Rand/Ron Supporters need a little reality check

[65fastback2+2]

Ive been thinking about this off and on for awhile.

Rand's campaign slogan is "defeat the Washington machine".

Lets all be serious here...did you really think, that it took decades and decades to defeat the England machine, that defeating the Washington machine was going to happen in less than a decade?

The reality check is, we need to quit worrying about winning, and we need to be worrying about teaching and standing on liberty principles.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams

If we sell ourselves short on this one election cycle, it will set us back on the liberty revolution.

I say, who cares about polls?! I'll keep donating to liberty minded candidates and I'll keep voting for them.

It can be Trump v. Bernie at the end of 2016 and I am voting Rand Paul if I have to scratch someone's name out and scribble over it.

Enough with the whining and crying and bickering. Support liberty. Thats what matters.

[69360]

Educational campaign part 3. Oh and it's going to be the Bushes and the Clintons again. It always was. Trump and Sanders are just distractions presented to give you an illusion of choice.

[Crashland]

I think we need to be concerned about winning, but concerned in the sense that we are willing to contribute towards making that happen, not concerned in the sense that any discouraging poll becomes a good reason to stop supporting the candidate...

[Jonderdonk]

Both educating and winning follow the same trajectory. If we pursue one, we pursue both.

[Jeremy]

Both educating and winning follow the same trajectory. If we pursue one, we pursue both.

True. Ron Paul didn't win, but we've won many elctions since then. Justin Amash, Rand Paul (Senate), Thomas Massie.

[RonPaulMall]

True. Ron Paul didn't win, but we've won many elctions since then. Justin Amash, Rand Paul (Senate), Thomas Massie.

And even in this cycle, Kelli Ward is currently leading McCain in the polls. That would be a huge win.

http://politistick.com/exclusive-rino-john-mccains-challenger-kelli-ward-removes-his-maverick-label-with-this-ultimate-slam/

[hells_unicorn]

And even in this cycle, Kelli Ward is currently leading McCain in the polls. That would be a huge win.

http://politistick.com/exclusive-rino-john-mccains-challenger-kelli-ward-removes-his-maverick-label-with-this-ultimate-slam/

Yeah, I would say about as huge as if we'd been able to get rid of Graham last time around. That's another goal to work for, cleaning out all the vermin from the senate, one primary at a time.

[Peace&Freedom]

True. Ron Paul didn't win, but we've won many elctions since then. Justin Amash, Rand Paul (Senate), Thomas Massie.

The most important aspect of those victories are that the movement managed to install a few pro-liberty replacements for Ron Paul before he retired. It would have been somewhat demoralizing if we had gotten none of them elected, and Ron left Congress.

[65fastback2+2]

I think we need to be concerned about winning, but concerned in the sense that we are willing to contribute towards making that happen, not concerned in the sense that any discouraging poll becomes a good reason to stop supporting the candidate...

concerned sure...but many on here throw their hands in the air at any dumb online poll.

at the base of it, we arent concerned at a candidate that could be in a car wreck and die tomorrow. we're concerned about liberty and ideas cant be killed. many are investing themselves far too much in a person and not enough in the idea of liberty.

[Mr.NoSmile]

True. Ron Paul didn't win, but we've won many elctions since then. Justin Amash, Rand Paul (Senate), Thomas Massie.

Three victories hardly constitutes 'many elections.' Compare that to the slate of losers: Greg Brannon, Chris McDaniel, Tom McMillin, Lee Bright, Nancy Mace, Katrina Pierson, Elaine Hays, so on...three minor wins is hardly representative of anything when you look at all the losses.

[Jonderdonk]

Three victories hardly constitutes 'many elections.' Compare that to the slate of losers: Greg Brannon, Chris McDaniel, Tom McMillin, Lee Bright, Nancy Mace, Katrina Pierson, Elaine Hays, so on...three minor wins is hardly representative of anything when you look at all the losses.

Compared to the abysmal history of the liberty movement in our government, I would say that three constitutes many. :cool:

[Paul4Prez]

Things change quickly when people get fed up. See Romania, or the Berlin Wall, or the Arab Spring, or France in 1789. Run to win.

[r3volution 3.0]

Some people in the movement have dropped out, thinking that winning is impossible.

Others have unrealistically high expectations, that we're going to win every time, and Leviathan is going to be gone by Christmas.

We need to get away from both of these extremes.

The reality is that, while we absolutely can win (as evidenced by Rand being elected in the first place), it's always going to be against the odds.

This is going to be a long slog, and we're only going to win with enormous, sustained effort, and a healthy portion of luck.

And, in the end, we may not win, there are no guarantees, and we need to appreciate that too, and be at peace with it: let it not be said we did nothing.

[Sola_Fide]

Ive been thinking about this off and on for awhile.

Rand's campaign slogan is "defeat the Washington machine".

Lets all be serious here...did you really think, that it took decades and decades to defeat the England machine, that defeating the Washington machine was going to happen in less than a decade?

