If Rand Paul Loses GOP Primary, What Will You Do?

[Tywysog Cymru]

If Rand Paul runs for the Republican nomination and loses it, will you vote for the Republican candidate, the Democrat, third party, or just stay home?

I'll vote Libertarian or Constitution in this situation.

[surf]

unless the republican candidate or his/her veep is named massie or amash, i'll probably write in Ron Paul again if the libertarian party can't find a good candidate.

[Uriah]

I'll wait and see what my options are.

[rp08orbust]

Not be shocked.

[VIDEODROME]

Gary Johnson

lol

[Bryan]

There is not enough information to know at this point, so I can't vote in this poll.

[Christian Liberty]

I voted third party, but I agree with Bryan that we can't know for sure yet. But, my "default" option would be to look at the LP and CP candidates and go from there.

[William Tell]

I voted third party, but I agree with Bryan that we can't know for sure yet. But, my "default" option would be to look at the LP and CP candidates and go from there.

Same here. I don't have a problem with any party, but I don't expect a good nominee out of the R's unless its Rand.

[anaconda]

Rand is incredibly valuable in the Senate. Just stay there. And I want Obama to run for House of Representatives. Just like former President John Quincy Adams. And I want Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic Party debates in 2015-16.

[Ronin Truth]

Probably just about the same thing I'm doing now.

[Anti Federalist]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.

[GunnyFreedom]

No option for "dig a big heavily fortified hole and get into it with ammo and food and wait" couldn't answer the poll.

[69360]

Depends on who wins. Not enough information to form an opinion yet.

Sometimes I will vote 3rd party, sometime I vote GOP depending on who it is and who they are against.

[ZakCarter]

If Rand Paul doesn't win, I'd really appreciate all your help with this - http://opendebates2016.com/ - !

[Inkblots]

I imagine I'll vote third party and start stocking up on canned goods.

[erowe1]

I know it's early, but at this point I'm disappointed that so few people say they will stay home.

On the other hand, it's really encouraging that so far we have 0 people who will vote Republican.

[mt4rp]

I decided to No longer Consent after the 2012 election.

[specsaregood]

I know it's early, but at this point I'm disappointed that so few people say they will stay home.


Meh, you can just keep on feeling that much extra special.

[William Tell]

I decided to No longer Consent after the 2012 election.

Apathy is essentially consent. Most people do not vote in most elections. If those who did not vote actually cared, they could take the country back.

[Bryan]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.
This should have been in the poll.

[willwash]

I'm surprised I'm the only one who voted for "vote Democratic so Rand can run in 2016".

That's why I voted for Obama in 2012.

[fisharmor]

I will be sure to point out here, a lot, that pandering to the establishment Republicans didn't work.

[Matt Collins]

What will I do?

Take the massive lists we have acquired and begin to get liberty candidates elected on the state level.

[Peace&Freedom]

I will be sure to point out here, a lot, that pandering to the establishment Republicans didn't work.

Massive Thread Winner.

[GunnyFreedom]

What will I do?

Take the massive lists we have acquired and begin to get liberty candidates elected on the state level.

Bullshit. If state level liberty candidates have ever had access to those lists we'd be 5 years ahead of where we are today.

[cajuncocoa]

I will be sure to point out here, a lot, that pandering to the establishment Republicans didn't work.
BINGO.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't vote in public polls. ;)

[thoughtomator]

I don't think the integrity of voting in this country is credible in the first place, so showing up would be completely pointless. I'd probably vote in the primary just to hedge my bets, but getting off my ass to vote for someone with zero chance of being the victor even in an honest election is a waste of time.

[Brett85]

I don't know. Rank and file Republican types demand that you vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who it is. People in the liberty movement demand that you not vote for the Republican nominee in the general election, unless it's Ron Paul or Rand Paul. I would rather stop listening to other people and just do whatever I feel is right. I'm getting to the point where I don't feel like I have to get permission from certain people before I can vote a certain way.

[Matt Collins]

Bullshit. If state level liberty candidates have ever had access to those lists we'd be 5 years ahead of where we are today.Some of us do, and are. :)

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know. Rank and file Republican types demand that you vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who it is. People in the liberty movement demand that you not vote for the Republican nominee in the general election, unless it's Ron Paul or Rand Paul. I would rather stop listening to other people and just do whatever I feel is right. I'm getting to the point where I don't feel like I have to get permission from certain people before I can vote a certain way.

