Do you support Rand Paul for president?

[Rocco]

Been a couple of anti Rand threads lately and it's been a while since this sort of poll was taken, so I just wanted to take the pulse of RPF as far as whether or not you support Rand Paul for president.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Yes, and I will likely volunteer for the Rand Paul campaign.

[specsaregood]

As far as I know, Kelly has not yet given him permission to run for the office in question. I'll decide at that point. I do support what he is doing in the Senate though: kicking ass and making them take names.

[pcosmar]

Is he running?

and who are the other choices in the field?

At this point I am not even sure of an "election" at all.

[mosquitobite]

Where is the ABSOLUTELY! option?

[belian78]

Yeah, cause causing yet another fight around here is always productive right?

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, but not enthusiastically. And I'm getting more and more sick of politics, so I doubt I'll campaign.

[Dianne]

Absolutely !!! I won't stop until I see a Paul in the White House.

[eduardo89]

Yes, and if you do not support Rand you are either a communist or a member of al-qaeda and should be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

[compromise]

A libertarian that does not support Rand is no different from anyone else on the left or right that does not support Rand and should be treated in the exact same way.

The purists do not deserve to be put on a pedestal above Peter King, Al Sharpton et al.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

How many times has this been polled here?

[fisharmor]

I was going to support him, but I'm going to endorse Mitt Romney instead.

[Matthew5]

Start building your resume to retain RPF membership early! :D

[kathy88]

How many times has this been polled here?

By Rocco or a total?

[Reece]

A libertarian that does not support Rand is no different from anyone else on the left or right that does not support Rand and should be treated in the exact same way.

The purists do not deserve to be put on a pedestal above Peter King, Al Sharpton et al.

I'm hoping you aren't serious here. Even from a strategy perspective, these libertarians are far better than the average voter. They 1) Have other things they are doing to promote liberty besides voting. Considering one vote is almost meaningless, this is actually really important. 2) Will not be voting for an opponent of Rand that could actually beat him. If it was Rand versus Hillary, for example, and these libertarians voted for the Libertarian or not at all, they would clearly be better for Rand than a Hillary voter.

As for Peter King and Al Sharpton, that is way too far. How many of these libertarians voted for the 2012 NDAA? How many voted for bailing out GM and Chrysler? How many voted to make the Patriot Act permanent? I could go on for ages.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm hoping you aren't serious here. Even from a strategy perspective, these libertarians are far better than the average voter. They 1) Have other things they are doing to promote liberty besides voting. Considering one vote is almost meaningless, this is actually really important. 2) Will not be voting for an opponent of Rand that could actually beat him. If it was Rand versus Hillary, for example, and these libertarians voted for the Libertarian or not at all, they would clearly be better for Rand than a Hillary voter.

As for Peter King and Al Sharpton, that is way too far. How many of these libertarians voted for the 2012 NDAA? How many voted for bailing out GM and Chrysler? How many voted to make the Patriot Act permanent? I could go on for ages.

Its people like Compromise that make me seriously consider writing in Laurence Vance out of spite:p

[mrsat_98]

Where is the ABSOLUTELY! option?

Right next to NO ONE BUT PAUL.

[mtr1979]

I voted no because Rand Paul is not his father.

[Reece]

Its people like Compromise that make me seriously consider writing in Laurence Vance out of spite:p

Haha :) That's a great point - I'm not sure what comparing libertarians that won't vote for Rand to Peter King accomplishes, besides pushing these people off. Pushing away a potential voter is just as big of a deal as one libertarian deciding not to vote.

[ClydeCoulter]

I do like that he is promoting ideas across the political divide. Going where republicans don't normally go.

I also don't think the democrats and independents are going to be fooled. But because of his outreach, maybe, just maybe they will take a look across the isle at who is running.

If the right person(s) will step up in the right places, maybe they will get a chance to be heard that would not otherwise be heard by those that Rand is reaching out to.

Crazier things have happened. :)

[phill4paul]

It's early. We'll see. Undecided.

[Cabal]

I'm hoping you aren't serious here.

He is very serious, I'm afraid.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I was going to support him, but I'm going to endorse Mitt Romney instead.

I hope you'll at least wait until Rand Paul announces he's suspending his campaign, as Ron Paul did in early May 2012, and Romney has become the presumptive nominee, as Romney did after winning Texas on May 29, 2012, before doing such a thing. Remember, Rand Paul waited until after all that, endorsing Romney in June of that year.

