PDA

View Full Version : Deace's Iowa odds for Rand




TaftFan
01-25-2015, 03:46 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/25/steve-deace-updated-iowa-caucus-odds-post-iowa-fre/



Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul: 25-1 (was 15-1)
It’s pretty hard to win Iowa when you don’t show up for either of the last two mega events hosted by the state’s two most influential conservatives — Bob Vander Plaats and Mr. King. I know several 2012 Ron Paul people who are either disillusioned and/or flirting with joining Cruz 2016. He needs to reassess his messaging and strategy.


I strongly agree with the bolded. Half the time Rand and his people are brilliant, the other half they look clueless. Getting it right half the time isn't good enough, and Rand is blowing his chance to win the nomination.

specsaregood
01-25-2015, 04:01 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/25/steve-deace-updated-iowa-caucus-odds-post-iowa-fre/

I strongly agree with the bolded. Half the time Rand and his people are brilliant, the other half they look clueless. Getting it right half the time isn't good enough, and Rand is blowing his chance to win the nomination.

Was Jeb or Mitt at these events?

Id take anything Deace says with a big dose of salt, he's been in the Bag for Cruz quite awhile now and will spin anything he can to hurt Randal and promote Rafael.

philipped
01-25-2015, 04:09 PM
Don't buy into the hype. Don't drain all your early campaign funds and attention on the first state.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 04:11 PM
Unfortunately, I think Steve is probably right. I don't know what Rand could be thinking when he'll meet with people like Bill Maher and Jesse Jackson but refuses to show up at events hosted by social conservatives in Iowa. I can't even begin to contemplate what he's thinking and why he's doing things like that.

specsaregood
01-25-2015, 04:13 PM
Unfortunately, I think Steve is probably right. I don't know what Rand could be thinking when he'll meet with people like Bill Maher and Jesse Jackson but refuses to show up at events hosted by social conservatives in Iowa. I can't even begin to contemplate what he's thinking and why he's doing things like that.

Was this event more important to attend than the Koch event in CA?

TaftFan
01-25-2015, 04:16 PM
Was Jeb or Mitt at these events?

Id take anything Deace says with a big dose of salt, he's been in the Bag for Cruz quite awhile now and will spin anything he can to hurt Randal and promote Rafael.

No, and they are hurting themselves too.

TaftFan
01-25-2015, 04:18 PM
Was this event more important to attend than the Koch event in CA?

Separate days. The other Koch invitees like Cruz and Walker are attending both.

TaftFan
01-25-2015, 04:19 PM
Don't buy into the hype. Don't drain all your early campaign funds and attention on the first state.It doesn't cost anything other than travel money to attend these two events.

specsaregood
01-25-2015, 04:27 PM
It doesn't cost anything other than travel money to attend these two events.

It costs a lot more than that. Physical taxation, mental taxation, family needs. The campaigns haven't even started, Randal is already one of the hardest working folks around, I see no need to criticize him limiting his engagements over a single weekend. If he thought he needed a day in order to be at 100% for the Koch event, then I figure he knows best.

twomp
01-25-2015, 04:40 PM
Steve Deace is a cry baby and trying to appease him is like trying to appease Bill O'Reilly. Those guys will never support Rand but they sure would like to use him for his popularity. The social cons will never vote for Rand. They are a lost cause. Let them argue with each other over Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum over who loves Jesus more. Rand Paul should be trying to appeal to the rational people in Iowa not the bible thumpers who won't vote for him anyways.

William Tell
01-25-2015, 04:46 PM
Steve Deace is a cry baby and trying to appease him is like trying to appease Bill O'Reilly. Those guys will never support Rand but they sure would like to use him for his popularity. The social cons will never vote for Rand. They are a lost cause. Let them argue with each other over Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum over who loves Jesus more. Rand Paul should be trying to appeal to the rational people in Iowa not the bible thumpers who won't vote for him anyways.

Ron Paul had a lot of Christian Homeschoolers and Pro Life activists as supporters.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 04:51 PM
Steve Deace is a cry baby and trying to appease him is like trying to appease Bill O'Reilly. Those guys will never support Rand but they sure would like to use him for his popularity. The social cons will never vote for Rand. They are a lost cause. Let them argue with each other over Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum over who loves Jesus more. Rand Paul should be trying to appeal to the rational people in Iowa not the bible thumpers who won't vote for him anyways.

If the social cons won't vote for Rand, then Rand won't win the Republican nomination. It's that simple. You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 04:54 PM
I see no need to criticize him limiting his engagements over a single weekend. If he thought he needed a day in order to be at 100% for the Koch event, then I figure he knows best.

This isn't the first time he skipped an event that was put on by a social conservative group in Iowa. This kind of stuff can't just keep going on. It's another unforced error. It needs to stop.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/08/why-did-rand-paul-skip-a-conservative-christian-event-to-hang-out-in-the-hamptons/375997/

Vanguard101
01-25-2015, 04:57 PM
social cons are basically irrelevant

TaftFan
01-25-2015, 05:00 PM
social cons are basically irrelevant
In the Iowa caucus? Try again.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 05:02 PM
In the Iowa caucus? Try again.

Some of these people just sound like they've never had any involvement in politics at all. Lol.

jjdoyle
01-25-2015, 05:03 PM
This isn't the first time he skipped an event that was put on by a social conservative group in Iowa. This kind of stuff can't just keep going on. It's another unforced error. It needs to stop.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/08/why-did-rand-paul-skip-a-conservative-christian-event-to-hang-out-in-the-hamptons/375997/

I honestly think Rand and his team have written Iowa off for a first place finish. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing Rand knows what the FEC investigation is going to reveal, and how that will play out locally. Ron Paul 2012's awesome top campaign staff made a Rand Paul 2016 attack ad if any of them are on staff, and even if none of them are really...since political ads will do guilt by association all day long.

I have looked at the FEC reports, and Ron Paul 2012 has paid out stupid amounts of money for a stupid investigation that should never have happened. The amounts they have paid out so far would have been enough to swing a state in Ron's favor, or potentially away from Mitt Romney if they had tried to actually win it after Iowa.

I said it months ago that I thought Rand had written Iowa off because of the Kent Sorenson issue, and I still think that is the case. I'm guessing he will try for a top three finish, but not necessarily spend the funds or time in the state for a first place finish.

francisco
01-25-2015, 05:36 PM
It costs a lot more than that. Physical taxation, mental taxation, family needs. The campaigns haven't even started, Randal is already one of the hardest working folks around, I see no need to criticize him limiting his engagements over a single weekend. If he thought he needed a day in order to be at 100% for the Koch event, then I figure he knows best.

+1

Uriah
01-25-2015, 05:41 PM
An event like this so far from the caucus has little impact on results. The event was mostly for extreme socon activists. Rand has been to Iowa several times already and will be here again next month. The Iowa GOP is diverse.

Okaloosa
01-25-2015, 05:42 PM
A forum with a lengthy list for 20 minutes of airtime versus not burning himself out or working on his long term viability instead. Having money and arguments that he will win in a general election are enough to swing voters who like someone else over to him. I assume he is figuring out if he can win in a general and then moving from there.

twomp
01-25-2015, 05:59 PM
If the social cons won't vote for Rand, then Rand won't win the Republican nomination. It's that simple. You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination.

Oh please they are no longer the "Republican Base", Mitt Romney won the nomination just fine without their support so get off your high horse. IT's time for the So-Cons to step out of the 80's, they are no longer relevant outside of Iowa and a few states and within Iowa they are losing their power as well. Look around the country, half the states now recognize gay marriage. More and more states are allowing Marijuana use. The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 06:08 PM
Oh please they are no longer the "Republican Base", Mitt Romney won the nomination just fine without their support so get off your high horse. IT's time for the So-Cons to step out of the 80's, they are no longer relevant outside of Iowa and a few states and within Iowa they are losing their power as well. Look around the country, half the states now recognize gay marriage. More and more states are allowing Marijuana use. The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.

Mitt Romney didn't win without their support. He had to win the support of a large number of them in order to win the GOP nomination. He had to switch his position on abortion from pro choice to pro life in order to win the GOP nomination. If he hadn't done that, he would've had no chance at all to win the GOP nomination.

twomp
01-25-2015, 06:12 PM
Mitt Romney didn't win without their support. He had to win the support of a large number of them in order to win the GOP nomination. He had to switch his position on abortion from pro choice to pro life in order to win the GOP nomination. If he hadn't done that, he would've had no chance at all to win the GOP nomination.

You talk like you've never been involved with politics at all. There was no one even close to Mitt Romney. Second place was a distant second place. The So-Cons threw their power (if you can even call it power) behind Santorum. They threw it behind Huckabee in 2008. Then when they had no other choice, they said go Romney, go McCain. They will support liars who oppose their causes just because the media told them. This is how principled So-Con voters are. They will only vote for Rand Paul if the media told them to (which they never will). They are incapable of thinking for themselves. So Rand Paul should just do the whole I love Israel thing that they love so much and move on towards attracting people that know how to think for themselves.

philipped
01-25-2015, 06:13 PM
Look around the country, half the states now recognize gay marriage. More and more states are allowing Marijuana use. The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.

*ding ding ding*

LawnWake
01-25-2015, 06:15 PM
I don't think that being 'pro life' is just a perquisite for social conservatives. It's one of being Republican (for the most part -- there are exceptions).

Romney didn't get support from social conservatives for his positions, but for "being the one that could beat Obama". The playing field is different now and so are some of the players and the key issues that will determine the race to the white house. I think Rand will have to more actively woo on social conservatives much more than Romney had to in 2012. Rand Paul is supposed to be the conservative choice with the wide voter base behind him. If that base doesn't include social conservatives, this could really ruin his chances in some key states during the primaries.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 06:26 PM
You talk like you've never been involved with politics at all. There was no one even close to Mitt Romney. Second place was a distant second place. The So-Cons threw their power (if you can even call it power) behind Santorum. They threw it behind Huckabee in 2008. Then when they had no other choice, they said go Romney, go McCain. They will support liars who oppose their causes just because the media told them. This is how principled So-Con voters are. They will only vote for Rand Paul if the media told them to (which they never will). They are incapable of thinking for themselves. So Rand Paul should just do the whole I love Israel thing that they love so much and move on towards attracting people that know how to think for themselves.

What was the difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on social issues? Nothing. They ran on the exact same social policy platform. The reason why Republicans nominated Romney was because he was seen as the more electable candidate. They didn't reject Santorum because of his views on social issues.

And anyway, I'm not even saying that Rand has to take all of the social con positions, just that he should at least show up and talk to them.

twomp
01-25-2015, 06:30 PM
What was the difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on social issues? Nothing. They ran on the exact same social policy platform. The reason why Republicans nominated Romney was because he was seen as the more electable candidate. They didn't reject Santorum because of his views on social issues.

And anyway, I'm not even saying that Rand has to take all of the social con positions, just that he should at least show up and talk to them.

How about the part where he supported Abortion, created Obamacare and is allowed to marry multiple wives? I guess that's not as important as hating gays and loving Israel to the So-Cons right huh?

jjdoyle
01-25-2015, 06:43 PM
How about the part where he supported Abortion, created Obamacare and is allowed to marry multiple wives? I guess that's not as important as hating gays and loving Israel to the So-Cons right huh?

Two out of three. He isn't allowed to marry multiple wives. Rick Santorum voted yes on bills giving funds to Planned Parenthood, and apparently was of another opinion until he ran for office, so I would venture that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney weren't all that different on abortion, WHEN and WHERE it really mattered.

So really, only one out of the three. And even then, guess what...Rick Santorum supported Arlen Specter...who was the 60th vote for ObamaCare:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215379-specter-says-obama-ditched-him-after-he-provided-60th-vote-to-pass-health-law

0 out of 3.

mosquitobite
01-25-2015, 06:53 PM
You talk like you've never been involved with politics at all. There was no one even close to Mitt Romney. Second place was a distant second place. The So-Cons threw their power (if you can even call it power) behind Santorum. They threw it behind Huckabee in 2008. Then when they had no other choice, they said go Romney, go McCain. They will support liars who oppose their causes just because the media told them. This is how principled So-Con voters are. They will only vote for Rand Paul if the media told them to (which they never will). They are incapable of thinking for themselves. So Rand Paul should just do the whole I love Israel thing that they love so much and move on towards attracting people that know how to think for themselves.

As an evangelical Christian in a red state ^ I agree with this.

Most are so hopelessly addicted to FoxNews there is no chance for Rand to win the "bloc" of social conservatives. I do think it is smarter to focus on New Hampshire ad win big there rather than spend an endless supply of money to come in 3rd place (like his dad) and get NO MEDIA exposure from a basically 3-way tie.

