PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Paul Keeps Pledge to Support Trump Despite Controversies




jct74
10-12-2016, 11:48 PM
video at link


As Republicans in other parts of the country pull their support for presidential nominee Donald Trump, Senator Rand Paul, one of his primary opponents, re-affirms his backing.

He did it during today's town hall meeting in Owensboro.

http://www.tristatehomepage.com/news/local-news/sen-paul-keeps-pledge-to-support-trump-despite-controversies

eleganz
10-13-2016, 02:29 PM
If I were Rand and wanted to run for POTUS again, this is exactly what I'd do.... When everybody is asked about why they backed out of their pledge, Rand will be looking pretty.

He knows Hillary will win and that sets him up quite nicely for 2020. With Trump out of the picture, who else is the outsider?

Libertea Party
10-16-2016, 07:12 AM
If I were Rand and wanted to run for POTUS again, this is exactly what I'd do.... When everybody is asked about why they backed out of their pledge, Rand will be looking pretty.

He knows Hillary will win and that sets him up quite nicely for 2020. With Trump out of the picture, who else is the outsider?

Exactly...in fact he should proactively try to target Trump leaning groups and maybe consider getting out the reputation that he is Trump's main backer of all the former primary opponents. This group might be around in 4 years and will remember his support ---in particular contrast to Ted Cruz. Of course he should be careful about what the Democrats can use against him later though. Just a huge shame that Rand wasn't nominated...any Republican would have had a chance let alone one with Rand's favorable personal background and national security policies vs Clinton.

Just look at what Nixon did in 1964 when Goldwater was bound to lose. Admittedly Goldwater was a good man unlike Trump so again Rand should be careful:


It’s true that Nixon flirted here and there with a run for the nomination in 1964, but he ultimately resigned himself to the inevitability of Goldwater. And this is where Richard Nixon demonstrated the kind of political savvy and skill that should be remembered by all Republicans in advance of 2012.

It was clear that the other big Republican guns in 1964 — Nelson Rockefeller of New York, Bill Scranton of Pennsylvania, and George Romney of Michigan (all moderate governors) — had little interest in supporting Barry Goldwater. Nixon, however, knew that anyone who really wanted to have a serious future shot at a presidential nomination could not afford to be a bystander, no matter how bad the results in November might turn out to be.

Richard Nixon was not as conservative as Goldwater, but as a more moderate Republican, he knew that faithfulness and diligence in such moments was crucial. Arriving in San Francisco that year for the Republican National Convention, Mr. Nixon made his position perfectly clear: “I, for one Republican, don’t intend to sit out, or take a walk” — an obvious signal to Goldwater supporters and detractors. And while Rockefeller was shouted down as he addressed the crowd that week, Nixon was received warmly. In fact, historian Stephen Ambrose has suggested that Richard Nixon’s speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention was the opening speech of his 1968 candidacy. The future president told his party:

Before this convention we were Goldwater Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Scranton Republicans, Lodge Republicans, but now that this convention has met and made its decision, we are Republicans, period, working for Barry Goldwater…And to those few, if there are some, who say that they are going to sit it out or take a walk, or even go on a boat ride, I have an answer in the words of Barry Goldwater in 1960 — ‘Let’s grow up, Republicans, let’s go to work — and we shall win in November!’

Of course, not all Republicans went to work that year, most notably Rockefeller and Romney — a fact not forgotten by conservatives four years later — but Nixon did.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/12/todays-moderate-republicans-should-take-a-cue-from-richard-nixon/#ixzz4NFjeG1yF

EBounding
10-18-2016, 10:51 AM
He's taking the most neutral position possible without giving his enemies the soundbite. Compare that to Cruz who went from slobbering all over Trump before the primaries to flip-flopping back and forth on his support.

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2016, 02:38 PM
Have to disagree with you guys....

It was a HUGE strategic blunder for Rand to endorse Trump.

Trump's people aren't going to get behind another candidate just because of an endorsement, considering that most of the party endorsed him.

Whereas, anti-Trump people would have gotten behind somebody like Rand if he stood out as one of a handful of prominent non-endorsers.

Ted played it correctly, and I'm afraid he's going to have an edge on us in 2020 because of it.