The reality check is, we need to quit worrying about winning, and we need to be worrying about teaching and standing on liberty principles.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams

If we sell ourselves short on this one election cycle, it will set us back on the liberty revolution.

I say, who cares about polls?! I'll keep donating to liberty minded candidates and I'll keep voting for them.

It can be Trump v. Bernie at the end of 2016 and I am voting Rand Paul if I have to scratch someone's name out and scribble over it.

Enough with the whining and crying and bickering. Support liberty. Thats what matters.

And then you can take the terrifying step of not supporting the entire machine once you understand it's all a big farce.

[Jeremy]

Three victories hardly constitutes 'many elections.' Compare that to the slate of losers: Greg Brannon, Chris McDaniel, Tom McMillin, Lee Bright, Nancy Mace, Katrina Pierson, Elaine Hays, so on...three minor wins is hardly representative of anything when you look at all the losses.

Ya win some ya lose some.

[65fastback2+2]

Ya win some ya lose some.

he's cherry picking...the liberty movement started back up in 2007

we've had mike lee, ted cruz, rand paul and other be elected because of it

[65fastback2+2]

Some people in the movement have dropped out, thinking that winning is impossible.

Others have unrealistically high expectations, that we're going to win every time, and Leviathan is going to be gone by Christmas.

We need to get away from both of these extremes.

The reality is that, while we absolutely can win (as evidenced by Rand being elected in the first place), it's always going to be against the odds.

This is going to be a long slog, and we're only going to win with enormous, sustained effort, and a healthy portion of luck.

And, in the end, we may not win, there are no guarantees, and we need to appreciate that too, and be at peace with it: let it not be said we did nothing.

:cool: bravo

[Mr.NoSmile]

he's cherry picking...the liberty movement started back up in 2007

we've had mike lee, ted cruz, rand paul and other be elected because of it

Oh, Ted Cruz? The same Cruz who people here call a backstabber and say he's a neocon plant thrown in the 2016 race to siphon votes away from Rand Paul? And given how all of those losses that you call cherry-picking came from last year's midterm election, and given how it's only in response to Jeremy's claim that the liberty movement has 'won many victories'- it still stands. But thanks for trying. Started in 2007, so eight years later, and you still have all those losses compared to the three wins you mentioned.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Educational campaign part 3. Oh and it's going to be the Bushes and the Clintons again. It always was. Trump and Sanders are just distractions presented to give you an illusion of choice.

If Rand is running an educational campaign, he's doing a terrible job of that. Forming a new country in the middle east and arming said country? 14.5% tax rate? Keeping sanctions on Iran?

Those aren't educational positions for a liberty candidate.

[Jeremy]

Oh, Ted Cruz? The same Cruz who people here call a backstabber and say he's a neocon plant thrown in the 2016 race to siphon votes away from Rand Paul? And given how all of those losses that you call cherry-picking came from last year's midterm election, and given how it's only in response to Jeremy's claim that the liberty movement has 'won many victories'- it still stands. But thanks for trying. Started in 2007, so eight years later, and you still have all those losses compared to the three wins you mentioned.

How many wins does Santorum have? Huck's Army? One of the largest grassroots group on the internet in 2007 and they have nothing to show for it. Glass half full vs. glass half empty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ive been thinking about this off and on for awhile.

Rand's campaign slogan is "defeat the Washington machine".

Lets all be serious here...did you really think, that it took decades and decades to defeat the England machine, that defeating the Washington machine was going to happen in less than a decade?

The reality check is, we need to quit worrying about winning, and we need to be worrying about teaching and standing on liberty principles.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams

If we sell ourselves short on this one election cycle, it will set us back on the liberty revolution.

I say, who cares about polls?! I'll keep donating to liberty minded candidates and I'll keep voting for them.

It can be Trump v. Bernie at the end of 2016 and I am voting Rand Paul if I have to scratch someone's name out and scribble over it.

Enough with the whining and crying and bickering. Support liberty. Thats what matters.

VOTE HARDER!!! It'll surely work this time! :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

True. Ron Paul didn't win, but we've won many elctions since then. Justin Amash, Rand Paul (Senate), Thomas Massie.

3/535+a few at state/local levels is "many"? :confused:

[NoOneButPaul]

If Rand is running an educational campaign, he's doing a terrible job of that. Forming a new country in the middle east and arming said country? 14.5% tax rate? Keeping sanctions on Iran?

Those aren't educational positions for a liberty candidate.

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. If Rand had run his campaign like Ron did things would have been different but he spent the last 3 years trying to be a watered down version of his father to get elected and that planned failed spectacularly because they underestimated what an impact the grassroots had had in 08 and 2012.

I think Rand's the one who needs to read the OP not the rest of us... had Rand stuck to his guns and not watered down the message we wouldn't be where we are at now and even if it meant him losing (something that's already going to happen anyway) at least he could have built up a bigger base.