I'm so sick of the idiots in Iowa getting to decide the nominee. Sick of it.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 07:14 PM
How about the part where he supported Abortion, created Obamacare and is allowed to marry multiple wives? I guess that's not as important as hating gays and loving Israel to the So-Cons right huh?

He switched his position on abortion and ran as a hardcore pro lifer in order to win the GOP nomination. Did I not already mention that previously?

And the comment about being allowed to marry multiple wives is just ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of Mormons but even I'm not that disrespectful to Mormons.

Christian Liberty
01-25-2015, 08:08 PM
"Bible-thumpers"? You mean like this guy?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_North_%28economist%29

Sorry... but the only thing that keeps me sane these days is the ability to have fun:)

francisco
01-25-2015, 08:28 PM
What will make Rand the winning candidate in both the Republican primary and the General Election is his ability to sell a pro-Liberty position as one that satisfies a wide range of constituencies, including constituencies that are both within and outside the traditional Republican fold; to make Liberty the message that truly unifies the entire nation.

If he can do that--and I think that he can-- he has the possibility to become a truly great and transformational President!

He's already obviously and sequentially making concrete policy initiatives to do that in several different areas, e.g. : Privacy vs. Security; Constitutionalism and the rule of law; checks and balances among the three branches of government; fiscal responsibility; voting rights, police militarization; moving away from centralized Federal power toward power closer to levels of government closer to the people. I mean, what's not to like? It seems like there are some here who want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Rand will need at some point to sell to the socons the concept that they should advocate for their causes from voluntury venues (like their churches and local associations) instead of the venue of coercive government. The timing for bringing that message to the forefront is a strategic decision. I am sure that Rand is aware of this. If I am going to trust him as a leader, I'm willing to give him the leeway to decide the best timing for that.

I do hope that at some point, Rand can hear Deborah K's great tagline "Diversity Finds Unity in the Message of Liberty" and then incorporate it in his own speech.. I think that's a real winning message and I try to quote it in my local interactions whenever I can.

Brett85
01-25-2015, 08:44 PM
He's already obviously and sequentially making concrete policy initiatives to do that in several different areas, e.g. : Privacy vs. Security; Constitutionalism and the rule of law; checks and balances among the three branches of government; fiscal responsibility; voting rights, police militarization; moving away from centralized Federal power toward power closer to levels of government closer to the people. I mean, what's not to like? It seems like there are some here who want to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I fully support him. I just disagree with his current strategy. I think he needs to engage social conservatives and participate in the debate, even if he doesn't agree with all of their positions.

twomp
01-25-2015, 08:57 PM
Two out of three. He isn't allowed to marry multiple wives. Rick Santorum voted yes on bills giving funds to Planned Parenthood, and apparently was of another opinion until he ran for office, so I would venture that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney weren't all that different on abortion, WHEN and WHERE it really mattered.

So really, only one out of the three. And even then, guess what...Rick Santorum supported Arlen Specter...who was the 60th vote for ObamaCare:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/215379-specter-says-obama-ditched-him-after-he-provided-60th-vote-to-pass-health-law

0 out of 3.

Oh please, Santorum supported Arlen Specter who voted for Obamacare. So Santorum supports Obamacare. What stupid logic is that. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney who supports intervention in all these Muslim countries. That means Rand Paul is a warmonger right? Nice try at spinning. Leave it to the pros at Fox News. You are bad at it.

Galileo Galilei
01-25-2015, 10:24 PM
Rand has been positioning himself as a good general election candidate and is staying at arms length from the crazies. He will run right when the voting starts.

r3volution 3.0
01-25-2015, 10:31 PM
I know several 2012 Ron Paul people who are either disillusioned and/or flirting with joining Cruz 2016.

Yea, and you took down your much ballyhooed multi-week poll last year due to technical difficulties, not because Rand was winning, right?

:rolleyes:

<cough>scumbag<cough>

<cough>actor-playing-Christian<cough>

Anyway, as for Iowa, Rand was never going to be the socon pick. Ron wasn't either, and he almost won the state.

Rand just needs socons to like him more the establishment guy.

Bastiat's The Law
01-25-2015, 11:08 PM
Ron Paul had a lot of Christian Homeschoolers and Pro Life activists as supporters.

True, but Ron performed best in the eastern, more independent/liberal side of the state. Look at a map and Ron did very well on that eastern 1/3rd of the state.

Bastiat's The Law
01-25-2015, 11:10 PM
In the Iowa caucus? Try again.

Did it lead to President Mike Huckabee? Maybe we should ask President Rick Santorum his thoughts?

William Tell
01-25-2015, 11:17 PM
True, but Ron performed best in the eastern, more independent/liberal side of the state. Look at a map and Ron did very well on that eastern 1/3rd of the state.

I meant nationwide too. In fact, I tend to think Ron Paul's base may have had more Chuck Baldwin type supporters than Gary Johnson types. Certainly most of the Paul people I know are devout Christians who hold very socially conservative views on the subject of morality and behavior. I'm not saying they want government involved in lots of stuff, but their morals are traditional. And most that I know support banning abortion on the state level.

eleganz
01-25-2015, 11:57 PM
Steve Deace is delusional if he thinks Bobby Jindal has a better chance of winning Iowa than Rand.

No, I take that back. Steve Deace is delusional period. Who remembers his family values poll that we were winning and subsequently just disappeared never to be discussed again?

jjdoyle
01-25-2015, 11:57 PM
Oh please, Santorum supported Arlen Specter who voted for Obamacare. So Santorum supports Obamacare. What stupid logic is that. Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney who supports intervention in all these Muslim countries. That means Rand Paul is a warmonger right? Nice try at spinning. Leave it to the pros at Fox News. You are bad at it.

Sure, I'll stop spinning when you get the positions correct, because you are bad at it. Mitt Romney allowed to marry multiple wives? The guy was/is married once. It is not even allowed by the official Mormon Church:
http://www.mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy

Without Santorum endorsing Arlen Specter and sabotaging Pat Toomey in 2004, we might not have ObamaCare. As Arlen Specter was the 60th vote on it. Rick Santorum in 2004 though was just "playing the game" and going along with the incumbent when he endorsed Specter....he took one for the team, and now the rest of the country gets to suffer for his game.

Mitt Romney was pro-life and against ObamaCare when running, so he and Rick Santorum were basically the same when running. Which I think was the point?

CPUd
01-26-2015, 12:37 AM
Steve Deace is delusional if he thinks Bobby Jindal has a better chance of winning Iowa than Rand.

No, I take that back. Steve Deace is delusional period. Who remembers his family values poll that we were winning and subsequently just disappeared never to be discussed again?

He said it was due to technical difficulties caused by Rand hackers, but he can't say anything more specific when asked because someone else was running the site. So that is just what he heard, LOL.

Krugminator2
01-26-2015, 12:43 AM
I've noticed Rand has really swung back to appealing to libertarians in the last month. He has thrown in as a libertarian. I hope people appreciate that. He has basically said he is Ron Paul Jr. I will be curious to see if the enthusiasm ticks up for him. Popularity among politicians is very fickle. I hope Rand can avoid ending up as Gary Johnson. A huge part of Ron Paul's appeal had nothing to do with the issues.

Also. Steve Deace is an enemy. He represents a part of the party that is totally repugnant and he is basically slashing Rand to help Cruz. But I think it is questionable that Rand has skipped the social conservative forums in Iowa and he also doesn't go on Deace's radio show.

CPUd
01-26-2015, 01:00 AM
http://i.imgur.com/VhLdamu.png

...

http://i.imgur.com/aRrQUZh.png



http://i.imgur.com/CUJH4xS.jpg

invisible
01-26-2015, 07:14 AM
I hate to say it, but TC has it right on this one. Like it or not, you need a significant portion of the "social conservative" vote to win the nomination. Like it or not, we have to work with these people and ally with them when necessary. You can't win IA or SC without this voting bloc. You can't win in most of the plains states and the south without this voting bloc. Getting the "social conservative" votes is simply an essential part of the nomination path. Those of you who aren't in the plains states or the south may find this difficult to understand, since this demographic is barely significant elsewhere. In NH in 2011-2, I personally saw (and took part in, of course) santorum literally get laughed and heckled out of the state. I was in IA in 2007-8, and a large portion of Ron Paul's support came from this voting bloc. I've found that this is also true in OK, many liberty folks (this includes all our top activists, candidates, and State Legislators past and present) here are "social conservatives". In IA (2008), the churches actually bussed people into the caucuses to vote for the huckster. There are quite a few states where we NEED these people, we cannot ignore them, or worse yet, burn bridges and make enemies with them. We have to find as much common ground and work on the issues where we agree with them, and get them (and ourselves) to peacefully agree to disagree on the rest. We not only need these people in Presidential elections, in many places we need them to get good candidates elected and good legislation passed at the state level, too. Sure, they might be the butt of jokes in the NE or the west coast, but in IA and OK (the two such states where I have personal experience), the "social conservatives" make up roughly 35-45% of Ron Paul's base - some of these people (the smart ones at least, who don't just do what their tv set tells them to) DO "get it".

William Tell
01-26-2015, 07:37 AM
If the social cons won't vote for Rand, then Rand won't win the Republican nomination. It's that simple. You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination.

Yes, and you can't just chop up people into groups like social con, or moderate and predict who they will vote for. Yes, there are certain groups that on average will be more likely to vote for any particular candidate. But people ultimately vote for a candidate for all sorts of reasons. And just because Santorum won lots of "social con" votes, doesn't mean that most of those who voted for other candidates are social liberals. Most primary and caucus goers probably hold personally socially conservative views. It may not be as big a deal to some as others, but they still think that way.

invisible
01-26-2015, 07:38 AM
I honestly think Rand and his team have written Iowa off for a first place finish. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing Rand knows what the FEC investigation is going to reveal, and how that will play out locally. Ron Paul 2012's awesome top campaign staff made a Rand Paul 2016 attack ad if any of them are on staff, and even if none of them are really...since political ads will do guilt by association all day long.

I have looked at the FEC reports, and Ron Paul 2012 has paid out stupid amounts of money for a stupid investigation that should never have happened. The amounts they have paid out so far would have been enough to swing a state in Ron's favor, or potentially away from Mitt Romney if they had tried to actually win it after Iowa.

I said it months ago that I thought Rand had written Iowa off because of the Kent Sorenson issue, and I still think that is the case. I'm guessing he will try for a top three finish, but not necessarily spend the funds or time in the state for a first place finish.


And here he is throwing firebombs again, right on cue. You did a real nice setup over the last year and a half, your arguments on why someone involved with Ron and Rand is questionable were all good, and valid. You've done a good job in the last few months with a bit more variety in your posts, and even straying into other topics at times. But now that it's 2015, you certainly seemed to have stepped it up quite a bit. In so many words (in other words, this is the gist of what you're saying over the course of many posts scattered about, not a direct and exact quote, so I'm not going to play the game of arguing or "prove that I said this or you're a liar" type of crap - you know what you've said repeatedly, and so does everyone else here - this will be my only response to you in this thread, no matter what sort of name calling attacks or accusations you respond with), you're already telling everyone:
"Rand has at least one questionable person tied to him"
"Rand has someone with a scandal tied to him"
"Don't donate to Rand, he's not getting one single dime from me"
"Don't support Rand"
"He isn't trying to win"
"He can't win"

Now, where have we heard this sort of stuff before? Doesn't all this stuff sound awfully familiar? How much will this poster's message intensify over the next year?

specsaregood
01-26-2015, 07:44 AM
Also. Steve Deace is an enemy. He represents a part of the party that is totally repugnant and he is basically slashing Rand to help Cruz. But I think it is questionable that Rand has skipped the social conservative forums in Iowa and he also doesn't go on Deace's radio show.

Maybe he has just decided to stop enabling people that are going to actively try to stab him in the back and front. I see no indication that he has written off any vote; but perhaps he'll just enable others to get his interviews and attendance.

FriedChicken
01-26-2015, 07:44 AM
Deace is never going to say "Rand did the right thing".
Rand needs so-cons votes, yes. But he didn't necessarily need to attend those events this early on to get them.

If I recall correctly Romney stayed away from these types of things till the last possible second.

TaftFan
01-26-2015, 09:16 AM
Did it lead to President Mike Huckabee? Maybe we should ask President Rick Santorum his thoughts?

Sounds like you are advising Rand to skip Iowa, if winning there doesn't matter.

mit26chell
01-26-2015, 10:23 AM
Look around the country, half the states now recognize gay marriage. More and more states are allowing Marijuana use. The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.



This. And thank God for it. The country will be more free and therefore much better off.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 10:28 AM
This. And thank God for it. The country will be more free and therefore much better off.