But, anyway, it's too late now for Rand to go back. He's got to stick with his choose at this point and just try to lay low.

Jesse James
10-18-2016, 04:33 PM
here's something for irony. I was looking at old threads and came across this comment:


If Rothbard (that would be "Mr. Libertarian," founder of modern anarcho-capitalism) were alive, he'd take the same position.

Over the years, Murray supported far worse candidates that Rand.

E.G. George H.W. Bush in '92, Lyndon Johnson in '64

Video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW40TzWcnOA) of Rothbard discussing his LBJ endorsement

He supported these bastards because they were marginally less evil than the alternative, which is what a rational person does: choose between the best or least bad of the available options.

why the rhetoric change? just curious

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2016, 04:35 PM
here's something for irony. I was looking at old threads and came across this comment:

why the rhetoric change? just curious

What change? Trump isn't better than Hillary, not even a little bit.

Jesse James
10-18-2016, 04:36 PM
based on what? is Trump going to call for shooting down Russian planes?

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2016, 04:40 PM
based on what? is Trump going to call for shooting down Russian planes?

Most definitely

Zippyjuan
10-18-2016, 05:17 PM
Rand is supporting the party- not necessarily endorsing the candidate. He pledged to support whomever the nominee was and is honoring that commitment.

Jesse James
10-18-2016, 05:43 PM
Most definitely
well, let me know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

phill4paul
10-18-2016, 05:49 PM
Rand is supporting the party- not necessarily endorsing the candidate. He pledged to support whomever the nominee was and is honoring that commitment.

As simple as this. He has a re-election to win. I've never heard him stump for Trump. It's a gambit so that he cannot be bit in the ass later on. One of his debating points was whether or not Trump would support the eventual nominee, knowing full well that Trump threatened to run third party against his father if he were to have one. He couldn't go back on that point.

r3volution 3.0
10-18-2016, 05:55 PM
well, let me know when that happens. I'll be waiting.

Well, it'll never happen obviously, since Trump isn't going to be POTUS.

Superfluous Man
10-18-2016, 05:59 PM
If I were Rand and wanted to run for POTUS again, this is exactly what I'd do.... When everybody is asked about why they backed out of their pledge, Rand will be looking pretty.

He knows Hillary will win and that sets him up quite nicely for 2020. With Trump out of the picture, who else is the outsider?

I don't see Rand running in 2020. But he seems to be going about this pretty quietly, avoiding too close of an association with Trump that could haunt him in future elections, which is smart. He's keeping his pledge, so he can't get accused of breaking it or flip-flopping. But he's not going out on any more of a limb than that.

mello
10-19-2016, 03:15 AM
Rand already swore that he'd support the Republican nominee and he's keeping his word. Breaking his word would make him just as untrustworthy as everyone else in Washington. If Hillary does beat Trump, then Rand will be a much stronger opponent in 2020 since Hillary's hacked emails stated that out of all the Republican candidates, she most feared Rand in the General election.

r3volution 3.0
10-19-2016, 08:53 AM
If Hillary does beat Trump, then Rand will be a much stronger opponent in 2020 since Hillary's hacked emails stated that out of all the Republican candidates, she most feared Rand in the General election.

Yup, I can see the campaign ads already: "We made a mistake last time, not nominating our strongest candidate, let's not do it again..."

Jerry C
10-19-2016, 11:14 AM
I don't think this is a good move on his part, it is true that he took the pledge and is technically honoring it but with various establishment republicans expressing distrust and distaste for Trump Rand Paul could have easily have refused that without much consequence as well as being able to appeal to some anti Trump voters. Rand would have been better served remaining neutral.

dannno
10-19-2016, 11:19 AM
Most definitely

Check your fly, your irrationality is showing..

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?502600-Russia-Battening-Down-the-Hatches-Fears-WWIII-if-Hillary-Elected

dannno
10-19-2016, 11:19 AM
Well, it'll never happen obviously, since Trump isn't going to be POTUS.

Why not? He's up 2% nationally in the polls (that don't have huge artificial Dem margins - remember that Dem attendance was down about 20% in the primary, which means the Trump lead could be pretty huge)

euphemia
10-19-2016, 01:47 PM
I think it is admirable that Rand is keeping his word. He understands what will happen if Hillary Clinton becomes president.

