roads running through a town and I too have to remember that I'm not being fair to label someone just because of a stance on one issue.


Just out of curiosity, why do you keep using the word "a few"? Its as if you're trying to downplay the importance of the issue by watering it down to " a few." I guess... I just don't understand why you're doing that. Are you consciously arguing against having more than a few? Or is there some other reason.

That said, I agree with you on trying to take each issue by itself. Waking up is a process. I totally agree with that. It took me over three years, and I'm probably better at it than the average person because I care much more about logic and reason than what other people think.


Here's the thing. I know some people enjoy having these conversations, but I don't. Rome is burning and I don't find it very useful to sit here and pummel my philosophical navel.


I hear you. I guess the difference is that your primary goal is to get Rand elected President, and my primary goal is to get people to understand how evil the State is. I don't oppose your goal, and I'm not saying you necessarily oppose mine. Its just a difference in strategy and focus. For me, these philosophical things matter a lot because without being logically consistent, I don't really have a good argument. For politics, being philosophically consistent isn't as important. I get that.


But not to reality. I mean this sincerely. We are not going to go from where we are now to some kind of anarchical utopia. I am not sure if it will ever be practical; not unless the nature of man changes. Some who seem to think that we can, refuse to get involved unless a candidate will stand up and profess their undying love for anarchy, regardless of whether everyone else runs away screaming because he/she is scarier than what we have now. Ron isn't an anarchist, but I will use him for a case in point. For example, When Ron would say he wanted to get rid of the CIA, FBI and all taxes, he was talking about what what should eventually happen. He wouldn't have done it overnight; nor would he have abolished the FED overnight. What I am saying is that he oftentimes mixed the messages of philosophy with what he could do as President and it made him come off, less good than he would have otherwise. He was scary to people. There were even long-time members of this forum, who had been big donors, who, during this last campaign, got the impression from Ron that he wouldn't defend the country. He no longer supports Ron AT ALL, because of it. Ron would have, of course, but he oftentimes didn't connect the dots for people. Saying something extreme and not explaining how it would work in reality land, doesn't convince people to back you; it runs them off. And we all know that today, about all the time they give candidates is enough for a soundbyte. They certainly do not give them time to explain more complex issues.

This is why, as difficult as it is at times, I'd rather have long conversations with people rather than just throw out soundbites. I'd suck at politics for that reason. And its the same reason Ron was a great educator yet sucked at politics. Because politics is, frankly, about getting out the best intellectually retarded yet good sounding soundbites.

And, in all seriousness, if you're interested in playing that game, I wish you all the luck in the world. I really mean that, I hope it works for you. I'd love to see Rand get elected POTUS and completely change the intellectual discourse of this country.

At the same time, I honestly believe, if we could get 10% of the country, to reject statism AS SUCH... not just out of control statism, but to strike at the root and completely, totally reject the idea that government has any just authority over them, I really do believe the country could be changed overnight. Certainly if we got to 20%. They can't lock up and/or kill everybody.

The problem here is, first of all, explaining the absolute freedom philosophy in a way that makes sense, which I'm bad at, and second of all, to figure out a way to actually know how many allies we have, which I have no idea how to do. But I believe both things are possible.


Even if on the slim chance, Rand was elected President, one man wouldn't be able to turn things around by himself. He would need a supportive Congress and more than a term or two. There also has to be massive changes in what people view as the role of government, not to mention their character and overall morality. But, it would be a massive first step.


Part of me wonders if it would be better to go the other way around, and try to take control of congress first. Then we could absolutely cripple the establishment GOP and Democrat Presidents, yet still blame them for the failures. Then people would be ready for us. By contrast, if we get the Presidency NOW, the establishment will use congress to cripple us, and then we'll be held responsible because like it or not, the President is the face of the country in most people's eyes.

I don't really know for sure on this point. I could go either way on it with some convincing.


With anything difficult, there is always a chance it won't work out as ideally as you would like it to. But, if you didn't ever attempt something unless it was a sure bet, you wouldn't get much done in this world.

I'm with you, hence why I'll still vote for Rand despite the above skepticism.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 12:27 PM
Keeping the income tax and cutting rates wouldn't be wrong as a step either. But that wasn't the point being discussed.

It was what I was discussing. I rarely talk about nirvana-land, because it doesn't work on regular people, in my experience. It was also one of the things that drove many people away from Ron, when he mixed philosophical never never land with what he was proposing to do as President.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 02:36 PM
Since I am bored I hit the show ignored post button. Yep waste of forefinger effort.

I'll actually wear that as a badge of honor.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 02:38 PM
He didn't say that at all. In fact, I have seen you express much more quittertarianism than Klamath ever has.


I don't have the drive for Rand that I had in 2007 for RP but then again I wouldn't have the drive for Ron even if he was younger and running again. I would have less drive for Ron than I do now for Rand. There is quite a block of us that would not ever again waste our money or time on another RP campaign. The 2007 magic of the RP campaign is gone forever and for me it was mostly gone in 2012.

And I'll let others judge.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 02:41 PM
This is true. I don't know why anyone here still has the delusion that Ron could have won.

A win in NH, which was totally plausible, would have changed everything.

klamath
02-12-2014, 02:48 PM
And I'll let others judge. You know I have no problem being judged. I identify with no group and will call out those that advocate that it is alright to kill innocent children WHERE EVER they utter the putrid rot from their mouths.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 02:49 PM
You know I have no problem being judged. I identify with no group and will call out those that advocate that it is alright to kill innocent children WHERE EVER they utter the putrid rot from their mouths.

Do you run out of oxygen on your high horse?

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to see your point of view, as there is a valid point to be made.

But it is overwhelmed by your holier than thou pronunciations and continual trashing of everything I like to think "we" stand for.

You don't trust "us", you hate what some of us say and the whole thing was a waste of time since 2007...

So, GTFO already if we suck so bad.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 02:55 PM
You know I have no problem being judged. I identify with no group and will call out those that advocate that it is alright to kill innocent children WHERE EVER they utter the putrid rot from their mouths.


Do you run out of oxygen on your high horse?

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to see your point of view, as there is a valid point to be made.

But it is overwhelmed by your holier than thou pronunciations and continual trashing of everything I like to think "we" stand for.

You don't trust "us", you hate what some of us say and the whole thing was a waste of time since 2007...

So, GTFO already if we suck so bad.

I think he's talking about pro-abortion people, which as far as I know doesn't include you.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 03:00 PM
I think he's talking about pro-abortion people, which as far as I know doesn't include you.

Oh no, he is talking about me, trust me.

And you.

But nothing new there, every post I read from the guy, seems to me, is just pissing on someone's Cheerios over some fucking thing or another.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 03:04 PM
I like Klamath. I think he's frustrated. You have also been, AF, if memory serves me correctly.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 03:17 PM
I like Klamath. I think he's frustrated. You have also been, AF, if memory serves me correctly.

Yes, we all are.

I think the key issue is one of trust.

I trust that most everybody here and in the larger effort, are all trying to, more or less, do the right thing and advance freedom and beat back government any way we can.

I'm pretty fairly convinced that brother Klamath does not feel that way at all.

Meh, I'll let it drop...no need to beat a dead horse and cause a lot of ugliness.

I'm out.

klamath
02-12-2014, 03:17 PM
Do you run out of oxygen on your high horse?

I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, and try to see your point of view, as there is a valid point to be made.

But it is overwhelmed by your holier than thou pronunciations and continual trashing of everything I like to think "we" stand for.

You don't trust "us", you hate what some of us say and the whole thing was a waste of time since 2007...

So, GTFO already if we suck so bad. There are so good people on here is the only reason I stay plus I do support Rand because unlike you I will try every conceivable way to avoid war and unlike you if it came I wouldn't intentionally kill innocent kids because "you got to knock some heads".
I also tried to see your prospective and hoped it was just emotion talking but repeated posts proved to me you DO want war because you saw a movie and think you are glorious William Wallace with your stupid avatar.
You are the one that trashes what came after 2007 and that is Rand and the people that were elected since.
No I am not part of your ""we" advocate war is the only solution" crowd but there happens to be a large group that are NOT part of your "we".

Feeding the Abscess
02-12-2014, 03:19 PM
You don't have the "right" to make every country in the world practice free trade with you.

You have the right to trade the fruits of your labor with whomever you choose. Any infringement on that right by a country, whether it be yours or the trading partners, is wrong.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 03:23 PM
There are so good people on here is the only reason I stay plus I do support Rand because unlike you I will try every conceivable way to avoid war and unlike you if it came I wouldn't intentionally kill innocent kids because "you got to knock some heads".
I also tried to see your prospective and hoped it was just emotion talking but repeated posts proved to me you DO want war because you saw a movie and think you are glorious William Wallace with your stupid avatar.
You are the one that trashes what came after 2007 and that is Rand and the people that were elected since.
No I am not part of your ""we" advocate war is the only solution" crowd but there happens to be a large group that are NOT part of your "we".

Your opinion, which of course, you are entitled to.

Like I said, I'm out.

I have little inclination to go round and round in a another "Rand is so and so" thread or "I am a war mongering baby eater".

I've got to go and scan and catalog what new police state horrors were visited on the people overnight.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 03:24 PM
A win in NH, which was totally plausible, would have changed everything.

So would have a win in Iowa. But, especially after NH, you know as well as I do that it was pretty much over as far as him winning. But, going forward, in my opinion, did advance our cause. We showed that we were a force to be reckoned with and that we weren't going away.

Now, if we could keep moving forward and capitalize on that, it would be really great. But, we seem to be our own worst enemies. We keep rehashing if only's. There is only one Ron Paul. He is a great man, but he is only a man, with the accompanying faults. It's time for our next step.

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 03:25 PM
// Oh, nevermind.

klamath
02-12-2014, 03:30 PM
// Oh, nevermind.
Because he intentionally came in to pick a fight with me and I was stupid enough to hit the "show ignored post" button. Well he got his fight.

Anti Federalist
02-12-2014, 03:37 PM
Because he intentionally came in to pick a fight with me and I was stupid enough to hit the "show ignored post" button. Well he got his fight.

Fight?

Now who's wallowing in illusions of glory?

LOL - And I'm stupid enough to come back to this dumb thread, with your dumb ass in it, after I said I was out.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 03:53 PM
You have the right to trade the fruits of your labor with whomever you choose. Any infringement on that right by a country, whether it be yours or the trading partners, is wrong.

According to the gospel of who?

Dogsoldier
02-12-2014, 04:10 PM
According to the gospel of who?