How do you figure? A lot of times the liberty activists are social conservatives. Rand Paul is a social conservative. He's 100% pro life, supports prayer in schools, is pro gun, etc. I'm not sure how all you guys who hate social conservatives so much could ever vote for a social conservative like Ron Paul or Rand Paul.

Warlord
01-26-2015, 10:59 AM
[QUOTE=invisible;5764000]I hate to say it, but TC has it right on this one. Like it or not, you need a significant portion of the "social conservative" vote to win the nomination. Like it or not, we have to work with these people and ally with them when necessary. You can't win IA or SC without this voting bloc]

Mitt Romney won the nomination in 2012 and is hardly a social conservative nor did he appeal to them. Iowa is overrated. NH Is the important state to win as far as the nomination goes.

Feeding the Abscess
01-26-2015, 11:09 AM
How do you figure? A lot of times the liberty activists are social conservatives. Rand Paul is a social conservative. He's 100% pro life, supports prayer in schools, is pro gun, etc. I'm not sure how all you guys who hate social conservatives so much could ever vote for a social conservative like Ron Paul or Rand Paul.

Ron also voted against things that as a result made social conservatives recoil in horror at the mention of his name. Frequently.

Peace&Freedom
01-26-2015, 11:51 AM
Mitt Romney won the nomination in 2012 and is hardly a social conservative nor did he appeal to them. Iowa is overrated. NH Is the important state to win as far as the nomination goes.

Iowa is a crucial credibility shaper in the primary season. It immediately establishes a candidate as a winner, which may lead to gaining enough momentum to do well in other races. The outcome of Paul's candidacy would have been starkly different in 2012 had he won (or was not vote-rigged out of winning) Iowa. Without that victory, Paul never established himself as a winner, and this allowed the media the pretext to treat him as a loser, to guarantee he never got traction or an ounce of momentum anywhere.

Unlike Mitt, neither Ron nor Rand have the blessing of the media and special interest establishment behind them, to win the nomination without the social conservatives, so courting them to get a fragment of their vote helps. And let us remember that the Reagan landslides were built on his getting social conservatives from both major parties behind him. Those Republican and Democratic crossover votes are gettable by libertarians, if they do not act like they are knee-jerk hostile to their concerns.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 11:51 AM
I strongly agree with the bolded. Half the time Rand and his people are brilliant, the other half they look clueless. Getting it right half the time isn't good enough, and Rand is blowing his chance to win the nomination.

And I can't help but notice the only half that you feel is worthy of comment is the half that you consider clueless, or that you think you can spin as cluelessness.


Unfortunately, I think Steve is probably right. I don't know what Rand could be thinking when he'll meet with people like Bill Maher and Jesse Jackson but refuses to show up at events hosted by social conservatives in Iowa. I can't even begin to contemplate what he's thinking and why he's doing things like that.

Perhaps he's thinking that socons are sick of losing the general election. Perhaps he's thinking socons aren't so stupid they can't learn from past mistakes, and just might look to someone besides Rupert Murdoch to tell them who can win the general election--someone like independent general election voters, perhaps. And maybe, just maybe, he's thinking that socons aren't a monolithic bloc that are afraid to be seen not marching in lockstep even in the unlikely event they are capable of independent thought.


If the social cons won't vote for Rand, then Rand won't win the Republican nomination. It's that simple. You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination.

It's amusing to see you spin skipping one event as complete disdain for a whole group of people who stretch nationwide. I'd be very surprised if fifty percent of socons in Iowa itself are even aware this happened and who was and wasn't there. Pray, do tell us how impossible it is that Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney could win the nomination because they weren't there either.


Some of these people just sound like they've never had any involvement in politics at all. Lol.

You should hope so. Because if there is no one here who hasn't, your goofy trolling will reach no one at all.


Mitt Romney didn't win without their support. He had to win the support of a large number of them in order to win the GOP nomination. He had to switch his position on abortion from pro choice to pro life in order to win the GOP nomination. If he hadn't done that, he would've had no chance at all to win the GOP nomination.

And his flip flopping gave him no chance at all to win the general election.


I'm not sure who you're referring to, but I fully support him. I just disagree with his current strategy. I think he needs to engage social conservatives and participate in the debate, even if he doesn't agree with all of their positions.

Your idea of fully supporting him is calling him out publicly for not going to this event. Your idea of fully supporting him is jumping on every dogpile you can find, just so long as he's on the bottom. If he had gone, your idea of fully supporting him would have been parroting Deace when Deace said that only the future also-rans actually went, and if he had wanted to win he'd have made himself look like a top tier candidate by remaining as aloof from the rabble as the other top tier candidates Bush and Romney. And what's more, we all know it.


And here he is throwing firebombs again, right on cue. You did a real nice setup over the last year and a half, your arguments on why someone involved with Ron and Rand is questionable were all good, and valid. You've done a good job in the last few months with a bit more variety in your posts, and even straying into other topics at times. But now that it's 2015, you certainly seemed to have stepped it up quite a bit. In so many words (in other words, this is the gist of what you're saying over the course of many posts scattered about, not a direct and exact quote, so I'm not going to play the game of arguing or "prove that I said this or you're a liar" type of crap - you know what you've said repeatedly, and so does everyone else here - this will be my only response to you in this thread, no matter what sort of name calling attacks or accusations you respond with), you're already telling everyone:
"Rand has at least one questionable person tied to him"
"Rand has someone with a scandal tied to him"
"Don't donate to Rand, he's not getting one single dime from me"
"Don't support Rand"
"He isn't trying to win"
"He can't win"

Now, where have we heard this sort of stuff before? Doesn't all this stuff sound awfully familiar? How much will this poster's message intensify over the next year?

Not to mention finding every opportunity to point when Rand misses an event and to scream that Rand doesn't care about the kind of voter the event is designed to appeal to, and to point when Rand goes to an event and scream that he's offending bigger voting blocs by going and/or he's making himself look non-top-tier by associating with the rabble in the race. Fortunately for him, we libertarians are too stupid to accurately differentiate friend from foe.

Or are we...?


Sounds like you are advising Rand to skip Iowa, if winning there doesn't matter.

You need to go speak to a doctor about that problem you're having with your ears. If an audiologist is no help, try a psychiatrist.

Meanwhile, we will all thank you to stop using your hearing disability as an excuse to stuff your shit in our mouths as if it belongs there.


Unlike Mitt, neither Ron nor Rand have the blessing of the media and special interest establishment behind them...

Hello! Thank you! If there's one thing Ron Paul taught us, it's that you don't overcome a handicap like that by ignoring it and running a completely conventional campaign the way the trolls seem to want us to do (at least, they do every time Rand pokes his nose outside The Mold). No, if you're to overcome a handicap like that at all, you do it by tackling it head on like the Master Communicator did:


https://youtube.com/watch?v=Wi9y5-Vo61w

Imagine how different history would look if the trolls had made Reagan afraid to tackle the press head on, or had made Reagan's supporters so jumpy that they jumped ship in despair the moment Reagan got brilliant simply because brilliant is so unconventional.

twomp
01-26-2015, 12:01 PM
Sure, I'll stop spinning when you get the positions correct, because you are bad at it. Mitt Romney allowed to marry multiple wives? The guy was/is married once. It is not even allowed by the official Mormon Church:
http://www.mormon.org/faq/practice-of-polygamy

Without Santorum endorsing Arlen Specter and sabotaging Pat Toomey in 2004, we might not have ObamaCare. As Arlen Specter was the 60th vote on it. Rick Santorum in 2004 though was just "playing the game" and going along with the incumbent when he endorsed Specter....he took one for the team, and now the rest of the country gets to suffer for his game.

Mitt Romney was pro-life and against ObamaCare when running, so he and Rick Santorum were basically the same when running. Which I think was the point?

Oh please, there you go stretching it again. Santorum supported Obamacare which was passed in what 2010 by his actions in 2004? SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. Mitt Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life. That shows how stupid you and the So-Cons are. You guys fell for a lie and now you go defending that lie. The only difference between Romney and Obama was the letter behind their names. Geniuses lol.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 12:01 PM
"Mitt Romney won the nomination in 2012 and is hardly a social conservative nor did he appeal to them. Iowa is overrated. NH Is the important state to win as far as the nomination goes." By Warlord

How do you figure? Romney ran as a hardcore social conservative both times. Pro life, supported a federal marriage amendment, opposed drug legalization, etc.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 12:05 PM
"Your idea of fully supporting him is calling him out publicly for not going to this event. Your idea of fully supporting him is jumping on every dogpile you can find, just so long as he's on the bottom. If he had gone, your idea of fully supporting him would have been parroting Deace when Deace said that only the future also-rans actually went, and if he had wanted to run he'd have made himself look like a top tier candidate by remaining as aloof from the rabble as the other top tier candidates Bush and Romney. And what's more, we all know it." By acptulsa

Uh, no. Over the past year or two I've been far less critical of Rand than most others on this forum. I spend 90% of my time defending Rand against others who attack him. This is a rare instance of me disagreeing with something he's said or done.

And the issue isn't just him missing this event, but also the fact that he skipped a similar event several months back in order to hang out with Alec Baldwin, and wasn't honest with the event organizers regarding the reason why he couldn't make the event.

twomp
01-26-2015, 12:05 PM
How do you figure? A lot of times the liberty activists are social conservatives. Rand Paul is a social conservative. He's 100% pro life, supports prayer in schools, is pro gun, etc. I'm not sure how all you guys who hate social conservatives so much could ever vote for a social conservative like Ron Paul or Rand Paul.

A lot of the liberty activists? You lie. If what you were saying had any ounce of truth then Ron Paul should have won the So- cons vote in 2008 and 2012 but i guess "a lot" of the so-cons didn't agree with your assessment. Way to make shit up like you usually do.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 12:10 PM
It's just ridiculous if people are going to say that you don't "support Rand" if you ever disagree with his campaign strategy. I support Rand, which is why I speak out when he does something that I think is harmful to his chances to win. I remember a lot of criticism of Ron Paul's campaign strategy in 2012 by a lot of people. I certainly don't think those people were fake Ron Paul supporters. I think they just wanted him to win.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 12:12 PM
A lot of the liberty activists? You lie. If what you were saying had any ounce of truth then Ron Paul should have won the So- cons vote in 2008 and 2012 but i guess "a lot" of the so-cons didn't agree with your assessment. Way to make shit up like you usually do.

I'll address and respond to your comments if you want to engage in a respectful and civil conversation. Otherwise, I see responding to your comments to just be a complete waste of time and energy.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 12:12 PM
How do you figure? Romney ran as a hardcore social conservative both times. Pro life, supported a federal marriage amendment, opposed drug legalization, etc.

Simple. Back when we were kids, there were millions and millions of people who enjoyed watching Robert Young play Dr. Marcus Welby on television. But there probably weren't more than two or three dozen who were stupid enough to see him dining in the Brown Derby and ask him to look at their sciatica.


I'll address and respond to your comments if you want to engage in a respectful and civil conversation. Otherwise, I see responding to your comments to just be a complete waste of time and energy.

If by 'engage in a respectful and civil conversation' you mean 'stop refuting my garbage and stop making good points', you're right. If he doesn't, you are wasting your time and energy.

Guess what? You're wasting your time and energy.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 12:22 PM
Oh please, there you go stretching it again. Santorum supported Obamacare which was passed in what 2010 by his actions in 2004? SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. Mitt Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life. That shows how stupid you and the So-Cons are. You guys fell for a lie and now you go defending that lie. The only difference between Romney and Obama was the letter behind their names. Geniuses lol.

I know Mitt Romney was pro-choice before he was pro-life, apparently Santorum was as well:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.html

And Santorum might not have supported ObamaCare, or nationalized healthcare and had spoken out in the 90s about things like that I believe, but his "team playing" attitude got us ObamaCare. His lack of judgement, his going along to get along. Rick Santorum did do more in the '12 election to attack Mitt Romney and try to win the nomination than Ron Paul 2012 did, so for that, Rick Santorum does deserve some credit.

But when running, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were the same on those positions. Which I believe was TC's point? The only difference is that Mitt Romney passed mandatory healthcare at a state level, while President Obama did at a national level, and that could/should have been used to attack President Obama. But, because Mitt Romney won the nomination, that card was out of the bag basically. I agree with that. Rick Santorum said it basically. Something like, "Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to run against President Obama on healthcare."

But no, not multiple marriages. Not pro-choice during the campaign. Not even pro-ObamaCare. Those were before. But, it shows how stupid the average GOP voter is though, as records didn't matter to them (including the records of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich).


