Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 155

Thread: Rand Paul has this big disadvantage with his core base that no other GOP candidate ever will

  1. #61

    Default

    The excuse-makers on this board need to admit that Rand Paul is $#@!ing up big time. It's not the libertarians who won't bite the bullet and support a clearly disingenuous and squirrelly politician for President. It's not the conservatives who don't buy Rand as one of them and prefer the other 16 of their guys over him. It's Rand Paul and his campaign that have $#@!ed up. They miscalculated badly, and I don't see him recovering. Unless he takes the gloves off and stops being such a milquetoast appeaser, which doesn't seem like it's going to happen.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomProsperityPeace View Post
    Even the Constitution compromises on freedom. Read the Fourth Amendment. It sets the conditions upon which the government can violate your rights.

    There's no such thing as total freedom. What we're fighting for here is the maximum amount of freedom we can achieve.
    Not if you're willing to compromise and negotiate, you're not.

  4. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.

    To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.

    I'm merely saying: good riddance.
    You really want potential voters to abandon Rand? I'm sure he would be really happy to hear that.

  5. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    You really want potential voters to abandon Rand? I'm sure he would be really happy to hear that.
    On the contrary, it disgusts me that there are libertarians out there who refuse to support Rand.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  6. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Not if you're willing to compromise and negotiate, you're not.
    What did the Founders do? Everybody got their way? Everybody stood their ground and didn't budge an inch?

  7. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.

    To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.

    I'm merely saying: good riddance.
    Tick, tick, tick. The clock is running down to that point in spring 2016, when we will all acknowledge that Rand's candidacy has succeeded, or failed. Are the self-proclaimed pragmatists, or the purists prepared for what that moment will be like, if the Rand candidacy fails to win the nomination? To repeat, the outcome of the primary race will be clear by April. Tick, tick, tick.

    If his losing is the outcome, then the pragmatist arguments for Rand's playing politics will have failed with him, AND THE PRAGMATISTS WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THE PURISTS WERE RIGHT. In an honest world, of course. It will be good riddance, indeed, for trying the path of compromise. I am currently doubtful about Rand's approach, but admit it had to be tried, and might work to win him the niomination. But are the pragmatists ready to concede this path was the wrong one, if he doesn't?
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...iberty-action/

  8. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    On the contrary, it disgusts me that there are libertarians out there who refuse to support Rand.
    It's a marathon not a sprint.

  9. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    It's a marathon not a sprint.

  10. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    Tick, tick, tick. The clock is running down to that point in spring 2016, when we will all acknowledge that Rand's candidacy has succeeded, or failed. Are the self-proclaimed pragmatists, or the purists prepared for what that moment will be like, if the Rand candidacy fails to win the nomination? To repeat, the outcome of the primary race will be clear by April. Tick, tick, tick.

    If his losing is the outcome, then the pragmatist arguments for Rand's playing politics will have failed with him, AND THE PRAGMATISTS WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THE PURISTS WERE RIGHT. In an honest world, of course. It will be good riddance, indeed, for trying the path of compromise. I am currently doubtful about Rand's approach, but admit it had to be tried, and might work to win him the niomination. But are the pragmatists ready to concede this path was the wrong one, if he doesn't?
    I would advise you to prepare yourself: the pragmatists will do nothing of the sort. They will blame the purists.

  11. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The subtle sarcasm is strong with this one...

    You almost had me.



    To your first question, a purge in this context means voluntary disassociation, and there's nothing unlibertarian in that.

    To your second, as I said, there's no action required by we pragmatists; the purists will self-purge, as it were, by abandoning Rand.

    I'm merely saying: good riddance.
    I agree with you. Rand should stop trying to court the Libertarians and go after the neo-con voters! Its the only way he will get elected.

  12. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomProsperityPeace View Post
    What did the Founders do? Everybody got their way? Everybody stood their ground and didn't budge an inch?
    They gave us a document that allows the government to violate our rights. Read the Fourth Amendment.