Why would you ever need permission? That's not the issue at all.

[mt4rp]

Apathy is essentially consent. Most people do not vote in most elections. If those who did not vote actually cared, they could take the country back.

There's a difference between not voting & taking back your consent.
When enough of us no longer consent, we will take back the country.

[H. E. Panqui]

William Tell Limbaughs: Apathy is essentially consent. Most people do not vote in most elections. If those who did not vote actually cared, they could take the country back.

:eek::rolleyes:

(What an absolutely stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid statement!! Intelligent people don't 'vote' because they don't want to affirm/encourage the gd puppet creeps you Republicrats place on the stinking phony ballots...btw, if you 'cared' enough to learn even a little REALITY about your stinking money system, etc., you wouldn't be playing the fool, voting for/affirming Republicrat peckerheads every stinking ($)election..) ;)

Btw, i apologize to others for my bad humor, but this obvious Republican shill, William Troll, has been following me around, neg. repping me, like a typical Republicrat snotty fink...i'm sure he's done it others too!)

[Tywysog Cymru]

Is there any chance that Baldwin would run again?

[William Tell]

Is there any chance that Baldwin would run again?

I kind of doubt it, I would love him to run though. His VP Darell Castle will probably run and win the CP nomination this time.

[William Tell]

Actually, Mr. Panqui, I rarely neg rep. There is only a small handful of people I have negged. You are kind of a special case, with your rudeness, immaturity, and downright obnoxious attitude.

I have only once voted for a GOP candidate in a general election. I am perfectly aware of the monetary system.
Your relentless name calling reminds me of Mark Levin, another obnoxious individual who knows how to annoy people.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I kind of doubt it, I would love him to run though. His VP Darell Castle will probably run and win the CP nomination this time.

I honestly don't know much about Castle, I assume he's similar to Baldwin. But Chuck's recent articles on the police state have been really good, I feel like now would be a good time for Baldwin's message.

[erowe1]

Apathy is essentially consent. Most people do not vote in most elections. If those who did not vote actually cared, they could take the country back.

By voting? No they couldn't.

[William Tell]

I honestly don't know much about Castle, I assume he's similar to Baldwin. But Chuck's recent articles on the police state have been really good, I feel like now would be a good time for Baldwin's message.

Chuck is awesome! I don't know much about Castle either, I would imagine he's similar though.
Maybe Baldwin would run if enough people want him to? I'm still bummed that I was not old enough to vote for him in 2008.:(

[William Tell]

I know it's early, but at this point I'm disappointed that so few people say they will stay home.
I see no benefit to staying home.


By voting? No they couldn't.

Why not? If nobody had supported Ron Paul, would we be better off?
When no pro liberty people vote, a pro tyranny candidate will win every time. When pro liberty people vote, we sometimes win. Voting for liberty candidates is an obvious conclusion.

[erowe1]

I see no benefit to staying home.



Why not? If nobody had supported Ron Paul, would we be better off?
When no pro liberty people vote, a pro tyranny candidate will win every time. When pro liberty people vote, we sometimes win. Voting for liberty candidates is an obvious conclusion.

Getting all those nonvoters to vote for liberty is not an option. It will cost a billion dollars to buy their votes. And the people who can spend that billion dollars don't want to spend it on liberty for the rest of us.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Chuck is awesome! I don't know much about Castle either, I would imagine he's similar though.
Maybe Baldwin would run if enough people want him to? I'm still bummed that I was not old enough to vote for him in 2008.:(

Me too, and I was too young to vote in 2012, which means I'll never get the chance to vote for Ron Paul.

[Matt McGuire]

I can imagine either voting third party or even just writing Ron Paul in again :)

[Christian Liberty]

William Tell Limbaughs: Apathy is essentially consent. Most people do not vote in most elections. If those who did not vote actually cared, they could take the country back.

:eek::rolleyes:

(What an absolutely stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid statement!! Intelligent people don't 'vote' because they don't want to affirm/encourage the gd puppet creeps you Republicrats place on the stinking phony ballots...btw, if you 'cared' enough to learn even a little REALITY about your stinking money system, etc., you wouldn't be playing the fool, voting for/affirming Republicrat peckerheads every stinking ($)election..) ;)

Btw, i apologize to others for my bad humor, but this obvious Republican shill, William Troll, has been following me around, neg. repping me, like a typical Republicrat snotty fink...i'm sure he's done it others too!)