Though it is hard to imagine Romney getting that far again.

[fisharmor]

I hope you'll at least wait until Rand Paul announces he's suspending his campaign

Yeah, I'm familiar with this particular outright lie that you guys like to trot out every time it comes up.

[Reece]

Yeah, I'm familiar with this particular outright lie that you guys like to trot out every time it comes up.

Even if that is false, Rand clearly did campaign for Ron through the entire 2007-2008 campaign, and then during a large part of the 2011-2012 campaign (and the part that mattered most, early on, before Iowa and NH).

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Yeah, I'm familiar with this particular outright lie that you guys like to trot out every time it comes up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012


On May 14, 2012, Paul announced that he would end active campaigning.

Not sure in what fantasy world one would have to live in to think Ron Paul was still a for-real presidential candidate in June 2012.

[unknown]

Yes and hope to be much more active.

Only wish I had found these forums sooner.

[unknown]

Dupe.

[69360]

Another one of these? It's getting to be a weekly thing.

[Jingles]

Rand plays politics and I absolutely hate it. I suppose you have to do that though when you have a stupid and/or disinterested public. I just put undecided because I'm not sure if I'll be out campaigning or whatever. A lot can happen in until the actual race starts. I'll more than likely vote for him in the primaries. I really don't think much of voting anyways. If he goes further than that I will in the general as well, probably.

Rand just doesn't bring the same enthusiasm that Ron brought to me. I'll probably support him in hopes that beneath all the political pandering there will be some awesome stuff when he gets in office. If he up and pulls a Reagan then he will just be dead to me. I won't ever try to defend positions or actions of his I disagree with if he is president.

It is fine to work on electing him and etc... But don't forget your roots/true views in the mess of the electoral process. We work to advance principles, not men.

[PAF]

Start building your resume to retain RPF membership early! :D

I do not participate on this board, I post only when necessary. ^^ What does this mean?

[singe22]

It means if your not going to be excited about Rand like many was about his father and you post something not agreeing with Rand's politics you will be banned. Hypocrisy is alive and well in America!

[cajuncocoa]

It means if your not going to be excited about Rand like many was about his father and you post something not agreeing with Rand's politics you will be banned. Hypocrisy is alive and well in America!
There are many here who would like that to be the official policy, but I don't think it will be.


I may be wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

Haha :) That's a great point - I'm not sure what comparing libertarians that won't vote for Rand to Peter King accomplishes, besides pushing these people off. Pushing away a potential voter is just as big of a deal as one libertarian deciding not to vote.

I'm actually posting this now to make a point: I do like Rand to some degree but I'm not in any way attached to him and I don't think he's his dad. I'm not afraid to not vote for him solely based on what happens on these forums if dissenting views get squashed. I hope I'm not the only one.

[KingNothing]

I'm actually posting this now to make a point: I do like Rand to some degree but I'm not in any way attached to him and I don't think he's his dad. I'm not afraid to not vote for him solely based on what happens on these forums if dissenting views get squashed. I hope I'm not the only one.


As a politician, I like Rand better than his father.

As a statesman, I like Ron better than his son.

They're different men who have different aspirations and different styles. Both are ABSOLUTELY necessary and very important to America. Having one without the other is entirely meaningless. We need both.

[Occam's Banana]

I did not vote in the poll, because I do not know what "support" is supposed to mean in this context (and the OP does not bother to explain).

If "support" means "voting for Rand if he is the GOP nominee for POTUS" then the answer is "probably - assuming I bother to vote at all ..."

But if it means "wanting Rand to run for POTUS" then the answer is an emphatic "no." I think Rand should just stay where he is right now - in the senate. When it comes to electoral politics, the liberty movement should really stop obsessing so much over the bright, shiny object of the presidency. I know that there are positive things that Rand could theoretically do as POTUS - but if Rand actually does become president, I think a LOT of people are going to end up being VERY disappointed over (at least) three things.

First, they'll be disappointed at the limited range of what President Rand actually tries to accomplish. Without a sufficient base of support in Congress, Rand is going to have serious problems pursuing any kind of across-the-board "libertarian" agenda. Rand is too smart to waste his time on non-starters. (And of course, we'll see the usual "looking ahead to the next election" phenomenon rearing its ugly head ...)