PierzStyx
10-19-2016, 01:52 PM
Those who would sell their souls for power are the exact kind you do not want in power. Rand is just showing himself to be your typical power hungry politician, more concerned with getting elected and winning than with championing the cause of liberty. All of you apologizing for him can't change the fact that this makes him no better than any of the other party shills who sold their souls for a place in Congress and who are willing to whore themselves out to stay there. Rand Paul is a cheap political whore, nothing more. He no more deserves your vote than Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell. Rand is just using you for political capital to gain and maintain power. Nothing more.

PierzStyx
10-19-2016, 01:54 PM
I think it is admirable that Rand is keeping his word. He understands what will happen if Hillary Clinton becomes president.

I think it is disgraceful. Pledging to support evil is not honorable, it is the sign of intellectual sickness and moral degradation. A willingness to promote and empower the most corrupt and abusive authoritarian that has ran for President in 60 years is not a virtue, it is a sickening vice and shows where his true motives lie- the gaining and maintaining of power, not the championing of liberty.

phill4paul
10-19-2016, 02:46 PM
Those who would sell their souls for power are the exact kind you do not want in power. Rand is just showing himself to be your typical power hungry politician, more concerned with getting elected and winning than with championing the cause of liberty. All of you apologizing for him can't change the fact that this makes him no better than any of the other party shills who sold their souls for a place in Congress and who are willing to whore themselves out to stay there. Rand Paul is a cheap political whore, nothing more. He no more deserves your vote than Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell. Rand is just using you for political capital to gain and maintain power. Nothing more.

I don't really think Rand cares to be a politician. I think he would be quite satisfied just doing eye surgery. This became apparent to me during his live feed when running for POTUS nomination. However, I think because of his father he feels like he should fight the good fight. And for the most part he has. I don't particularly care for this political gambit he has chosen, for I do think it is a political gambit and not what he truly wants in his heart, but he has championed some good causes. IMHO.

euphemia
10-19-2016, 02:51 PM
It's not like Rand doesn't have a real job. He doesn't need politics. At the start of the election cycle, he pledged to support (not vote for or campaign for) the eventual nominee. He is keeping his word the best way he knows how, unlike almost all the also-rans. They are the ones who should be thrown out of the Republican Party, especially Ted Cruz, who took advantage of Trump's generosity and media magnetism at the outset.

We are not saved by government. Whatever happens, people need to be gracious and honorable.

Jesse James
10-19-2016, 03:43 PM
Those who would sell their souls for power are the exact kind you do not want in power. Rand is just showing himself to be your typical power hungry politician, more concerned with getting elected and winning than with championing the cause of liberty. All of you apologizing for him can't change the fact that this makes him no better than any of the other party shills who sold their souls for a place in Congress and who are willing to whore themselves out to stay there. Rand Paul is a cheap political whore, nothing more. He no more deserves your vote than Ted Cruz or Mitch McConnell. Rand is just using you for political capital to gain and maintain power. Nothing more.
Ron Paul endorsed Lamar Smith. better go run along to another site now.

Krugminator2
10-19-2016, 04:00 PM
I think it is disgraceful. Pledging to support evil is not honorable, it is the sign of intellectual sickness and moral degradation. A willingness to promote and empower the most corrupt and abusive authoritarian that has ran for President in 60 years is not a virtue, it is a sickening vice and shows where his true motives lie- the gaining and maintaining of power, not the championing of liberty.

So no politician meets your standard. And you effectively believe there should be no politicians advocating liberty in office, because by definition they will never be able to get elected. Ron Paul fails your purity test miserably. I guess liberty will come about solely from message board nihilists whining hard enough.

euphemia
10-19-2016, 04:09 PM
A willingness to promote and empower the most corrupt and abusive authoritarian that has ran for President in 60 years is not a virtue, it is a sickening vice and shows where his true motives lie- the gaining and maintaining of power, not the championing of liberty.

This is the first time Donald Trump has ever run for office. I'm not sure anyone knows how he will govern if he is elected. All the speculation doesn't mean a thing.

Zippyjuan
10-19-2016, 05:49 PM
I am not encouraged as to his leadership skills based on how he has been behaving on the campaign trail.