And here he is throwing firebombs again, right on cue. You did a real nice setup over the last year and a half, your arguments on why someone involved with Ron and Rand is questionable were all good, and valid. You've done a good job in the last few months with a bit more variety in your posts, and even straying into other topics at times. But now that it's 2015, you certainly seemed to have stepped it up quite a bit. In so many words (in other words, this is the gist of what you're saying over the course of many posts scattered about, not a direct and exact quote, so I'm not going to play the game of arguing or "prove that I said this or you're a liar" type of crap - you know what you've said repeatedly, and so does everyone else here - this will be my only response to you in this thread, no matter what sort of name calling attacks or accusations you respond with), you're already telling everyone:
"Rand has at least one questionable person tied to him"
"Rand has someone with a scandal tied to him"
"Don't donate to Rand, he's not getting one single dime from me"
"Don't support Rand"
"He isn't trying to win"
"He can't win"

Now, where have we heard this sort of stuff before? Doesn't all this stuff sound awfully familiar? How much will this poster's message intensify over the next year?

How is stating Rand and his team might have written off Iowa, a firebomb? Politics is local, and Rand might just be concentrating on New Hampshire for his first win, but hoping for a top three finish in Iowa. I do know how much Ron Paul 2012 has spent on legal/law firms since the FEC investigation broke though, so maybe they were able to pay enough to get the entire thing white washed?

So, maybe Iowa will be in place, but maybe not necessarily for first outright. Rand is trying to win, but I think he is trying to win with the wrong positions and wrong (or, no) talking points. I'm not the only one that sees these walks backs, clarifications, and position changes as problems Rand is creating for himself.


Not to mention finding every opportunity to point when Rand misses an event and to scream that Rand doesn't care about the kind of voter the event is designed to appeal to, and to point when Rand goes to an event and scream that he's offending bigger voting blocs by going and/or he's making himself look non-top-tier by associating with the rabble in the race. Fortunately for him, we libertarians are too stupid to accurately differentiate friend from foe.

Or are we...?

Nice lies. Every opportunity? Lie:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?466178-EXCLUSIVE-%97-Scott-Walker-to-Iowa-to-Speak-at-Freedom-Summit

I posted that thread, and simply mentioned that I saw Rand wasn't speaking at it in it. Nothing else. Show me the scream, please.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 12:32 PM
How is stating Rand and his team might have written off Iowa, a firebomb? Politics is local, and Rand might just be concentrating on New Hampshire for his first win, but hoping for a top three finish in Iowa. I do know how much Ron Paul 2012 has spent on legal/law firms since the FEC investigation broke though, so maybe they were able to pay enough to get the entire thing white washed?

So, maybe Iowa will be in place, but maybe not necessarily for first outright. Rand is trying to win, but I think he is trying to win with the wrong positions and wrong (or, no) talking points. I'm not the only one that sees these walks backs, clarifications, and position changes as problems Rand is creating for himself.

How is it a firebomb? Suppose the man dearly wants to win Iowa. Do you really imagine that trying your best to start a rumor that he considers the whole state beneath consideration is really helpful in some way or another?


Nice lies. Every opportunity? Lie:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?466178-EXCLUSIVE-%97-Scott-Walker-to-Iowa-to-Speak-at-Freedom-Summit

I posted that thread, and simply mentioned that I saw Rand wasn't speaking at it in it. Nothing else. Show me the scream, please.

You mean the thread which contained this quote...?


“Congressman Steve King and I are thrilled Governor Scott Walker, a leading conservative voice, plans to attend the Iowa Freedom Summit,” Bossie said. “The Iowa Caucus is the first step for any conservative running for the Republican nomination and we are pleased Governor Walker appreciates and respects its importance.”

Uh huh. Good luck with that...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467487-Rand-to-hold-quot-Audit-The-Fed-quot-rally-in-Iowa!

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 12:47 PM
How is it a firebomb? Suppose the man dearly wants to win Iowa. Do you really imagine that trying your best to start a rumor that he considers the whole state beneath consideration is really helpful in some way or another?

You mean the thread which contained this quote...?

Uh huh. Good luck with that...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467487-Rand-to-hold-quot-Audit-The-Fed-quot-rally-in-Iowa!

A direct quote from the article is not a scream. I posted a direct quote, where did I scream anything? Liar.

And I wouldn't doubt that Rand would want to win Iowa, what presidential candidate in 2016 wouldn't want to win it? But, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy because of a certain situation from 2012, and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee). Politics is local. Nothing about it being beneath his consideration. If he is thinking about it, that is consideration. But they may be looking at the full picture, and seeing the "What IFs", like a Huckabee run, etc.

Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.

But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."

Warlord
01-26-2015, 12:53 PM
A direct quote from the article is not a scream. I posted a direct quote, where did I scream anything? Liar.

And I wouldn't doubt that Rand would want to win Iowa, what presidential candidate in 2016 wouldn't want to win it? But, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy because of a certain situation from 2012, and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee). Politics is local. Nothing about it being beneath his consideration. If he is thinking about it, that is consideration. But they may be looking at the full picture, and seeing the "What IFs", like a Huckabee run, etc.

Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.

But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."

New Hampshire is crucial... Iowa has been poor at picking the nominee though I still think Rand can take all the early contests

specsaregood
01-26-2015, 12:57 PM
//

mosquitobite
01-26-2015, 01:14 PM
"Mitt Romney won the nomination in 2012 and is hardly a social conservative nor did he appeal to them. Iowa is overrated. NH Is the important state to win as far as the nomination goes." By Warlord

How do you figure? Romney ran as a hardcore social conservative both times. Pro life, supported a federal marriage amendment, opposed drug legalization, etc.

No, he didn't RUN as a hardcore conservative.

He pandered to them by pretending to take their positions. Anyone with a brain should have known that once he got elected he'd sell out each and every one of those positions. And if they DIDN'T know that? Well, that's my point. I'm sick of the freakin idiots in Iowa deciding the nominee! They're the most gullible bunch of suckers in our nation!

twomp
01-26-2015, 01:22 PM
No, he didn't RUN as a hardcore conservative.

He pandered to them by pretending to take their positions. Anyone with a brain should have known that once he got elected he'd sell out each and every one of those positions. And if they DIDN'T know that? Well, that's my point. I'm sick of the freakin idiots in Iowa deciding the nominee! They're the most gullible bunch of suckers in our nation!

Which goes again to my point. The so-cons in Iowa are a lost cause. They only do what the television tells them to do. It either that or they listen to people like Steve Deace who only wants Rand around to sell more tickets. Once he makes his money, he tells his flock of stupid sheep that God wants them to vote for Huckabee, or Santorum, or Ted Cruz or whoever else he feel loves Jesus the most. And the sheep go, "bbbbbaaaaaaaa"

trey4sports
01-26-2015, 01:33 PM
This was nothing more than a meeting of has-beens and never-will-bes. Rand was right to skip.

Badger Paul
01-26-2015, 01:35 PM
"You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination."

Bob Dole, George Bush II, John McCain and Mitt Romney all say hello. Maybe they don't win Iowa but as long as you finish in the top 3-4, you move on. There's more to the party than just the SoCon base.

Maybe Rand should have been at the "Response" with Bobby Jindal in Baton Rouge. That would have been a hoot. Talk about being with extremists.

Badger Paul
01-26-2015, 01:38 PM
"ut, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy because of a certain situation from 2012, and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee)."

I'm curious how they'll plan to play the straw poll then. It was Paul's supporters in the party that wanted to keep the thing going.

CPUd
01-26-2015, 01:43 PM
So what do the socons do when their candidate drops out, especially when they already have won delegates?

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 01:46 PM
A direct quote from the article is not a scream. I posted a direct quote, where did I scream anything? Liar.

So, everything I said about your intent, your strategy, your technique and your end goal is true (it must be; you don't seem to be refuting it) but I exaggerated your style so you're going to use that as an excuse to call me a liar.

Uh huh. Good luck with that, too.


And I wouldn't doubt that Rand would want to win Iowa, what presidential candidate in 2016 wouldn't want to win it? But, he/his team may be looking at it realistically and thinking that spending a ton of money and time on it, might not be the best strategy...

Oh, it isn't that you're trying to convince Iowans that Rand Paul hates them, it's that you're trying to convince us to give up on it as hopeless? Well, isn't that special...


...because of a certain situation from 2012...

Are we talking about Ron Paul? Gee, I thought we were talking about Rand Paul. Are you sure you can tell the difference? Here's a hint--Rand is the one you go to in order to get a set of corrective lenses that will allow you to tell the difference between them at a glance, and Ron is the one you go to when you're feeling like a big baby.


...and a certain candidate potentially running in 2016 (Huckabee). Politics is local. Nothing about it being beneath his consideration. If he is thinking about it, that is consideration. But they may be looking at the full picture, and seeing the "What IFs", like a Huckabee run, etc.

Huckabee is incredibly irrelevant. Nixon couldn't be more irrelevant, and he's dead.


Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.

Oh, is that why he's holding an Audit the Fed Rally in Des Moines? A rally where he will not be lost in a sea of future also-rans waiting to be doled out five minutes to speak, but an event where he will be featured, honored and front and center?


But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."

No, it isn't. A win in Iowa is a plus in any case, and if the grassroots can find a way to win it then anyone who tries to discourage them from trying is an enemy to America, an enemy to liberty and an enemy to me.

CPUd
01-26-2015, 02:03 PM
LOL what candidate goes to Iowa and says they just want to place in the top 3?

William Tell
01-26-2015, 02:39 PM
But I do think saying upfront that Iowa isn't the first goal, is HELPFUL in the grassroots, because it helps expectations. People don't go into Iowa like 2012, being told the experts have it in the bag and they don't need help. We can say, "Okay, he's looking for a top 3 finish, and then New Hampshire."

Are you serious? saying you want a top 3 finish is what you say right before the results come in, as damage control. Even if top 3 is your expectation (not your goal, you would always like to win) you don't just say that before you have bought a single ad. I think Rand Paul has a far better chance of winning Iowa in 2016, than people thought Santorum did in early 2011.

Santorum was not a player until Bachmann, and Perry, the more likely choice of his base had fizzled out. Rand Paul has far greater assets than Santorum had. And remember, the official report for some time was that Romney had won.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 03:11 PM
LOL what candidate goes to Iowa and says they just want to place in the top 3?

Ron Paul 2012?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68065.html

John McCain skipped it basically.


Are we talking about Ron Paul? Gee, I thought we were talking about Rand Paul. Are you sure you can tell the difference? Here's a hint--Rand is the one you go to in order to get a set of corrective lenses that will allow you to tell the difference between them at a glance, and Ron is the one you go to when you're feeling like a big baby.

I'm talking about Ron Paul 2012 and how Rand Paul was part of that campaign, sending fundraising emails, and being linked to it. The Kent Sorenson issue very well could be used as an attack ad, in Iowa. Same against Bachmann if she were to run (which I doubt, but never know with some delusional politicians).


Huckabee is incredibly irrelevant. Nixon couldn't be more irrelevant, and he's dead.

Huckabee is irrelevant, because? He won Iowa and multiple other states in 2008? He almost won South Carolina in 2008, and I would imagine he would take it this time if he chooses to run. Simply based on the vote totals and the fact he has worked on building his name recognition the last 8 years to that particular base.


Oh, is that why he's holding an Audit the Fed Rally in Des Moines? A rally where he will not be lost in a sea of future also-rans waiting to be doled out five minutes to speak, but an event where he will be featured, honored and front and center?

That's what I said, perhaps he is going to try a work around and not go toe-to-toe at events like a Values Voters Summit, because it isn't worth his time and it's not his target audience? Though, I think he could pick some of those so-cons up.


No, it isn't. A win in Iowa is a plus in any case, and if the grassroots can find a way to win it then anyone who tries to discourage them from trying is an enemy to America, an enemy to liberty and an enemy to me.

I agree, a win would be great in Iowa, but also setting expectations and saying that he will concentrate on certain states is 100% okay. Candidates have done that in the past, with some basically skipping Iowa entirely (again, John McCain in 2008):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/26/2016_gop_kickoff_draws_colorful_cast_in_iowa.html (Interestingly enough, that article is from today.)

But, you must have hated Ron Paul 2012 and Matt Collins who were telling the grassroots to stay away from Iowa, not to watch the vote, and that the campaign had everything under control in 2012? I was one that saw a problem and tried to help the campaign address it, in Iowa. They didn't. I then used the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" tactic, and got another campaign to try and help.

I think there is a way for Rand to reach a good bit of the so-con base, but he isn't doing it. Do you go after voters that you have/most likely have, or go for the ones you don't have yet?

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 03:26 PM
John McCain is not my role model, no politician in his right mind will target someone's father in an attack ad, Huckabee is irrelevant because he can't even win the nomination, much less the general, I never listened to Matt Collins in my whole life, and John McCain is still not my role model.

And you don't expand your base by going to Losers' Summits.

No excuses for your (mod edit)

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 03:38 PM
John McCain is not my role model, no politician in his right mind will target someone's father in an attack ad, Huckabee is irrelevant because he can't even win the nomination, much less the general, I never listened to Matt Collins in my whole life, and John McCain is still not my role model.

No excuses for your (mod edit)

You are a (mod edit) Ignore the facts, like John McCain skipping Iowa and winning the nomination. It's a fact. Ignore the fact that Huckabee dominated Iowa in 2008, and will most likely win more states this time if he runs. You can ignore those things, but it doesn't change them from facts and history.

And you (mod edit) how PACs operate. PACs do a politician's dirty work, to keep the politician's hands clean. PACs are the scum of politics, and they will link Ron and Rand all day long. I have seen the ad used in another campaign in 2012 and the ad was professionally done, and with a few line changes will be used as a Rand Paul 2016 attack ad. If the ad has a large ad buy, like what Ron Paul 2012 did to Newt in Iowa, it will be heavy and hard.

I'm sorry you (mod edit), but some around here have read the ad as it was produced. And they agree with a few line changes, it will be a Rand Paul 2016 attack ad. It's why Rand Paul is taking certain positions he is now, to try and be able to produce his own ads to counter the attack ads coming.

Nothing excuses your (mod edit)

r3volution 3.0
01-26-2015, 03:40 PM
So what do the socons do when their candidate drops out, especially when they already have won delegates?

That's the crux of the socon issue. I know two things: (1) Rand will not be the first choice of the socons, and (2) the person who is the first choice of the socons will not be the nominee. So, we will sooner or later end up in a situation where the socon candidate drops and has to endorse either Rand or the establishment candidate. If I were Team Rand, all my thoughts on the socons would be bent on how to secure that endorsement.

Krugminator2
01-26-2015, 03:52 PM
It's just ridiculous if people are going to say that you don't "support Rand" if you ever disagree with his campaign strategy. I support Rand, which is why I speak out when he does something that I think is harmful to his chances to win. I remember a lot of criticism of Ron Paul's campaign strategy in 2012 by a lot of people. I certainly don't think those people were fake Ron Paul supporters. I think they just wanted him to win.


Rand should be in crisis mode right now. He has spent the last two years campaigning for President and has positioned himself as well as he could for a general election. The problem is that he lost a significant amount of ground and become totally unacceptable to a large swath of the party. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm among a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

He should do well on paper. Ron Paul almost won Iowa and state GOP elected Spiker. He did well in NH. But this is a much tougher field and Rand isn't even doing that great among Ron Paul supporters. He is really in danger of being someone like Gary Johnson or Huntsman. A lot is going to have to go right over the next year and I am skeptical that Rand can make it happen.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 03:55 PM
J.J., how did McCain even come up? Are you still trying to convince us Rand Paul doesn't care about Iowa, even in the face of the fact that he's about to hold an event there where he will be the star attraction?

Oh, and thank you. 'Tis better to be called a (mod edit) than to be publicly bested by someone one considers a (mod edit)...

Brett85
01-26-2015, 04:12 PM
"You can't ignore the Republican Party base and have any real chance to win the GOP nomination."

Bob Dole, George Bush II, John McCain and Mitt Romney all say hello. Maybe they don't win Iowa but as long as you finish in the top 3-4, you move on. There's more to the party than just the SoCon base.

Maybe Rand should have been at the "Response" with Bobby Jindal in Baton Rouge. That would have been a hoot. Talk about being with extremists.

Well, I would argue that it's more important for Rand to win Iowa than it was for those establishment Republicans you mentioned. Those establishment Republicans are pushed by the media as front runners for the Republican nomination even when they perform poorly in Iowa. Rand doesn't get the same type of treatment by the media, so my thinking is that he needs to win Iowa in order to avoid a black out by the media.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 04:23 PM
Rand should be in crisis mode right now. He has spent the last two years campaigning for President and has positioned himself as well as he could for a general election. The problem is that he lost a significant amount of ground and become totally unacceptable to a large swath of the party. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm among a lot of Ron Paul supporters.

He should do well on paper. Ron Paul almost won Iowa and state GOP elected Spiker. He did well in NH. But this is a much tougher field and Rand isn't even doing that great among Ron Paul supporters. He is really in danger of being someone like Gary Johnson or Huntsman. A lot is going to have to go right over the next year and I am skeptical that Rand can make it happen.


Well, I would argue that it's more important for Rand to win Iowa than it was for those establishment Republicans you mentioned. Those establishment Republicans are pushed by the media as front runners for the Republican nomination even when they perform poorly in Iowa. Rand doesn't get the same type of treatment by the media, so my thinking is that he needs to win Iowa in order to avoid a black out by the media.

LOL at your doom and gloom.

His father's performance means little. His father's supporters distrusted him only because the MSM wasn't treating him like his father; now that this has changed, we're separating the wheat from the trolls quite quickly and handily. And the largest swath of the party hasn't even thought about it yet.

If you want us to take our ball and go home, you're going to have to do a damned sight better than that.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 04:41 PM
If you want us to take our ball and go home, you're going to have to do a damned sight better than that.

Where do you get that kind of stuff from? I've said the exact opposite throughout the entire thread, that I want Rand to start trying harder. I want him to reach out to voters in Iowa and stop skipping events there. I'm going to do everything I possibly can to get Rand elected in 2016. I think the other GOP candidates are just awful, from what I've seen so far. All of them are basically calling for at least 5 or 6 additional wars overseas. I feel like Rand is our only hope, that our country isn't going to last much longer if he doesn't become President. I'm going to work hard at getting him elected, whatever I can do from where I live. That would include donating, making phone calls, etc. I'm not sure whether it could work out to actually make it up to Iowa for a week before the caucuses to campaign for him, but I've even thought about that as well. I'm going to do whatever I can for him, but that also includes offering advice on what I believe he needs to do to give himself a better chance to win.

eleganz
01-26-2015, 04:44 PM
On the night of Iowa Caucus 2012 and in the eyes of the media and public perception, Mitt Romney, a moderate, won Iowa.

Says a lot about the socon vote and says a lot about Steve Deace. Just because somebody is christian, it doesn't mean they dont' like to hop on the perceived frontrunners' bandwagon.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 05:16 PM
On the night of Iowa Caucus 2012 and in the eyes of the media and public perception, Mitt Romney, a moderate, won Iowa.

Says a lot about the socon vote and says a lot about Steve Deace. Just because somebody is christian, it doesn't mean they dont' like to hop on the perceived frontrunners' bandwagon.

Yeah, Steve Deace had endorsed Newt Gingrich. But, Romney basically got the exact same number of votes in 2012 in Iowa (I think a little less), as he did in 2008. Huckabee got basically 11,000 more votes in 2008, than Rick Santorum did in 2012. Ron Paul increased from just under 12,000 votes in 2008, to just over 26,000 votes in 2012. So, an increase of almost 15,000 votes from 2008 to 2012. I would say there had to be some so-cons in that group, which is why trying to aim for them and pick up more in Iowa could be beneficial.

I think the point TC was making, is why wouldn't Rand try for some of the so-con vote at that event? Yes, he is going to Iowa for a Audit the Fed rally, I would imagine he has those voters locked though? If not, that is interesting. He is also doing a meet and greet early that morning with a local rep, and then doing the college game and doing a college event with students at the end of it. Similar strategy as Ron Paul 2012 with hitting the college campus(es) apparently.

It was discussed in another thread on another candidate/campaign, and the strategy of going after voters you don't have, instead of simply going after the voters you do have. Rand has been doing a lot in regards to the General Election it would seem and trying to get cross-over Democrats/Independents on certain issues, but not as much in regards to the GOP voters that will turn out and vote in the GOP primary/caucuses.

And the point of mentioning John McCain was it wouldn't surprise me if Rand Paul writes off Iowa if Huckabee runs, based on Huckabee's numbers from 2008. John McCain still had a path to the White House without Iowa, does Rand?
Of course winning Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida would be awesome (and basically seal it), but outside of New Hampshire, I'm looking for the path and not seeing it right now if there is a Huckabee in the race. That's my realistic view, based on the past elections and races and who got what states and the number of voters in each during the GOP's primary/caucus.

If there is a path and method to winning Iowa, I would say it would be trying to get more so-con votes, like what was at the event this past weekend.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 05:59 PM
Where do you get that kind of stuff from? I've said the exact opposite throughout the entire thread, that I want Rand to start trying harder. I want him to reach out to voters in Iowa and stop skipping events there. I'm going to do everything I possibly can to get Rand elected in 2016. I think the other GOP candidates are just awful, from what I've seen so far...

When that is the case, one generally makes the suggestion when it can do some good, and shows some interest when it comes out that the candidate is doing something else in the state instead, where he will get more of the spotlight and won't be associating with a bunch of losers.

One seldom harps on the candidate for days after the event in question, whilst telling his supporters that they've just lost and that their quest is now quixotic.


I think the point TC was making, is why wouldn't Rand try for some of the so-con vote at that event? Yes, he is going to Iowa for a Audit the Fed rally, I would imagine he has those voters locked though? If not, that is interesting. He is also doing a meet and greet early that morning with a local rep, and then doing the college game and doing a college event with students at the end of it. Similar strategy as Ron Paul 2012 with hitting the college campus(es) apparently.

It was discussed in another thread on another candidate/campaign, and the strategy of going after voters you don't have, instead of simply going after the voters you do have. Rand has been doing a lot in regards to the General Election it would seem and trying to get cross-over Democrats/Independents on certain issues, but not as much in regards to the GOP voters that will turn out and vote in the GOP primary/caucuses.

And the point of mentioning John McCain was it wouldn't surprise me if Rand Paul writes off Iowa if Huckabee runs, based on Huckabee's numbers from 2008...

If his current supporters are so locked in and so beneath consideration, why are you trying to divorce him from us by any trick you can devise?

Or are you going to deny that you're doing that now...?


At this point, you won't get one single dime from me Rand, not one single dime. I hope your backroom deal was signed in blood with video cameras rolling and audio and you have the clips ready to release for the world, because I won't be donating one single dime to you, Rand PAC, or any presidential campaign.

And if inflation is such a narrowly appreciated issue, why was the White House Chief of Staff on every broadcast Sunday Morning Blather Show yesterday talking about how stagnant wages and inflation are destroying the middle class, and pretending that people should ignore Republicans because none of them are addressing it?

Legend1104
01-26-2015, 06:13 PM
Oh please they are no longer the "Republican Base", Mitt Romney won the nomination just fine without their support so get off your high horse. IT's time for the So-Cons to step out of the 80's, they are no longer relevant outside of Iowa and a few states and within Iowa they are losing their power as well. Look around the country, half the states now recognize gay marriage. More and more states are allowing Marijuana use. The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.

Sorry but having states "recognize" gay marriage is not becoming more free, it is the opposite. We don't gain freedom by accepting that the government has the final say on who can and can't get married. Furthermore, we will soon be living in a world were pastors and other religiously inspired people will be fined and/or arrested and have their churches/businesses shut down for refusing to marry people. That is not becoming more free at all. So-cons are wrong on foreign policy but are allies in economic issues, abortion, and a number of other issues.

specsaregood
01-26-2015, 06:14 PM
Rand should be in crisis mode right now. He has spent the last two years campaigning for President and has positioned himself as well as he could for a general election. The problem is that he lost a significant amount of ground and become totally unacceptable to a large swath of the party. There also doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm among a lot of Ron Paul supporters.


It is true, he has been positioning himself as the best for a general election. And he has been pretty successful with that:
From: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?466624-New-Republican-Primary-Poll-(YouGov-Economist)
national poll of all registered voters:


Name --------------- net favorability -------- don't know

Ben Carson ............... 8% ............................ 48%
Rand Paul ................. 0% .......................... 23%
Mike Huckabee .......... 0% .......................... 23%
Scott Walker ..............-1% ............................39%
Rick Perry ..................-2% ........................... 27%
Paul Ryan ................. -4% .............................22%
Marco Rubio ..............-4% ........................... 29%
Mitt Romney ..............-8% ..............................9%
Chris Christie ............ -9% ............................ 20%
Ted Cruz ....................-9% ............................. 26%
Jeb Bush ..................-11% ..............................20%


He has a net favorability rating of 0% which is better than all other candidates other than Carson who nearly half the people don't know enough about to disapprove of.

It is true somewhat that he has been campaigning for president for the past 2 years; but the thing is most voters have not really been paying attention, just the avid political folk. But those are not the people he has been positioning himself to win, he has been working to build a new moderate base completely different than the establishment "moderate" base.

At the same time he has spent a lot of time doing what Romney did in 2008-2010 which is making friends and supporting other politicians all around the country. Romney did it by straight up donating to many dozens of state level politicians and GOP offices. Randal did similarly but not donating directly but attending fundraisers for them and giving talks, etc.

Randal has been very active in supporting other candidacies (even losing/longshot candidates), these are favors and endorsements he is going to be able to cash in come election time. There is a reason the chamber of commerce chose to run an ad with Randal in it when things came down to the wire this past November and its not because he is unacceptable to a large swath of the party and lacks for enthusiasm.

I don't think he should be in crisis mode at all, this thing hasn't even really gotten started yet and he is much better positioned than near all the rest of the field.

Legend1104
01-26-2015, 06:21 PM
Which goes again to my point. The so-cons in Iowa are a lost cause. They only do what the television tells them to do.

As does like 90% of the American population. Being a so-con does not cause this, rather it is caused by a ever growing oppressive government using state education and mass media to enslave the masses. Please don't be guilty of a collectivist mindset in which you lump all so-cons in one group. I have a lot of friends that are so-cons that voted for Ron in the primary and are not what you describe. The real enemy is not so-cons but rather the corruption of the government itself. Many so-cons need to be educated not killed off.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 06:37 PM
If his current supporters are so locked in and so beneath consideration, why are you trying to divorce him from us by any trick you can devise?

And if inflation is such a narrowly appreciated issue, why was the White House Chief of Staff on every broadcast Sunday Morning Blather Show yesterday talking about how stagnant wages and inflation are destroying the middle class, and pretending that people should ignore Republicans because none of them are addressing it?

You mean why is Rand Paul trying to divorce himself from us and his father, with his own stupid positions? I'm not the one taking some or Rand Paul's stupid political positions (ISIS, funding Israel, etc.). Ask Rand Paul about that, not me. Ask Jesse Benton why he sent the text message to Peter Schiff suggesting he divorce himself from PaulFest and the supporters at it. Ask Jack Hunter why he ran away and called security on guys asking him questions at an event. If anybody is trying to divorce ideas and people from the movement, it would be people like Rand Paul, Jesse Benton, and those like Jack Hunter through their own stupid, not fiscally conservative, unconstitutional political positions, text messages, and silence and calling of security when asked basic questions.

I was a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 and 2012, because of Ron Paul's constitutional political record. I volunteered at the official HQ during the 2008 race. I was outside the South Carolina debate when Ron Paul spoke truth to that audience and Rudy Giuliani, and was booed for it, but remained steadfast. And I was able to meet Ron after that debate that very night, and shake his hand and thank him for it and encourage him to continue speaking the truth. I played one of the Ron Paul songs on our CD player that had been written by one of the bands then, and his granddaughters heard it for the first time after the debate.

I'm shown in the Ron Paul "For Liberty" documentary as part of the group being credited with spreading the sign messaging Ron Paul REVOLution signs and messaging idea across the country...because of our sign waving OUTSIDE the debate and directly in front of the Fox News cameras.

Again, Rand Paul should have the Audit the Fed voters locked, shouldn't he? So liar, don't tell me I'm trying to divorce anybody from anything, Rand Paul and his own positions and messaging is doing that.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 06:46 PM
You mean why is Rand Paul trying to divorce himself from us and his father, with his own stupid positions?

Because certain (mod edit) were screaming and screeching that it was stupid to bend not at all and thereby lose the race for higher office. And someone was apparently convinced.


Blah blah Jesse Benton blah blah Jack Hunter blah blah I was blah blah Ron Paul blah blah

I could change the subject, too. Unfortunately for you, I'm not only not going to do it, I'm not going to let you do it.

twomp
01-26-2015, 06:53 PM
As does like 90% of the American population. Being a so-con does not cause this, rather it is caused by a ever growing oppressive government using state education and mass media to enslave the masses. Please don't be guilty of a collectivist mindset in which you lump all so-cons in one group. I have a lot of friends that are so-cons that voted for Ron in the primary and are not what you describe. The real enemy is not so-cons but rather the corruption of the government itself. Many so-cons need to be educated not killed off.

Well you must not have a lot of friends then because the So-cons turned to Santorum and Huckabee when it came time to vote. I have never said so-cons should be killed off or that they are the enemy. I don't think anyone should die for their beliefs. Nice try and being dramatic though. That's the thing with so-cons isn't it? If you decriminalize marijuana, everyone will be a heroin addict! So dramatic but I guess that is how they sell their message. Through irrational fear.

So-cons have an irrational love towards Israel and a desire to set moral standards for the country. This is not caused by the government but their desire to be the country's moral police. Their policies lead to a country that is LESS free. They only want smaller government when it comes to them, for the rest of the country, they want to use the government to conform to their religion. Is this how 100% of so-cons are? Of course not but Rand Paul will not be able to win over many of their votes because they don't listen to rational discussions. They listen to the fear peddlers like Steve Deace who tells them who God wants them to vote for.

If Rand Paul really wanted to have a chance at the so-con vote in my opinion, he would skip these I love Jesus forums and go straight to community churches and engage them directly without all the side-show buzz. These I love Jesus forums run by Steve Deace and others are just a dog and pony show that they get to throw once every 4 years to get candidates to kiss their ass.

He will never win these I love Jesus contests and even if he did, Steve Deace would throw a wrench in all that because he is a sore loser and a cry baby.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 07:17 PM
If Rand Paul really wanted to have a chance at the so-con vote in my opinion, he would skip these I love Jesus forums and go straight to community churches and engage them directly without all the side-show buzz. These I love Jesus forums run by Steve Deace and others are just a dog and pony show that they get to throw once every 4 years to get candidates to kiss their ass.

He will never win these I love Jesus contests and even if he did, Steve Deace would throw a wrench in all that because he is a sore loser and a cry baby.

Mike Huckabee actually preached at churches in 2007 and 2008, in different states. He couldn't outright campaign from the pulpit, but his name/face/voice was before the congregations and he could preach sermons on things like, "The Sanctity of Life", to win their votes very easily come voting day.

But, just remember that Steve Deace endorsed Newt Gingrich in 2012, and Newt Gingrich lost Iowa in 4th place. Behind Ron Paul. So, Rand could be going to these events with some good messaging and at least keeping himself before these voters, I think is what TC is saying?


Because certain (mod edit) were screaming and screeching that it was stupid to bend not at all and thereby lose the race for higher office. And someone was apparently convinced.

I could change the subject, too. Unfortunately for you, I'm not only not going to do it, I'm not going to let you do it.

To not bend at all about what? Ron Paul's common sense, constitutional, pro-American policies? So, you're admitting Rand Paul is not some great constitutional political orator that he was made out to be by some, and that's why he is taking stupid positions? I know Rand Paul is taking the positions he is to try and keep off the coming 2016 attack ads. Again, I saw the ad template in 2012. Did you? Rand Paul is the one divorcing himself from the movement and his father's positions, not the movement and his father's positions from Rand Paul.

Nice try at another (mod edit)

brandon
01-26-2015, 07:35 PM
Talking out my ass here, but could it be that Iowa isn't that important to Rand? They don't have many delegates or really represent the majority of the party. The only thing they got going for them is the first in the nation caucus. That can be a big boost for a lesser known candidate or the social-con who is just running to make a point. But if you want to go court those crazy evangelicals you gotta say a lot of weird shit (ie, rape, birth control, gayz) that may come back to haunt you later. I'm no master of political strategy but I could definitely envision a path to the nomination for Rand that didn't depend to heavily on Iowa.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 07:37 PM
Talking out my ass here, but could it be that Iowa isn't that important to Rand? They don't have many delegates or really represent the majority of the party. The only thing they got going for them is the first in the nation caucus. That can be a big boost for a lesser known candidate or the social-con who is just running to make a point. I'm no master of political strategy but I could definitely envision a path to the nomination for Rand that didn't depend to heavily on Iowa.

What do you see as that path? I see New Hampshire as a good first choice, but I'm not sure where it goes after that state?

brandon
01-26-2015, 07:39 PM
What do you see as that path? I see New Hampshire as a good first choice, but I'm not sure where it goes after that state?

I haven't followed closely enough to say. Really depends on who runs. NV/SC/FL/NH could all be in play. Depends on if Romney gets involved and if voters really are willing to vote for him again.

r3volution 3.0
01-26-2015, 07:42 PM
I know Rand Paul is taking the positions he is to try and keep off the coming 2016 attack ads.

And what's wrong with that?

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 07:48 PM
And what's wrong with that?

Because the positions are not conservative, and simply pandering to try and keep off the attacks that will come anyway? It would be one thing if they were conservative, common sense, constitutional positions. These are not.

r3volution 3.0
01-26-2015, 07:50 PM
Because the positions are not conservative, and simply pandering to try and keep off the attacks that will come anyway? It would be one thing if they were conservative, common sense, constitutional positions. These are not.

Could you give me an example of the positions that you're talking about?

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 07:51 PM
Could you give me an example of the positions that you're talking about?

Supporting the bombing ISIS? Funding Israel, when it makes us less safe? Apparently supporting TPP?

r3volution 3.0
01-26-2015, 07:55 PM
Supporting the bombing ISIS? Funding Israel, when it makes us less safe? Apparently supporting TPP?

Supporting the TPP is the libertarian position, but let's set that aside, don't want to go off on that tangent.

You think that taking the opposite position on the other two (no intervention against ISIS and end support for Israel) would have advanced the cause in some way?

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 08:13 PM
Supporting the TPP is the libertarian position, but let's set that aside, don't want to go off on that tangent.

You think that taking the opposite position on the other two (no intervention against ISIS and end support for Israel) would have advanced the cause in some way?

Yes, because it's what you say and how you say it. You can either support more government and more debt. Or, you can support smaller government, and less debt. Those two positions are supporting more government and more debt. And it's not ending foreign aid for only Israel, but just simply voting against foreign aid for it and any other country, and saying you are against it. I don't see how pandering on the issues and becoming like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry on issues is supposed to be a good thing?

Has Rand Paul read the classified 9/11 Commission Report pages? Has he read the 9/11 Commission Report? Did he skip the Rudy Giuliani reading assignment? Ignoring the reasons given why we are/were attacked, makes us less safe. Not more safe.

Brett85
01-26-2015, 08:17 PM
One seldom harps on the candidate for days after the event in question, whilst telling his supporters that they've just lost and that their quest is now quixotic.

Sorry that I have to say this, but you're simply a liar. I said nothing of the sort. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.

r3volution 3.0
01-26-2015, 08:21 PM
Yes, because it's what you say and how you say it. You can either support more government and more debt. Or, you can support smaller government, and less debt. Those two positions are supporting more government and more debt. And it's not ending foreign aid for only Israel, but just simply voting against foreign aid for it and any other country, and saying you are against it.

What is the concrete benefit?

That is, Rand takes the positions you want him to take and....then what?

Where's the beef?

(the concrete benefit of pandering is, of course, getting elected)


I don't see how pandering on the issues and becoming like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry on issues is supposed to be a good thing?

You think that Rand's stance on foreign policy is the same as Santorum's, Romney's, and Kerry's?

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 08:42 PM
Yes, because it's what you say and how you say it. You can either support more government and more debt. Or, you can support smaller government, and less debt. Those two positions are supporting more government and more debt. And it's not ending foreign aid for only Israel, but just simply voting against foreign aid for it and any other country, and saying you are against it. I don't see how pandering on the issues and becoming like Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and John Kerry on issues is supposed to be a good thing?

I guess you were asleep when he said that aid to all foreign nations needs to end, and that Israel would be better off if we did just that, but in the meantime he's not interested in cutting Israel's aid unilaterally, or even cutting their aid first.

Either that, or you're trying to pretend he never said it for reasons other than a severely faulty memory.


Has Rand Paul read the classified 9/11 Commission Report pages? Has he read the 9/11 Commission Report? Did he skip the Rudy Giuliani reading assignment? Ignoring the reasons given why we are/were attacked, makes us less safe. Not more safe.

LOL

One minute you claim you want him not to put his foot in his mouth, the next minute you say you'll condemn him for saying nothing contrary to the beliefs of his father's good supporters, and the third minute you want him to dive into 9/11 with both feet.

Yet you would never stoop to coming over here and cleaning this coffee off of my computer monitor. So what damned good are you?

philipped
01-26-2015, 08:47 PM
I've never seen a thread go so into a subject before in all my time on the interwebz...

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 09:01 PM
What was the difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on social issues? Nothing. They ran on the exact same social policy platform. The reason why Republicans nominated Romney was because he was seen as the more electable candidate. They didn't reject Santorum because of his views on social issues.

And anyway, I'm not even saying that Rand has to take all of the social con positions, just that he should at least show up and talk to them.


Which, could be why Rand didn't attend the recent event. Maybe he knows he can't compete with the Huckabee type candidates at their source (think of the Values Voters Summit where he spoke), so he will try and work around it.

Which of you is Scylla and which is Charybdis?

Never mind. I'm sure Rand Paul will sail a safe course between you.

specsaregood
01-26-2015, 09:12 PM
http://i.imgur.com/VhLdamu.png
http://i.imgur.com/aRrQUZh.png
http://i.imgur.com/CUJH4xS.jpg

yeah "the family leader" and deace proved their partiality and duplicity with that douche maneuver. that thing wasn't hacked, they just didn't get the results they tried to organize and took their ball and went home in the 4th quarter instead of allowing us to win the game.

Example "a" of why I would never believe a word those people say.

And that just happens to be the group that deace is complaining that Randal didn't show up at their gig. Why should he? They played their card, why should he do anything to help them out?

Legend1104
01-26-2015, 09:19 PM
Well you must not have a lot of friends then because the So-cons turned to Santorum and Huckabee when it came time to vote. I have never said so-cons should be killed off or that they are the enemy. I don't think anyone should die for their beliefs. Nice try and being dramatic though.
.


The So-cons and their hypocritical policies are dying off. (Literally) And our country will be more free because of it.

I wasn't attempting to be dramatic I just implied from your own post that you will be glad to see them gone literally and were happy to let old age do the dirty work for you.

Keith and stuff
01-26-2015, 09:32 PM
Don't buy into the hype. Don't drain all your early campaign funds and attention on the first state.

Exactly. In 2012, the IA results had little effect on the results in any other state. On the other hand, Ron Paul's 2nd place finished helped in greatly in national polls and in the SC Primary. Certainly, NH is more important than IA.


Ron Paul's very strong showing in the New Hampshire Primary gave Ron Paul a 70% boost (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=24873.msg273745#msg273745) in the South Carolina Primary polls and a 25% boost nationally (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?563-Ron-Paul%92s-Success-in-New-Hampshire-Boosted-his-Support-by-25-Nationally)
http://old.freestateproject.org/intro/ron_paul

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 09:35 PM
What is the concrete benefit?

That is, Rand takes the positions you want him to take and....then what?

Where's the beef?

(the concrete benefit of pandering is, of course, getting elected)

You think that Rand's stance on foreign policy is the same as Santorum's, Romney's, and Kerry's?

The concrete benefit of taking the conservative, constitutional, common sense positions is not being able to be hit with flip flop ads. Not being accused of pandering. And being able to win with good talking points, and furthering truth and the message of a limited government.

If Rand Paul had been honing and fine tuning the message, there wouldn't be the need for walk backs, clarifications, and what looks like flip flops to the average voter.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPuaQBdtfGc

And no, I think Rand Paul is the same as Santorum, Romney, and Kerry on flip flopping positions, and "taking one for the team".

twomp
01-26-2015, 09:38 PM
I wasn't attempting to be dramatic I just implied from your own post that you will be glad to see them gone literally and were happy to let old age do the dirty work for you.

Since you get to "imply" that. I get to imply that you are being dramatic about it. It's funny how that works isn't it?

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 09:40 PM
If Rand Paul had been honing and fine tuning the message, there wouldn't be the need for walk backs, clarifications, and what looks like flip flops to the average voter.

Hm.

Now he's supposed to find a way to say things so Stewart can't twist them.

But we aren't expecting miracles or anything...

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 09:44 PM
I guess you were asleep when he said that aid to all foreign nations needs to end, and that Israel would be better off if we did just that, but in the meantime he's not interested in cutting Israel's aid unilaterally, or even cutting their aid first.

Either that, or you're trying to pretend he never said it for reasons other than a severely faulty memory.

LOL

One minute you claim you want him not to put his foot in his mouth, the next minute you say you'll condemn him for saying nothing contrary to the beliefs of his father's good supporters, and the third minute you want him to dive into 9/11 with both feet.

Yet you would never stoop to coming over here and cleaning this coffee off of my computer monitor. So what damned good are you?

Rand Paul isn't interested in cutting aid to Israel at this time, but he will vote for more foreign aid to Israel as he has now done. Ron Paul would not vote for more foreign aid. A fiscal conservative should not. Walter Jones does not. He read the 9/11 Commission Report pages that are classified. Thomas Massie does not. He read those same classified pages.

And yes, if national security is one of the President's greatest roles of overseeing, I expect Rand to read those pages, and make votes on issues to make us more safe, not less safe. Sorry that's so difficult for you to understand and comprehend, but you are the proven liar in this thread. Once again.

And I doubt you drink coffee, but if you do, it must be decaffeinated. Which would explain a lot. It's probably past your bedtime now. You should go let your father the devil tuck you in little one.

r3volution 3.0
01-26-2015, 10:11 PM
The concrete benefit of taking the conservative, constitutional, common sense positions is not being able to be hit with flip flop ads. Not being accused of pandering. And being able to win with good talking points, and furthering truth and the message of a limited government.

In a GOPer primary, it is infinitely better to be seen as a flip-flopper than to be seen as anti-Israel or soft on defense.

acptulsa
01-26-2015, 10:16 PM
Rand Paul isn't interested in cutting aid to Israel at this time, but he will vote for more foreign aid to Israel as he has now done. Ron Paul would not vote for more foreign aid. A fiscal conservative should not. Walter Jones does not. He read the 9/11 Commission Report pages that are classified. Thomas Massie does not. He read those same classified pages.

And yes, if national security is one of the President's greatest roles of overseeing, I expect Rand to read those pages, and make votes on issues to make us more safe, not less safe. Sorry that's so difficult for you to understand and comprehend, but you are the proven liar in this thread. Once again.

What lie did I tell about Rand wanting to cut aid to Israel right after we cut aid to all of the enemies of Israel? Quote it or someone is lying about me lying. And when did I say anything about your expectations regarding classified pages of anything? Are you even slightly interested in making sense?


And I doubt you drink coffee, but if you do, it must be decaffeinated. Which would explain a lot. It's probably past your bedtime now. You should go let your father the devil tuck you in little one.

Oh, sure, you busted me. My heart bleeds for Juan Valdez, and I refuse to be a party to his oppression. :rolleyes:

How did this political forum turn into Romper Room? Is there someone intelligent handy you can put on your keyboard? Or even an adult...?


In a GOPer primary, it is infinitely better to be seen as a flip-flopper than to be seen as anti-Israel or soft on defense.

He has a point, you know. And his isn't the top of his head.

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 10:20 PM
In a GOPer primary, it is infinitely better to be seen as a flip-flopper than to be seen as anti-Israel or soft on defense.

I didn't say to be seen as anti-Israel (which is going to happen anyway) or being seen as soft on defense. There are ways to word it that he is missing. Ways to word it and remain fiscally conservative, and having a solid, consistent, record. But if you put it in writing on the internet, any 2016 candidate can use it. His office has him shielded and apparently won't even take simple advice like fixing YouTube video upload resolutions that has been discussed around here. It might require driving up to DC, and visiting him in his office. Which, I did do in 2007/08 and volunteered time at the Ron Paul 2008 office while there visiting for a few days, and met RP in his congressional office as well.

mosquitobite
01-26-2015, 10:25 PM
As does like 90% of the American population. Being a so-con does not cause this, rather it is caused by a ever growing oppressive government using state education and mass media to enslave the masses. Please don't be guilty of a collectivist mindset in which you lump all so-cons in one group. I have a lot of friends that are so-cons that voted for Ron in the primary and are not what you describe. The real enemy is not so-cons but rather the corruption of the government itself. Many so-cons need to be educated not killed off.

Social conservatives that only vote one issue are the death of our nation & liberty.

They vote for someone who proclaims to be pro-life and ignore the rest of their voting history. They will vote for a consistently bad RINO Republican who pretends to be pro-life, even in a primary!

I am an evangelical Christian. I am not opposed to protecting life and even would support Rand's personhood bill. I'm definitely not pro-choice.
But I believe the way to enact real change is through sharing the love of Christ and His message of FREEDOM & LIBERTY, not laws.

To me, when I use the term social conservative it means a BIG GOVERNMENT proponent. Because when you want to use the Law to pass sin taxes, etc then you are NOT a libertarian leaning republican. So I have very little love for that bloc of voters. In fact, I probably have the most disdain for them! Because if they were truly Christian and not just because their parents made them go to church when they were little, they would understand the difference. They would have better discernment of pandering politicians!!

jjdoyle
01-26-2015, 10:44 PM
What lie did I tell about Rand wanting to cut aid to Israel right after we cut aid to all of the enemies of Israel? Quote it or someone is lying about me lying. And when did I say anything about your expectations regarding classified pages of anything? Are you even slightly interested in making sense?

You are a liar, and TC proved it once again. That would be the "Once again." part. Sorry, I should have linked it for you, not that you would have comprehended it. Especially being the unrepentant repeat liar you are.

Rand Paul flip flopping on foreign aid is not even just to Israel, but even to Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fm-oa2KURo

You continuously lie about what people say. I don't use every opportunity to scream and yell about Rand not attending events, and I proved you lied about it. I simply linked an article about a forum with Scott Walker attending (saw it on Drudge), and posted it in the 2016 forum with direct quotes from the piece. As the guidelines state to do when posting a link. I COULD have used that opportunity to call him out AND scream about it for him skipping it, but I didn't. I didn't even know what was on his schedule. I did look though, because I was curious. I simply, calmly quoted the article as it stated that he wouldn't be attending it. And I even made another post about it in another thread, when some were thinking/saying he would be speaking at it:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467356-IA-Freedom-Forum-will-start-in-10-min-on-C-SPAN

Two times I could have SCREAMED AND YELLED about him skipping it, and instead I simply pointed out that he wasn't. You are a liar.

And as for reading the classified pages, you don't have to say anything, but Rand should if he is going to be in favor of foreign aid to Israel until foreign aid to its enemies is cut...as you said. Otherwise, he is making national security and foreign aid decisions now, without knowing the semi-full picture of 9/11.

I understand you are trying to excuse the fact Rand Paul is appearing as Mitt Romney 2.0, but it's pathetic. It's like Mitt Romney supporters justifying every single flip flop, or President Obama supporters doing the same. And, I don't think it was necessary for him to appear this way, and I think he is/has been getting horrible advice on issues.

Maybe being at a 6.8 national average in polls right now is where he wants to be? Could be part of the strategy.

Legend1104
01-26-2015, 11:34 PM
Since you get to "imply" that. I get to imply that you are being dramatic about it. It's funny how that works isn't it?

Hey, I'm cool with you doing whatever you want as long as you don't harm others. That is what being a libertarian is all about. That is funny how that works.

Sola_Fide
01-26-2015, 11:50 PM
Unfortunately, I think Steve is probably right. I don't know what Rand could be thinking when he'll meet with people like Bill Maher and Jesse Jackson but refuses to show up at events hosted by social conservatives in Iowa. I can't even begin to contemplate what he's thinking and why he's doing things like that.

You can't see the value in preempting the left vote from ever becoming as monstrous as it was in the last election? I can.

Bastiat's The Law
01-27-2015, 01:47 AM
Sounds like you are advising Rand to skip Iowa, if winning there doesn't matter.

Iowa is a poor predictor of the Presidency. That being said, every "W" counts and someone with the last name Paul needs to actually win a state to get people to stand up and take you seriously as a candidate. Had I been Ron Paul's campaign manager I would've put EVERYTHING into Iowa and Ron would have visited all 99 counties several times over.

acptulsa
01-27-2015, 07:10 AM
As does like 90% of the American population. Being a so-con does not cause this, rather it is caused by a ever growing oppressive government using state education and mass media to enslave the masses. Please don't be guilty of a collectivist mindset in which you lump all so-cons in one group. I have a lot of friends that are so-cons that voted for Ron in the primary and are not what you describe. The real enemy is not so-cons but rather the corruption of the government itself. Many so-cons need to be educated not killed off.

This might be a good place to have an adult conversation about this. No one who reads the first four pages of this thread will expect one to happen here, of all places.

Let's just hope we got up early enough to do so uninterrupted.

You're right. So-called socons are not a monolithic bloc. But getting lost in a crowd at a crowded event where someone like Deace is stacking the deck against us is no place for Rand to reach them.

Will Rogers said that every man looks in his pocket, then votes. He said it during the Great Depression, and it's bound to be less true during a healthy economy. But since we don't have one of those, and haven't for over six years, I think the truth of it is a given right now. And that means our challenge is to figure out how to let Rand concentrate on the issues and reassure the evangelicals ourselves so he isn't seen pandering to them too much.