Second, from among the things he does try to do, they'll be disappointed at what he is actually able to accomplish. He'll have to expend enormous "political capital" in order to do anything really significant against Establishment opposition - which will be heavy and will come from both Republicans & Democrats. (And the "next election" syndrome will be a factor here as well.)

And third, they'll be disappointed at the lack of "durability" that much of what Rand might be able to achieve will have. Executive orders can be superceded by subsequent presidents, policies can be reversed or old ones reinstated, etc., etc. Without a sufficiently large & assertive pro-liberty base in Congress, anything that Rand might do as president can be just as easily undone by the next administration.

In short, you can't climb a mountain by starting at the top - and it is foolish to let the vanguard get too far ahead of the main body of your forces. It takes time, patience and diligence - and the "instant gratification" promised by "silver bullets" (such as taking POTUS before the necessary foundations are laid) is illusory

[mad cow]

Everything you just said is also true in spades for Ron Paul,yet here we are on a site that was formed and dedicated to getting him elected President of the United States of America.
I guess we're just a bunch of starry-eyed optimists at heart.

[singe22]

Everything you just said is also true in spades for Ron Paul,yet here we are on a site that was formed and dedicated to getting him elected President of the United States of America.
I guess we're just a bunch of starry-eyed optimists at heart.

My take is this. Ron Paul woke me up. Just like many others. His speeches 99% of the time are educational. So a Ron Paul president would be the good doctor educating the american people.

Rand from my opinion isn't having that effect on people. Serious is there anyone new to these forums or whatnot talking about how Rand Paul cured their apathy? I was proud of him for the filibuster. People didn't even know what that was, some was saying it was illegal. (not on this forum) So i got good laughs about how uniformed they are. The politics stuff is annoying. Just think why did Ron stayed in office for so long. He was kept there by his people, not because of the back room deals with other politicians.

[jllundqu]

Rand plays politics and I absolutely hate it. I suppose you have to do that though when you have a stupid and/or disinterested public. I just put undecided because I'm not sure if I'll be out campaigning or whatever. A lot can happen in until the actual race starts. I'll more than likely vote for him in the primaries. I really don't think much of voting anyways. If he goes further than that I will in the general as well, probably.

Rand just doesn't bring the same enthusiasm that Ron brought to me. I'll probably support him in hopes that beneath all the political pandering there will be some awesome stuff when he gets in office. If he up and pulls a Reagan then he will just be dead to me. I won't ever try to defend positions or actions of his I disagree with if he is president.

It is fine to work on electing him and etc... But don't forget your roots/true views in the mess of the electoral process. We work to advance principles, not men.

Amen brother. +rep

[jllundqu]

My take is this. Ron Paul woke me up. Just like many others. His speeches 99% of the time are educational. So a Ron Paul president would be the good doctor educating the american people.

Rand from my opinion isn't having that effect on people. Serious is there anyone new to these forums or whatnot talking about how Rand Paul cured their apathy? I was proud of him for the filibuster. People didn't even know what that was, some was saying it was illegal. (not on this forum) So i got good laughs about how uniformed they are. The politics stuff is annoying. Just think why did Ron stayed in office for so long. He was kept there by his people, not because of the back room deals with other politicians.

Very good points.

I don't see thousands of inspirational youtube videos claiming that Rand Paul cured their apathy...

Ron Paul had the magic. Rand may be a good president, but I don't think he will be a GREAT one.

[compromise]

Very good points.

I don't see thousands of inspirational youtube videos claiming that Rand Paul cured their apathy...

Ron Paul had the magic. Rand may be a good president, but I don't think he will be a GREAT one.
It sure seemed like Rand "woke up" that black Obama supporter guy on Hannity.

[jllundqu]

It sure seemed like Rand "woke up" that black Obama supporter guy on Hannity.

I did hear that segment, but even still he said he would most likely vote for hillary... I'm sorry but if you don't see the difference between Rand and Hillary, your opinion doesnt really mean that much (referring to the guy on Hannity)

[eduardo89]

I did hear that segment, but even still he said he would most likely vote for hillary... I'm sorry but if you don't see the difference between Rand and Hillary, your opinion doesnt really mean that much (referring to the guy on Hannity)

It's still early. The whole fact that he is considering Rand and praising him is more than any other Republican can say about their impact on black voters.

[Occam's Banana]

Everything you just said is also true in spades for Ron Paul

That is absolutely correct.


yet here we are on a site that was formed and dedicated to getting him elected President of the United States of America.