The gospel of liberty....Its called FREE trade.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 04:13 PM
The gospel of liberty....Its called FREE trade.

Funny, my gospel of liberty doesn't say the same thing. It must be a different edition.

FSP-Rebel
02-12-2014, 04:31 PM
Late to the party but yes, Rand is our Ace.

Dogsoldier
02-12-2014, 04:34 PM
Funny, my gospel of liberty doesn't say the same thing. It must be a different edition.

See definition of "free" ,"liberty" ...They are pretty clear. Then apply them to "trade".

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 04:37 PM
See definition of "free" ,"liberty" ...They are pretty clear. Then apply them to "trade".

Personally, I want fair trade first. When we achieve that, we can look at free trade.

The giant sucking sound began with NAFTA....

singe22
02-12-2014, 04:59 PM
Cool well you guys enjoy holding your noses, i wont be doing that. If by some chance Rand is the GOP nominee just have flash backs to when Obama first won.

Before i could talk/debate to fellow African Americans and other minorities about the issues and problems. And low and behold i could find a good ole Video of Ron Paul dropping knowledge about the issues to support that and get them thinking. Most did not want to switch parties and would of been OPEN to Ron Paul in a general election and look pass that media bias.

You are going to need Minorities to win. And they are full aware of Rand's Political antics. Like someone said earlier, he isn't out there educating people on the issues. He is just trying to play the fiddle to the Big Republican tent so they wont ignore him as much as they did as his father.

No One But Ron Paul

LibertyEagle
02-12-2014, 05:41 PM
Cool well you guys enjoy holding your noses, i wont be doing that. If by some chance Rand is the GOP nominee just have flash backs to when Obama first won.

Before i could talk/debate to fellow African Americans and other minorities about the issues and problems. And low and behold i could find a good ole Video of Ron Paul dropping knowledge about the issues to support that and get them thinking. Most did not want to switch parties and would of been OPEN to Ron Paul in a general election and look pass that media bias.

You are going to need Minorities to win. And they are full aware of Rand's Political antics. Like someone said earlier, he isn't out there educating people on the issues. He is just trying to play the fiddle to the Big Republican tent so they wont ignore him as much as they did as his father.

No One But Ron Paul

Singe, it doesn't matter if you have friends who would vote for whomever, if they made it to the General Election. Because if our candidate doesn't win the Republican nomination THEY WON'T MAKE IT TO THE GENERAL..

I'm not holding my nose for Rand. He's a great candidate and he is reaching all kinds of people that wouldn't listen to Ron. If you haven't noticed, Rand has also been trying to reach out to minorities. Did you miss it?

I wish you would be with us, but if you chose not to, well, that is your choice.

Feeding the Abscess
02-12-2014, 06:05 PM
According to the gospel of who?

Self-ownership. If you own a cow and Pedro owns vegetables, and you two come to an agreement to trade, any outside group that interferes with this is a violation of property rights. Regardless of whatever land mass one or both of you reside on.

erowe1
02-12-2014, 06:36 PM
Funny, my gospel of liberty doesn't say the same thing. It must be a different edition.

If you think you or anyone else has a right to impede free trade, then yours isn't a gospel of liberty.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 08:11 PM
If you think you or anyone else has a right to impede free trade, then yours isn't a gospel of liberty.

Is that the best argument you have...if I disagree then I'm not pro-liberty? LOL

Feeding the Abscess
02-12-2014, 08:14 PM
Is that the best argument you have...if I disagree then I'm not pro-liberty? LOL

If you wish to dictate what people can and cannot do with their property, yeah, that's not pro-liberty. That's pretty tyrannical.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 08:35 PM
Self-ownership. If you own a cow and Pedro owns vegetables, and you two come to an agreement to trade, any outside group that interferes with this is a violation of property rights. Regardless of whatever land mass one or both of you reside on.

So if I own genetically modified seeds, and Johan's country has a restriction on importing them, then he has no property rights? If I own a gun factory, and Boris owns gold; I should be able to sell him arms even if his country has just attacked ours? No, I don't buy your argument. I don't buy that notion that there is such a thing as a basic human right to trade. A person can have property rights within their own country, without having the right to sell anything to anyone outside of those borders. Countries have borders because this is an imperfect world. People band together to form defensive groups, because we live in a world of violence. No utopian ideal will change that fact. People who have failed to form defensive groups act in their own interest, have inevitably lost their property to outside invaders. You equate trade outside of borders with property rights, but without borders we don't have the ability to defend property. There is a legitimate role for protectionism, and no such thing as perfect liberty in this imperfect world.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 08:37 PM
There are so good people on here is the only reason I stay plus I do support Rand because unlike you I will try every conceivable way to avoid war and unlike you if it came I wouldn't intentionally kill innocent kids because "you got to knock some heads".
I also tried to see your prospective and hoped it was just emotion talking but repeated posts proved to me you DO want war because you saw a movie and think you are glorious William Wallace with your stupid avatar.
You are the one that trashes what came after 2007 and that is Rand and the people that were elected since.
No I am not part of your ""we" advocate war is the only solution" crowd but there happens to be a large group that are NOT part of your "we".

AF, have you ever actually said anything like this? Or is he just misinterpreting one angry statement or another?

Oh no, he is talking about me, trust me.

And you.

But nothing new there, every post I read from the guy, seems to me, is just pissing on someone's Cheerios over some fucking thing or another.

OK, than I really don't know what he's talking about. I've never advocated killing anyone's children. I don't think you have either.


Late to the party but yes, Rand is our Ace.

One thing that I really respect about you WRT this is a willingness to at least engage civilly those who have concerns about your candidates, rather than acting like people who oppose them are somehow necessarily opposing liberty.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 08:38 PM
So if I own genetically modified seeds, and Johan's country has a restriction on importing them, then he has no property rights? If I own a gun factory, and Boris owns gold; I should be able to sell him arms even if his country has just attacked ours? No, I don't buy your argument. I don't buy that notion that there is such a thing as a basic human right to trade. A person can have property rights within their own country, without having the right to sell anything to anyone outside of those borders. Countries have borders because this is an imperfect world. People band together to form defensive groups, because we live in a world of violence. No utopian ideal will change that fact. People who have failed to form defensive groups act in their own interest, have inevitably lost their property to outside invaders. You equate trade outside of borders with property rights, but without borders we don't have the ability to defend property. There is a legitimate role for protectionism, and no such thing as perfect liberty in this imperfect world.

Yeah, this is blatant support for aggression right here.

Its one thing to support tariffs because you have to fund the government somehow... I disagree with that, but then, I'm one of those crazy "anarchists", and I generally respect the minarchist side. But its another thing entirely to want to restrict who can trade with who in an authoritarian way like this.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 08:41 PM
If you wish to dictate what people can and cannot do with their property, yeah, that's not pro-liberty. That's pretty tyrannical.

All people who agree with any form pf protectionism are tyrants, then? Whatever, I don't agree.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 08:42 PM
Yeah, this is blatant support for aggression right here.

Its one thing to support tariffs because you have to fund the government somehow... I disagree with that, but then, I'm one of those crazy "anarchists", and I generally respect the minarchist side. But its another thing entirely to want to restrict who can trade with who in an authoritarian way like this.

So Johan's country has absolutely no right to ban the import of GM seeds? I guess we disagree then. I see your position as dictatorial as the community does have some legitimate rights.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 08:44 PM
So Johan's country has absolutely no right to ban the import of GM seeds? I guess we disagree then.

Of course they don't have a right to do that. No country has a right to exercise aggression. Your euphemisms won't help you here.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 08:48 PM
Of course they don't have a right to do that. No country has a right to exercise aggression. Your euphemisms won't help you here.

Aggression? Whatever. Ok, it is aggression in the sense that a community is asserting its right to protect itself. But they do have the right to that form of aggression.

Feeding the Abscess
02-12-2014, 09:18 PM
So if I own genetically modified seeds, and Johan's country has a restriction on importing them, then he has no property rights?

Yes, this means he cannot trade his property as he sees fit.


If I own a gun factory, and Boris owns gold; I should be able to sell him arms even if his country has just attacked ours?

Yes, Boris is an individual. He didn't attack the country you live in, the government that presides on the land mass did.


No, I don't buy your argument. I don't buy that notion that there is such a thing as a basic human right to trade.

The basic right of trade flows from the self-ownership principle. If you own an item, you can use it as you see fit. If you cannot do so, your ownership has been infringed upon.


A person can have property rights within their own country, without having the right to sell anything to anyone outside of those borders.

Not if they wish to trade their goods or services to some other place. With the logic displayed here, a person could be barred from trading their possessions outside of their local community, housing development, or even their own property, and they would still somehow retain the rights to their property. This is illogical in the extreme.


Countries have borders because this is an imperfect world. People band together to form defensive groups, because we live in a world of violence. No utopian ideal will change that fact. People who have failed to form defensive groups act in their own interest, have inevitably lost their property to outside invaders. You equate trade outside of borders with property rights, but without borders we don't have the ability to defend property. There is a legitimate role for protectionism, and no such thing as perfect liberty in this imperfect world.

This is gobbledygook and empty platitudes, and not an argument.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 09:25 PM
The basic right of trade flows from the self-ownership principle. If you own an item, you can use it as you see fit. If you cannot do so, your ownership has been infringed upon.

No, it doesn't. You can't use that item in a way that infringes on the rights of someone else. In the cases I outlined, the community has a right to self-protection.
Furthermore, you can own an item without being able to use it in any way you want. Ownership and trade do not have the relationship you say that they do. For example: I can own gold, and yet not be able to buy slaves with it.


Not if they wish to trade their goods or services to some other place. With the logic displayed here, a person could be barred from trading their possessions outside of their local community, housing development, or even their own property, and they would still somehow retain the rights to their property. This is illogical in the extreme.

What you are describing here would be unjust. It would be unjust because the community would not be invoking a basic right, light the right of self defense.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 09:26 PM
Aggression? Whatever. Ok, it is aggression in the sense that a community is asserting its right to protect itself. But they do have the right to that form of aggression.

Communities don't exist, only individuals. My trading with whoever and his dog is not a threat to you.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 09:31 PM
Communities don't exist, only individuals. My trading with whoever and his dog is not a threat to you.

Once again, if you own an arms factory and Boris owns gold. It is a threat to me if you sell arms to Boris after he has just launched an aggressive war against me.

And yes, communities do exist.

Christian Liberty
02-12-2014, 09:33 PM
Once again, if you own an arms factory and Boris owns gold. It is a threat to me if you sell arms to Boris after he has just launched an aggressive war against me.