Brett85
10-19-2016, 11:37 PM
I think it is disgraceful. Pledging to support evil is not honorable, it is the sign of intellectual sickness and moral degradation. A willingness to promote and empower the most corrupt and abusive authoritarian that has ran for President in 60 years is not a virtue, it is a sickening vice and shows where his true motives lie- the gaining and maintaining of power, not the championing of liberty.

That's pretty much the dumbest comment ever. Rand endorsed Trump because he pledged to support the eventual GOP nominee, period. He's a man of his word.

jkob
10-20-2016, 12:31 AM
Rand not endorsing Trump could of cost him his senate seat, forget about any future possible run for the presidency. I would not be surprised at all to see both McCain and Ayotte lose their reelections because they pissed off Trump supporters, Rand actually signed the pledge so it would be even worse for him. Good riddance to McCain and Ayotte by the way!

Jesse James
10-20-2016, 05:58 AM
it's simple. if you criticize Rand for playing within the GOP, what the fuck are you doing on a RON PAUL site?

PursuePeace
10-20-2016, 07:05 AM
I think it is disgraceful. Pledging to support evil is not honorable, it is the sign of intellectual sickness and moral degradation. A willingness to promote and empower the most corrupt and abusive authoritarian that has ran for President in 60 years is not a virtue, it is a sickening vice and shows where his true motives lie- the gaining and maintaining of power, not the championing of liberty.

disclaimer: I am not pro-trump.

Just my humble opinion....

Rand works tirelessly to promote the ideas of freedom and liberty. He is forced to work within a certain framework. He has no choice, unless you'd rather see duct tape placed over his mouth which is essentially what would happen if he stopped working within that framework. Rand made a pledge to SUPPORT the eventual nominee. He upheld his pledge. Many others did not. By doing so, they not only went back on their word, but they are essentially saying Clinton would be a better choice.

Rand is not promoting Trump. But he is also not turning his back on him like the others. If Trump is elected (which at this point, I doubt), Rand will have a much better chance to offer support in the way of advice/education, which would be of the utmost importance. I actually DO believe in the idea that people are capable of changing for the better. Even if it seems like a lost cause or a total impossiblity, there is still a .000000001% chance that perhaps some things that Rand promotes and fights for will not fall on deaf ears in a Trump presidency. But I think there would be a .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000001% chance if Rand was one of those who went back on their word.

More importantly and urgently, he also has a senate re-election, do you really think it is wise to do something so drastic as going back on your word, and refusing to support your party's nominee? How would that go over with the voters??

Lastly, "Support". One of the definitions of that word is to "bear the weight of". Think of how Rand's father Ron worked in Washington all of those years amongst the worst evil, can you imagine the weight he had to bear? I think about that a lot, and I have no idea how the man did it. That is the true sign of strength, resilience and determination. To continue, year after year after year after year, fighting and fighting amongst THAT. and not giving up. It's not possible to work OUTSIDE the framework he was (and Rand is) in, and believe that any change is actually going to occur. Great strides will never be made if we are not able to even make small steps. And small steps is where we are right now. We cannot go backwards.

peace..

PierzStyx
10-20-2016, 12:27 PM
I don't really think Rand cares to be a politician. I think he would be quite satisfied just doing eye surgery. This became apparent to me during his live feed when running for POTUS nomination. However, I think because of his father he feels like he should fight the good fight. And for the most part he has. I don't particularly care for this political gambit he has chosen, for I do think it is a political gambit and not what he truly wants in his heart, but he has championed some good causes. IMHO.

If he didn't care to be a politician he wouldn't be one. If he didn't care about accruing power as a politician he wouldn't be on his knees for the Party elites.

r3volution 3.0
10-20-2016, 12:46 PM
If he didn't care about accruing power...

Libertarians should be seeking power, in order to use it to implement libertarian reforms.

That's kind of the whole point of being involved in politics...

CPUd
10-20-2016, 04:38 PM
I don't think this is a good move on his part, it is true that he took the pledge and is technically honoring it but with various establishment republicans expressing distrust and distaste for Trump Rand Paul could have easily have refused that without much consequence as well as being able to appeal to some anti Trump voters. Rand would have been better served remaining neutral.