  13. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I would advise you to prepare yourself: the pragmatists will do nothing of the sort. They will blame the purists.
    They are typical political toadies. Their masters can do no wrong.

  14. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    They gave us a document that allows the government to violate our rights. Read the Fourth Amendment.
    Ha! Okay. Thanks for playing.

  15. #74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    Tick, tick, tick. The clock is running down to that point in spring 2016, when we will all acknowledge that Rand's candidacy has succeeded, or failed. Are the self-proclaimed pragmatists, or the purists prepared for what that moment will be like, if the Rand candidacy fails to win the nomination? To repeat, the outcome of the primary race will be clear by April. Tick, tick, tick.
    IMO, he most likely won't get the nomination: not because of any identifiable error on his part, but simply because this is an uphill battle (always has been, always will be).

    Some time ago I gave him a 15% shot (Jeb being the other 85%): not great, but not terrible, and a much better chance than Ron ever had.

    If he loses, then we try again next time.

    If his losing is the outcome, then the pragmatist arguments for Rand's playing politics will have failed with him, AND THE PRAGMATISTS WILL HAVE TO ADMIT THE PURISTS WERE RIGHT. In an honest world, of course.
    non sequitur

    If Rand's strategy fails, it doesn't follow that the purist strategy would have worked better.

    We can, however, compare vote and fundraising totals from this cycle with those in 2012; and, when all is said and done, I'm quite certain that Rand will have outperformed Ron by that metric (whether he gets the nomination or not), which would suggest the superiority of the pragmatic approach.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 07-30-2015 at 06:40 PM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  16. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    I agree with you. Rand should stop trying to court the Libertarians and go after the neo-con voters! Its the only way he will get elected.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  17. #76

    Default

    the biggest mistake the ron paul and rand paul "campaign" grassroots made was to associate themselves as "libertarian" rather than barry goldwater conservatives...it would have placed Ron and Rand in a different light to the public. Unfortunately, the media labeled the entire grassroots "libertarian" and the grassroots ate it up and accepted the label.
    It was too weird to live, and too rare to die - hunter s. thompson .
    ..this is the darkest timeline..

  18. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I'm going to cut off everything that followed this because everything else you said is just unnecessary noise. All I need to address is right there above.

    Libertarians are for liberty and freedom. You don't compromise on that. Maybe you've heard the saying "being a little bit free is like being a little bit pregnant."

    It's impossible, you're either pregnant or you're not...hence, you're either free or you're not. There's no middle ground. There's no compromise. Therefore, yes, we are moral absolutists (which you refer to as "petty.")
    I'm sure you've heard of the saying "quirky sayings are no substitute for a logical argument."

    As was pointed out earlier your response failed to identify the difference between means and ends. You can imagine your ideal world all you want, but it means nothing if you're not able to find the causal connection to achieve your theoretical moral ends. Not once did I say liberty was bad, but of course for that statement to have any meaning you must elaborate on the definition of liberty.

    Ancoms and socialist libertarians also claim liberty as their end goal and they believe a society of more equitable outcomes will achieve this. When you address these arguments made by Ancoms you aren't ultimately arguing whether or not freedom is good - that has already been established - instead you are showing them how their means will fail in its purpose of attaining liberty.

    Once you have a concrete understanding of your interpretation of liberty you can then begin to figure out the means of getting to that ideal and if it is even possible. Economics and not ethics is especially well-suited to analyze this means/ends relationship.
    Last edited by T.hill; 07-30-2015 at 08:00 PM.

  19. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    I'm sure you've heard of the saying "quirky sayings are no substitute for a logical argument." As was pointed out earlier your response failed to distinguish the difference between means and ends. You can imagine your ideal world all you want, but it means nothing if you're not able to find the causal connection to achieve your theoretical moral ends. Not once did I say liberty was bad, but of course for that statement to have any meaning you must elaborate on the definition of liberty. Ancoms and socialist libertarians claim liberty as their end goal and they believe a society of more equitable outcomes will achieve this. When you address these arguments made by Ancoms you aren't ultimately arguing whether or not freedom is good - that has already been established - instead you are showing them how their means will fail in its purpose of attaining liberty.