And yes, communities do exist.

If that person waged a war against you, maybe. His country is another matter. Even still, I wouldn't really call it "aggression" if I sold a weapon to your enemy. It might be asking for trouble, but I have a right to do it.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 09:38 PM
If that person waged a war against you, maybe. His country is another matter. Even still, I wouldn't really call it "aggression" if I sold a weapon to your enemy. It might be asking for trouble, but I have a right to do it.

I wasn't accusing the arms dealer of aggression. I was simply saying that a country does have a right to restrict trade in it's own defense. I am also saying that there is no basic human right to trade, the way that there is a basic right to life and property ownership. I reject the link between trade and property ownership that Abscess defined.

Feeding the Abscess
02-12-2014, 09:43 PM
No, it doesn't. You can't use that item in a way that infringes on the rights of someone else. In the cases I outlined, the community has a right to self-protection.
Furthermore, you can own an item without being able to use it in any way you want. Ownership and trade do not have the relationship you say that they do. For example: I can own gold, and yet not be able to buy slaves with it.

The context of this discussion has been voluntary exchange, not slavery.




What you are describing here would be unjust. It would be unjust because the community would not be invoking a basic right, light the right of self defense.

If the local community was having problems with other communities, and the person wanting to trade would be benefiting the neighboring community (as all trade does), then surely, by your logic, the person wishing to trade could be restricted from doing so. I hope you see why this is silly.

dinosaur
02-12-2014, 09:50 PM
The context of this discussion has been voluntary exchange, not slavery..

That is not an argument. If I can own gold without having the right to buy slaves. Then trade and property ownership do not have the relationship that you say they do


If the local community was having problems with other communities, and the person wanting to trade would be benefiting the neighboring community (as all trade does), then surely, by your logic, the person wishing to trade could be restricted from doing so. I hope you see why this is silly

Yes, that would be silly. I think it is a good thing that we have laws that prevent that within our borders.

fr33
02-13-2014, 12:06 AM
No One But Ron Paul

At this point it's a bit cultish to still be saying that. Ron isn't going to run for president again. It's almost certain that he will be telling you to support his son. If "no one but Ron Paul" is still your battle cry while he's supporting Rand, will it be his past or present actions that you're supporting?

Neil Desmond
02-13-2014, 12:24 AM
Communities don't exist, only individuals.
Wrong. Both communities and individuals exist.

speciallyblend
02-13-2014, 12:33 AM
no rand will not get my vote and i will no longer be a republican delegate. I will look outside of the failed gop. I will look to support liberty in colorado but i have 0 interest in rands pandering bs.

singe22
02-13-2014, 01:01 AM
At this point it's a bit cultish to still be saying that. Ron isn't going to run for president again. It's almost certain that he will be telling you to support his son. If "no one but Ron Paul" is still your battle cry while he's supporting Rand, will it be his past or present actions that you're supporting?

You work for Fox news? MSNBC? Now i'm cultish because i'm not whistling to your nominee? Next your going to say my 4 tours of duty in the middle east doesn't qualify me to have a opinion on foreign policy? Ron will never tell anyone to vote with him just because he says so. Past and Present. Ron is still trying to EDUCATE People on the fucked up system. Take the civil rights for example. The African Americans that just kept showing up and sitting at the Caucasian side of the lunch counters. That was a knowledge bomb that eventually spread across the country. AA's didn't wait to hope for a chance to be congressmen and senators to influence policy. They showed the people how ugly and inhuman the system was.

So while you guys get all happy at the scraps the RHINO tent throws at you, on the backside this "liberty" movement is not being shown as a Restore America movement. Its being portrayed as the "they hate the black president people". Keep telling yourselves that you don't need other ethnic groups to make a real change. No this doesn't mean sucking up to us, but Educating about the system works.

I only responded to this post because the OP put this in the RON PAUL section. If you don't want to hear from us don't come to that section telling us how we are a drag on the liberty movement.

singe22
02-13-2014, 01:17 AM
Singe, it doesn't matter if you have friends who would vote for whomever, if they made it to the General Election. Because if our candidate doesn't win the Republican nomination THEY WON'T MAKE IT TO THE GENERAL..

I'm not holding my nose for Rand. He's a great candidate and he is reaching all kinds of people that wouldn't listen to Ron. If you haven't noticed, Rand has also been trying to reach out to minorities. Did you miss it?

I wish you would be with us, but if you chose not to, well, that is your choice.


I didn't miss Rand trying to reach out to minorities. I just laughed at it because those educated brother's and sister's saw through his political bs. Oh wait because he visits 1 black college he has done this minority reach out to cover him for 4 years now? BS whoever is on his strategy team pulled him in and to focus on appeasing the people who called you irrelevant because you would like to read a bill as a citizen before your law makers vote. Rand's only shot to win the GOP is to bring new people to the tent. That buildup needs to start now not on the campaign trail. But he has no time for that, he is playing politics.

fr33
02-13-2014, 01:20 AM
You work for Fox news? MSNBC? Now i'm cultish because i'm not whistling to your nominee? Next your going to say my 4 tours of duty in the middle east doesn't qualify me to have a opinion on foreign policy? Ron will never tell anyone to vote with him just because he says so. Past and Present. Ron is still trying to EDUCATE People on the fucked up system. Take the civil rights for example. The African Americans that just kept showing up and sitting at the Caucasian side of the lunch counters. That was a knowledge bomb that eventually spread across the country. AA's didn't wait to hope for a chance to be congressmen and senators to influence policy. They showed the people how ugly and inhuman the system was.

So while you guys get all happy at the scraps the RHINO tent throws at you, on the backside this "liberty" movement is not being shown as a Restore America movement. Its being portrayed as the "they hate the black president people". Keep telling yourselves that you don't need other ethnic groups to make a real change. No this doesn't mean sucking up to us, but Educating about the system works.

I only responded to this post because the OP put this in the RON PAUL section. If you don't want to hear from us don't come to that section telling us how we are a drag on the liberty movement.

Haha yeah man. I'm a millionaire and both Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner tell me what to say. :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
02-13-2014, 01:46 AM
I didn't miss Rand trying to reach out to minorities. I just laughed at it because those educated brother's and sister's saw through his political bs. Oh wait because he visits 1 black college he has done this minority reach out to cover him for 4 years now? BS whoever is on his strategy team pulled him in and to focus on appeasing the people who called you irrelevant because you would like to read a bill as a citizen before your law makers vote. Rand's only shot to win the GOP is to bring new people to the tent. That buildup needs to start now not on the campaign trail. But he has no time for that, he is playing politics.

Singe, no offense, but you already stated that the people you talked to were only planning to vote for Ron IF he won the General. So, is it correct to assume that they were Democrats and had no plan to register as Republicans to vote in the Republican primary for Ron? I ask, because I think that happened a lot and fact is, Ron didn't win the Republican nomination, so the General was a moot point.

Rand HAS TO win the Republican nomination or it is all over. So, he HAS TO try to win over a ton of Republicans. Call it politics, like you did, and you're right. But, unfortunately, that is what he has to do. Come on, you know that.

I am more than sure that Rand plans to do much more minority outreach. The election is still a long way off. But, if your friends are as smart as you say they are, they should also be able to see through the politics and know that Rand is the real deal. Maybe not an exact duplicate of his father, but the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Also, since when did Ron do much of any minority outreach? He viewed everyone as an individual. That there should be no special rights for anyone. Liberty for all.

singe22
02-13-2014, 02:07 AM
Singe, no offense, but you already stated that the people you talked to were only planning to vote for Ron IF he won the General. So, is it correct to assume that they were Democrats and had no plan to register as Republicans to vote in the Republican primary for Ron? I ask, because I think that happened a lot and fact is, Ron didn't win the Republican nomination, so the General was a moot point.

Rand HAS TO win the Republican nomination or it is all over. So, he HAS TO try to win over a ton of Republicans. Call it politics, like you did, and you're right. But, unfortunately, that is what he has to do. Come on, you know that.

I am more than sure that Rand plans to do much more minority outreach. The election is still a long way off. But, if your friends are as smart as you say they are, they should also be able to see through the politics and know that Rand is the real deal. Maybe not an exact duplicate of his father, but the apple didn't fall far from the tree. Also, since when did Ron do much of any minority outreach? He viewed everyone as an individual. That there should be no special rights for anyone. Liberty for all.

Yes the people i dealt with and reach out to are democrats. Look i know people are different. Ron has never said this movement is about him. And i believe that. But that also allowed me to have a stronger backbone to say i will not go along with anyone playing politics in my face. No Ron didn't have to frame his message or speech's around what crowd he spoke to. He spoke one message. He told you for the most part what people didn't want to hear. That our government represents how we the people failed to keep it in check. But he also doesn't go into the exact finger pointing of, Bush did this, Obama did that, Hilary failed to do that.

Nobody is talking about special rights for a certain group, so stop trying goat some bs. Republican party needs diversity. So good luck to Rand on his quest to convert the tent, unless the tent has already converted him.

LibertyEagle
02-13-2014, 02:14 AM
Yes the people i dealt with and reach out to are democrats. Look i know people are different. Ron has never said this movement is about him. And i believe that. But that also allowed me to have a stronger backbone to say i will not go along with anyone playing politics in my face. No Ron didn't have to frame his message or speech's around what crowd he spoke to. He spoke one message. He told you for the most part what people didn't want to hear. That our government represents how we the people failed to keep it in check. But he also doesn't go into the exact finger pointing of, Bush did this, Obama did that, Hilary failed to do that.

Nobody is talking about special rights for a certain group, so stop trying goat some bs. Republican party needs diversity.

Singe, I wasn't trying to goat you. You are the one who mentioned minority reach out, right? I wasn't the one who did that. You did. Personally, I think the whole "diversity" gamut that the media keeps on talking about was done to divide us. Are we all people, or aren't we? If we are, why do we listen to their BS about "diversity". All Americans should want liberty. Period.


So good luck to Rand on his quest to convert the tent, unless the tent has already converted him.
The tent hasn't converted him and if you'd listen to more than just the soundbytes that the media plays for you, you would know that.

singe22
02-13-2014, 02:33 AM
Singe, I wasn't trying to goat you. You are the one who mentioned minority reach out, right? I wasn't the one who did that. You did. Personally, I think the whole "diversity" gamut that the media keeps on talking about was done to divide us. Are we all people, or aren't we? If we are, why do we listen to their BS about "diversity". All Americans should want liberty. Period.