"Having a forum website dedicated to getting someone elected to office" (on the one hand) and "someone actually being able to do very much while he or she is in office" (on the other hand) are two entirely different things.

Ron Paul was not actually trying to become president. He was trying to educate people, wake them up, and rally them to action. If by some miracle he had become president, his presidency would have faced the same serious problems I pointed out with respect to Rand in my earlier post. Even moreso, in fact. As president, Ron would have been able to accomplish even less than what Rand will.


I guess we're just a bunch of starry-eyed optimists at heart.

And you'll be very disappointed ones if you expect that a libertarian POTUS in 2016 will be able to do a whole lot, even if he's willing to push it. We need more Massies, Amashes, Davises, Brannons, Bradleys, etc - in both state and federal office - before taking POTUS will make any lasting difference.

You can't build a sturdy house by starting on the top floor - and if you try, the Establishment will just huff and puff and blow your house down ...

[mad cow]

I'll stick to my belief that Rand Paul would do more good than Hillary Clinton,for instance.

Yes,I'm a starry-eyed dreamer.

[William Tell]

And you'll be very disappointed ones if you expect that a libertarian POTUS in 2016 will be able to do a whole lot, even if he's willing to push it. We need more Massies, Amashes, Davises, Brannons, Bradleys, etc - in both state and federal office - before taking POTUS will make any lasting difference.

You can't build a sturdy house by starting on the top floor - and if you try, the Establishment will just huff and puff and blow your house down ...

I agree mostly, but keeping us out of WWIII would be a definite plus. We should focus much more on local candidates.

[Occam's Banana]

I'll stick to my belief that Rand Paul would do more good than Hillary Clinton,for instance.

I have no doubt that he would. That is not the point. The point is that the "more" won't be nearly as much as some people seem to imagine it will be - and that it won't last.

It may "feel good" and be wonderfully gratifying to "starry-eyed dreamers" - but until there is sufficient anti-Establishment support from below, a Paul in the Senate will be worth more than a Paul in the Oval Office.


Yes,I'm a starry-eyed dreamer.

*shrug* And as I said, you'll be a disappointed one if you think that a 2016 Rand Paul POTUSship will be anything but a blip.
Neither sufficient impetus nor the necessary foundations for anything else are there yet.


I agree mostly, but keeping us out of WWIII would be a definite plus. We should focus much more on local candidates.

I don't really think that WW3 is in the cards. The assholes in Washington are full of bluff & bluster - but they don't really have the balls to throw down on anyone but Afghani goatherds and the like. But supposing that they did have the 'nads and Rand was able to rein them in, then that would be about the only real, long-term plus I could see coming out of a Paul POTUSship at this stage.

There might very well be a number of short-term plusses - but they would be minor, ephemeral and/or unsustainable without the needed support (from sufficiently influential blocs in Congress and elsewhere). And every negative thing that happens - no matter how small or large and no matter who or what is really at fault - will be relentlessly blamed on Rand Paul and "libertarian" policies. Better to build numbers and influence elsewhere until we have a sufficient base from which a libertarian POTUS can weather such slings and arrows - rather than push the van so far ahead that it can be cut off and isolated, surrounded and destroyed.

[mad cow]

Hey,I'm not a 'purist'.I'm perfectly happy with steps in the right direction.I think Rand Paul would be a huge step.

[Occam's Banana]

Hey,I'm not a 'purist'.I'm perfectly happy with steps in the right direction.I think Rand Paul would be a huge step.

It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with "purism" or "gradualism" or any such thing. It has everything to do with not being able to preserve (let alone extend) whatever accomplishments a "libertarian" POTUS might be able to achieve at present.

Until the Liberty Movement can build sufficient numbers and influence to defend its gains, having someone "at the top" is not going be a "huge step" - it is just going to be a temporary and (ultimately) disappointing blip. Without the necessary foundations, a "liberty" POTUS like Rand is just NOT going to be able to implement a strongly or significantly libertarian agenda - and without those foundations, whatever he *is* able to achieve won't be able to last. I don't like it, and I very much wish it were otherwise - but it is what it is. Winning POTUS should be the LAST thing on our checklist - NOT the first.

[helmuth_hubener]

Occam's Banana's warnings are wise. Expectations should be low. Victory is probably a long way off.