    Once you have a concrete understanding of your interpretation of liberty you can then begin to figure out the means of getting to that ideal and if it is even possible. Economics and not ethics is especially well-suited to analyze this means/ends relationship.
    Senator Paul has been distancing himself from libertarian principles and moving towards "conservative" AIPAC principles. (To the delight of many on this forum). How much support has he been gaining? He should just outright announce that he wants War with Iran like the other candidates while he's at it. I'm sure he won't "mean it" right? Just lie his ass off and become like every other politician. This waffling in the middle that he's been doing has NOT gained him any support but it sure as hell is losing him some.

  20. #79

    Default

    ^^^single-issue voter
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  21. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 65fastback2+2 View Post
    I concur with the article....I dont know how many times Ive seen someone say on here they are dropping rand over ONE position.

    Its ridiculous really. Expecting perfection is quite dumb.
    This is my main problem with libertarians. It's either all or nothing, and that's not the way to win an election and bring about change.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  22. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I would advise you to prepare yourself: the pragmatists will do nothing of the sort. They will blame the purists.
    You beat me to the punch.
    Yes, this is exactly what will happen. We'll be sure to hear about all the "negativity".
    I'll be sure to state that I've always said the same thing: that "negativity" was no different than the negativity that showed up on this site when Ron got caught earmarking, or every time the newsletters showed up.
    The difference is that whenever "negativity" showed up in relation to Ron, there was either a good excuse for it, or a sound rationale for why he was right and the "negative" posters were wrong.

    And furthermore, that the answer we have always been given: "Go away kid, you bother me, Ron was a loser and Rand is a winner LOL" is not actually a valid argument.
    The "negative" people here have always been attempting to reason through what's been happening, and the answer they've always been given is "STFU".

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    IMO, he most likely won't get the nomination: not because of any identifiable error on his part, but simply because this is an uphill battle (always has been, always will be).
    .......
    If he loses, then we try again next time.
    .....
    If Rand's strategy fails, it doesn't follow that the purist strategy would have worked better.
    And that's all this boils down to with you.
    Strategy.
    Quit using checkers strategy when playing chess, and all that, right?

    I bet you're a big fan of both Monopoly and Risk. Those two games irritate the $#@! out of me, for one simple reason: everything is almost totally random until a certain point in the game when it becomes crystal clear that certain players are just ballast at that point, and it becomes fairly clear who is going to win.
    (If you're into games, you'd probably like one called RoboRally also: it too pretends to be something much more complicated than it really is.)

    I can tell you like this sort of game because that's exactly how a primary works. There is one and only one strategy: get as much positive media coverage as possible and don't make any random bad rolls that knock you out of the game. If you assume there's some other strategy then you need to review what board you're looking at.

    Ron Paul looked at that board and figured out there was one and only one strategy for that game that didn't involve a lot of compromise and lying.
    It involved educating and inspiring people to change the game.
    I haven't heard anything about local or state parties getting taken over by people in the movement since the 2012 elections.
    And nobody is going to get convinced to start doing it again because it certainly seems like that strategy was rejected.

    If the takeovers are still happening, I'd sure love to hear about it. It was a winning strategy in the long run, because it got rid of corrupt rules written by corrupt people for corrupt politicians, and potentially replaced them with rules that libertarians would actually compromise on.

    We're sure as hell not going to compromise for your corrupt rules written by corrupt people for corrupt politicians, no matter how much we believe that our guy won't actually corrupt himself by getting involved with them.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  23. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ^^^single-issue voter
    Single issue? You need to learn how to count. If there is war, do you think there will be less taxes? If there is war, do you think there will be privacy and personal liberty? If there is war, do you think there will be LESS government? If there is war, do you think there will be lives that are taken? You care about abortion but you don't care about people being killed by bombs? Hypocrite! All these issues are DIRECTLY tied to war.