The tent hasn't converted him and if you'd listen to more than just the soundbytes that the media plays for you, you would know that.

I don't listen to media sound bytes, so you should quit assuming while your ahead. I didn't need the media to introduce me to diversity. Its not minority out reach like its some government program. Another reason why this movement won't gain the steam it needs of getting diverse. Knowledge bomb the civil rights movement had "Caucasians" who sacrificed also.

Get over yourself. Not one person on this forum can say with 100% what rand is going to do. I could be totally wrong on what i feel is going to happen,but i can live with that and that is my right.

And ways i'm done with this thread. Just don't be shocked when us "die hards" shoot down rand shit in Ron sections.

LibertyEagle
02-13-2014, 02:39 AM
I don't listen to media sound bytes, so you should quit assuming while your ahead. I didn't need the media to introduce me to diversity. Its not minority out reach like its some government program. Another reason why this movement won't gain the steam it needs of getting diverse. Knowledge bomb the civil rights movement had "Caucasians" who sacrificed also.

Get over yourself. Not one person on this forum can say with 100% what rand is going to do. I could be totally wrong on what i feel is going to happen,but i can live with that and that is my right.

And ways i'm done with this thread. Just don't be shocked when us "die hards" shoot down rand shit in Ron sections.

Why the hostility? Get the chip off your shoulder, dude. You obviously did not listen to what Ron taught, because here you are still pitching "diversity" bullcrap.

I don't give a rat's ass who you vote for; it's your business. But, don't come here and whine as things get worse and worse. Because you had a chance to do something and instead chose to hand-wring when someone didn't kowtow to your special interest group.

Bman
02-13-2014, 03:24 AM
no rand will not get my vote and i will no longer be a republican delegate. I will look outside of the failed gop. I will look to support liberty in colorado but i have 0 interest in rands pandering bs.

What if Rand were to show up at your door step with an ounce of purple haze and a bong shaped like aqua-buddha?

erowe1
02-13-2014, 08:30 AM
i will no longer be a republican delegate.

+rep

Christian Liberty
02-13-2014, 11:34 AM
That is not an argument. If I can own gold without having the right to buy slaves. Then trade and property ownership do not have the relationship that you say they do



Yes, that would be silly. I think it is a good thing that we have laws that prevent that within our borders.
Slaves are not a valid form of property. Its not a violation of anyone's rights to prevent them from trafficking slaves. The only arguable exception would be what Walter Block calls "Voluntary Slavery", where someone else sells themselves into slavery. I disagree with Block on that issue, but you might have a point there. But, assuming you meant coercive slavery, that's obviously an NAP violation.


At this point it's a bit cultish to still be saying that. Ron isn't going to run for president again. It's almost certain that he will be telling you to support his son. If "no one but Ron Paul" is still your battle cry while he's supporting Rand, will it be his past or present actions that you're supporting?

My question for this person would be, would he, hypothetically, support Judge Andrew Napolitano? Tom Woods? Lew Rockwell? Is it really "Nobody but Ron Paul" in the cultish sense? Or just in the "Rand isn't really good enough" sense?


Wrong. Both communities and individuals exist.
Yeah, after thinking about this I agree with you. I was trying to say that the community isn't an autonomous organization with rights that individuals don't have, but I agree that that doesn't mean the community doesn't exist at all.

LibertyEagle
02-13-2014, 11:48 AM
no rand will not get my vote and i will no longer be a republican delegate. I will look outside of the failed gop. I will look to support liberty in colorado but i have 0 interest in rands pandering bs.

Says speciallyblend for the 999th time. :rolleyes:

No one cares, Kenny.

Christian Liberty
02-13-2014, 11:51 AM
Says speciallyblend for the 999th time. :rolleyes:

No one cares, Kenny.

If you really didn't care you wouldn't respond;)

LibertyEagle
02-13-2014, 11:56 AM
If you really didn't care you wouldn't respond;)

Not true, smartass. I'm sick of him coming into threads repeating his garbage. I could care less if he doesn't like Rand and doesn't want to be a delegate. Big whoopee.

compromise
02-13-2014, 05:37 PM
Just ban this guy already, he contributes absolutely nothing to this site, all he says is the exact same thing over and over. I remember when I made up a fake post by him and quoted it and then he actually thought it was his own post. He's obviously so stoned he has no clue what's going on 90%+ of the time.

Neil Desmond
02-13-2014, 05:45 PM
Yeah, after thinking about this I agree with you. I was trying to say that the community isn't an autonomous organization with rights that individuals don't have, but I agree that that doesn't mean the community doesn't exist at all.

Ok, fair enough.

fr33
02-13-2014, 10:52 PM
I didn't think Gary was that eager to go through this kind of bullshit again.

He keeps doing interviews, twitter Q&As, and Google hangouts pretty frequently. I think he likes the attention and likely will run for Pres again using the LP. He could have run a serious campaign for Senate but didn't.

speciallyblend
02-14-2014, 12:46 AM
What if Rand were to show up at your door step with an ounce of purple haze and a bong shaped like aqua-buddha?
i would tell rand to f off. i am no longer a gop delegate and rand is why.

speciallyblend
02-14-2014, 12:47 AM
If you really didn't care you wouldn't respond;)

LE is a tool. bottom line everyone should care, unless you expect a santorum/rubio to stand with rand as a delegate. who cares i was only a gop delegate since 2008. who cares move along. let the gop die. It should die. I stand with my wifes life not rand. santorum wil stand with rand:) rand doesn't need me by his pandering bs.

I have every reason to be correct for supporting ron paul and not supporting rand. The only one that cost rand a delegate is rand paul.

Bman
02-14-2014, 12:53 AM
Just ban this guy already, he contributes absolutely nothing to this site, all he says is the exact same thing over and over. I remember when I made up a fake post by him and quoted it and then he actually thought it was his own post. He's obviously so stoned he has no clue what's going on 90%+ of the time.

Certainly no need to ban. Speciallyblend's been around a long time and his heart is right where it should be. Some good Ron Paul people just find themselves not liking Rand.

speciallyblend
02-14-2014, 12:55 AM
He keeps doing interviews, twitter Q&As, and Google hangouts pretty frequently. I think he likes the attention and likely will run for Pres again using the LP. He could have run a serious campaign for Senate but didn't.

I will vote GJ or Chuck Baldwin before i support the gop ever again. thanks to rand i will be looking elsewhere. I am sure he will get the santorum vote.

speciallyblend
02-14-2014, 12:59 AM
Certainly no need to ban. Speciallyblend's been around a long time and his heart is right where it should be. Some good Ron Paul people just find themselves not liking Rand.

yeah forget i have valid points:) ban me, gotta love the liberty rpf folks. I gave plenty of warnings that rand is pandering bs too much to the right. rand caused me to lose faith in him all alone by himself. Only rand paul can fix it but i have no interest in a flip flop romney. Compromise has no clue what i have done the last 8-10 years for liberty through activism. One thing i learned in coloroado the last 10 years. we can nullify the gop and dems in colorado and continue to do so. The gop can die for alli care now. we could use the extra fossil fuel.

Republicans are going to get served in colorado by voters if they continue to ignore a voter base that nullified both parties and the federal gov 2 times. keep ignoring it. the gop will get served live again on election day. compromise can ignore me like i do him. i only saw his comment because of your copy.

Christian Liberty
02-14-2014, 01:01 AM
Just ban this guy already, he contributes absolutely nothing to this site, all he says is the exact same thing over and over. I remember when I made up a fake post by him and quoted it and then he actually thought it was his own post. He's obviously so stoned he has no clue what's going on 90%+ of the time.

While we're at it, can we ban the compromisers too?;)


LE is a tool.

I don't think she is. I don't think she's right about everything, but I don't think a genuine tool would take on the Lincoln-myth as enthusiastically as she has. The real shills are the ones who are selling Cruz. LE doesn't think Ted Cruz is as evil as I do but she doesn't promote him either.


bottom line everyone should care, unless you expect a santorum/rubio to stand with rand as a delegate. who cares i was only a gop delegate since 2008. who cares move along. let the gop die. It should die. I stand with my wifes life not rand. santorum wil stand with rand:) rand doesn't need me by his pandering bs.


Guess what, I don't actually care either;)

You aren't actually saying anything that Rand did wrong to justify your choice here. You're simply comparing him to Santorum without any evidence. I don't like everything Rand does either but at least I use logic when I criticize him.



I have every reason to be correct for supporting ron paul and not supporting rand. The only one that cost rand a delegate is rand paul.

OK...

I will vote GJ or Chuck Baldwin before i support the gop ever again. thanks to rand i will be looking elsewhere. I am sure he will get the santorum vote.

I'd vote for Chuck Baldwin before most people, and yeah, that includes Rand. I'd prefer Rand over GJ though.

Christian Liberty
02-14-2014, 01:02 AM
yeah forget i have valid points:) ban me, gotta love the liberty rpf folks. I gave plenty of warnings that rand is pandering bs too much to the right. rand caused me to lose faith in him all alone by himself. Only rand paul can fix it but i have no interest in a flip flop romney. Compromise has no clue what i have done the last 8-10 years for liberty through activism. One thing i learned in coloroado the last 10 years. we can nullify the gop and dems in colorado and continue to do so. The gop can die for alli care now. we could use the extra fossil fuel.

Republicans are going to get served in colorado by voters if they continue to ignore a voter base that nullified both parties and the federal gov 2 times. keep ignoring it. the gop will get served live again in election day.

LOL! I wish Lincoln's Party would die too... but until then, we've gotta work with what we've got. Or not... I don't necessarily think politics is the answer, but I'm not opposed to trying either.

LibertyEagle
02-14-2014, 01:13 AM
Certainly no need to ban. Speciallyblend's been around a long time and his heart is right where it should be. Some good Ron Paul people just find themselves not liking Rand.

Yeah, he's a good guy and worked really, really hard for Ron. If he doesn't like Rand, that's cool. I just wish he wouldn't keep spamming the same thing over and over and over again. But, that's Kenny. He gets all worked up and goes on frantic tirades.

speciallyblend
02-14-2014, 01:15 AM
Le no longer can read your posts try it, it works ignore:) bye le good luck with the failed gop.
In colorado we do not need rand or le.

speciallyblend
02-14-2014, 01:17 AM
LOL! I wish Lincoln's Party would die too... but until then, we've gotta work with what we've got. Or not... I don't necessarily think politics is the answer, but I'm not opposed to trying either.

oo i will support some liberty republicans in colorado unless they feel marijuana is dangerous and at that point they(republicans) are dangerous.

republicans do not have a hold on liberty:) Tisha Casida is running again and i plan to donate my money to her not the gop.

