Rand Paul 2016 - Join, or Die.

[Occam's Banana]

Occam's Banana, I think its time for you to hop on the train too.

Your points are well thought out and I appreciate your contributions to the Rand threads. That being said, you aren't going to convince Rand not to run in 2016 and you aren't going to convince all the people already on the train to get off either. Don't you think your energies would be better directed elsewhere?

Come on my friend, it's time to join us. All aboard!

I think you misunderstand. Perhaps I should have said something, but it honestly didn't occur to me that my "Love Train" post might be taken the wrong way.

It was in NO WAY meant a a jibe or mockery. I'm already on the Rand Train! Everyone should get on board! So I was just posting a fun, happy song to go along with PG's prior post. That's all.

Now I DO think that Rand should stay in the Senate and not run for POTUS, but that's neither here nor there. Nuthin' to do with anything. Rand will do what Rand decides to do, and none of us gets to decide for him. Whatever he decides, I'm right there with him. So if I talk about how Rand shouldn't run for POTUS, it's just 'cause I like talking about strategy and tactics and my take on it all. Unlike others, I ain't gonna diss anyone who's hoping for Rand for POTUS run - though I *will* debate about it.

So ... go for the Senate? Go for POTUS? It's all good! It's the "Love" Train either way! And Rand Paul is the conductor! Allllll aaaaaaBOOOAAAARD!

Oh, yeah, and one more thing:

JOIN, or DIE!

[whoisjohngalt]

No, I wasn't talking about the video. I just have seen you on all the Rand threads talking up the plan to keep him in the Senate. I know you support the man. I was only suggesting you get on board the POTUS train; trust me if you dare, he has already made the decision.

[Occam's Banana]

No, I wasn't talking about the video.

Oh, OK. My mistake.

I just have seen you on all the Rand threads talking up the plan to keep him in the Senate. I know you support the man. I was only suggesting you get on board the POTUS train; trust me if you dare, he has already made the decision.

Well, like I say, I'm already on the train. But it's not really up to us whether it's a POTUS Train or a Senate Train. That's up to Rand. I just think it would be strategically more prudent if Rand stays in the Senate. But there certainly isn't any "plan" to keep him in the Senate - at least, not on my part anyway. Just me talking. And I'll go along with whichever course he settles on.

[Barrex]

Still dont like it

"If you want to win you must not lose" – Number One

[RickyJ]

"Join or die" sounds like a threat. I hope you don't seriously think this is a good slogan that will help a campaign, because it won't. It might be good way to start a real revolution, but it sucks for a political campaign.

[dannno]

"Join or die" sounds like a threat. I hope you don't seriously think this is a good slogan that will help a campaign, because it won't. It might be good way to start a real revolution, but it sucks for a political campaign.

It isnt a threat, it forces people to address the issue instead of being trite and wishy-washy

[whoisjohngalt]

People made fun of the "Vote or Die" campaign, but no one really felt threatened by it as far as I could tell. I don't imagine this will be the official campaign slogan, but it's not too bad if you remove the "Republicans".

[Southerner]

[Love Train video]

I'll see your LOVE TRAIN, and raise you...

[Occam's Banana]

People made fun of the "Vote or Die" campaign, but no one really felt threatened by it as far as I could tell. I don't imagine this will be the official campaign slogan, but it's not too bad if you remove the "Republicans".

I disagree. Directing this at the Republicans is the whole point. They need to unite behind a *real* conservative libertarian (or libertarian conservative, if you prefer). That would be Rand Paul.

It's a fine slogan. It's PERFECT for the purposes for which it was intended. It should stay exactly like it is.

Anyone who would like to see something else - directed at a more general group, or whatever - should get to work and come up with something of their own.

There is no good reason why everything we do has to be a "one size fits all" affair.

[Liberty74]

Unless the purists can find someone as pure as Ron Paul AND has the chance/popularity... Then there is no one else.