I don't think Will is telling you to vote GOP. Just to vote. Its one thing to say that not voting is a better tactic for liberty, and that's a valid argument to make. But disagreeing on that doesn't make you a GOP shill.


Me too, and I was too young to vote in 2012, which means I'll never get the chance to vote for Ron Paul.

Me either...

[William Tell]

Me too, and I was too young to vote in 2012, which means I'll never get the chance to vote for Ron Paul.

Awww, sorry to hear that. My vote for Ron Paul in 2012 was my very first vote! :D

[William Tell]

I don't think Will is telling you to vote GOP. Just to vote. Its one thing to say that not voting is a better tactic for liberty, and that's a valid argument to make. But disagreeing on that doesn't make you a GOP shill.

He can do as he likes, I promote voting for people I consider liberty candidates, regardless of party. I have seen very significant elections won by a margin of a few hundred votes. I would certainly like it for everyone to vote for good candidates.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the liberty movement is better off because of Ron Paul being elected to congress. And later running for president.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Awww, sorry to hear that. My vote for Ron Paul in 2012 was my very first vote! :D

Well, if I was old enough to vote in 2012 I might not have voted for him. I liked some things he said but it wasn't until the general election came that I realized that the Republicans weren't the answer. I think I came to this realization during one of the debates when either Romney or Ryan said that we weren't spending enough on our military. I then thought to myself "this is hypocritical, you attack Obama over the deficit, but then demand that he spend more?" Then the whole issue of cutting funding for Sesame Street came up and I realized that Romney was going after that because he doesn't plan on cutting spending anywhere else. Of course, it was not all my own journey, FreedomFanatic helped me along on another forum.

[Christian Liberty]

He can do as he likes, I promote voting for people I consider liberty candidates, regardless of party. I have seen very significant elections won by a margin of a few hundred votes. I would certainly like it for everyone to vote for good candidates.

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the liberty movement is better off because of Ron Paul being elected to congress. And later running for president.

I agree with you but I think that's mostly because Ron Paul was primarily an educator and only a politician second. I am honestly uncertain how much difference other libertarian-leaning conservatives, who are not as philosophically consistet as Ron and are not primarily concerned with educating, will make for the liberty movement. That said, I'm willing to give it a shot (to a point). The choice between voting and staying home gets even trickier when the only semi-principled candidates are third party candidates without any real chance to win. I tend to think its better to vote for a good candidate regardless, but I can see why one would argue that not voting and thus not acknowledging the system would be better. Its primarily a strategic question.

I think that if pro-voting libertarians and anti-voting libertarians would both be nicer to each other, we'd be better off.

[jmdrake]

No option for "dig a big heavily fortified hole and get into it with ammo and food and wait" couldn't answer the poll.

Well I voted "Vote third party" because that's what I'll do while digging my bunker. ;) Actually I would seriously start looking offshore.

[CaptainAmerica]

I will tag everyone online with Doom Paul videos for self amusement

[muh_roads]

You don't have my option..."Leave the country".

I'll probably look into options that begin expatriating the wife and myself. Although I may try New Hampshire first.

[GunnyFreedom]

Some of us do, and are. :)

If you are the one getting these lists and those of us out there winning the hearts and minds of actual Republicans aren't, then I am sad to say that calls into serious question the judgement of Rothfeld Inc.


Dear Friends in Liberty,

Our R3VOLUTION is growing by leaps and bounds!

Today, I’d like to endorse – and urge you to vote for – Representative Glen Bradley for North Carolina State Senate District 18 in the May 8 Republican Primary.

Like you, Glen firmly believes in our founding principles of individual liberty, free markets, sound money, and constitutional government.

A Marine Corps veteran, he’s never once wavered in his convictions during his time in the State House – even when it meant standing against his own Party.

When Washington bureaucrats attempted to take over our entire food industry, Representative Bradley fought against them by introducing the Farmer’s Freedom Protection Act.

On every single issue – from guns to taxes to unnecessary regulations on small businesses to REAL ID – Representative Bradley has courageously fought Washington’s attempts to force federal rules and regulations on the good folks in North Carolina.

In fact, because of his efforts, he’s considered one of the leading advocates for using the Tenth Amendment to block federal regulations.

He’s also considered one of the leading advocates for sound money in the country, introducing legislation in North Carolina to allow silver and gold to once again be legal tender and speaking out on this issue on national TV.

If you agree that we need more principled men and women like Representative Bradley in office, then I hope you’ll agree to vote for Glen – and make a generous donation to his State Senate campaign if you can (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).

