Its raining mea culpa in liberty land.

[eleganz]

In the last day there have been many :

"Oops I was wrong, Rand proved himself"

"Rand did better because he became more libertarian and didn't appease the establishment"

"The campaign is being run much better now"

"Campaign finally knows what they're doing"

"Rand finally did something about his low poll numbers"

"I admit I was wrong about Rand"

yada yada yada


The campaign didn't do anything and Rand didn't change, he has always been the same. The only ones changing are those that RAN when the town was attacked and RAN BACK when the alcohol flowed.

You're changing...not Rand, its only because of the timing during the debate and certain favorable conditions that allowed him to differentiate himself. Every campaign walks in with certain strategies, some get the opportunity to say what they want and get the reaction they want and some don't. It doesn't mean their campaigns are bad or don't know what they are doing. Rand or his campaign didn't just turn on a switch from establishment pussy to libertarian boss (like many appear to believe).

So anyway, today is a good day for the liberty movement. Everyone will cheerlead and be happy and give a ton of +reps, pat each other on the back, share articles and donate but what happens the next time if the town wall goes down? Will you run or will you stand?

[ds21089]

I never doubted Rand for a second, but you have to admit his presentation style has changed. He stated in the email prior to the debate he was going to be more bold and that's exactly what he did. I dont know if it was entirely a presentation vs simply having more time, but whatever it was certainly resonated better than the previous debates.

[phill4paul]

Whateva.

[CPUd]

Asked about his campaign, and whether it could be improved, he said: “I give the same speech I gave four years ago, with a little bit of variety. But I’m not a believer that really we’re doing anything wrong or made a misstep.

“All the stories that say: ‘Oh, his campaign sucks, that’s why he’s doing poorly’ … not really. It has nothing to do with my campaign. It has nothing to do with me, really. It may mean people are liking the more bombastic message, but that’s just not me.

“I’m giving the same message as when I was higher in the polls.”



http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/09/rand-paul-polls-donald-trump-ben-carson

[William Tell]

Basically Ron Paul supporters are as fickle and silly as mainstream voters, if not more so.

[eleganz]

Whateva.

I appear to have rubbed some the wrong way. Its ok thats what I meant to do.

[jurgs01]

I forgive everyone. Now, let's win this thing!

[fcreature]

Rand got (relatively) an equal amount of time in this debate. Much of that was his doing, yes, but that is ultimately why he shined. Can't blame the guy for not having moments when he has a total of 3 minutes of speaking time in a debate.

[Anti Federalist]

I understand he did well.

I did not see the debate.

I'll start cheering when he starts polling better than 2 to 5 percent.

[TheNewYorker]

I understand he did well.

I did not see the debate.

I'll start cheering when he starts polling better than 2 to 5 percent.

Unless the polls are completely rigged, Rand should be going close to double digits soon.

[Feeding the Abscess]

In the last day there have been many :

"Oops I was wrong, Rand proved himself"

"Rand did better because he became more libertarian and didn't appease the establishment"

"The campaign is being run much better now"

"Campaign finally knows what they're doing"

"Rand finally did something about his low poll numbers"

"I admit I was wrong about Rand"

yada yada yada


The campaign didn't do anything and Rand didn't change, he has always been the same. The only ones changing are those that RAN when the town was attacked and RAN BACK when the alcohol flowed.

You're changing...not Rand, its only because of the timing during the debate and certain favorable conditions that allowed him to differentiate himself. Every campaign walks in with certain strategies, some get the opportunity to say what they want and get the reaction they want and some don't. It doesn't mean their campaigns are bad or don't know what they are doing. Rand or his campaign didn't just turn on a switch from establishment pussy to libertarian boss (like many appear to believe).

So anyway, today is a good day for the liberty movement. Everyone will cheerlead and be happy and give a ton of +reps, pat each other on the back, share articles and donate but what happens the next time if the town wall goes down? Will you run or will you stand?

Rather than mentioning arming the Ukranians and Kurds, keeping forces in Afghanistan, enforcing sanctions on Iran and other countries, declaring war on ISIS, restoring the military funds cut by sequestration - and he had plenty of opportunity to do just that last night - he decided to take non-interventionist positions and pointed out the folly in interventionist policies like arming rebel forces, no-fly zones, and ending diplomacy.

It is dishonest to say the latter is no different or not the result of a changed approach from the former.

[afwjam]

Bull shit! Your rhetoric is over the top and not beneficial to this movement. We are individuals and can stand where we want, I'm not fighting anything, you can if you want.

In my opinion Rand has finally started talking about the real issue. Yes he has been saying the right things about foreign and domestic policy, but the beast could care less and would continue as long as we participate in the dialectic. We need to look behind the curtain and address the real issue, the beast itself, the Federal Reserve. I know Rand has audit the fed legislation, but he was not using his educational opertunities in this presidential election the way his father was. That has now changed significantly in the past couple weeks. I'm not sure Rand has ever really put the full picture together in a sentence as his father did, but he is a hell of a lot closer.

All the issues foreign and domestic that Rand has been talking about are enabled by the Feds dishonest, unfair and down right evil monetary policy. Arguing about these issues is useless if we do not change our monetary policy and reveal the evil behind it.

Call us cowards all you want, that in itself is a cowardly act and accomplishes nothing, like all fighting. The grass roots will awaken and stand with Rand when Rand strikes the right notes. I would like to believe a large portion of this movement has woken up and moved past the petty rhetoric of the dialectic. Elections are meaningless if we don't address the real evil in this world.

Go watch Ron Paul's final congressional speech again and try and understand what he is saying. Your attacks accomplish nothing, we appeal to a higher power and pray for real peace on earth.

Edit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q03cWio-zjk

[eleganz]

I never doubted Rand for a second, but you have to admit his presentation style has changed. He stated in the email prior to the debate he was going to be more bold and that's exactly what he did. I dont know if it was entirely a presentation vs simply having more time, but whatever it was certainly resonated better than the previous debates.

He always says what he's going to do before the debate. His presentation style did not change, he is the same Rand the only difference is the conditions that allowed his style to shine in contrast with others.

Also when he took down Trump, it wasn't with style, he just happened to know something about the TPP that the others didn't know, or didn't think about mentioning.

More time definitely raises your chances of having great conditions for a great moment but more time does not define you doing better or worse.

The type of questions you're asked, the tone and substance of the question as well as how you respond and how others respond to you dictate the type of success you're going to have in how others perceive your response. Theres so many factors that go into what constitutes as a great debate moment but one of them is not, "the campaign changed".

The campaign is constantly changing for better and worse, its called learning. Rand doesn't change, his message stays the same and his persona is the same.

[Mr Stealth]

YES I agree. Let's win this now, thanks.

Rand is working hard to influence the discussions being had, and for those who have been following him, they know this is what he has been doing every day for years. Last night, for just a few short moments, the stars aligned in favor of Liberty.