Judge NAP 2016 as Indy.

One does not need to be popular today. Ross Perot came out of no where 1992 and was pulling 30% in the national polls in 6 months time. He was a nobody.

[Uriah]

I disagree. Directing this at the Republicans is the whole point. They need to unite behind a *real* conservative libertarian (or libertarian conservative, if you prefer). That would be Rand Paul.

It's a fine slogan. It's PERFECT for the purposes for which it was intended. It should stay exactly like it is.

Anyone who would like to see something else - directed at a more general group, or whatever - should get to work and come up with something of their own.

There is no good reason why everything we do has to be a "one size fits all" affair.

The slogan was perfect for the time and culture it was created in. I like the slogan personally. But I think it will put off mainstream Republicans. This will most likely be viewed as an ultimatum, which can back fire. If the words "Unite, or Fall." were used, I would be more receptive as the word 'die' seems harsh. And remember we are trying to convert an elderly electorate that generally has a more sensitive character.

[Occam's Banana]

The slogan was perfect for the time and culture it was created in. I like the slogan personally. But I think it will put off mainstream Republicans. This will most likely be viewed as an ultimatum, which can back fire. If the words "Unite, or Fall." were used, I would be more receptive as the word 'die' seems harsh. And remember we are trying to convert an elderly electorate that generally has a more sensitive character.

Well ... I addressed some of this before (in fact, I think I used "UNITE, or FALL" as an analogy earlier in this thread, or another one on the same subject).

It's not that I think some of the objections here are wrong so much as I think they're exaggerated. There are going to be two types of negative reaction: honest and dishonest. The honest ones would come from people who genuinely misunderstand. As torchbearer has pointed out, this makes for "teachable moments" (I hate that phrase, but it fits). The dishonest honest ones would come from people who either know they're talking BS or just don't care. But those people are going to do that sort of thing regardless of what memes or approaches we take. If we need to be *that* worried about the reception of a meme taken straight from the iconography of the American Revolution, then it doesn't really matter *what* memes we do or don't adopt - were pretty much doomed, no matter what.

[Uriah]

Debating the merits of a meme in no way will be the undoing of this movement. It could be the undoing of the meme, nothing else.

[Jingles]

I just wish he was a lot more forceful with his rhetoric. Doesn't in anyway excite me like Ron Paul does. The "moderate appealing to people rhetoric" turns me off from people. I just like someone blatantly telling the truth.

[Occam's Banana]

Debating the merits of a meme in no way will be the undoing of this movement. It could be the undoing of the meme, nothing else.

Agreed.

[Occam's Banana]

I just wish he was a lot more forceful with his rhetoric. Doesn't in anyway excite me like Ron Paul does. The "moderate appealing to people rhetoric" turns me off from people. I just like someone blatantly telling the truth.

I know exactly what you mean. I'll probably never be as enthusiastic about Rand as I am about Ron for just that reason. But I also won't let my emotional response overrule my intellectual assessment ... and it's not like there's nothing at all to get charged up about when it comes to Rand. That Senate speech on foreign aid and that new "1984" clip he just put out are pretty damned invigorating.

[Uriah]

nvm

[July]

I just wish he was a lot more forceful with his rhetoric. Doesn't in anyway excite me like Ron Paul does. The "moderate appealing to people rhetoric" turns me off from people. I just like someone blatantly telling the truth.

I know what you mean... Ron made my jaw drop during the debates, speeches, etc. The way he would just SAY things, and say them so plainly that you could not deny the obvious logic and reason behind his statement. Sometimes it would shock me and excite me at the same time. He is a brilliant political mind, though he doesn't think of himself as a politician in the usual sense.

Rand's attention to nuance and subtly excites me. Is that weird? I'm not sure how to explain it, but it inspires me watching him walk the tight rope, as he sometime does.

Anyway point is, there are different people and personalities bringing their different talents into the mix. That's the beauty of it.