Glen doesn’t have – nor want – the special interest lobby funding his campaign.

He’s not a career politician. In fact, Glen was never involved in politics at all before he was inspired by my 2008 presidential run.

Instead, Glen is a true Patriot who is fed up with the corruption in government – and wants to do something about it.

And since the special interest lobby knows he’s running to put the brakes on their Big Government gravy train, you can be sure they’re going all out to defeat him during the upcoming May 8 Republican Primary.

That’s why Glenn is counting on good folks like you – who truly value individual liberty and freedom – to help him lead the fight against Big Government in the North Carolina State Senate.

You can do that by voting for Glen in the May 8 Republican Primary – and by contributing to his campaign (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).

Like Glen, I know what it’s like to take on the entire political establishment.

I’ve been doing it for more than 30 years now.

I’m confident that – with the help and support of folks like you – Glen has a great chance of becoming the next State Senator in District 18.

So please, help Glen fight the political establishment by voting for him for the State Senate on May 8 and by making a generous donation to his campaign (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/8454404:11780367853:m:1:339758114:0E54D770E32DE0EA 13C159A82881AAE3:r).

You won’t be disappointed you did!

For Liberty,

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/cimages/9e1a03df3a024e863ece9f4018b8c898/RPsig.jpg


Ron Paul

P.S. I’m proud to endorse Representative Glen Bradley’s campaign for State Senate, and I hope you’ll vote for him in the Tuesday, May 8 Republican primary and make a generous contribution to his campaign.

Glen firmly believes in our founding principles of individual liberty, free markets, sound money, and constitutional government.

[TaftFan]

Unless Cruz is the nominee, then I will focus more on some of the likely rematches (Greg Brannon, Chris McDaniel).

[Brett85]

Why would you ever need permission? That's not the issue at all.

There were people in 2012 who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the liberty movement if you voted for Romney in the general election. There were rank and file Republicans who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the Republican Party if you didn't vote for Romney in the general election. That's what I'm talking about, all of these ultimatums, that either you vote for a certain candidate or you get kicked out of a certain group you belong to.

[Champ]

This is the best question/poll that I have seen asked on these forums.

If Rand does fail, despite all his efforts to court the GOP base, then what are we?

Even if people vote for another GOP candidate, swear they will only vote 3rd party, want nothing to do with politics anymore, or decide to move outside of the country, there is still going to be a strong voice for liberty that exists, possibly scattered to the wind, but still intact. I'm very curious what that voice is going to do or be.

[Champ]

And I want Cynthia McKinney in the Democratic Party debates in 2015-16.

Assuming that you are not being sarcastic, yes, that would be awesome. It's too bad Elizabeth Warren decided not to run. It would be hilarious and insanely entertaining at the same time, to see the corporate sponsored, beloved Democrat and savior to all women in the world Hilary, taken down a few pegs by her own party and her own sex. Indefensible.

[H. E. Panqui]

William Tell writes: Awww, sorry to hear that. My vote for Ron Paul in 2012 was my very first vote!

:eek:

(good grief!...now i'm ashamed for intellectually abusing children!!.. and how can i find fault with you?..when i was your age i voted for the gd Republican puppet fool Reagan!..and your neg. reps. at least prove that you read me...keep that up..and thanks for the readership!)

[JK/SEA]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.

same.

[Krugminator2]

I have voted Libertarian in every election. Though I would vote for Scott Walker and perhaps Ted Cruz if they were the nominee (and not feel great about it.)

[Working Poor]

By voting? No they couldn't.


Okay I will take armed take over for $200 then

[Christian Liberty]

There were people in 2012 who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the liberty movement if you voted for Romney in the general election. There were rank and file Republicans who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the Republican Party if you didn't vote for Romney in the general election. That's what I'm talking about, all of these ultimatums, that either you vote for a certain candidate or you get kicked out of a certain group you belong to.

I'm not really sure how you could be intelligent and vote for Mittens, but the "liberty movement" is an informal group anyway, and I'm not sure why you'd care about the GOP at all.

[DFF]

Any of us who followed Ron Paul's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 know that the election process is a crock.

The elites have gamed the system, and aren't leaving the big decisions to the people.

So I think that voting in the presidential election is a complete waste of time...now local elections, and state reps, and possibly even senators (although there's most likely a lot of rigging at this level) that's another story.