Ron won millions of followers because he was punching the establishment in the face. I'd bet it's the same for Bernie & Trump believers. People aren't just angry about immigration and CEO's and police... they are angry at the failing status quo of our government establishment!

May the stars continue to shine on Rand, so that more people will realize that Liberty is the organic and holistic cure for the affliction of bad government.

[georgiaboy]

I understand he did well.

I did not see the debate.

I'll start cheering when he starts polling better than 2 to 5 percent.

6?

somebody had to be the smartass.

[Crashland]

Unless the polls are completely rigged, Rand should be going close to double digits soon.

Not sure about double digits, but I am hoping to see at least up to 6-8%

[eleganz]

Rather than mentioning arming the Ukranians and Kurds, keeping forces in Afghanistan, enforcing sanctions on Iran and other countries, declaring war on ISIS, restoring the military funds cut by sequestration - and he had plenty of opportunity to do just that last night - he decided to take non-interventionist positions and pointed out the folly in interventionist policies like arming rebel forces, no-fly zones, and ending diplomacy.

It is dishonest to say the latter is no different or not the result of a changed approach from the former.

He says things that differentiates himself from other candidates, that is nothing new, he has been trying to differentiate himself this entire time. The conservative or not conservative moment gave him the condition to show case other areas where he is different. When the exchange escalated, more people were paying attention to what he said. When he embarrassed Trump, nobody really knew what was going on or if he was right but its one of those rare moments where Trump showed weakness in his celebrity armor and the moment a lot of Republicans and media pundits were waiting for.


I know Rand has audit the fed legislation, but he was not using his educational opertunities in this presidential election the way his father was. That has now changed significantly in the past couple weeks. I'm not sure Rand has ever really put the full picture together in a sentence as his father did, but he is a hell of a lot closer.

Look, if you feel guilty then you feel guilty. If you don't, you don't. I really don't care because in the end what I say shouldn't really change the amount of activism you produce for the movement, thats all on you. If you feel like you didn't do anything wrong, what should this thread make any difference?

But what you're saying about Rand not using his "educational opportunities" before two weeks ago and now he is, is not even reasonable.

Rand is not running a Ron Paul 2012 campaign.

[Chester Copperpot]

the best thing about huckabee and christie not being in the debate was that Rand got this extra time..

[brandon]

The campaign didn't do anything and Rand didn't change, he has always been the same. The only ones changing are those that RAN when the town was attacked and RAN BACK when the alcohol flowed.

I really don't think that's true at all. His strategy of being an establishment moderate failed, so he reverted to the Rand of 2010-2012.

Just earlier this year he was trying to increase defense spending in the Senate. [Source (http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/)] And last night he was arguing against increasing defense spending.

After I donated last night, someone I really like and respect on this forum sent me a message "welcome back." I'd also extend that message to Rand Paul... welcome back to your roots. I bet it feels good.

[afwjam]

Why can't we talk about the federal reserve? I helped Ron Paul win the big island, I still feel pretty good about that, it was never going to help him win the presidency and neither will it for Rand but I was already doing it anyways. I'll probebly make grass roots content for Rand when he inspires me like his father did, dropping real truth bombs. Violence won't change the world, but knowledge and tolerant communication will. Good luck with your fight, it won't help.

[derek4ever]

Rand did excellent! I saw him from the opening and he seemed confident and well focused. He scored major points by stopping rubes and chump and i think he needs to focus on cruise, because i see him as THE hurdle that separates rand from the top. Rand just needs to continue to prove why his ideas are common sense. Expect to see good quality stuff!! :)

[eleganz]

I really don't think that's true at all. His strategy of being an establishment moderate failed, so he reverted to the Rand of 2010-2012.

Just earlier this year he was trying to increase defense spending in the Senate. [Source (http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/)] And last night he was arguing against increasing defense spending.

After I donated last night, someone I really like and respect on this forum sent me a message "welcome back." I'd also extend that message to Rand Paul... welcome back to your roots. I bet it feels good.

Earlier this year, Rand proposed and voted to increase military spending while balancing the budget when Rubio and Cruz proposed and voted to increase military spending with the deficit (a large one).

Last night he argued for being a conservative, he talked about military spending being OK as long as you do it wisely and conservatively (not liberally). Rand continues to talk about raising military spending but being self-disciplined and learning to cut in other areas rather than going further into debt.

Don't just look for the things you want to see to prove our point. Im pretty sure I gave you +rep for donating and Im still down to say THANKS for seeing the light but you didn't donate to a new Rand. You donated to a Rand that got a good opportunity.


Why can't we talk about the federal reserve?

Nobody in this thread is trying to take that away from you.


Regardless, I'm glad CPU'd posted this, it really goes to prove the point that Rand has not changed.


Asked about his campaign, and whether it could be improved, he said: “I give the same speech I gave four years ago, with a little bit of variety. But I’m not a believer that really we’re doing anything wrong or made a misstep.

“All the stories that say: ‘Oh, his campaign sucks, that’s why he’s doing poorly’ … not really. It has nothing to do with my campaign. It has nothing to do with me, really. It may mean people are liking the more bombastic message, but that’s just not me.

“I’m giving the same message as when I was higher in the polls.”

[jmdrake]

He always says what he's going to do before the debate. His presentation style did not change, he is the same Rand the only difference is the conditions that allowed his style to shine in contrast with others.

Also when he took down Trump, it wasn't with style, he just happened to know something about the TPP that the others didn't know, or didn't think about mentioning.

More time definitely raises your chances of having great conditions for a great moment but more time does not define you doing better or worse.

The type of questions you're asked, the tone and substance of the question as well as how you respond and how others respond to you dictate the type of success you're going to have in how others perceive your response. Theres so many factors that go into what constitutes as a great debate moment but one of them is not, "the campaign changed".

The campaign is constantly changing for better and worse, its called learning. Rand doesn't change, his message stays the same and his persona is the same.

I'm confused. Is the campaign changing or is it not changing? At first you said:

The campaign didn't do anything and Rand didn't change, he has always been the same. The only ones changing are those that RAN when the town was attacked and RAN BACK when the alcohol flowed.

Here's the real deal. Rand is back on message. I posted about that before the debate after reading Rand's email. It was clear he was going after Rubio and tying that to Hillary. I said a week before that's what he should do. Now I doubt Rand read my posts here and came to that conclusion. I think it was just the obvious thing to do. Glad Rand did the obvious and quit attacking Trump over silly stuff like whether he was going to run third party or why was he being a bully and instead went after Trump on substance. Great. Wonderful. Some of the constructive criticism that Rand was getting was just that. Constructive. Glad he's learning and improving. So...what do I need to do a mea cupla about?

[afwjam]

So...what do I need to do a mea cupla about?