I'm sure it was something he considered, but staying neutral not only would be going back on the pledge, but it would get him national press. That attention would look a lot like what it looks for Paul Ryan, though probably not as bad because Rand never waffled. The play here is to stay off the national shows as much as possible, and Rand can do this by spending time in KY on his Senate campaign talking about real issues.

788724973607059460
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/788724973607059460

788882437451292672
https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/788882437451292672

Jerry C
10-21-2016, 08:49 AM
Libertarians should be seeking power, in order to use it to implement libertarian reforms.

That's kind of the whole point of being involved in politics...
True, for a libertarian being involved in politics is a sort of defense mechanism but as PierzStyx pointed out there is a danger to compromising principle for the sake of power. What I don't agree with though is the assertion that Rand Paul is doing what he is doing in order to suck up to the party and political elites. If that were the case his voting record would be very different than what it is now, I like his voting record but what I do question his tactics. As the candidacy of Donald Trump is showing being perceived as giving the finger to the man can be good politics, it is shame that Trumps policies aren't as good as his tactics.

r3volution 3.0
10-22-2016, 01:27 PM
What I don't agree with though is the assertion that Rand Paul is doing what he is doing in order to suck up to the party and political elites.

I too disagree with that assessment. Rand's not "sucking up" to the party elites in the sense that he's compromising his principles (as is evident from his stellar voting record). He is trying not to gratuitously insult them, and work with them when possible. This makes him more effective as an advocate for liberty, not less effective.

The party elites are by and large not anti-libertarian, in the sense that they have some deeply felt animosity toward our principles. They're mostly unprincipled altogether, and just want to get reelected and retain/augment their power. We can work with people like that at times E.G. If McConnell wants Rand to campaign for other Senators, in exchange for McConnell using his influence in KY to help Rand get on the POTUS ballot (as actually happened this past year), there's nothing wrong with that. That helps us.


I like his voting record but what I do question his tactics. As the candidacy of Donald Trump is showing being perceived as giving the finger to the man can be good politics, it is shame that Trumps policies aren't as good as his tactics.

Trump isn't a sitting Senator. He can insult the party bosses without consequence. Rand can't.

In any event, Rand's tactics were working just fine until the political narrative changed.

...all of the sudden we went from "libertarian moment" to "Messicuns r rapists!"

He was leading in the polls for a while, and was clearly on the path to being the "anti-establishment" alternative to Jeb/whoever this cycle.

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with Rand's strategy; events outside his control ruined things this cycle.

We'll have to see what the landscape looks like in two years before we can say how Rand should play it next time.

Maybe he should continue doing what he's doing, maybe he should make a theatrical break with the party elite, ala Trump.

Which strategy is best depends on the situation.

Jerry C
10-22-2016, 02:22 PM
The party elites are by and large not anti-libertarian, in the sense that they have some deeply felt animosity toward our principles. They're mostly unprincipled altogether, and just want to get reelected and retain/augment their power.
True, they want power above all else and libertarianism is one of the biggest threats to that because the reductions in the size and scope of government that libertarianism calls for will reduce said power along with it.


He was leading in the polls for a while, and was clearly on the path to being the "anti-establishment" alternative to Jeb/whoever this cycle.
True, and the narrative did change and not for the better. But I am worried that such a move may make more people who are looking for an anti establishment voice distrustful of him, Trump will crash and burn eventually and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that sinking ship.

phill4paul
10-22-2016, 02:58 PM
The play here is to stay off the national shows as much as possible, and Rand can do this by spending time in KY on his Senate campaign talking about real issues.


Which is precisely where he needs to be.

phill4paul
10-22-2016, 03:04 PM
If he didn't care to be a politician he wouldn't be one. If he didn't care about accruing power as a politician he wouldn't be on his knees for the Party elites.

We'll just have to disagree. Accruing power can mean different things for different people. Listen, there is much about Rand that I do not like. I've made that clear right here on these forums at a time when if you criticized Rand you were told to S.T.F.U. When all is said and done if we had 99 other Senators like him we would be a lot better off.

r3volution 3.0
10-22-2016, 03:19 PM
When all is said and done if we had 99 other Senators like him we would be a lot better off.

Amen