[Anti Federalist]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.

http://i.imgur.com/0utF7.jpg

[Tinnuhana]

I will do what I did in 2008 and 2012:

Write in Ron Paul and rest well that night.

Ditto

[TheTexan]

If Rand Paul loses 2016, there is always 2020, or 2024.

2030 seems like a lucky year.

[Matt Collins]

Any of us who followed Ron Paul's campaigns in 2008 and 2012 know that the election process is a crock.

The elites have gamed the system, and aren't leaving the big decisions to the people.

So I think that voting in the presidential election is a complete waste of time...now local elections, and state reps, and possibly even senators (although there's most likely a lot of rigging at this level) that's another story.Yes and no... it's not a crock, but remember that Rand is doing things necessary to win and already has a leg up over everyone but two of the potential candidates: Jeb and Romney.

But I agree with you that the long term fight is at the state and local level, it's really easy to win a lot of those races with liberty people.

[jjdoyle]

If Rand Paul loses 2016, there is always 2020, or 2024.

2030 seems like a lucky year.

I was actually thinking 2054, since Isaac Newton predicted the world might end in 2060. Get in one good last President, then it's over!

[Dianne]

Vote third party. Can't and never will pull a lever for a Bush, Romney or a Clinton.

[Peace&Freedom]

There were people in 2012 who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the liberty movement if you voted for Romney in the general election. There were rank and file Republicans who made it sound like you couldn't be part of the Republican Party if you didn't vote for Romney in the general election. That's what I'm talking about, all of these ultimatums, that either you vote for a certain candidate or you get kicked out of a certain group you belong to.

The liberty movement, as clearly embodied by Ron Paul, stands for a non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Fed/stopping the banksters, ending the IRS, restoring civil liberties (at least those eroded by post 9-11 laws like the Patriot Act), and strict limits on federal power as per the original intent of the Constitution.

Romney stands for more war and intervention, no change whatsover with the Fed or the bankster-domination, no change with the IRS, or with the post-Patriot Act regime, and disregard for Constitutional limits on federal power.

Thus, if the movement has any coherence at all, Mitt is utterly incompatible with any basic aspect of our agenda. Do you support our having SOME line drawn in the sand, or is imploring us to be open to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is your ultimatum?

[philipped]

If Rand looses in 2016 we still electing liberty lovers on every other level of govt. Rand being the President is truly symbolistic at the end of the day. Symbolizing the country is moving back towards liberty, which is totally fine. But Libertarian leaning city commissioners, school board members, and state legislatures will make a way bigger difference then just one guy as the President. Republican Liberty Caucus county chapters everywhere if Rand looses! Just grow and develop and make it even harder for an establishment nominee come 2020.

[The Gold Standard]

Barring Ron or Rand running third party, I'll probably stay home. Why bother?

[AuH2O]

Unless Cruz is the nominee, then I will focus more on some of the likely rematches (Greg Brannon, Chris McDaniel).

There won't be any "rematches" since Senate terms are every six years. If Brannon wanted to run again, he'd be primarying an incumbent Republican rather than running in an open GOP primary to face off against a sitting Democrat. And there is no Senate race in Mississippi in 2016.

[Brett85]

The liberty movement, as clearly embodied by Ron Paul, stands for a non-interventionist foreign policy, ending the Fed/stopping the banksters, ending the IRS, restoring civil liberties (at least those eroded by post 9-11 laws like the Patriot Act), and strict limits on federal power as per the original intent of the Constitution.

Romney stands for more war and intervention, no change whatsover with the Fed or the bankster-domination, no change with the IRS, or with the post-Patriot Act regime, and disregard for Constitutional limits on federal power.

Thus, if the movement has any coherence at all, Mitt is utterly incompatible with any basic aspect of our agenda. Do you support our having SOME line drawn in the sand, or is imploring us to be open to vote for whoever the Republican nominee is your ultimatum?