You must pledge your unwavering support in mind, body and spirit to the Rand Paul presidential campaign. You must not criticize or form any dissenting options of said campaign. Your support must be 100% or not at all, supporting Rand sometimes when he says things you like and not other times when the things he says you don't like is treason and will be dealt with harshly. Rand Paul is the "one true path to Liberty" in all his sometimes seemingly varying positions. Ask not what you can do comrade, you know your place, fall in line or face the "consequences"

[cajuncocoa]

I really don't think that's true at all. His strategy of being an establishment moderate failed, so he reverted to the Rand of 2010-2012.

<snip>

I'd also extend that message to Rand Paul... welcome back to your roots. I bet it feels good.

I was just getting ready to post something similar. No mea culpas here. Rand finally said what I've wanted him to say. I hope he continues down this path, and I hope it's not too late.

[Badger Paul]

Actually nothing has changed, yet. When Rand tops the polls and wins actual victories instead of debates, then we can talk. But I would argue that Rand did change, that he started to hit on the themes which created the base for him to run on in the first place and created his career on top of it. Maybe he started taking campaigning for the White House seriously. Maybe he changed because he started to have fun and smiled a little more and stayed after events and talked to voters one-on-one and in small groups instead acting this was all a burden and a pain in the ass to him. News flash: Voters don't support candidates who don't want the job.

All I've asked from Rand himself, not the campaign or his supporters who are doing their jobs as they're supposed to, is to show the same commitment to the cause as they are and yes as his father did. That's all. That's where the energy comes from. Without that, there is no energy. People alone cannot make up for it, the candidate has to do it. I didn't see the debate or the highlights yet but I can imagine if Rand did well (and lots of people are saying so not just his bots) it's because he looked engaged and looked confident and relaxed, not like he had a cattle prod shoved up his ass or like he was too good to be on the same stage with a bunch of clowns (which he is but you have to fake it). If that's the case, then hopefully the poll numbers will finally start show it. But don't say people were wrong to have misgivings as to way things were going, especially when you're at two percent in the polls. You're there for a reason and if Rand is at top of the polls, he'll be there for a reason also.

[eleganz]

You must pledge your unwavering support in mind, body and spirit to the Rand Paul presidential campaign. You must not criticize or form any dissenting options of said campaign. Your support must be 100% or not at all, supporting Rand sometimes when he says things you like and not other times when the things he says you don't like is treason and will be dealt with harshly. Rand Paul is the "one true path to Liberty" in all his sometimes seemingly varying positions. Ask not what you can do comrade, you know your place, fall in line or face the "consequences"

I'm curious why you're so offended by my post, if it has nothing to do with you, why does it make you so emotional?

What is Rand saying today that is different from what he has been saying?

And why did you blame me from not letting you call out the FED? When I did no such thing? Are you crazy?


I was just getting ready to post something similar. No mea culpas here. Rand finally said what I've wanted him to say. I hope he continues down this path, and I hope it's not too late.

What you wanted Rand to say and what Rand has always said is a very different thing. Just because he didn't have a chance to say it on a debate stage in the way that you want means that he has come crawling back to the liberty base?

So what if he didn't have that exchange with Rubio on fiscal conservatism and didn't get as much momentum? Would he have been a failure again in your eyes?

[Feelgood]

A mis-leading mea culpa fallacy? Can you source any of these alleged quotes from the first post? I mean just because Rand did well in one debate, does not mean everyone is suddenly having this change of heart.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, doesnt mean it is working or we should have more faith in it. I was quite happy to see Rand do well in a debate, better than I have seen him in the past debates. Tossed a little more $$$ into his bank as a result. However, outside these forums, there are not that many people as excited about Rand. Unless you're completely delusional, you would see it is all Cruz and Rubio getting pumped right now.

The reality is, unless these *rigged* poll numbers turn around, this great performance will be long forgotten by weeks end. The media sets the narrative, not the hopefuls in Ron Paul's Forums.

[cajuncocoa]

What you wanted Rand to say and what Rand has always said is a very different thing. Just because he didn't have a chance to say it on a debate stage in the way that you want means that he has come crawling back to the liberty base?

So what if he didn't have that exchange with Rubio on fiscal conservatism and didn't get as much momentum? Would he have been a failure again in your eyes?
You know, eleganz.....it might be a good idea right about now to stop attacking the few of us who are still here, supporting Rand. I didn't say he was a "failure," but he hasn't been doing as well in the polls as we would have wanted. After last night he has a chance to (maybe) resurrect his campaign. There's a reason for this: last night, his message was different. He returned to his roots, as has been mentioned in this thread. That may be hard for you to hear, but it's the truth.

[eleganz]

Here's the real deal. Rand is back on message. I posted about that before the debate after reading Rand's email. It was clear he was going after Rubio and tying that to Hillary. I said a week before that's what he should do. Now I doubt Rand read my posts here and came to that conclusion. I think it was just the obvious thing to do. Glad Rand did the obvious and quit attacking Trump over silly stuff like whether he was going to run third party or why was he being a bully and instead went after Trump on substance. Great. Wonderful. Some of the constructive criticism that Rand was getting was just that. Constructive. Glad he's learning and improving. So...what do I need to do a mea cupla about?

Here's the real deal:

Rand has always had the same message. He's always maintained that military spending can be raised while offsetting in other areas, he even proposed and voted for this. He's always maintained (since this Syrian issue started) that we should not back no fly zones in this manner and that it is dumb.

On Trump, Rand still hits Trump hard when he is asked whether it is on the issues or whether Trump is a sideshow and a bully, you don't need a reminder on this because you already know.

There is no magic point where Rand suddenly changed, he's always maintained positions that we liked that either turned off the base or did nothing to attract their love over others.

Before the last debate Rand stated what he would do too and that debate was bad for him and everyone here was not shy about showing how disappointed they were in him, as if he were not liberty enough, versus the fact that he just didn't get a good moment.

Last night Rand got a great moment and so many are claiming because he came back to his roots, that is just so ridiculous. Everything he said last night has been an accumulation of positions that he's taken from the beginning and maintained until now.

[eleganz]

You know, eleganz.....it might be a good idea right about now to stop attacking the few of us who are still here, supporting Rand. I didn't say he was a "failure," but he hasn't been doing as well in the polls as we would have wanted. After last night he has a chance to (maybe) resurrect his campaign. There's a reason for this: last night, his message was different. He returned to his roots, as has been mentioned in this thread. That may be hard for you to hear, but it's the truth.

If I attacked you in my last post, point it out and I'll apologize.

Here is the post in question for your clarity:

What you wanted Rand to say and what Rand has always said is a very different thing. Just because he didn't have a chance to say it on a debate stage in the way that you want means that he has come crawling back to the liberty base?

So what if he didn't have that exchange with Rubio on fiscal conservatism and didn't get as much momentum? Would he have been a failure again in your eyes?

Now I'm going to ask you a question and I hope you don't misconstrue it as an attack:

Which positions did Rand take last night was a position that he didn't take before on or off the debate stage?