LibertyEagle
02-14-2014, 01:19 AM
Why don't you go smoke some now and calm the hell down.

erowe1
02-14-2014, 09:42 AM
Le no longer can read your posts try it, it works ignore:) bye le good luck with the failed gop.
In colorado we do not need rand or le.

Dear mods, please don't ban SB. This stuff is gold.

jjdoyle
02-17-2014, 08:03 PM
By that time, Ron himself had already bailed and sent out an email about it.

Do you have that email, or know the time it was sent? I know I have asked you before, but you never provided it.

PAF
02-19-2014, 10:56 AM
Rand Paul On The Record:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?439108-Rand-Paul-On-The-Record

List of all 2016 potential candidates:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?436594-2016-Potential-Presidential-Candidates-List-And-Information

erowe1
02-19-2014, 10:59 AM
Do you have that email, or know the time it was sent? I know I have asked you before, but you never provided it.

I'm not personally going to go hunting down the evidence. Those of us who were actually involved in campaigning for Ron Paul went through the events personally. We remember them well. Yes, she's 100% correct that Ron Paul had already publicly conceded defeat to Romney before Rand endorsed Romney. He endorsed him as the Republican nominee for the general election. He did not endorse him in the primaries against his own dad, for whom he had been campaigning zealously against Romney.

Christian Liberty
02-19-2014, 11:55 AM
oo i will support some liberty republicans in colorado unless they feel marijuana is dangerous and at that point they(republicans) are dangerous.

republicans do not have a hold on liberty:) Tisha Casida is running again and i plan to donate my money to her not the gop.

Rand is saying that the states should have the right to legalize pot. So really, that's all that matters with regards to this issue. I agree that Rand openly advocating for legalization would be a better position, but as long as he respects the 10th amendment I'll still support him.

Bastiat's The Law
02-19-2014, 11:56 AM
Rand's most ardent supporters here keep telling us that isn't true. That there are more Reagan/Bush/McCain/Romney Republicans than there are Ron Paul Republicans. That we need to sit down, shut up, and stay out of sight from those coveted Republicans lest we upset them into thinking all of Rand's supporters are dope-smoking 9/11 Truthers.

Make up your minds. If you need us, don't tell us to shut up. We're the ones who brought Rand to the dance, after all.

Speaking as an ardent supporter of Rand; I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've never said anything in the same universe as your statement.

Bastiat's The Law
02-19-2014, 12:01 PM
He keeps doing interviews, twitter Q&As, and Google hangouts pretty frequently. I think he likes the attention and likely will run for Pres again using the LP. He could have run a serious campaign for Senate but didn't.

Gary becomes a bigger joke by the day. I actual liked the guy once upon a time. He's just not a serious person and doesn't have a unifying worldview. The Pauls and other uphold liberty. Gary is all over the map wanting to intervene abroad to find Kony. Ridiculous!

Christian Liberty
02-19-2014, 12:04 PM
Speaking as an ardent supporter of Rand; I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've never said anything in the same universe as your statement.
Well, you do occasionally rant against "anarchists" and/or complain when legitimate criticisms of Rand are brought up.

compromise
02-19-2014, 12:11 PM
He keeps doing interviews, twitter Q&As, and Google hangouts pretty frequently. I think he likes the attention and likely will run for Pres again using the LP. He could have run a serious campaign for Senate but didn't.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he ran for President as a Republican again. He was hinting towards it a few months ago. (http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/12/gary-johnson-on-nsa-gop) Maybe he thinks he can take some of the libertine voters Rand lost?

Christian Liberty
02-19-2014, 12:15 PM
Gary becomes a bigger joke by the day. I actual liked the guy once upon a time. He's just not a serious person and doesn't have a unifying worldview. The Pauls and other uphold liberty. Gary is all over the map wanting to intervene abroad to find Kony. Ridiculous!

Rand Paul's worldview isn't really consistent either, frankly. He's a mix of libertarianism, paleoconservatism, and Tea Party ideology. Which, I understand appeals to a broader audience than just straight libertarianism, and you can justify it however you want to, but I wouldn't say Rand is consistent. For what its worth, I do prefer Rand Paul over Johnson.

compromise
02-19-2014, 12:17 PM
Not only does stoner Gary support war in Uganda, he also supports abortion on demand up to 20 weeks, film subsidies and federal gay marriage.

Christian Liberty
02-19-2014, 12:32 PM
Not only does stoner Gary support war in Uganda, he also supports abortion on demand up to 20 weeks, film subsidies and federal gay marriage.

I think Judge Nap gets the Federal gay marriage issue wrong as well. He's cited Loving v Virginia as precedent. The one issue he gets wrong. I don't really care much about that issue anyway, however. The rest of the issues I agree with you on, with the caveat the Gary does correctly support a state's right to ban abortion.

NOVALibertarian
02-19-2014, 01:53 PM
no rand will not get my vote and i will no longer be a republican delegate. I will look outside of the failed gop. I will look to support liberty in colorado but i have 0 interest in rands pandering bs.

Oh, god.

I'm not sure where your venom towards Rand comes from. Is it because he doesn't go around touting that marijuana should be legalized at the federal level? Is it because he "panders," even though it's all just rhetoric and his voting record clearly shows that he is almost identical to his father?

Ron's biggest problem was that he shot from the hip too many times. Seeing as we all (mostly) agreed with what he said, we were drawn to him. However, the same thing that drew us towards him also alienated a lot more people. Rand doesn't shoot like Ron does, and because of that he's near the top of almost every poll that I've seen. Because of this, he's built a solid following that derives from almost every faction of the Republican Party outside of the Neo-Conservatives, which is a dying ideology anyway.

Snew
02-19-2014, 05:06 PM
Not only does stoner Gary support war in Uganda, he also supports abortion on demand up to 20 weeks, film subsidies and federal gay marriage.

I'm not a big GJ fan either, but I don't think this little dig was necessary.

jjdoyle
02-19-2014, 08:22 PM
I'm not personally going to go hunting down the evidence. Those of us who were actually involved in campaigning for Ron Paul went through the events personally. We remember them well. Yes, she's 100% correct that Ron Paul had already publicly conceded defeat to Romney before Rand endorsed Romney. He endorsed him as the Republican nominee for the general election. He did not endorse him in the primaries against his own dad, for whom he had been campaigning zealously against Romney.

Well, I have also asked for a date/timeframe, because I have looked for it, since I have all the official campaign emails. The one thing I have found around that time, was Jesse Benton held a telephoned press conference (not email), in May 2012. In that very same phoned conference, is where he (once again) confirmed that Ron Paul 2012 was already talking with and communicating with Romney 2016. But, I am looking for the email of RP throwing in the towel, as some have claimed.

And as someone that was actually involved in campaigning for Ron Paul, and know people that paid their way to Florida, just because you think you remember something, doesn't make it true. Just as LE had heard/seen the campaign had little/no funds on hand, didn't make that true. The exact opposite was true, and the facts showed/show that. The campaign definitely was floating the "we are poor and need more" idea the whole time though. Apparently even leaving staffers completely in the dark until they filed the FEC reports.

I do know that there were some emails sent directly to individuals that had emailed the campaign though, as has been shown from another supporter here when they asked about a refund.

And Rand endorsed Mitt Romney before the RNC, which last I checked, you don't actually win the nomination until the RNC and the delegates are counted. I mean, just imagine if some big, huge, gigantic scandal had broken before the RNC. :D That was the whole point of encouraging Ron Paul supporters to become delegates, wasn't it? Or, was it really to just drag them along for more money?

And I do hope Rand learned from 2008, and 2012, but I'm just not seeing it. Even in his recent attacks on Bill Clinton, he is missing a huge opportunity to make one issue, a gold mine win for him with it.

So, as long as Rand has nobody on staff from Ron Paul 2012, I'll be more willing to donate. But, I won't donate a dime if Rand has anybody on staff from Ron Paul 2012. I don't want to donate money to people that willingly lied to supporters for months, and simply took orders and didn't ask any questions, because they were getting paychecks.

klamath
02-19-2014, 08:35 PM
Well, I have also asked for a date/timeframe, because I have looked for it, since I have all the official campaign emails. The one thing I have found around that time, was Jesse Benton held a telephoned press conference (not email), in May 2012. In that very same phoned conference, is where he (once again) confirmed that Ron Paul 2012 was already talking with and communicating with Romney 2016. But, I am looking for the email of RP throwing in the towel, as some have claimed.

And as someone that was actually involved in campaigning for Ron Paul, and know people that paid their way to Florida, just because you think you remember something, doesn't make it true. Just as LE had heard/seen the campaign had little/no funds on hand, didn't make that true. The exact opposite was true, and the facts showed/show that. The campaign definitely was floating the "we are poor and need more" idea the whole time though. Apparently even leaving staffers completely in the dark until they filed the FEC reports.

I do know that there were some emails sent directly to individuals that had emailed the campaign though, as has been shown from another supporter here when they asked about a refund.

And Rand endorsed Mitt Romney before the RNC, which last I checked, you don't actually win the nomination until the RNC and the delegates are counted. I mean, just imagine if some big, huge, gigantic scandal had broken before the RNC. :D That was the whole point of encouraging Ron Paul supporters to become delegates, wasn't it? Or, was it really to just drag them along for more money?

And I do hope Rand learned from 2008, and 2012, but I'm just not seeing it. Even in his recent attacks on Bill Clinton, he is missing a huge opportunity to make one issue, a gold mine win for him with it.

So, as long as Rand has nobody on staff from Ron Paul 2012, I'll be more willing to donate. But, I won't donate a dime if Rand has anybody on staff from Ron Paul 2012. I don't want to donate money to people that willingly lied to supporters for months, and simply took orders and didn't ask any questions, because they were getting paychecks.RP made it abundantly clear he was running a education campaign from the very months he announced his 2012 run. Sorry you didn't catch it and feel so bitter about the time and money you spent. Let's hope he educated you on telling the difference between a education campaign and one looking for electoral victory.

erowe1
02-19-2014, 08:42 PM
I have all the official campaign emails.

I'm calling your bluff.

No one who was actually actively involved in supporting Ron Paul at that time would dispute this point.

ETA: I'm disappointed with myself for bothering to find this, but here.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ron-paul-i-wont-be-the-nominee-125509.html

“I wanted you to get an update from me personally, since we have some great news!