I'm not saying that I voted for Romney or would ever vote for him. I voted for Chuck Baldwin on the Kansas Reform Party ticket. (Yes, he was on the ballot in Kansas but only in Kansas) But, I'm just saying the reason why I didn't vote for Romney is because I didn't want to vote for him, not because people were telling me that I wasn't allowed to vote for him. It's simply arrogant and egotistical for people to go around kicking others out of this movement because they may have viewed Romney as the lesser of two evils and voted for him for that reason. That's the attitude that some people have here, that if you decide to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you're no longer part of the movement. I'm certainly not saying that you or anyone else have to be "open to voting for the eventual GOP nominee." I'm just arguing that you and others shouldn't have an ultimatum that if Rand Paul isn't the nominee that everyone in the liberty movement has to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not saying that I voted for Romney or would ever vote for him. I voted for Chuck Baldwin on the Kansas Reform Party ticket. (Yes, he was on the ballot in Kansas but only in Kansas) But, I'm just saying the reason why I didn't vote for Romney is because I didn't want to vote for him, not because people were telling me that I wasn't allowed to vote for him. It's simply arrogant and egotistical for people to go around kicking others out of this movement because they may have viewed Romney as the lesser of two evils and voted for him for that reason. That's the attitude that some people have here, that if you decide to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you're no longer part of the movement. I'm certainly not saying that you or anyone else have to be "open to voting for the eventual GOP nominee." I'm just arguing that you and others shouldn't have an ultimatum that if Rand Paul isn't the nominee that everyone in the liberty movement has to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election.

There is no monolithic liberty movement. There is only individual libertarians and their opinions of other people. Someone is welcome to believe that anyone who votes for Romney is not really a libertarian if they want.

I think everyone in the liberty movement SHOULD vote third party or sit out the election if Rand isn't the nominee.

[Brett85]

I think everyone in the liberty movement SHOULD vote third party or sit out the election if Rand isn't the nominee.

What about Ben Carson? He's on record as being fairly anti war. He opposed the War in Iraq and said that he even opposed the War in Afghanistan, which is even farther than Rand has gone.

[ctiger2]

Change IF to WHEN.

[Peace&Freedom]

I'm not saying that I voted for Romney or would ever vote for him. I voted for Chuck Baldwin on the Kansas Reform Party ticket. (Yes, he was on the ballot in Kansas but only in Kansas) But, I'm just saying the reason why I didn't vote for Romney is because I didn't want to vote for him, not because people were telling me that I wasn't allowed to vote for him. It's simply arrogant and egotistical for people to go around kicking others out of this movement because they may have viewed Romney as the lesser of two evils and voted for him for that reason. That's the attitude that some people have here, that if you decide to vote for the eventual GOP nominee, you're no longer part of the movement. I'm certainly not saying that you or anyone else have to be "open to voting for the eventual GOP nominee." I'm just arguing that you and others shouldn't have an ultimatum that if Rand Paul isn't the nominee that everyone in the liberty movement has to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election.

Everyone here is free to vote for whomever they want, or believe whatever they want, including (on a case by case basis) voting for the lesser of two evils. But given the main agenda of pro-liberty people, it is reasonable to declare some politicians like Romney are "beyond the pale," given that they completely oppose ALL of that agenda.

Romney is not the lesser of two evils, he is as toxic to liberty as the Democrat would be, even more so because he would have right cover in office, just as GW Bush did. Obarry is actually the "lesser of two evils" figure, if you want to take that approach to its ultimate conclusion, because rank and file Republicans are willing to scrutinize his policies to a depth they would NEVER go if a Republican had beaten him, and enacted the same measures.

Our movement has a higher standard than cynical "lesser" pragmatism, and it is simply far more consistent for us to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election. If our advocacy of that sounds like an ultimatum, it is because anything less, means the exact status quo we are always complaining about.

[Christian Liberty]

What about Ben Carson? He's on record as being fairly anti war. He opposed the War in Iraq and said that he even opposed the War in Afghanistan, which is even farther than Rand has gone.

I decided I couldn't fathom supporting Ben when he endorsed the CIA torture program. I can see why someone could support him since he's better than most, but he's too nationalistic for me to consider.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H15KKXfEbXk
If Rand (and maybe Cruz) don't get the nom, this is the analysis I largely agree with.

[DFF]

Yes and no... it's not a crock, but remember that Rand is doing things necessary to win and already has a leg up over everyone but two of the potential candidates: Jeb and Romney.

But I agree with you that the long term fight is at the state and local level, it's really easy to win a lot of those races with liberty people.

The elites aren't giving up the Presidency to anyone unless they've been preapproved by them...plan a is to assassinate any anti-establishment candidates character, and if that doesn't work, then it's time for old reliable: outright vote fraud, which there was no doubt plenty of with Ron in 2008 and 2012.

But state and local will be where the fight is won, ultimately. And luckily these are still, for the most part, in the hands of the people.