[nikcers]

Rand delivered, that's all it comes down to. He hasn't said anything that he hasn't been saying since he entered the race. To most of the electorate it's not what you say; its how you say it and not only did Rand have good delivery but he brought real substance to the debate.

[65fastback2+2]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/09/rand-paul-polls-donald-trump-ben-carson

100% all of this

[Badger Paul]

Just saw some of the highlight videos. Rand looked great. The moderators gave actually gave the candidates time to talk and mix things up and he's better in that format. Too bad a I missed it because I would have been cheering his lines just like I did for his father.

[phill4paul]

I appear to have rubbed some the wrong way. Its ok thats what I meant to do.

Yea, you! That's usually the best way to affect consensus.

[William Tell]

Lol, guess you ruffled some feathers, eleganz. I five starred your thread earlier, but it didn't hold.

[TheTexan]

I love election season. The drama, the suspense, the intrigue!

[cajuncocoa]

If I attacked you in my last post, point it out and I'll apologize.

Here is the post in question for your clarity:


Now I'm going to ask you a question and I hope you don't misconstrue it as an attack:

Which positions did Rand take last night was a position that he didn't take before on or off the debate stage?
eleganz, I didn't say you attacked me. Are you having reading comprehension problems tonight?

I said you're attacking "the few of us who are still here, supporting Rand"....it's your attitude, taunting... intentionally putting those of us still here, supporting Rand, on the defensive (if it's not your intention, what's the point of the thread?)...that's how you're coming off in this thread.

[cajuncocoa]

Now I'm going to ask you a question and I hope you don't misconstrue it as an attack:


Which positions did Rand take last night was a position that he didn't take before on or off the debate stage?To answer your question, it's not so much a position he took that he didn't have before. It's that he wasn't communicating it before. In fact, he spent a good deal of time on the campaign trail over the past couple of years trying to play ball with the GOP establishment (and we were told he had to do this, be patient, it will all work out, it's a marathon not a sprint, etc.) Please don't tell me you don't remember all of those conversations on this site.

[carlton]

If I attacked you in my last post, point it out and I'll apologize.

Here is the post in question for your clarity:


Now I'm going to ask you a question and I hope you don't misconstrue it as an attack:

Which positions did Rand take last night was a position that he didn't take before on or off the debate stage?

Nows not the time for finger pointing, nows the time to rally around Rand. He had a great performance and will probably get more supporters out of it. Let's not ostracize but come together for liberty

[Anti Federalist]

I love election season. The drama, the suspense, the intrigue!

I am very excited to vote hard.

[eleganz]

To answer your question, it's not so much a position he took that he didn't have before. It's that he wasn't communicating it before. In fact, he spent a good deal of time on the campaign trail over the past couple of years trying to play ball with the GOP establishment (and we were told he had to do this, be patient, it will all work out, it's a marathon not a sprint, etc.) Please don't tell me you don't remember all of those conversations on this site.

Ok I'm glad we're breaking this down so in the end we're all very clear.

So what positions did Rand "communicate" last night that he wasn't "communicating" on or off the stage at anytime in the past?

[r3volution 3.0]

In the last day there have been many :

"Oops I was wrong, Rand proved himself"

"Rand did better because he became more libertarian and didn't appease the establishment"

"The campaign is being run much better now"

"Campaign finally knows what they're doing"

"Rand finally did something about his low poll numbers"

"I admit I was wrong about Rand"

yada yada yada


The campaign didn't do anything and Rand didn't change, he has always been the same. The only ones changing are those that RAN when the town was attacked and RAN BACK when the alcohol flowed.

You're changing...not Rand, its only because of the timing during the debate and certain favorable conditions that allowed him to differentiate himself. Every campaign walks in with certain strategies, some get the opportunity to say what they want and get the reaction they want and some don't. It doesn't mean their campaigns are bad or don't know what they are doing. Rand or his campaign didn't just turn on a switch from establishment pussy to libertarian boss (like many appear to believe).

So anyway, today is a good day for the liberty movement. Everyone will cheerlead and be happy and give a ton of +reps, pat each other on the back, share articles and donate but what happens the next time if the town wall goes down? Will you run or will you stand?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUJRJAXolk4

[dusman]

Rand's positions haven't changed, but I think it's evident his delivery has. That's not unusual.. most of the candidates are shifting delivery, most notably Trump.

It's a good lesson for Rand. He didn't really say anything different, but his timing was quite impeccable this time. That's partly to do their being less people on the stage, most certainly. When a candidate forces their way like Kasich, it comes off brash and that's closer to where most viewers viewed Rand the first debate. If you don't force your way at all, you get lost in the debates like Jeb. Rand found that sweet spot in the middle.

I'm most excited, not that Rand supposedly returned to his roots (I agree that his message hasn't changed), but rather he's very quickly learning what he has to do differently. You can see him always calculating and I'm sure he's like an NFL quarterback watching footage for areas of improvement. We already know he is an avid reader and his efforts with his staff on TPP really, really paid off this debate.

I think as these debates become more substantive and voters are more interested in that over style.. that is where Rand will shine because I don't think there is any question he is probably the most knowledgeable on the broad set of issues while still maintaining core principles.

I'm excited. Long-time members are excited. Those who've been active this campaign are excited. Let's do our part and stay engaged.

[cajuncocoa]

Ok I'm glad we're breaking this down so in the end we're all very clear.

So what positions did Rand "communicate" last night that he wasn't "communicating" on or off the stage at anytime in the past?
Let me turn this around on you, eleganz. Why do you think the polls say Rand did better last night? What is the reason for that in your opinion?

[eleganz]

Let me turn this around on you, eleganz. Why do you think the polls say Rand did better last night? What is the reason for that in your opinion?

Was the question I asked, not clear enough? Too difficult to respond to?

I put it pretty thoroughly in several posts why I think Rand had a much better night. He had a moment, the conditions were right for him to use one of many talking points that he had already been using and most likely wanted to use last night. A good delivery sometimes is also complimented with a good set up.

Every campaign wants to have a moment and every campaign likely plans for it but not every campaign gets exactly what they want because a lot of it is dependent on the conditions and dynamics of the debate stage.

[afwjam]

Ok I'm glad we're breaking this down so in the end we're all very clear.

So what positions did Rand "communicate" last night that he wasn't "communicating" on or off the stage at anytime in the past?

Not to beat a dead horse here, but he has not really been talking about the Federal Reseve since he started this presidential campaign. It seemed like even Cruz talked about this issue more, and many like myself consider it to be THE ISSUE. It's the type of issue that people need to be educated on, so I damn well hope he tries to educate people like his father did, instead of just trying to politic himself into the presidency with funny ideas like proposed increases in military spending. I hope that I know Rand to be true to the faith like his father, but if we are going to change things we damn well better talk about it rather then relying on political tricks. I don't think the political infighting your promoting here is at all beneficial, it does not offend me but it saddens me and I expect more from this movement.