“Due to the smart planning of our campaign and the hard work and diligence of supporters like you, we stand to send nearly 200 bound delegates to the Republican National Convention in Tampa. This number shatters the predictions of the pundits and talking heads and shows the seriousness of our movement.

“What's more, we will send several hundred additional supporters to Tampa who, while bound to Romney, believe in our ideas of liberty, constitutional government, and a common-sense foreign policy.

“When it is all said and done, we will likely have as many as 500 supporters as delegates on the Convention floor. That is just over 20 percent!

“And while this total is not enough to win the nomination, it puts us in a tremendous position to grow our movement and shape the future of the GOP!

“I hope every one of you continues the fight we have advanced so well this year. I hope you will finish your local and state conventions, and, if you were selected as a national delegate, that you will head to Tampa in August to force the Republican Party to listen to the voice of liberty.

“We have never had this kind of opportunity. There will be hundreds of your fellow supporters in Tampa who will be ready and willing to push the Republican Party back to its limited government, liberty roots.

“There are many issues to fight for in Tampa. Also, candidates like Justin Amash, Kurt Bills, and Thomas Massie need your support as we move into the fall. Across the country, supporters of liberty have won local office and leadership positions in the GOP, and we need to keep working.

“Our delegates’ presence must be felt both in Tampa and in years to come.

“Stand up for what we believe in. Be respectful. And let the establishment know that we are the future of the Party and of the country.

“Our Revolution is just getting started. You'll be hearing plenty from me as we approach Tampa and the fall elections. You'll also be hearing of important developments on Audit the Fed and Campaign for Liberty.

“I hope you'll continue to stand with me as we go forward. Our Revolution could not have come this far without you.

“For Liberty,

Ron Paul”

Rand waited until after that email before he endorsed Romney.

jjdoyle
02-19-2014, 09:10 PM
RP made it abundantly clear he was running a education campaign from the very months he announced his 2012 run. Sorry you didn't catch it and feel so bitter about the time and money you spent. Let's hope he educated you on telling the difference between a education campaign and one looking for electoral victory.

Well, Ron Paul 2012 ran a pretty horrible educational campaign, considering they raised more money than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and received fewer votes than they did.
Going to college campuses, giving stump speeches, doesn't require millions, much less a private jet.

I know what an educational campaign is, and Ron Paul 2012 was not that. Ron Paul 2012 didn't run any educational ads in Virginia, Maine, Texas, California, North Carolina, or other states that would be beneficial to Rand in 2016. Or, other liberty minded candidate.

Ron Paul 2012, was not, in any sense an educational campaign. It wasn't even a presidential campaign, after they agreed to help Mitt Romney by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. If it was, they would have concentrated on educational ads. Not Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads. I have already stated this, and even showed how Herman Cain's campaign put together an educational ad/video on his stupid 999 plan.


I'm calling your bluff.

No one who was actually actively involved in supporting Ron Paul at that time would dispute this point.

ETA: I'm disappointed with myself for bothering to find this, but here.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ron-paul-i-wont-be-the-nominee-125509.html


Rand waited until after that email before he endorsed Romney.

That was on June 6th (sent maybe on June 5th), not in May, April, March, February, or January. That was my point. This was the day before Rand went on national TV to endorse Romney (June 7). They were coordinating together on it. The entire time. Ron Paul 2012, and Romney's campaign for President. Working hand-in-hand for months, without letting Ron Paul 2012 supporters knowing the deal they had already made.

It was, and has been my point the entire time. They wasted months of supporters time and money, when they had already been making deals with Romney's campaign behind-the-scenes.

klamath
02-19-2014, 09:23 PM
Well, Ron Paul 2012 ran a pretty horrible educational campaign, considering they raised more money than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and received fewer votes than they did.
Going to college campuses, giving stump speeches, doesn't require millions, much less a private jet.

I know what an educational campaign is, and Ron Paul 2012 was not that. Ron Paul 2012 didn't run any educational ads in Virginia, Maine, Texas, California, North Carolina, or other states that would be beneficial to Rand in 2016. Or, other liberty minded candidate.

Ron Paul 2012, was not, in any sense an educational campaign. It wasn't even a presidential campaign, after they agreed to help Mitt Romney by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. If it was, they would have concentrated on educational ads. Not Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads. I have already stated this, and even showed how Herman Cain's campaign put together an educational ad/video on his stupid 999 plan.



That was on June 6th (sent maybe on June 5th), not in May, April, March, February, or January. That was my point. This was the day before Rand went on national TV to endorse Romney (June 7). They were coordinating together on it. The entire time. Ron Paul 2012, and Romney's campaign for President. Working hand-in-hand for months, without letting Ron Paul 2012 supporters knowing the deal they had already made.

It was, and has been my point the entire time. They wasted months of supporters time and money, when they had already been making deals with Romney's campaign behind-the-scenes.

This is what you said.

But, I am looking for the email of RP throwing in the towel, as some have claimed. Erowe1 produced it and now you change what you were saying. Man up and admit you were wrong.
Erowe1's original point that YOU challenged was Rand endorsed After Ron said he could no longer win. Erowe1 and I both remember this quite well because we got banned for pointing this out.

erowe1
02-19-2014, 09:23 PM
That was on June 6th (sent maybe on June 5th), not in May, April, March, February, or January. That was my point. This was the day before Rand went on national TV to endorse Romney (June 7). They were coordinating together on it. The entire time. Ron Paul 2012, and Romney's campaign for President. Working hand-in-hand for months, without letting Ron Paul 2012 supporters knowing the deal they had already made.


Where do you get "the entire time" and "for months"?

Yes, I think it stands to reason that this email and Rand's endorsement had been coordinated some time before the email went out. But months? That's a stretch.

klamath
02-19-2014, 09:33 PM
Well, Ron Paul 2012 ran a pretty horrible educational campaign, considering they raised more money than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, and received fewer votes than they did.
Going to college campuses, giving stump speeches, doesn't require millions, much less a private jet.

I know what an educational campaign is, and Ron Paul 2012 was not that. Ron Paul 2012 didn't run any educational ads in Virginia, Maine, Texas, California, North Carolina, or other states that would be beneficial to Rand in 2016. Or, other liberty minded candidate.

Ron Paul 2012, was not, in any sense an educational campaign. It wasn't even a presidential campaign, after they agreed to help Mitt Romney by attacking Rick Santorum in Michigan. If it was, they would have concentrated on educational ads. Not Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads. I have already stated this, and even showed how Herman Cain's campaign put together an educational ad/video on his stupid 999 plan.



That was on June 6th (sent maybe on June 5th), not in May, April, March, February, or January. That was my point. This was the day before Rand went on national TV to endorse Romney (June 7). They were coordinating together on it. The entire time. Ron Paul 2012, and Romney's campaign for President. Working hand-in-hand for months, without letting Ron Paul 2012 supporters knowing the deal they had already made.

It was, and has been my point the entire time. They wasted months of supporters time and money, when they had already been making deals with Romney's campaign behind-the-scenes.Good or bad doesn't matter it was obvious to anyone that knows anything about electoral politics he was not running to win from the beginning. If you wasted time and money you thought could have been better spent you have no one to blame but yourself.

jjdoyle
02-19-2014, 10:00 PM
Good or bad doesn't matter it was obvious to anyone that knows anything about electoral politics he was not running to win from the beginning. If you wasted time and money you thought could have been better spent you have no one to blame but yourself.

This isn't about me, but about how the campaign dragged supporters along on false promises and hopes. I understood 100% the campaign wasn't serious about winning. I was saying that at the time, and during the campaign.

It's why I have said if they weren't serious, they shouldn't have stayed in like they did. They should have ended it, like all the other campaigns/candidates did.

And I didn't waste a dime on the campaign, because I saw how Ron Paul 2008 was run from the inside. I volunteered at the official campaign HQ in 2008, and saw how staffers were sitting around eating snacks, watching news programs. While volunteers were tasked with harassing people for money. Their list(s) wasn't updated properly, and the same people were being called repeatedly.

In 2012, I had one requirement. Show me you're serious about winning, by attacking Mitt Romney. It never happened.

The fact Ron Paul 2012 wasted supporters' money and time though, for months, is horrible. It's why I have said I think Ron Paul 2012 was not effective as it could have been, and SHOULD have been in helping the movement move forward and addressing issues that were holding it back.

Again, I know supporters that were passing up on car repairs, because they believed the campaign was serious about winning. Those are the same type people, many of them, that are now "done with politics", and don't want anything to do with political campaigns. Instead of running an honest campaign and respecting supporters' time and money, it was run with backroom deals with Mitt Romney's campaign. For what? A speech at the RNC?

klamath
02-19-2014, 10:16 PM
This isn't about me, but about how the campaign dragged supporters along on false promises and hopes. I understood 100% the campaign wasn't serious about winning. I was saying that at the time, and during the campaign.

It's why I have said if they weren't serious, they shouldn't have stayed in like they did. They should have ended it, like all the other campaigns/candidates did.

And I didn't waste a dime on the campaign, because I saw how Ron Paul 2008 was run from the inside. I volunteered at the official campaign HQ in 2008, and saw how staffers were sitting around eating snacks, watching news programs. While volunteers were tasked with harassing people for money. Their list(s) wasn't updated properly, and the same people were being called repeatedly.

In 2012, I had one requirement. Show me you're serious about winning, by attacking Mitt Romney. It never happened.

The fact Ron Paul 2012 wasted supporters' money and time though, for months, is horrible. It's why I have said I think Ron Paul 2012 was not effective as it could have been, and SHOULD have been in helping the movement move forward and addressing issues that were holding it back.

Again, I know supporters that were passing up on car repairs, because they believed the campaign was serious about winning. Those are the same type people, many of them, that are now "done with politics", and don't want anything to do with political campaigns. Instead of running an honest campaign and respecting supporters' time and money, it was run with backroom deals with Mitt Romney's campaign. For what? A speech at the RNC?So what. They are their own people to waste or use their money and time as they want. As I said some of us were banned for saying RP couldn't win after losing EVERY state up to CA. Do you think you could save them from themselves if they will go that far?
Whether or not the educational aspect of RP's campaigns pays off is yet to be seen. If every candidate that came in on Ron wingtips are torn down and defeated then yes RP's entire career and campaigns were a colossal failure.

jjdoyle
02-19-2014, 10:54 PM
So what. They are their own people to waste or use their money and time as they want. As I said some of us were banned for saying RP couldn't win after losing EVERY state up to CA. Do you think you could save them from themselves if they will go that far?
Whether or not the educational aspect of RP's campaigns pays off is yet to be seen. If every candidate that came in on Ron wingtips are torn down and defeated then yes RP's entire career and campaigns were a colossal failure.