[Matt Collins]

The elites aren't giving up the Presidency to anyone unless they've been preapproved by them...plan a is to assassinate any anti-establishment candidates character, and if that doesn't work, then it's time for old reliable: outright vote fraud, which there was no doubt plenty of with Ron in 2008 and 2012.Incorrect. Reagan was the anti-establishment candidate and he was able to fight the establishment and win.

And vote fraud is not widespread on a massive scale like some might think. It can happen in small amounts within a couple of percentage points in some isolated areas. But it's pretty impossible to pull it off in any large capacity.

Besides, polling lined up with election results.



But state and local will be where the fight is won, ultimately. And luckily these are still, for the most part, in the hands of the people.I agree with this absolutely. One person can make a huge change on the state and local level.

[jeffro97]

If Rand does lose, then I'll just go third party. If it's Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, then there's no point in me voting for them. I equally dislike both those men, and I wouldn't vote for the Democrat probably. I'll keep an eye on the LP. My hope is that it's either Gary J, or someone else who might be better. We'll see...

[Peace&Freedom]

Incorrect. Reagan was the anti-establishment candidate and he was able to fight the establishment and win.

And vote fraud is not widespread on a massive scale like some might think. It can happen in small amounts within a couple of percentage points in some isolated areas. But it's pretty impossible to pull it off in any large capacity.

Besides, polling lined up with election results.

Reagan was the last instance (35 years ago) of the establishment letting a relatively independent guy slip through, and notice they set him up for assassination (by a Bush neighbor, no less). Reagan was mainly compliant with the Bush/elite agenda after that, so it's fairer to say he is exhibit A confirmation of how the PTB rules the process.

After 1980 the SC "firewall" primary was established to lock in the anointed frontrunner, to prevent any more Reagans. And we have 7 years of detailed threads on this forum documenting that election fraud is a very widespread problem.

[Ronin Truth]

Punt!

[Brett85]

Everyone here is free to vote for whomever they want, or believe whatever they want, including (on a case by case basis) voting for the lesser of two evils. But given the main agenda of pro-liberty people, it is reasonable to declare some politicians like Romney are "beyond the pale," given that they completely oppose ALL of that agenda.

Romney is not the lesser of two evils, he is as toxic to liberty as the Democrat would be, even more so because he would have right cover in office, just as GW Bush did. Obarry is actually the "lesser of two evils" figure, if you want to take that approach to its ultimate conclusion, because rank and file Republicans are willing to scrutinize his policies to a depth they would NEVER go if a Republican had beaten him, and enacted the same measures.

Our movement has a higher standard than cynical "lesser" pragmatism, and it is simply far more consistent for us to either vote 3rd party or sit out the election. If our advocacy of that sounds like an ultimatum, it is because anything less, means the exact status quo we are always complaining about.

I see what you're saying. Personally, I'm more pragmatic than many here, and I would've voted for Romney had his foreign policy views not been so bad. I just felt like I couldn't vote for someone in good conscience who would get us involved in additional wars overseas. But I did feel that he was the lesser of two evils on domestic issues, that there were quite a few more domestic issues that I would agree with him on than Obama. He had proposals to significantly cut taxes which I agree with, he said he was for reducing regulations, was for ending funding for Planned Parenthood, etc. So I agreed with some of his positions on domestic issues and would've voted for him if the election had been based solely on that. For me, it's just the foreign policy issues that make me feel like I can't in good conscience vote for these Republican candidates. They're going around saying that Obama hasn't been "aggressive enough" on foreign policy. And they wouldn't have to adopt Ron Paul's foreign policy to get my vote, but merely moderate their foreign policy and not continue to take these positions that every war is a good war, that somehow constant U.S intervention makes the world "a safer place."

[Matt Collins]

And we have 7 years of detailed threads on this forum documenting that election fraud is a very widespread problem.No, we don't, and it's not.

[KingNothing]

If Rand is not the nominee, I will abstain from taking part in the charade that is voting for a standard Republican or a standard Democrat, and will not waste my vote on a third party candidate who has as much of a chance as winning as the general election as I do.

[Peace&Freedom]

No, we don't, and it's not.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385414-Compilation-and-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-of-fraud-abuse-shenanigans-in-GOP-conventions&highlight=election+fraud

[Matt Collins]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?385414-Compilation-and-vetting-of-VERIFIABLE-facts-of-fraud-abuse-shenanigans-in-GOP-conventions&highlight=election+fraud
Convention / caucus issues is not the same thing as election fraud.