Edit:
I for one am thankful for Rands good debate performance and performance in general the last few weeks or so and I am very happy to see so many old timers around. I had been around the whole time and donating money, I just had not been very inspired into posting or participating from his rhetoric. From a video making perspective rands stuff just did not sound very inspirational from this campaign, it's getting better all the time, you have to admit he's catching on!

[CPUd]

Rand Paul Supports an Audit of the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve was created by Congress and is supposed to be overseen by Congress. The Fed is now in every nook and cranny of banking with unprecedented regulatory powers and no Congressional oversight. I believe the Fed should be audited and the regulatory power should be placed back under the control of Congress.

A complete and thorough audit of the Fed will finally allow the American people to know exactly how their money is being spent by Washington. For too long, the Fed has been operating under a cloak of secrecy. The American people have a right to know what the Federal Reserve is doing with our nation's money supply.

I will continue my fight to audit the Fed and restore transparency and fiscal sanity to our nation’s checkbook.


https://randpaul.com/issue/audit-the-fed

[afwjam]

https://randpaul.com/issue/audit-the-fed

That's great, but where's the talk of the Austrian business cycle, booms and busts, market distortion? Can he help explain the dangers of fiat currency a little better, the effects of inflation that people already notice? What does he plan to do about it? Gold standard? Competing currency? Crypto currency? I think this is more important then the tax plan, if we fix the fed issue and get out of debt we could eliminate the income tax.

[eleganz]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but he has not really been talking about the Federal Reseve since he started this presidential campaign. It seemed like even Cruz talked about this issue more, and many like myself consider it to be THE ISSUE.

The "money changers" would disagree


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hikur9U1cXA



Oh and last night the Cruzer said he would not let government bail out Bank of America but he verbally tap danced around letting the federal reserve do it.

So yea, Cruzer definitely "gets" the FED.

[afwjam]

The "money changers" would disagree


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hikur9U1cXA



Oh and last night the Cruzer said he would not let government bail out Bank of America but he verbally tap danced around letting the federal reserve do it.

So yea, Cruzer definitely "gets" the FED.

I know all this, I wouldn't dare believe anything Cruz says. Why are you trying to pick a fight with your own? Is it so important that you defend Rand from the deafening silence that was this message board up until yesterday?

[r3volution 3.0]

Not to beat a dead horse here, but he has not really been talking about the Federal Reseve since he started this presidential campaign. It seemed like even Cruz talked about this issue more, and many like myself consider it to be THE ISSUE

http://img.pandawhale.com/114408-Fuck-Everything-gif-Imgur-fuck-nP75.gif

[eleganz]

That's great, but where's the talk of the Austrian business cycle, booms and busts, market distortion? Can he help explain the dangers of fiat currency a little better, the effects of inflation that people already notice? What does he plan to do about it? Gold standard? Competing currency? Crypto currency? I think this is more important then the tax plan, if we fix the fed issue and get out of debt we could eliminate the income tax.


I don't know if you're just really busy at work or not paying attention. Most of what you just mentioned is discussed below by Rand on television.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypTUkUX4_w

[eleganz]

I know all this, I wouldn't dare believe anything Cruz says. Why are you trying to pick a fight with your own? Is it so important that you defend Rand from the deafening silence that was this message board up until yesterday?

If you don't believe anything Cruz says, why did you use him as a comparison saying it seemed he talked about the FED more than Rand? Are you contradicting yourself?

You know, I was trying to be reasonable and left the rest of your post out of my quote on purpose and I didn't respond to it since I didn't want to take it to "that level". You asked why Rand is not talking about the FED and you were answered.

If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

[francisco]

I am very excited to vote hard.

I myself am "hardly voting". The one exception I'll make, will be to vote for Rand.

[dusman]

That's great, but where's the talk of the Austrian business cycle, booms and busts, market distortion? Can he help explain the dangers of fiat currency a little better, the effects of inflation that people already notice? What does he plan to do about it? Gold standard? Competing currency? Crypto currency? I think this is more important then the tax plan, if we fix the fed issue and get out of debt we could eliminate the income tax.

I do empathize with your position, I really do. However, I think we do a disservice to the liberty movement expecting Rand to be Ron Paul 2.0. Ron moved the needle philosophically and now Rand has an opportunity to show how it can be practically applied in a broader sense. Ron Paul spoke directly on those things, but only those of us who truly opened up to Ron Paul as a candidate took the further steps necessary to even comprehend what he was talking about.

Those topics are certainly not effective to be discussed in 90 second sound bites on a debate stage... I feel that the objective in 2016 is far more broad than an educational campaign. I think the current field of candidates on both sides... this may turn into a better opportunity than 2012 and I'm pretty satisfied so far with Rand's approach.. with the exception of how the campaign uses technology/marketing which I have some issues with.

[cajuncocoa]

Was the question I asked, not clear enough? Too difficult to respond to?

I put it pretty thoroughly in several posts why I think Rand had a much better night. He had a moment, the conditions were right for him to use one of many talking points that he had already been using and most likely wanted to use last night. A good delivery sometimes is also complimented with a good set up.

Every campaign wants to have a moment and every campaign likely plans for it but not every campaign gets exactly what they want because a lot of it is dependent on the conditions and dynamics of the debate stage.

Was I not clear enough for you?

Over the past 2-3 years, Rand has given speeches, he's made comments, he's given interviews, and some of the things he's said at those times have made me (and others) cringe. Yes, eleganz....there were times when Rand sounded like he was more interested in courting the GOP establishment than in keeping his father's base happy. I'm not going to spell out each and every one of those examples for you. I don't really want to rehash them because I'm happy that Rand is back on track. Yes, back on track.

Deal with it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll bet you that tomorrow Raimondo makes another of his radical flip-flops on Rand.

...Rand's "new" anti-war comments having given him a tingle up his skirt.

And, consequently, I will continue to hate him and his goldfish-like attention span.

[afwjam]

I appreciate what your saying Dusman and I was not really complaining before. It's just pretty obvious to me why everyone came out of the woodwork yesterday for Rand and I think it's a good thing and involved more of what I'm asking for. What amazes me is why somebody would climb up on a high horse and attack people for showing up, or in my case just posting more. I like where Rand is going, and that's why I piped up. Eleganz I don't believe Cruz, but it does seem like he brought up the Fed more in debates and other public specticles more then Rand was. I reserve the right to be wrong, don't crucify me for it please. I do have a life and I had not seen that recent clip, but that's exactly the point he needs to be piping up about it and other injustices a lot more. The more the better and I do think this outpouring of support on the forums is a result of stuffing the right content into 90 second sound bytes and that's great! Though I love Ron's quote "truth is treason in the empire of lies" I would like to optimistically believe that people like the truth, certainly among his base as you can see. People are more fed up with the establishment line then ever.