    Learn how to count genius. Single issue. What a moron.

  24. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomProsperityPeace View Post
    Rallying libertarians is like herding cats, which is why I'm often discouraged and contemplate giving up on politics.
    one of our forum wits here once said y'all have to open tuna fish cans in order to herd cats. you have to know their mentality and compensate for things!

  25. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Carlybee View Post
    It's a marathon not a sprint.
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    agreed...

  26. #85

    Default

    Rand is by far the most non-interventionist and most libertarian candidate who has a chance at winning. It's not even close. But OMG he's voting against the Iran deal and doesn't support immediately ending sanctions, which means when he's president he's gonna have Netanyahu command our army into Iran!
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  27. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyInNY View Post
    Yeah libertarians suck. They would rather not vote for a guy like Rand because he's not pure. Exactly why a libertarian leaning candidate will NEVER be potus. Exactly why I left the libertarian movement. Because the end game for libertarians in this movement doesn't seem to be electing someone on our side who actually has a chance, but to just stick it to the man.

    I've been here forever and voted twice for Ron, and I'm really appalled at the lack of support for Rand. I'm apalled at how many former Ron Paul supporters are going in the direction of cruz, trump and even sanders. Not just people here, but people I know, who voted for Ron and pushed Ron Paul propaganda on their Facebook and Twitter non stop in 2007 and 2011, now posting non stop praise of cruz, trump and sanders, mostly sanders. I ask them why no mention or support of Rand, Ron's own son... Their answer? Always "hes not a pure libertarian like Ron was" or "hes too hawkish" or "he went to Israel". Really? And trump, sanders, cruz, et all, are better? Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.
    I'm with you. I used to think libertarian leaning people were logical, the support for Sanders and Trump because Rand isn't 'pure enough' makes me think some libertarians are at least hopeless as mainstream Americans in some ways.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  28. #87

    Default

    Good folks are looking for ways that avoid them all having to choose between JEB or HILLARY after they all debated BARACK verses MITT in 2o12!

  29. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I'm with you. I used to think libertarian leaning people were logical, the support for Sanders and Trump because Rand isn't 'pure enough' makes me think some libertarians are at least hopeless as mainstream Americans in some ways.
    Um...I'm not for Trump or Sanders. If I vote, I will vote for Rand if he gets the nomination. Even though I apparently "suck". I'm not convinced the whole freaking thing isn't rigged from the get go. Any one who supports Sanders or Trump is not a libertarian unless they are so socially liberal that it takes over their fiscal common sense. However when I hear people on this board say libertarians suck it makes me wonder how they can make a claim at all to supporting liberty. When people say we libertarians need to be purged I say GFY.
    Last edited by Carlybee; 07-30-2015 at 10:25 PM.

  30. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    I'm with you. I used to think libertarian leaning people were logical, the support for Sanders and Trump because Rand isn't 'pure enough' makes me think some libertarians are at least hopeless as mainstream Americans in some ways.
    Those supporting Trump and Sanders cannot possibly be libertarians.

  31. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Single issue? You need to learn how to count. If there is war, do you think there will be less taxes? If there is war, do you think there will be privacy and personal liberty? If there is war, do you think there will be LESS government? If there is war, do you think there will be lives that are taken? You care about abortion but you don't care about people being killed by bombs? Hypocrite! All these issues are DIRECTLY tied to war.

    Learn how to count genius. Single issue. What a moron.
    P1. War is bad.
    P2. Rand is merely the least interventionist candidate, he's not perfectly non-interventionist
    C. Therefore, to prevent war, we should oppose Rand.

    ...makes sense
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 08:54 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2012, 12:11 AM
  3. Ron Paul going last, disadvantage
    By nyrgoal99 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 10:30 PM
  4. Candidate Ron Paul taps eclectic, fervent base
    By Bradley in DC in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-06-2007, 08:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •