For the Ron Paul Supporters Who Are Not Voting Rand Paul

[orenbus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTQKb08aKFc

I'm not even sure what sub-forum to put this in that would be considered neutral territory or if it should just go to hot topics, so mods if there is a better place feel free to move this.

From what I can tell most people here were still planning on voting for Rand regardless, so not even sure if the above video was even worth making or posting, but I just saw it and figured eh what the hell, just in case.

I know a lot of you were going to vote for Rand, but decided you were not going to donate or volunteer because you were waiting to see how certain things were going to unfold, for example the messaging, Jesse Benton, stance on issues, etc. which is fine, I can relate. Some of you will probably not be deterred from this view because of your personal conclusions that have already been made, which in my opinion is cool as well.

Guess this video would be more for the others that may be here that are borderline deciding whether to even vote, or are planning not to vote for Rand. If you are out there, this video is for you.

[nayjevin]

Is that you in the video?

[orenbus]

No it's just a video I found on youtube.

[Thor]

If Rand is the contender, there is no doubt he has my vote.

My concern is the GOP will play the same dirty tricks they played on Ron, and Rand won't even be a choice. We will get Jeb or some neocon shill, yet again...

While Rand is not perfect, the video is right, it is a huge step in the right direction. All these purists bemoaning Rand on this issue and that issue are just shooting themselves in the foot. You have to play the game to win. Being a purist and bitching from the bleachers doesn't even give you a shot at the goal.

Thanks for sharing that vid.

[Vanguard101]

There are actually legitimate reasons to not vote for Rand. It's not even a matter of being pure. It's a matter of what Rand has said and done. He has run as some kind of Reagan-Kemp hybrid, and that is not what we wanted

[ctiger2]

Political Analyst: Rand Paul Is Losing His Father’s Base (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rand-paul-is-losing-his-fathers-base/)


Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s presidential campaign is less than a day old but already suffers from an identity crisis. Paul wants to win, but he can only do so if he is seen as more mainstream than his father, Ron Paul, who ran for president in 2008 and 2012. At the same time, Paul can’t completely jettison the far-left and far-right positions that have made him a hero to the substantial number of Republican libertarians who made up his father’s base.

In Paul’s dream world, he’ll satisfy everyone. In the most likely real world, he’ll end up satisfying no one.

[Thor]

There are actually legitimate reasons to not vote for Rand. It's not even a matter of being pure. It's a matter of what Rand has said and done. He has run as some kind of Reagan-Kemp hybrid, and that is not what we wanted

But what ya'll wanted, would have left Rand in the bleachers and not even on the field, which would have given a 0% chance of winning. It is a game, and I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to get him to where he can make change... He has said and done what he has had to do to get to where he has a chance, on the field... Not like the 1% LP bleacher bitchers...

So because of some things he has said an done, you would rather see Hitlary get elected by casting a "principled" vote? If the choice is a neocon shill or Hitlary, then sure I agree. Vote for the LP candidate or don't vote. It is a fools game by and large anyway. But when someone is 80% there in alignment who can really make a change, but because of the 20% he has said or done that is game playing and doesn't jive with ya'll - you don't support him. That is just shooting yourself in the foot and stating you want the perfect principled candidate and you want them to win... and that won;t happen at this stage and never will unless someone like Rand paves the way to that change.

Get the man in the office and then let's judge. It is a game to get into the office...

But again, I have my doubts he will even be the nominee.

[Thor]

Political Analyst: Rand Paul Is Losing His Father’s Base (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rand-paul-is-losing-his-fathers-base/)

His fathers base is not enough to get him in.... let alone nominated.

[specsaregood]

Political Analyst: Rand Paul Is Losing His Father’s Base (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rand-paul-is-losing-his-fathers-base/)

For anybody paying attention it has been obvious from the getgo that the TPTB tactic here was to try to divide and convince Ron's supporters that Randal is on their side.

[specsaregood]

It's a matter of what Rand has said and done. He has run as some kind of Reagan-Kemp hybrid, and that is not what we wanted

And by WE you mean you. Reagan and Kemp are well known for trying to grow the party. I don't see that as a bad thing.

As far as what he as said and done? Hell, I agree with close to 90% of what he says and maybe even 100% with the actual legislation he has proposed and submitted. And despite what all the divisive folk claim; he is still more like his father in what he says and does than either Reagan or Kemp.

[nayjevin]

And despite what all the divisive folk claim; he is still more like his father in what he says and does than either Reagan or Kemp.

He's just like Reagan! Yay! (Boo) He's not at all like Reagan! Yay! (Boo)

Divide and conquer, establishment laughing.

[Natural Citizen]

I always chuckle when I hear young people talk about Reagan. Although, I commend them for taking interest in what he did and would encourage them to research the era. I think that people would have actually had to have experienced the 80's to really understand Reagan. Too often we hear Reagan defined in terms of talking heads on television. And they're very seletive in doing so. and, so, I think that when youth hear these pundits they don't really take away all that was great with regard to the era. Of course, that is likely a different discussion for another day. Would be a great topic if we had a culture section. We'd do well to return to the mindset of the Reagan era and that way of living but there was much to it. I almost want to say that the 80s were nostalgic.

[H. E. Panqui]

Yikes!..not much here except an emotional appeal from some apparently star-struck young fellow!..(btw, no honest, decent, libertarian will support rand)..

...i supported ron paul because he frequently uttered things such as, "It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example."


...whereas your republicrat, rand, frequently utters stinking, stoooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, things such as, "...But until we name the enemy, we can't win the war. The enemy is radical Islam, you can't get around it. And not only will I name the enemy, I will do whatever it takes to defend America from these haters of mankind.."

[Vanguard101]

But what ya'll wanted, would have left Rand in the bleachers and not even on the field, which would have given a 0% chance of winning. It is a game, and I willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to get him to where he can make change... He has said and done what he has had to do to get to where he has a chance, on the field... Not like the 1% LP bleacher bitchers...

So because of some things he has said an done, you would rather see Hitlary get elected by casting a "principled" vote? If the choice is a neocon shill or Hitlary, then sure I agree. Vote for the LP candidate or don't vote. It is a fools game by and large anyway. But when someone is 80% there in alignment who can really make a change, but because of the 20% he has said or done that is game playing and doesn't jive with ya'll - you don't support him. That is just shooting yourself in the foot and stating you want the perfect principled candidate and you want them to win... and that won;t happen at this stage and never will unless someone like Rand paves the way to that change.

Get the man in the office and then let's judge. It is a game to get into the office...

But again, I have my doubts he will even be the nominee.


And by WE you mean you. Reagan and Kemp are well known for trying to grow the party. I don't see that as a bad thing.

As far as what he as said and done? Hell, I agree with close to 90% of what he says and maybe even 100% with the actual legislation he has proposed and submitted. And despite what all the divisive folk claim; he is still more like his father in what he says and does than either Reagan or Kemp.

You all can slow down. I've always been a huge and vocal supporter of Rand. I just realize there are legitimate reasons to not vote for him. He isn't running as a libertarian even though I believe he is a minarchist at worst. My standards for politicians are incredibly low.