[eleganz]

Was I not clear enough for you?

Over the past 2-3 years, Rand has given speeches, he's made comments, he's given interviews, and some of the things he's said at those times have made me (and others) cringe. Yes, eleganz....there were times when Rand sounded like he was more interested in courting the GOP establishment than in keeping his father's base happy. I'm not going to spell out each and every one of those examples for you. I don't really want to rehash them because I'm happy that Rand is back on track. Yes, back on track.

Deal with it.

You originally responded to my question (you know after I made sure it was attack-free) with a question and I answered you.

You have not given one single example of how the positions Rand took last night during the debate were not communicated in the past.

[dusman]

I appreciate what your saying Dusman and I was not really complaining before. It's just pretty obvious to me why everyone came out of the woodwork yesterday for Rand and I think it's a good thing and involved more of what I'm asking for. What amazes me is why somebody would climb up on a high horse and attack people for showing up, or in my case just posting more. I like where Rand is going, and that's why I piped up. Eleganz I don't believe Cruz, but it does seem like he brought up the Fed more in debates and other public specticles more then Rand was. I reserve the right to be wrong, don't crucify me for it please. I do have a life and I had not seen that recent clip, but that's exactly the point he needs to be piping up about it and other injustices a lot more. The more the better and I do think this outpouring of support on the forums is a result of stuffing the right content into 90 second sound bytes and that's great! Though I love Ron's quote "truth is treason in the empire of lies" I would like to optimistically believe that people like the truth, certainly among his base as you can see. People are more fed up with the establishment line then ever.

I'm definitely excited to see some old faces coming back around. That's all we could hope for.

If you haven't caught onto Ted Cruz.. he's a hardcore leech at the moment. Rand came out saying you should be able to fill out your taxes on a postcard and the next debate Cruz comes out and says the same thing. If you review the past 2-3 debates, Cruz makes a point to interject himself right after Paul on anything he says.. moving the conversation either left or right of Rand depending on which he feels is more appealing to the GOP.

Cruz is clever.. he identifies that talking about the Federal Reserve is a unique position.. and he's ramped up his rhetoric the past few weeks.

What I expect is that he'll make a mistake doing that and make some statement he is naive on or has to back-peddle due to prior votes or talking points. We can only hope anyways.

[afwjam]

You originally responded to my question (you know after I made sure it was attack-free) with a question and I answered you.

You have not given one single example of how the positions Rand took last night during the debate were not communicated in the past.

Your going t have to figure it out, because otherwise you have an unexplained phenomena on your hands.


Good to see everyone again, welcome back, I think.

[afwjam]

I'm definitely excited to see some old faces coming back around. That's all we could hope for.

If you haven't caught onto Ted Cruz.. he's a hardcore leech at the moment. Rand came out saying you should be able to fill out your taxes on a postcard and the next debate Cruz comes out and says the same thing. If you review the past 2-3 debates, Cruz makes a point to interject himself right after Paul on anything he says.. moving the conversation either left or right of Rand depending on which he feels is more appealing to the GOP.

Cruz is clever.. he identifies that talking about the Federal Reserve is a unique position.. and he's ramped up his rhetoric the past few weeks.

What I expect is that he'll make a mistake doing that and make some statement he is naive on or has to back-peddle due to prior votes or talking points. We can only hope anyways.

I have observed this and Rand is successfully countering lately and fixing his communication problem thank god. He needs to just continue talking the truth.

[eleganz]

Your going t have to figure it out, because otherwise you have an unexplained phenomena on your hands.


Good to see everyone again, welcome back, I think.

If you can't follow the conversations that I am having with others, you can choose to not hit reply.

Instead of responding to posts that I wrote to others, it would make a lot more sense to respond to those that I wrote to you. Like this one, that you conveniently ignored after your crazy post about how Rand isn't talking about the Fed, at least not as much as the Cruzer.


If you don't believe anything Cruz says, why did you use him as a comparison saying it seemed he talked about the FED more than Rand? Are you contradicting yourself?

You know, I was trying to be reasonable and left the rest of your post out of my quote on purpose and I didn't respond to it since I didn't want to take it to "that level". You asked why Rand is not talking about the FED and you were answered.

If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

[afwjam]

Go read what I wrote.

Eleganz I'm out. We have both been here for a while and I have appreciated your work as I hope you mine. I've never judged you as daft, maybe a little over zealous. You seem to be unable to understand something that's obvious, if you don't want us here just say so, but we are going to come in all shapes sizes and beliefs.

[cajuncocoa]

You originally responded to my question (you know after I made sure it was attack-free) with a question and I answered you.

You have not given one single example of how the positions Rand took last night during the debate were not communicated in the past.
*sigh*

I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying to you.

It's not that he has never communicated those things in the past. Surely he must have. That's not the point. The point is, he spent the past 2-3 years trying to cozy up to the GOP establishment, people who were never going to vote for him, people who would always choose Cruz or Rubio over him...he tried very hard to distance himself from his father and his father's supporters. (Example: that time he said ""I'm not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot...I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative.") There were people on this site celebrating the fact that he was taking that approach. We've seen how well that worked out.

The establishment never wanted anything to do with him.

[TheTexan]

Guys, and gals, the important thing here is, now, Rand has a chance

http://e.lvme.me/lm3jhj5.jpg

[cajuncocoa]

Guys, and gals, the important thing here is, now, Rand has a chance

You would think that would be enough for some people...but instead, they insist that we drag up every negative thing from the past that Rand has said that upset us in the first place.

Can't we just be happy that he's back on track now, instead of looking for things to argue about?

[eleganz]

It's not that he has never communicated those things in the past. Surely he must have.

And thats the point I was trying to make, nothing else.

The things people got excited about last night wasn't exactly the rhetoric, it was the fact that Rand got attention for it. Everything he said last night he's said in one way or another in the past. You guys got excited that he received positive attention for his words by "winning". When Rand's debate performances don't get traction, you're not excited and its not worth mentioning or remembering.

Thanks for clarifying!

[The Rebel Poet]

6?

somebody had to be the smartass.
Wait, are we using a single poll or an aggregate? There are also polls that release numbers with decimal points. If we're using an aggregate or a decimal-placed poll, 5.1 is good enough.

[dusman]

*sigh*

I don't think you're comprehending what I'm saying to you.

It's not that he has never communicated those things in the past. Surely he must have. That's not the point. The point is, he spent the past 2-3 years trying to cozy up to the GOP establishment, people who were never going to vote for him, people who would always choose Cruz or Rubio over him...he tried very hard to distance himself from his father and his father's supporters. (Example: that time he said ""I'm not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot...I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative.") There were people on this site celebrating the fact that he was taking that approach. We've seen how well that worked out.

The establishment never wanted anything to do with him.