Do I think I could save them? The supporters? No. Because they were listening to the campaign, all the way up until May for some (and even after, for others). When the campaign was still asking for more money. But I expect more from "our" own. Not to drag people along, just for money.

And if the educational aspect paid off, I don't know why Rand would be seeing an 8% point drop in a state like Louisiana. If anything he should be holding steady in states, moving up. Not down. It's what my point was/has been. An educational campaign, would have been a lot better than what Ron Paul 2012 ended up being. A side campaign for Mitt Romney to make sure his nomination went smoothly.

klamath
02-20-2014, 09:19 AM
Do I think I could save them? The supporters? No. Because they were listening to the campaign, all the way up until May for some (and even after, for others). When the campaign was still asking for more money. But I expect more from "our" own. Not to drag people along, just for money.

And if the educational aspect paid off, I don't know why Rand would be seeing an 8% point drop in a state like Louisiana. If anything he should be holding steady in states, moving up. Not down. It's what my point was/has been. An educational campaign, would have been a lot better than what Ron Paul 2012 ended up being. A side campaign for Mitt Romney to make sure his nomination went smoothly.RP got hammered horribly for dropping out too early in 08 by his own supporters. I saw him hanging in as an attempt to appease those supporters.
I see you weren't around here in 2007/8. There was thread after thread after thread about how RP pulled the rug out from under people by quitting too soon. They sounded just like your bitching but hammering RP for quitting too soon.

erowe1
02-20-2014, 09:40 AM
Good or bad doesn't matter it was obvious to anyone that knows anything about electoral politics he was not running to win from the beginning. If you wasted time and money you thought could have been better spent you have no one to blame but yourself.

I don't buy that. They made a good show of it in Iowa. They almost won there, and it's pretty obvious that they went all in trying to. But close didn't cut it. After that there was nothing to do but throw Hail Mary's.

ETA: Pardon all the cliches.

erowe1
02-20-2014, 09:43 AM
Do I think I could save them? The supporters? No. Because they were listening to the campaign, all the way up until May for some (and even after, for others). When the campaign was still asking for more money. But I expect more from "our" own. Not to drag people along, just for money.


I appreciate that mentality. But whenever you receive a fund raising letter, including from a Ron Paul campaign, you need to bracket off everything it says in your mind and remind yourself that it's just a fund raising letter. If people didn't realize that earlier on than April of the 2012 campaign, then I see a lot of that mistake as being on them. Nobody who kept sending them money at that point had any reasonable excuse for thinking that they were helping to fund an effort that had any possibility of Ron Paul being the next POTUS.

klamath
02-20-2014, 09:56 AM
I don't buy that. They made a good show of it in Iowa. They almost won there, and it's pretty obvious that they went all in trying to. But close didn't cut it. After that there was nothing to do but throw Hail Mary's.

ETA: Pardon all the cliches.I think the grass roots and lower campaign workers nearly pulled it off. RP himself did not have his heart into winning. How many times did he personally visit Iowa?

jjdoyle
02-20-2014, 11:26 AM
RP got hammered horribly for dropping out too early in 08 by his own supporters. I saw him hanging in as an attempt to appease those supporters.
I see you weren't around here in 2007/8. There was thread after thread after thread about how RP pulled the rug out from under people by quitting too soon. They sounded just like your bitching but hammering RP for quitting too soon.

Actually, I was around in 07/8. I was on national TV at one of the debates, doing RP stuff. I volunteered at the official HQ then as well. So, clearly you have no clue what you're talking about in regards to others. And the problem from '08, continued into '12. The problem is not/was not the supporters, it was the campaign(s).

klamath
02-20-2014, 12:27 PM
Actually, I was around in 07/8. I was on national TV at one of the debates, doing RP stuff. I volunteered at the official HQ then as well. So, clearly you have no clue what you're talking about in regards to others. And the problem from '08, continued into '12. The problem is not/was not the supporters, it was the campaign(s).But you didn't answer the point. You weren't around HERE. The bitching about quitting to soon in 08 was huge. If you try and deny that I don't trust you were ever around the RP campaign official or grassroots.

jjdoyle
02-20-2014, 12:44 PM
But you didn't answer the point. You weren't around HERE. The bitching about quitting to soon in 08 was huge. If you try and deny that I don't trust you were ever around the RP campaign official or grassroots.

I volunteered at the official HQ in 2007/08. I saw what happened at the official HQ then, and I saw that continue in 2012.

Oh, and you don't know if I was/wasn't around HERE in 2007/08. Being a member or not, doesn't mean you are/aren't reading stuff, HERE. Again, showing ignorance of what you're speaking of.

And no, I don't deny that some were complaining about the '08 campaign.

erowe1
02-20-2014, 04:38 PM
Actually, I was around in 07/8. I was on national TV at one of the debates, doing RP stuff. I volunteered at the official HQ then as well. So, clearly you have no clue what you're talking about in regards to others. And the problem from '08, continued into '12. The problem is not/was not the supporters, it was the campaign(s).

There were plenty of problems in the campaigns.

But there were plenty of problems with the supporters too. Both years there was this stubborn insistence among supporters that there was some delegate strategy that involved somehow winning the nomination while still losing all the primaries and caucuses. There was no talking sense to a lot of these people. And that's on them, not the campaign.

klamath
02-20-2014, 05:28 PM
I volunteered at the official HQ in 2007/08. I saw what happened at the official HQ then, and I saw that continue in 2012.

Oh, and you don't know if I was/wasn't around HERE in 2007/08. Being a member or not, doesn't mean you are/aren't reading stuff, HERE. Again, showing ignorance of what you're speaking of.

And no, I don't deny that some were complaining about the '08 campaign.They were complaining about the official campaign quitting GOT IT?
You sure don't like to admit when you are flat out proven wrong. You sidestepped all over the place when Erowe1 produced the letter proving Rand endorsed Romney AFTER RP's "I cannot win letter" came out. You are proving how you really weren't all tuned into all things related to the official RP campaigns if you couldn't even find the letter saying "I cannot win" and ridiculed people that said it existed.

jjdoyle
02-20-2014, 07:07 PM
They were complaining about the official campaign quitting GOT IT?
You sure don't like to admit when you are flat out proven wrong. You sidestepped all over the place when Erowe1 produced the letter proving Rand endorsed Romney AFTER RP's "I cannot win letter" came out. You are proving how you really weren't all tuned into all things related to the official RP campaigns if you couldn't even find the letter saying "I cannot win" and ridiculed people that said it existed.

SOME were complaining about the official campaign quitting GOT IT? Not all. You sure don't seem to comprehend very basic things.
Two, I didn't sidestep anywhere, because had you actually been following conversations FOR MONTHS, you would see that my point of WHEN the email was sent, was exactly the point.

Not that it was sent, but WHEN IT WAS SENT. RP didn't send the email in February, March, April, or May. Those months they remained in the campaign, despite Ron Paul 2012 already agreeing to not attack only Mitt Romney, and had already helped Mitt Romney win the nomination by attacking only Rick Santorum in Michigan.

Then Ron Paul 2012 continuing to ask fore "more more more" money, when they didn't need more, because they weren't running an educational campaign, or a campaign trying to win it. It was a side campaign for Mitt Romney, to make sure he got rid of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Two candidates that were actually serious about winning it.

But, since you can't comprehend the importance of WHEN it was sent, I'll include some of my past quotes on this very topic for you:
"And what email did Ron send that said he was throwing in the towel as you claimed?.......When did he send it? January? February? I have all the emails. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?441501-Too-many-liberty-people-have-a-defeatist-attitude&p=5380544&viewfull=1#post5380544)"

"What email are you talking about, specifically? Time frame of it? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?441336-Complaints-about-Ron-Paul-2012-campaign-split-thread&p=5372841&viewfull=1#post5372841)"

The WHEN is important. I was thinking I had missed one, and was searching specifically in those previous months. Had the message been sent before Michigan, and the campaign closed up shop (like Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and others before) it wouldn't be an issue. Had they not continued to ask for more money and drag supporters along for another dime, they might have some credibility with running an honest campaign. We don't have that here.

We have a campaign that agreed to not attack Mitt Romney no later than February 2012 (and didn't tell supporters), and then helped Mitt Romney win the nomination by running Rick Santorum attack ads in Michigan. Then we have a campaign using the official campaign website, to try and defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney. I just wish supporters that gave up time and money for a certain presidential candidate, were defended as much as Mitt Romney was by Ron Paul 2012 and staff.

And yes, I sure wish RP had thrown in the towel earlier and in a decent way in 2012 though, because the millions wasted on campaign staff, non-educational ads, and a private jet for stump speeches don't appear to have worked that well. There would possibly still be millions of dollar in liberty minded supporters hands, to donate to liberty minded candidates. I'm not of this idea that wasting time and money of supporters, to run Rick Santorum Sasquatch attack ads was a good thing.

And for Rand's sake, I do hope there isn't more to the Kent Sorenson issue in Iowa. But, now that the FBI is investigating it, maybe we won't have to worry with certain staffers working for Rand in 2016?

erowe1
02-20-2014, 07:16 PM
2012 continuing to ask fore "more more more" money, when they didn't need more, because they weren't running an educational campaign, or a campaign trying to win it. It was a side campaign for Mitt Romney, to make sure he got rid of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Two candidates that were actually serious about winning it.

That doesn't hold water. Romney had it wrapped up fairly early. Ron Paul's staying in the race didn't affect his beating of those two. And Ron Paul still stayed in after they both quit too. I think a lot of the reason RP stayed in as long as he did was just him doing what his own supporters obviously wanted him to do and were insisting that he do. They all wanted a chance to vote for him in their primaries and to campaign in their states no matter how irrelevant it was to do so. And so many of them were so drunk with their notions about a delegate strategy that even after he suspended his campaign and his son endorsed Romney, that as late as just a couple weeks before the convention they threw hysterical fits when his campaign staffer told the delegates in a conference call that RP didn't want them to nominate him. I felt bad for RP, it was like once he decided to run for president he had checked into the Hotel California.

jjdoyle
02-20-2014, 07:45 PM
That doesn't hold water. Romney had it wrapped up fairly early. Ron Paul's staying in the race didn't affect his beating of those two. And Ron Paul still stayed in after they both quit too. I think a lot of the reason RP stayed in as long as he did was just him doing what his own supporters obviously wanted him to do and were insisting that he do. They all wanted a chance to vote for him in their primaries and to campaign in their states no matter how irrelevant it was to do so. And so many of them were so drunk with their notions about a delegate strategy that even after he suspended his campaign and his son endorsed Romney, that as late as just a couple weeks before the convention they threw hysterical fits when his campaign staffer told the delegates in a conference call that RP didn't want them to nominate him. I felt bad for RP, it was like once he decided to run for president he had checked into the Hotel California.