Part of what woke people up to Ron is he predicted the crash during the primaries in 2007. Had Rand been more vocal about how badly Fed policy has screwed everything up even if it meant him losing he would have gained more respect and numbers in 2020 or 2024. Rand should have just carried his father's torch completely and let more and more wake up. Instead he assumed by disregarding his father's more "kooky" supporters he'd gain more chamber GOP members and the bottom line is those people were never going to vote for him even if they like him better than his dad. A lot of us tried to warn everyone of this and got called simple minded and ignorant... well let's hope Rand actually makes it to Iowa now...

[CPUd]

Pretty much exactly what I was going to say. If Rand had run his campaign like Ron did things would have been different but he spent the last 3 years trying to be a watered down version of his father to get elected and that planned failed spectacularly because they underestimated what an impact the grassroots had had in 08 and 2012.

I think Rand's the one who needs to read the OP not the rest of us... had Rand stuck to his guns and not watered down the message we wouldn't be where we are at now and even if it meant him losing (something that's already going to happen anyway) at least he could have built up a bigger base.

Part of what woke people up to Ron is he predicted the crash during the primaries in 2007. Had Rand been more vocal about how badly Fed policy has screwed everything up even if it meant him losing he would have gained more respect and numbers in 2020 or 2024. Rand should have just carried his father's torch completely and let more and more wake up. Instead he assumed by disregarding his father's more "kooky" supporters he'd gain more chamber GOP members and the bottom line is those people were never going to vote for him even if they like him better than his dad. A lot of us tried to warn everyone of this and got called simple minded and ignorant... well let's hope Rand actually makes it to Iowa now...

He will definitely make it to Iowa.

[65fastback2+2]

Oh, Ted Cruz? The same Cruz who people here call a backstabber and say he's a neocon plant thrown in the 2016 race to siphon votes away from Rand Paul? And given how all of those losses that you call cherry-picking came from last year's midterm election, and given how it's only in response to Jeremy's claim that the liberty movement has 'won many victories'- it still stands. But thanks for trying. Started in 2007, so eight years later, and you still have all those losses compared to the three wins you mentioned.

whether or not you like him now...he ran as and was voted in as a liberty candidate. Its why Ron backed him.

[Mr.NoSmile]

whether or not you like him now...he ran as and was voted in as a liberty candidate. Its why Ron backed him.

The question isn't whether I like Cruz. And ran as one? So did Kerry Bentivolio, and I don't remember folks clamoring for him to stay after he voted for Boehner to remain as Speaker. Just because they ran as liberty candidates doesn't mean that they ended up being ones.

[fisharmor]

The question isn't whether I like Cruz. And ran as one? So did Kerry Bentivolio, and I don't remember folks clamoring for him to stay after he voted for Boehner to remain as Speaker. Just because they ran as liberty candidates doesn't mean that they ended up being ones.

Dude, don't you get it?

They WON.

There isn't anything more important than that! WINNING!

So stop all this loser naysaying. Only losers talk like that. And like it or not, Ron Paul was a loser.
So get on the winning bandwagon. If Rand loses, it's not because he wasn't trying to win. It's because of your loser talk and all the other losers spreading loser talk.

WIN! BE MORE WINNING!

:rolleyes:

[69360]

Some people in the movement have dropped out, thinking that winning is impossible.

Others have unrealistically high expectations, that we're going to win every time, and Leviathan is going to be gone by Christmas.

We need to get away from both of these extremes.

The reality is that, while we absolutely can win (as evidenced by Rand being elected in the first place), it's always going to be against the odds.

This is going to be a long slog, and we're only going to win with enormous, sustained effort, and a healthy portion of luck.

And, in the end, we may not win, there are no guarantees, and we need to appreciate that too, and be at peace with it: let it not be said we did nothing.

I'm sold on Rand. He has my vote no matter what. Realistically I don't see a path to victory in this primary for him as of now. So I am not putting my effort or cash into it. If the situation changes, so can I.

Save me the "you have to make it happen" lines. Rand is polling very low single digits, nothing I could do would change that.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm sold on Rand. He has my vote no matter what. Realistically I don't see a path to victory in this primary for him as of now. So I am not putting my effort or cash into it. If the situation changes, so can I.

Save me the "you have to make it happen" lines. Rand is polling very low single digits, nothing I could do would change that.

I am, but I can understand where you're coming from. We all have limited time and money. We have to ration it as best we can. If you think Rand's odds aren't good enough, so you save your powder for another effort in the future, fine. What I don't understand is why some libertarians won't even take the time to vote for him (all 5 minutes at the poll booth...). That's totally inexcusable. Even more so with those who actively campaign against him, of which there are a few on this forum. That makes no sense.

[acptulsa]

The question isn't whether I like Cruz. And ran as one? So did Kerry Bentivolio, and I don't remember folks clamoring for him to stay after he voted for Boehner to remain as Speaker. Just because they ran as liberty candidates doesn't mean that they ended up being ones.

And how would we know that a couple of them were lemons if we never had any wins?

And what about the ones who aren't perfect but are huge improvements? Like Bridenstine kicking Sullivan out in a primary?

Like rev 3.0 said, we're far from toothless. We've given the Establishment reason to fear us.