Yeah, well it seems it is premature to decide who will vote for who. We won't see how this works out for another 6-7 years. We are just all so very impatient.

Rand has proven to be a much better politician than Ron was. Some in this movement are going to call that a dozen different negative things (even a deal breaker) and others will find it as a positive. To me, this has always been a game of inches.. so I like the "moderate" libertarian approach in 2016. People will of course say because he hasn't stayed lock-step with his father's positions that he has purposely distanced himself. I disagree. Some of the movement may choose to abandon Rand, because his focus isn't on us but on those not yet courted. I think it's clear his aim is shifting the degree of libertarianism in the GOP base at a practical level. I'm fine with that. I don't think some in the movement can accept that Rand isn't directing his courting at us like Ron was. Each person here has a choice to move on, but I don't personally need Rand to inspire me or be Ron Paul 2.0. I'm hoping those that did move on, may reconsider things along those lines.

I look at it like this... Ron inspired us and desired for us to be the "intellectual leaders" of the movement. Rand is there to inspire your typical GOP voter to take libertarian/conservative ideas more seriously and discover they might just be a little bit more libertarian than they first realized. I'd take 25 million libertarian-leaning republicans over 2-3 million intellectually pure libertarians any day of the week... but that's just me. Intellectual purity is a discussion 20-30 years from now when we are picking our flavor of libertarian from the debate stage.

The R3VOLution has always been a war for minds. Nothing has changed, except we aren't young pupils anymore. We are the experienced contingent in 2016 with 8 years as a grassroots movement on the ground. We should start acting like it.

[fr33]

In the last day there have been many :

"Oops I was wrong, Rand proved himself"

"Rand did better because he became more libertarian and didn't appease the establishment"

"The campaign is being run much better now"

"Campaign finally knows what they're doing"

"Rand finally did something about his low poll numbers"

"I admit I was wrong about Rand"

yada yada yada


The campaign didn't do anything and Rand didn't change, he has always been the same. The only ones changing are those that RAN when the town was attacked and RAN BACK when the alcohol flowed.

You're changing...not Rand, its only because of the timing during the debate and certain favorable conditions that allowed him to differentiate himself. Every campaign walks in with certain strategies, some get the opportunity to say what they want and get the reaction they want and some don't. It doesn't mean their campaigns are bad or don't know what they are doing. Rand or his campaign didn't just turn on a switch from establishment pussy to libertarian boss (like many appear to believe).

So anyway, today is a good day for the liberty movement. Everyone will cheerlead and be happy and give a ton of +reps, pat each other on the back, share articles and donate but what happens the next time if the town wall goes down? Will you run or will you stand?
He's only recently started saying no boots on the ground in the middle east. Just months ago he wanted boots on the ground in fucking Afghanistan. I wouldn't point this out except for you trying to be a gloating piece of shit.

[The Rebel Poet]

Nows not the time for finger pointing, nows the time to rally around Rand. He had a great performance and will probably get more supporters out of it. Let's not ostracize but come together for liberty
http://i.imgur.com/vDNZM1D.gif

[eleganz]

He's only recently started saying no boots on the ground in the middle east. Just months ago he wanted boots on the ground in fucking Afghanistan. I wouldn't point this out except for you trying to be a gloating piece of shit.

Does that (you better source it) have anything to do with peoples excitement from last night's debate? at all? Do you not understand the context of this thread?

[cajuncocoa]

And thats the point I was trying to make, nothing else.

The things people got excited about last night wasn't exactly the rhetoric, it was the fact that Rand got attention for it. Everything he said last night he's said in one way or another in the past. You guys got excited that he received positive attention for his words by "winning". When Rand's debate performances don't get traction, you're not excited and its not worth mentioning or remembering.

Thanks for clarifying!
Yeah, but the bigger point is all the stuff he said in between that took him OFF track. That's what you refuse to understand here. That Rand may have said these things 5 years ago, and believed them all along is all well and good, but he was also saying some things (see fr33's post #72) that caused his father's libertarian base to shake our heads. I hope last night is a sign that he's stopped pandering to people who will never vote for him.

[dusman]

http://i.imgur.com/vDNZM1D.gif

I don't know, but Carlton with his nerd dance just proves there is hope for humanity and liberty.

[r3volution 3.0]

Carlton needs to close his blinds, folks keep taking video of him doing his dance.

...I'm happy too, but geez, have some decently man.

[dusman]

Carlton needs to close his blinds, folks keep taking video of him doing his dance.

...I'm happy too, but geez, have some decently man.

Well, with that yellow bow tie.. I'm convinced Carlton was always a Libertarian.

[The Rebel Poet]

He's only recently started saying no boots on the ground in the middle east. Just months ago he wanted boots on the ground in fucking Afghanistan. I wouldn't point this out except for you trying to be a gloating piece of shit.
Did you really just type that? I could find you quotes from 2013 and 2014 and likely long before that where he said no boots on the ground, but you have the internet at your fingertips. As for his "support" for boots on the ground he has said only two things in favor:
1) he refuses to rule out pretty much any strategies -boots included- when asked about hypothetical conflicts
2) for any of the specific, real, ongoing conflicts he was asked about he has said repeatedly, "they should be Arab boots."

[jmdrake]

You know, eleganz.....it might be a good idea right about now to stop attacking the few of us who are still here, supporting Rand. I didn't say he was a "failure," but he hasn't been doing as well in the polls as we would have wanted. After last night he has a chance to (maybe) resurrect his campaign. There's a reason for this: last night, his message was different. He returned to his roots, as has been mentioned in this thread. That may be hard for you to hear, but it's the truth.

QFT. Seriously this is like football fans saying "We're not going to win unless our team starts running the ball more" the team starts running the ball more, they get a win, then one fan says "See? Y'all were wrong for saying they need to run the ball more."

[eleganz]

Yeah, but the bigger point is all the stuff he said in between that took him OFF track. That's what you refuse to understand here.

Nope, I understand it just fine and I'm glad we came to a conclusion that Rand did not say anything last night that was any different from what he was saying since he started his campaign for president.

That there was no massive shift in policy change, and that he didn't just flip a magic switch that suddenly made him a libertarian hero.

A lot of the excitement during these debates is purely psychological.

[jmdrake]

He's only recently started saying no boots on the ground in the middle east. Just months ago he wanted boots on the ground in fucking Afghanistan. I wouldn't point this out except for you trying to be a gloating piece of shit.

I missed that quote, but Ron voted to put those boots on the ground in Afghanistan. Just saying.

[TheTexan]

A lot of the excitement during these debates is purely psychological.

It is understandable though. Debates are pretty exciting.

[nikcers]

Nope, I understand it just fine and I'm glad we came to a conclusion that Rand did not say anything last night that was any different from what he was saying since he started his campaign for president.

That there was no massive shift in policy change, and that he didn't just flip a magic switch that suddenly made him a libertarian hero.