If we can. It's a tall order.

I know there are socons who will vote for the Republican who kisses their asses the most, and that's that. After all, it's the only time they can indulge in this particular vice, as that candidate never, ever makes it to the general election. But there are others who can be reached. What's the best way to do it? States' rights is a possibility, as that definitely applies to abortion law. The economy is another.

Is there a trick that will allow evangelicals to be easy in their minds about Rand Paul--even enthusiastic about him--that doesn't require him to scare everyone else off in the process of getting in their good graces? Is there a kind and non-patronizing way to say, 'You people never get what you want, but Rand Paul is what you need'?

specsaregood
01-27-2015, 07:54 AM
Will Rogers said that every man looks in his pocket, then votes. He said it during the Great Depression, and it's bound to be less true during a healthy economy. But since we don't have one of those, and haven't for over six years, I think the truth of it is a given right now. And that means our challenge is to figure out how to let Rand concentrate on the issues and reassure the evangelicals ourselves so he isn't seen pandering to them too much.

If we can. It's a tall order.


And that ties right into that nationwide poll of all registered voters I cited on the last page where Randal had the highest favorability of all "known" candidates.


40. How important are the following issues to you?
Very,Important, Somewhat, Important, Not very Important, Unimportant
The economy 69% 27% 3% 0%
Immigration 44% 35% 16% 4%
The environment 38% 37% 19% 6%
Terrorism 56% 29% 12% 3%
Gay rights 20% 25% 25% 29%
Education 54% 36% 8% 2%
Health care 58% 32% 9% 2%
Social security 60% 27% 10% 3%
The budget deficit 50% 34% 11% 5%
The war in
Afghanistan 28% 40% 24% 7%
Taxes 57% 34% 7% 1%
Medicare 51% 30% 15% 4%
Abortion 33% 30% 21% 16%
Foreign policy 39% 43% 15% 3%


41. Which of these is the most important issue for you?
The economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%
Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
The environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%
Terrorism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
Gay rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2%
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7%
Health care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%
Social security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%
The budget deficit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
The war in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0%
Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Medicare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4%
Abortion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%
Foreign policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%


The overwhelming most important to voters (of both parties) is the economy and social security.

acptulsa
01-27-2015, 08:03 AM
The overwhelming most important to voters (of both parties) is the economy and social security.

That and the fact that WHCOS Denis McDonough was all over the television Sunday Morning actually talking about how middle class wages aren't keeping up with rising prices leads me to believe that skipping Deace and holding an Audit the Fed rally instead was an extremely sage move on Rand's part.

philipped
01-27-2015, 08:09 AM
Social conservatives that only vote one issue are the death of our nation & liberty.

Anyone that's a 1 issue voter.

acptulsa
01-27-2015, 08:18 AM
Anyone that's a 1 issue voter.

According to the poll specs found, those who find abortion or gay rights the most vital issue of the age combine to represent seven percent of the electorate--and that doesn't differentiate pro-gay rights people from the anti- crowd. That hardly accounts for Huckabee's success in 2008, though there are such things as socons who aren't single issue voters. Is there a button to push to line up Iowans? Did Huckabee push it? Or does his secret lie elsewhere?

I think, as I have thought for years now, our best hope is to find a way to wean rank and file Republicans of Rupert Murdoch's sour milk teat called Fox.

specsaregood
01-27-2015, 08:25 AM
According to the poll specs found, those who find abortion or gay rights the most vital issue of the age combine to represent seven percent of the electorate--and that doesn't differentiate pro-gay rights people from the anti- crowd. That hardly accounts for Huckabee's success in 2008, though there are such things as socons who aren't single issue voters. Is there a button to push to line up Iowans? Did Huckabee push it? Or does his secret lie elsewhere?

I think, as I have thought for years now, our best hope is to find a way to wean rank and file Republicans of Rupert Murdoch's sour milk teat called Fox.

Huckabee won IA in 2008 in large part because of the "fairtax". He was the biggest proponent and the fairtax organization basically promoted him at the IA straw poll and around the state.

Uriah
01-27-2015, 08:41 AM
Huckabee won IA in 2008 in large part because of the "fairtax". He was the biggest proponent and the fairtax organization basically promoted him at the IA straw poll and around the state.

I remember that. Good point.

acptulsa
01-27-2015, 08:49 AM
I remember that. Good point.

Very good point.

Pity hocus pocus like that gets more attention than real, proven solutions like sound money.

Sola_Fide
01-27-2015, 09:04 AM
Huckabee won IA in 2008 in large part because of the "fairtax". He was the biggest proponent and the fairtax organization basically promoted him at the IA straw poll and around the state.

There is a big fair tax movement in southern indiana. It is maddening trying to reason with these fair tax nuts.

Christian Liberty
01-27-2015, 09:32 AM
There is a big fair tax movement in southern indiana. It is maddening trying to reason with these fair tax nuts.

They want the plundering spread out across the board.

specsaregood
01-27-2015, 09:39 AM
Very good point.
Pity hocus pocus like that gets more attention than real, proven solutions like sound money.

It is what it is, the key is knowing what works to get elected.


There is a big fair tax movement in southern indiana. It is maddening trying to reason with these fair tax nuts.
Then don't try to reason, try to find agreement and go from there. Ronald tried to do that, he said he supported the fairtax in theory but only if it required eliminating the income tax first. That didn't "sell" as the fairtax folk were only interested in somebody that would promote their idea as is to the extreme.

It would not hurt Randal to go over the fairtax proposal completely and see what parts of it he can adopt into his platform and try to get those folk on board.

mosquitobite
01-27-2015, 09:56 AM
There is a big fair tax movement in southern indiana. It is maddening trying to reason with these fair tax nuts.

SF is back?! And you live near me too?! :D

mosquitobite
01-27-2015, 09:58 AM
Anyone that's a 1 issue voter.

I agree. I just have a particular disdain for people who call themselves Constitutional conservatives and talk about the Christian roots of our nation... yet vote for people like Jackie Walorski who promise to be pro-life on the campaign trail and then do this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/21/abortion-bill-in-flux-as-female-gop-lawmakers-raise-concerns/

Yet they'll vote for her again in 2016 because.. she's better than the Democrat.

acptulsa
01-27-2015, 03:34 PM
I think Iowa evangelicals and an Audit the Fed rally are potentially an interesting combination. Even the White House is talking about the disappearing middle class. Even the White House is talking about how that's happening through stagnant wages and inflation. Without the inflation, the stagnant wages wouldn't destroy the middle class.

Did Jesus side with the people or with the money changers? There's a bottom line for you.

FSP-Rebel
01-27-2015, 04:12 PM
I know this is a little off topic but thought this comment that was made on my Rand Paul promotion thread over on bitcointalk was interesting. It's not exactly something you'd expect to read on a non-political site of sorts.


Rand will run when the time is right, and not sooner. He is cagey as all get out, and so is Kelly.

He's young and may play kingmaker in 2016, setting himself up for it to be unquestionably 'his turn' in 2020 or 2024 (as he continues to gain stature and influence as a Senator).

The Paul family is playing the long game; they are running a marathon, not a sprint.

Brett85
01-27-2015, 04:59 PM
You can't see the value in preempting the left vote from ever becoming as monstrous as it was in the last election? I can.

You're back! Did you just receive a two year ban or something? Lol.

Brett85
01-27-2015, 05:00 PM
Is there a trick that will allow evangelicals to be easy in their minds about Rand Paul--even enthusiastic about him--that doesn't require him to scare everyone else off in the process of getting in their good graces? Is there a kind and non-patronizing way to say, 'You people never get what you want, but Rand Paul is what you need'?

Sure, focus on areas of agreement like Ron did, such as the right to life and homeschooling.

Sola_Fide
01-27-2015, 05:03 PM
SF is back?! And you live near me too?! :D

Yes. We have a small group here in Columbus that is working on a few things.

Sola_Fide
01-27-2015, 05:04 PM
You're back. Did you just receive a two year ban or something? Lol.

Something like that.

anaconda
01-27-2015, 08:33 PM
Steve Deace is a cry baby and trying to appease him is like trying to appease Bill O'Reilly. Those guys will never support Rand but they sure would like to use him for his popularity. The social cons will never vote for Rand. They are a lost cause. Let them argue with each other over Huckabee, Cruz, Santorum over who loves Jesus more. Rand Paul should be trying to appeal to the rational people in Iowa not the bible thumpers who won't vote for him anyways.

Iowa is getting to be a joke anyway. The GOP Iowa winner is labeled unelectable in a general election. It's almost like a curse now.

acptulsa
01-27-2015, 10:03 PM
Sure, focus on areas of agreement like Ron did, such as the right to life and homeschooling.

Absolutely. The Tenth and States rights, and the restoration of the one breadwinner middle class so state baby sitting is neither required nor necessary.


Iowa is getting to be a joke anyway. The GOP Iowa winner is labeled unelectable in a general election. It's almost like a curse now.

Heh. That's an interesting angle. Never mind telling socons that whether or not Rand's what they want, he is what they need. Tell Iowans never mind what Fox says, pick the winner for once and restore your reputation.

invisible
01-28-2015, 12:26 AM
Comment received in a neg rep from jjdoyle (bolding mine):

How much will my message intensify, as much as possible for Rand Paul to tell the truth, and not be Mitt Romney 2.0. I won't excuse it, and neither should you.

Interesting that not only was there no denial that I interpreted his message correctly in my earlier post in this thread, but that he actually confirms that these are the things he is here to tell us, and that he will continue to intensify his message. Looks like I called that one perfectly. And it sounds like he doesn't like me exposing exactly what his purpose here is, for this is exactly what he has confirmed.

mosquitobite
01-28-2015, 07:34 AM
Yes. We have a small group here in Columbus that is working on a few things.

Clear out some room in your inbox so I can PM you!

RandallFan
01-28-2015, 08:28 PM
The only issue I have is the perception Rand is weaker on amnesty than the others. Or that he and King are not on good terms. King and Rand are on good terms.

http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/xk/8ADRwABzZpZhvbIjNfpXYgZ_zQ/www.mofopolitics.com/i.imgur.com/1Eq3oTD.gif.pagespeed.ce.He_M5jCzpFtZazMMTMDT.gif (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/01/26/rand-paul-plays-with-his-pants-during-marco-rubios-bizarre-neocon-rant/) « Previous Article (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/01/26/rand-paul-plays-with-his-pants-during-marco-rubios-bizarre-neocon-rant/) Rand Paul looks super bored during Marco Rubio’s bizarre neocon rant (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/01/26/rand-paul-plays-with-his-pants-during-marco-rubios-bizarre-neocon-rant/)
http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/xk/8ADRwABzZpZhvbIjNfpXYgZ_zQ/www.mofopolitics.com/i.imgur.com/e1Vd70C.jpg.pagespeed.ce.zRVKgrnEuhx9oRlc7pzC.jpg (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/01/27/scott-walker-pro-amnesty-pro-obamacare-anti-austerity/) Next Article » (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/01/27/scott-walker-pro-amnesty-pro-obamacare-anti-austerity/) Scott Walker: Pro-Amnesty, Pro-Obamacare, Anti-Austerity (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2015/01/27/scott-walker-pro-amnesty-pro-obamacare-anti-austerity/)





Senator Rand PaulVerified account ‏@SenRandPaul (https://twitter.com/SenRandPaul) Congrats to my friend @SteveKingIA (https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA) on your reelection to Congress! #IA04 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/IA04?src=hash)





Thread: S. King on Rand: Wasn't going to be a constructive place for him to be if he wants to be POTUS (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458029-S-King-on-Rand-Wasn-t-going-to-be-a-constructive-place-for-him-to-be-if-he-wants-to-be-POTUS)

rich34
01-29-2015, 08:51 AM
I think it could be he don't want to over expose himself so he can hopefully keep that rock star status when he does show up.

philipped
01-29-2015, 04:05 PM
I think it could be he don't want to over expose himself so he can hopefully keep that rock star status when he does show up.

Exactly, he should not over exert himself, we're are only in January of 2015 everybody...

If you ask me he needs to focus on trying to get Audit the Fed, REDEEM act, Economic Freedom Zones, or something bipartisan, sensible and awesome to the President's desk. Obama said he wants to work with Republicans during the SOTU right? ;)

William Tell
02-01-2015, 11:19 AM
A lot of the liberty activists? You lie. If what you were saying had any ounce of truth then Ron Paul should have won the So- cons vote in 2008 and 2012 but i guess "a lot" of the so-cons didn't agree with your assessment. Way to make shit up like you usually do.

You really don't get what he's saying, do you? :rolleyes:
He said that a lot of Ron's supporters were social conservatives, not that most social conservatives supported Ron.