It wasn't their notions of a delegate strategy, as much as the campaign as well. Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and others all talked about it during the campaign.

And it does hold water. Romney didn't have anything wrapped up early, until Ron Paul 2012 helped him win Michigan by attacking Rick Santorum in the state.
Ron Paul 2012 never ran one single Romney only ad (ever):
New Hampshire, RP placed second behind Romney. Not one single Romney attack ad.
Maine, where RP lost by only about 2%, behind Romney. Not one single Romney attack ad.
Virginia, the first one-vs-one state. RP lost by about 50,000 votes. Much less than he lost Michigan by. Not one single Ron Paul 2012 ad, or Romney attack ad.
But, Michigan, where RP placed a distant third, lost by over 500,000 combined votes to Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. They spent at least $100K in the state attacking only Rick Santorum.
South Carolina? A state RP had NO chance of winning. ZERO. Where he placed 4th, behind Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Yes, Ron Paul 2012 attacked Rick Santorum in South Carolina with TV ads.

And I'm not really sure that I would blame supporters, who gave up time/money to become delegates, for being the problem. If Ron Paul 2012 was a professional campaign, not designed around just making sure Mitt Romney's nomination went smoothly and Rand got a speech, they could have had RP hold a press conference early on, say, "I'm dropping out. Don't waste any more time on the delegate strategy."

The same delegate strategy, the campaign was touting as their own for months. When you ask people to donate, become delegates, and get involved, and those people do it and aren't making a dime. Don't blame the customers, for the horribly run business. Most of the time, customers don't know of the behind-the-scenes deals with the devil that are made. And that was the exact case with Ron Paul 2012.

It's why I have said, I will not donate a dime to Rand in 2016 if he runs AND IF he has anybody from Ron Paul 2012's staff on his own. But, like I commented above, the FBI might be taking care of one/two Ron Paul 2012 staffers if there is more to the Kent Sorenson issue.

erowe1
02-20-2014, 08:12 PM
It wasn't their notions of a delegate strategy, as much as the campaign as well. Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and others all talked about it during the campaign.

When Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and anyone from the official campaign talked about it, they were talking about actually winning delegates in primaries and caucuses, not some strategy of losing the primaries and caucuses and then winning the nomination with delegates.

Also, are you talking about things that were said in fund raising emails? Because anything said in a fund raising email doesn't count.


they could have had RP hold a press conference early on, say, "I'm dropping out. Don't waste any more time on the delegate strategy."

I think that would have been better. But a million of his supporters would have thrown fits. I think he tried to give them what they wanted as much as he could and then let them down easy. They weren't willing to be let down easy.

klamath
02-20-2014, 08:27 PM
When Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and anyone from the official campaign talked about it, they were talking about actually winning delegates in primaries and caucuses, not some strategy of losing the primaries and caucuses and then winning the nomination with delegates.

Also, are you talking about things that were said in fund raising emails? Because anything said in a fund raising email doesn't count.



I think that would have been better. But a million of his supporters would have thrown fits. I think he tried to give them what they wanted as much as he could and then let them down easy. They weren't willing to be let down easy.
This. Old JJ up there is so stuck on his "RP ran to help Romney theory" that he can probably see the flag on the Moon flapping in the wind. Yes Ron and carol liked Romney because he treated him and Carol decent. He didn't however run to make Romney the nominee no matter how much JJ screams hysterically about it. If he did that he would have endorsed Romney in the end. He didn't.

jjdoyle
02-21-2014, 02:18 AM
When Jesse Benton, Doug Wead, and anyone from the official campaign talked about it, they were talking about actually winning delegates in primaries and caucuses, not some strategy of losing the primaries and caucuses and then winning the nomination with delegates.

Also, are you talking about things that were said in fund raising emails? Because anything said in a fund raising email doesn't count.

No, this was not fundraising emails. It was Doug Wead, Jesse Benton, and others pitching the idea to Ron Paul supporters, that if they got enough delegates and a brokered convention happened, it was possible to win it. Yes, without winning a single state primary or caucus, and just winning delegates at the conventions to the RNC.

May 2012, from Jesse Benton to members of the press talking about that strategy they had put out:
http://youtu.be/Eu9rQC03lJw?t=40s

And please notice the complete idiocy of Jesse Benton mentioning that their strategy might have paid off, had other candidates been able to maintain momentum and stayed in the race until the convention. Complete, utter, idiocy. Or, (maybe) being 100% clueless of the fact Ron Paul 2012 is one of the exact reasons that the Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich campaigns lost momentum. They were being attacked by Ron Paul 2012, when Mitt Romney never was in the same way. If a brokered convention was some magical strategy as they pitched to supporters, the campaign was completely clueless on how to get that done. ESPECIALLY when they agreed to not attack Mitt Romney, before Michigan. At that point, it was basically IMPOSSIBLE, because instead of attacking Mitt, they then ran ads HELPING Mitt Romney defeat Rick Santorum in Michigan. And never doing the opposite, helping Rick Santorum defeat Mitt Romney in any state. Much less actually trying to help Ron Paul win a state like New Hampshire, Maine, or Virginia by attacking Mitt Romney in those.

February 2012, many months prior, Doug Wead talking about the same thing:
http://youtu.be/YV_ez9Kgcbo?t=4m9s
"There very easily could be a brokered convention."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnSo-nh-K5M
And Rachel Maddow tries and does a pretty decent job, of explaining the delegate strategy in February 2012. Using Ron Paul 2012 quotes/clips/press releases, followed up with Doug Wead basically verifying what she said.


I think that would have been better. But a million of his supporters would have thrown fits. I think he tried to give them what they wanted as much as he could and then let them down easy. They weren't willing to be let down easy.

Very few campaign supporters are happy when their candidate drops out. It's how you do it, that can make the difference. Dragging supporters along, when they were already working with Romney's campaign on things like the RNC platform, had agreed to not attack Romney (and thus, threw any chance of a brokered convention out the window), and wasting campaign funds for no apparent reason; doesn't seem like a very beneficial way to keep people active.


This. Old JJ up there is so stuck on his "RP ran to help Romney theory" that he can probably see the flag on the Moon flapping in the wind. Yes Ron and carol liked Romney because he treated him and Carol decent. He didn't however run to make Romney the nominee no matter how much JJ screams hysterically about it. If he did that he would have endorsed Romney in the end. He didn't.

Oh, look, a stupid comment bringing up something else. Is the flag flapping in the wind? You tell me.
The facts are:
1) Ron Paul 2012 never attacked Mitt Romney in the way they did Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. With his own, and ONLY, TV attack ad.
2) Ron Paul 2012 agreed to not attack Mitt Romney before Michigan.
3) Ron Paul 2012, then, instead attacks Rick Santorum in Michigan, HELPING Mitt Romney win the state over Rick Santorum.
4) Ron Paul 2012 never ran on single positive, or negative, ad in Virginia to try and beat Mitt Romney in the state.
5) Ron Paul 2012 was coordinating with Mitt Romney's campaign as far back as January 2012, on certain things.
6) Ron Paul 2012 was still coordinating and talking with Mitt Romney's campaign in May 2012, about certain planks/issues to be added at the RNC.
7) Ron Paul 2012's official campaign website, was used to try and defend an endorsement of Mitt Romney.

Sorry you don't appreciate or understand a theory that is based on facts/history, and what is/was observable.

Ron Paul didn't have to outright endorse Mitt Romney, because the actions of Ron Paul 2012 and use of campaign funds to get candidates like Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to drop out, was more than enough for Mitt Romney. Rand going on national TV and endorsing Mitt Romney, and lying about Mitt Romney's positions "throughout the campaign", was apparently enough to get Rand a speaking slot. And Ron Paul 2012's site being used to try and defend that endorsement as well, was just more icing on King Romney's cake.

Doug Wead might have been right, when he said Ron Paul supporters/delegates wouldn't switch their votes at a brokered convention, like some others would for a box of Godiva chocolates. Unfortunately for Ron Paul supporters though, Ron Paul 2012 apparently didn't have very many of those type of supporters on staff.

Hope you can see that flag flapping, behind all the facts of a fraud campaign.

Again, either Rand was complicit in some of these things, and we will see this in who he brings in on his staff in 2016; or, he was clueless and just going along, making a poor $160K+ as a Senator, without a clue in the political world what was really happening in Ron Paul 2012.

Either scenario, is not a good one for me.

I just hope that he can respect the supporters enough that were assaulted, arrested, and wasted time on a fraud campaign, to not bring back many employees from Ron Paul 2012.

Bastiat's The Law
02-21-2014, 02:30 AM
Well, you do occasionally rant against "anarchists" and/or complain when legitimate criticisms of Rand are brought up.

I think they're a distraction and naive.

compromise
02-21-2014, 06:50 AM
I'm not a big GJ fan either, but I don't think this little dig was necessary.

You can't expect people to take a guy who turns up to interviews baked seriously.

Tywysog Cymru
02-21-2014, 07:03 AM
You can't expect people to take a guy who turns up to interviews baked seriously.

I want to see that interview.

erowe1
02-21-2014, 07:55 AM
I'm not a big GJ fan either, but I don't think this little dig was necessary.

Since GJ used that as a selling point for himself, I don't consider a dig.

T.hill
02-25-2014, 04:39 PM
*sigh* LE, I'm voting for Rand; he still has my support. He doesn't have my 100% agreement with all of his rhetoric, however, and his most ardent supporters are a bit annoying with their hypersensitivity to any criticism. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Criticise Rand as you would anyone else or as you would Ron, but don't criticise him as though he's something lesser qualitatively. Criticising Rand on a situational basis is fine, but expect a response to counter-argue that criticism as you would expect the same from a ron paul supporter for ron.

What I have seen some do is treat Rand as something qualitatively worse than Ron for frivolous reasons. Exaggerating those frivolous reasons by pointing out how someone is so much better than Rand is kinda unfair and really splitting hairs.

How would you react if during rons campaign there was always a certain percentage of people who purposely pointed out superficial percieved flaws and claimed he was less of a liberty candidate for it?