A lot of the excitement during these debates is purely psychological.

Honestly attitude is important, Rand's confidence has skyrocketed and he is taking criticism better. This is big on perception and I think this all started around the time PCKY joined the forums. So if anyone is to blame it's him.

[jmdrake]

Was the question I asked, not clear enough? Too difficult to respond to?

I put it pretty thoroughly in several posts why I think Rand had a much better night. He had a moment, the conditions were right for him to use one of many talking points that he had already been using and most likely wanted to use last night. A good delivery sometimes is also complimented with a good set up.

Every campaign wants to have a moment and every campaign likely plans for it but not every campaign gets exactly what they want because a lot of it is dependent on the conditions and dynamics of the debate stage.

Oh FFS! It wasn't the "debate conditions" that caused Rand in the first debate to make an ass of himself by going after Trump the same way GOP opponents went after his dad 4 and 8 years ago. "Hey Ron Paul. Are you going to pledge not to run third party?" The "conditions" haven't changed. Rand's tactics change. Good for him. Yeah he got a lucky break from Trump putting his foot in his mouth last night, but Rubio and Hillary being neocons has been a constant since before the campaign started.

[eleganz]

Oh FFS! It wasn't the "debate conditions" that caused Rand in the first debate to make an ass of himself by going after Trump the same way GOP opponents went after his dad 4 and 8 years ago. "Hey Ron Paul. Are you going to pledge not to run third party?" The "conditions" haven't changed. Rand's tactics change. Good for him. Yeah he got a lucky break from Trump putting his foot in his mouth last night, but Rubio and Hillary being neocons has been a constant since before the campaign started.

If you want to start a thread about the first debate, you can do so but I can't guarantee that I will participate.

[ds21089]

To this thread, I say:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL90wryyOw

[jmdrake]

You originally responded to my question (you know after I made sure it was attack-free) with a question and I answered you.

You have not given one single example of how the positions Rand took last night during the debate were not communicated in the past.

They were not consistently communicated in the past. Hell, in the past Rand once said that Iran getting a nuclear bomb wasn't a threat to the United States. I've seen the video. Have you heard him communicate that recently? Of course not. He won't. He can't. So sure, if you dig hard enough you can find all kinds of positions Rand has taken but has not consistently stood by after becoming a teocon darling. The non-interventionist response to Benghazi was "Why did we overthrow Khaddafi, and after overthrowing him why did we try to hang around in a failed state in a city that wasn't even the capital." Instead from Rand we got "Where were the marines?" I understand why. I get it. He needed to appeal to the teocons. At least that's what he thought he needed to do. But Ben Carson has sucked up a lot of the teocon vote and Rubio's trying to suck up what's left. Carson started off just as non interventionist as Rand in fact maybe even more so. Then he started spouting the "We've got to be afraid from the ISIS-caliphate-sharia-law boogeyman" and gained traction. Rand's not willing to go that far. So....he's started appealing to...well...people like us. And it's a good thing.

[jmdrake]

If you want to start a thread about the first debate, you can do so but I can't guarantee that I will participate.

LOL. Whatever. You asked what changed. I answered the question.

[Indy Vidual]

I never doubted Rand for a second, but you have to admit his presentation style has changed. He stated in the email prior to the debate he was going to be more bold and that's exactly what he did. I dont know if it was entirely a presentation vs simply having more time, but whatever it was certainly resonated better than the previous debates.

Yes, Rand changed the timing and quality of his interruptions and it made a huge difference.
He is no longer boring. :p

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rand got me excited for the first time in months.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Rather than mentioning arming the Ukranians and Kurds, keeping forces in Afghanistan, enforcing sanctions on Iran and other countries, declaring war on ISIS, restoring the military funds cut by sequestration - and he had plenty of opportunity to do just that last night - he decided to take non-interventionist positions and pointed out the folly in interventionist policies like arming rebel forces, no-fly zones, and ending diplomacy.

It is dishonest to say the latter is no different or not the result of a changed approach from the former.

Great point!

[Bastiat's The Law]

That's great, but where's the talk of the Austrian business cycle, booms and busts, market distortion? Can he help explain the dangers of fiat currency a little better, the effects of inflation that people already notice? What does he plan to do about it? Gold standard? Competing currency? Crypto currency? I think this is more important then the tax plan, if we fix the fed issue and get out of debt we could eliminate the income tax.

Rand definitely needs to start delving into these subjects and explaining them to voters. Add in an intelligent case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Rand might salvage his campaign.

[cajuncocoa]

LOL. Whatever. You asked what changed. I answered the question.
I think eleganz doesn't want to hear (read) the answer....that would negate the purpose of this thread which was to point fingers, when just the opposite of that is what was needed (time to come together.)

[H. E. Panqui]

afwjam writes: "All the issues foreign and domestic that Rand has been talking about are enabled by the Feds dishonest, unfair and down right evil monetary policy. Arguing about these issues is useless if we do not change our monetary policy and reveal the evil behind it."

..you got it..

...i'm of the opinion these republicrats, including rand, do not possess an honest under$tanding here..

...for example, i've heard all these [odiferous] republicrats working their hot-dog holes about 'the 19 trillion dollar debt'...but i've never heard one of them reveal the fraudulent 'debt that ought not to be debt'...i.e. that [suspected] HUGE portion of the debt owed to banksters who acquired government bonds for free..(if you don't understand what i just wrote, you're probably happy with rand...but i under$tand...and i'm not happy that supposed 'champions' :rolleyes: of ideas about better government are apparently hand-picked puppets...no threat to this MI$ERABLE ROTTEN :mad: 'monetary system'...

....every stinking one of them!...propped up by the same ma$ter$ who ask the vomitous questions at the big 'debates'...

[philipped]

Rand definitely needs to start delving into these subjects and explaining them to voters. Add in an intelligent case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and Rand might salvage his campaign.

+ Compound it into extremely simplified statements & that's where the real challenge is.

Kudos to whoever on staff thought it was wise to tie Income Inequality to the Fed, I knew it, and all but it's the way he was able to make a soundbyte with it is what set him off Tuesday night on a lot of topics.

[jllundqu]

Well no matter what people think, his fundraising went great after the debate, his google hits went viral, he's the most watched debate moments on youtube... I would think this all translates into better polling in the days and weeks ahead.

[H. E. Panqui]

+ Compound it into extremely simplified statements & that's where the real challenge is.

:confused:

...here's a simple, honest, important statement rand could make..REPEATEDLY: "...much of 'the 19 trillion dollar debt' is a stinking fraud...it's 'interest' owed to privileged banksters who have acquired U.S. gov. interest-bearing bonds FOR NOTHING!!..there are some stinking, grievous, DESTRUCTIVE, etc., defects in 'our' system of money creation and issuance and you can read all about it in h.e. panqui's 'republicrat monetary ignorance exposed for dummies' over at the ron paul forums...'

;)