[TheTexan]

Incorrect. Reagan was the anti-establishment candidate

Yes, excellent point there with Reagan being anti-establishment. He certainly wasn't like the others; he was conservative!

[westkyle]

I'm not sure who I'd choose. But, if it's Romney or Bush, I'd probably vote for a democrat just to spite the republican party for electing one of those fools.

[Todd]

If Rand Paul runs for the Republican nomination and loses it, will you vote for the Republican candidate, the Democrat, third party, or just stay home?

I'll vote Libertarian or Constitution in this situation.

Depends on who the candidate is though doesn't it?

I have 3 choices so far. 1. Vote 3rd party with stipulation above. 2. Stay home 3. Write in Ron Paul again.

[Todd]

Convention / caucus issues is not the same thing as election fraud.

Issues? More specific?

Because, it sure is like election fraud. When the game is rigged at this level, then Boobus Joe American watches the results and he doesn't know their was any shenanigans.

Are you saying the game isn't rigged? Then why did so many Liberty groups try to take control of local GOP leadership?

[Matt Collins]

Because, it sure is like election fraud. When the game is rigged at this level, then Boobus Joe American watches the results and he doesn't know their was any shenanigans.

Are you saying the game isn't rigged? Then why did so many Liberty groups try to take control of local GOP leadership?
Election fraud does not equate the procedural shenanigans that may exist at a convention or caucus. The two are very different.

[philipped]

So barely anybody on this forum is bout voting for an LP candidate IF AND ONLY IF Rand doesn't get the nomination?

*this would be the best year to do it tbh*

[GunnyFreedom]

So barely anybody on this forum is bout voting for an LP candidate IF AND ONLY IF Rand doesn't get the nomination?

*this would be the best year to do it tbh*

IF it's Bush v Clinton, THEN it will be the best opportunity in a century to go 3rd Party.

[philipped]

IF it's Bush v Clinton, THEN it will be the best opportunity in a century to go 3rd Party.

That's exactly what I meant I apologize for not being a little more specific lol.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Vote Republican, Party Loyalty!
Vote Democrat, so Rand can be the nominee in 2020!
Vote Third Party!
Stay Home, voting won't accomplish anything!
I don't like Rand and wouldn't vote for him.



I voted " Stay Home, voting won't accomplish anything!" --- oh wait, that was a "vote"... <facepalm>

[William Tell]

Vote Republican, Party Loyalty!
Vote Democrat, so Rand can be the nominee in 2020!
Vote Third Party!
Stay Home, voting won't accomplish anything!
I don't like Rand and wouldn't vote for him.



I voted " Stay Home, voting won't accomplish anything!" --- oh wait, that was a "vote"... <facepalm>

Yeah, the people vote that way in a poll crack me up!:p:)

[Vanguard101]

If the nominee is anyone except Walker, Cruz, Haley, or Paul, I'm done with politics. If it isn't Rand, I don't expect much change in the future.

[Occam's Banana]

I voted " Stay Home, voting won't accomplish anything!" --- oh wait, that was a "vote"... <facepalm>Yeah, the people vote that way in a poll crack me up!:p:)

And it didn't accomplish anything. So I call "QED" ... :p;)

[osan]

If Rand Paul runs for the Republican nomination and loses it, will you vote for the Republican candidate, the Democrat, third party, or just stay home?

I'll vote Libertarian or Constitution in this situation.

The first thing I will do is fail to be surprised.

[osan]

IF it's Bush v Clinton, THEN it will be the best opportunity in a century to go 3rd Party.

Probably... but it will still mean either a Bush or Clinton president.

[The Gold Standard]

IF it's Bush v Clinton, THEN it will be the best opportunity in a century to go 3rd Party.

This is true. But you can't waste that opportunity on someone who no one has ever heard of like Gary Johnson. If it's Bush vs. Clinton, Ron or Rand should run third party.

[erowe1]

So barely anybody on this forum is bout voting for an LP candidate IF AND ONLY IF Rand doesn't get the nomination?

*this would be the best year to do it tbh*

Why would it be the best year to do it?

[r3volution 3.0]

Third party, but I have to qualify that:

1. If by some freak occurrence some other libertarian won the primary, I'd obviously vote for that person. There's no such candidate on the field at the moment, but you never know.

2. If Rand got the VP slot, I'd vote for that ticket. I personally don't think it would be wise for Rand to accept a VP slot under any of these clowns, but if he decided otherwise, I'd assume he knows something I don't and defer to him.