However, I always like to think about the contrary point of view as well. If there were a truly libertarian President elected, and that man had integrity and gumption, I think a lot could be accomplished. For one thing, the election of such a person would signal a sea-change in American opinion. Even if not a single new member of Congress were elected, a support base for the libertarian ideology in Congress almost certainly would arise, because congressmen are just not that principled. They're not that ideological, for the most part. If Mr. Libertarian just got elected, guess what? They are going to be on board, to an extent. They are constantly licking their finger and holding it to the wind.

Also, the President of the United States has a huge pulpit from which to preach and a enormously heavy mantle of credibility. He cannot just be ignored.

Here is what a libertarian President could do:



What Could a Libertarian President Do?

By Harry Browne

I’d like to tell you what actions I’d take if I’d been elected president.

After my inaugural day, I’d probably spend little more than an hour a day in the Oval Office, because a busy president is a dangerous president. But for the very first day, I’d have an extremely long agenda.

On that first day in office, by executive order I would:



Pardon everyone who had been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order their immediate release, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights. (Anyone convicted of using violence against someone else in a drug case would not qualify as “non-violent.”)

Pardon everyone who had been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, tax-evasion charge, or any other victimless crime, order their immediate release, and restore all their civil rights.

I would empty the prisons of those who haven’t harmed anyone else and make room for the violent criminals who are currently getting out on plea bargains and early release.

Following the issuance of the pardons:


I would announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violated the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.

I would immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture could occur unless the property’s owner had been convicted by full due process. And I would initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property had been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without a legal conviction. (Over 80 percent of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.)

As commander in chief of the Armed Forces, I would immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This would save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but — more important — it would make sure your sons and daughters never fight or die in someone else’s war.

I would order everyone in the executive branch to stop harassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as “cults”), investment companies, health-care providers, businessmen, or anyone else who’s conducting his affairs peaceably.

I would end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. Any previous president could have done this with a stroke of the pen. Do you wonder why none of them did?


And then I would break for lunch.

There’s More…

After lunch, I would begin the process of removing from the Federal Register the thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. In most cases these regulations give federal employees powers for which there is no constitutional authority.

I would call Office Depot and order a carload of pens — to use to veto congressional bills that violate the Constitution or that spend more money than necessary for the constitutional functions of government.

I would send to Congress a budget that immediately cuts federal spending in half — on its way to reducing the government to no larger than its constitutional size.

Congress would undoubtedly pass a larger budget and expect me to sign it. I wouldn’t. I’d veto it.

Would Congress override my veto?

Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t.

Even if Congress succeeded in passing bills over my veto, the battle finally would be joined. We finally would have something we haven’t had in my lifetime — a president standing up to Congress.

At long last, there would be two sides arguing in Washington — one to increase government and one to cut it sharply — instead of the current trivial debate over whether government should grow 5 percent a year or “only” 3 percent.

Just Say No

No president in the past several decades has had the will, the determination, the courage to “just say no” to Congress.

No president in the past several decades has even tried to reduce the size of government. Any president who wanted to do so could have managed it — even in the face of a hostile Congress.

No president since the 1950s has proposed a single budget that would reduce the size of the federal government. And when Congress has come back with even larger budgets, no president has vetoed them.

Every president who claimed to be against big government has had that veto at his disposal, but none thought enough of your freedom to use it.

As president, I would — for the first time — use that office on your behalf. I would say no to Congress. Whatever new program it wanted to spend money on, I would veto. Whatever new tax it wanted to impose, I would veto. Whatever new intrusion it wanted to make in your life, I would veto.

No deals. No excuses. No apologies. No regrets.

But I would do more than just defend what little freedom you have left today. I would go on the offensive. I wouldn’t rest until the income tax was repealed, the federal government was so small you wouldn’t worry about who was elected president, and you had control over your own money, your own freedom, your own life.

And when we achieved this, we’d have a celebration. Do you remember the German youths who tore down the Berlin Wall and sold pieces of it to us?

Well, we would tear down the IRS building and sell the pieces — and use the proceeds to help IRS agents find honest work.

Do you think any of my plans would appeal to George W. Bush or Al Gore?

Not likely, is it?

So why are we worrying over which one of them will win the current legal mud-wrestling?

-- http://www.wnd.com/2000/12/517/

[mad cow]

My checklist is not numbered,I support them from the bottom of the pyramid to the top.

Speaking of which,Justin Amash is having a money-bomb today,have you donated yet?I have.

[Brett85]

Yes, as long as he makes it clear that he's pro life and doesn't pander on that issue to please all these liberal millennials.