Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
thinking this through further.
Cruz said what he did when he did about mitch on purpose.
His goal WAS this, because it bolsters his claim of "outsider".
Good calculation on his part if thats how it went down which seems plausible.
I would be attacking Jeb, Boehner, McCain, Graham, King, ect rather than Cruz and Trump. Don't really see what the endgame is here. First we turn off Trump supporters and now Cruz supporters too. Who exactly is it Rand is hoping will vote for him?
This is only somewhat related to Rands comments today, these are more thoughts that I've had the last few weeks. I think Rand currently has a perception problem. He is running as the anti-establishment candidate but I think there is a perception that Rand is trying to play nice with the establishment, so it's kind of hard to buy into that message if he's seen as wanting to play nice. Nothing riles up the grassroots up more than when people go after the establishment. Is there anyone here that dislikes when Rand goes after McCain? I get fired up when Rand calls McCain out, I think it's something Rand should do more often. I was thinking to start reversing the current perception of Rand in conservative circles he should start calling out the leadership (what I think the perception of Rand is anyways as an outside observer). Before Boehner announced his resignation I was thinking Rand should start going after him, and Mitch. I think people would have loved that and it would help Rand to reclaim his position as the anti-establishment candidate in the eyes of those that feel differently.
Now to Rand's point, that doesn't neccessarily have to be in the form of name calling, but I do think Rand should go after the establishment more aggressively. Calling out Cruz for name calling (while may be right on principle) I think only adds to the perception that Rand wants to play nice, which again, makes it a harder sell to the voters that he is the anti-establishment. I know Rand is anti-establishment, but I've been a Rand supporter for awhile now and have been following his moves more closely. I think Rand missed a messaging opportunity when basically the whole system came out against him for blocking the Patriot Act... hell McConell himself went right after Paul, and while Mitch didn't call Rand out by name it was very clear who he was referring to. Rand should have done more to leverage that moment as someone who will buck his leadership and as someone who is fearless. Those of us on the forum are a very small minority, so while many here may know these things, the rest of the public may not (plus generally speaking, people tend to have short term memory so some reminders here and there could do some good), I think Rand/his campaign needs to do a better job with messaging and selling the voting public on him being the anti-establishment candidate. Again, while Rand may be right on principle, calling out Cruz for name calling isn't going to win him over any voters, Rand needs to show people that he is the anti-establishment candidate, if anything, people are going to see his comments and come off with the impression that Cruz is the most anti-establishment
Just my opinion, maybe (hopefully) I'm way wrong here. I'm 100% behind Rand but every now and then he does something that makes me feel like he doesn't entirely understand the disatisfaction people share towards congress
OK, Rand, I appreciate you calling people out, but it's really starting to get old now. If you want to climb in the polls, it's time to start communicating a positive message! How do you think Reagan won?
Why are the mods allowing an obvious troll like JJ to post here? This is Rand's sub forum and is supposed to be a place for supporters of Rand to engage in political activism.
The Ted Cruz amendment was just to defund planned parenthood. It didn't do anything else. That's what your friend was referring to on tweeter. He is correct that Rand opposed it, only Mike Lee supported it.
If you want to pretend it didn't happen, I don't think that strategy will work to win the vote of your friend, as he can just check, and already did.
Call him out on missing votes, CR vote, Extending Patriot act, voting to arm rebels, Flipping on birthright citizenship is better.
Please report the posts you see. Some mods aren't reading as much at certain times, I haven't lately.
Not sure I've seen a complaint about jj, and I wouldn't act on my own preference. Pretty sure I've banned him before under another name though. I say continue to thoroughly debunk when possible and report guideline violations.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
I don't know where the faulty premise that anti-establishment candidates win republican primaries comes from.
Establishment money wins republican primaries. Rand's tax proposal is bound to be very enticing.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
There is a set of people among whom this statement is true. How valuable is it to consider this set of people when making choices?
The implication is that Rand is attacking Cruz. Your position loves the word attack here. You further implicate Rand as having strategy problems, based upon your false assertion that he has attacked in some way.Don't you see the brilliance of that strategy?
And yet, the subject matter is that Ted has done so much attacking that he has no allies. Strange contortions.
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
Yeah, that's such a strange implication for someone who is polling less than 1% in two polls released today. How could it come across anyone's mind that someone polinng less than 1% in two states, less than Santorum, could have a strategy problem? What a strange thing to think.
Cruz voted against the CR. One of 19.
https://www.opencongress.org/vote/2015/s/271
The Trump 1 percent line. I will admit that my position must convince with logic and substance rather than emotion, and is therefore at a disadvantage.
You believe polls 1) are accurate 2) are an indicator of strategy 3) have meaning this early.
To the extent you are right about 1, the assumption is that the people polled are the people rand is trying to poll well amongst. To the extent you are right about 2, you advocate chasing the polls up and down and attaching one's actions to the wind. To the extent you are right about 3, it is in the faith that people will not learn the lessons of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Polls are not accurate. Those brave enough to research this claim honestly will find ample evidence to support it. Polls are not an indicator of strategy, unless strategy is to do well in polls. If the right strategy is to do well in polls (rather than educate, unite, or win votes/caucuses/powers/influence), then those who pay off polling companies are engaging in the right strategy. If polls have meaning this early, then history is anomaly.
In three more ways I 'attack' your point.
Who has a better strategy? What treatment are they receiving from media - helping that strategy at every turn? Undermining it?
What credibility can you give yourself as a rational observer of the facts by listing the good points of Rand's strategy you can find?
What say you of some results of Rand's political actions that are commonly under-appreciated:
- Cory Booker's fans probably like him
- Donald Trump has to put out a tax plan that *seems* conservative because of him
- NSA, CIA, FBI Constitutionalists (read: highly educated Constitutionalists) will see him favorably
- so many etceteras
I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.
I'm done with this sack of $#@!. I've had buyer's remorse since November 2012. I change my mind - David Dewhurst would have been way better.
There are times when I have to wonder about who actually would have been worse. Dewhurst would have probably been closer to Orrin Hatch than Rand Paul, but while he may not have been an outright friend of liberty, he wouldn't be destroying it from within like the loose cannon Cruz has been doing for the past couple years. This is one area where I think Ron Paul's anti-establishment tendencies in endorsing candidates may have reached just a bit too far. Cruz has more of an ego than an ideology, and he has no upward mobility as a senator within the senate, regardless of whether he's dealing with other "Tea Party" people, or the various shades of the establishment GOP.
How many battles you going to start Rand? Ted Cruz is the beloved molotav throwing berserker of lots of grassroot faithful. Couldn't you just focus on trump or fiorina if you wanted a new battle. One step forward two steps back
Rand may not be catering to the basic electorate, those who are satisfied with entertainers for Presidents and rally around childish behavior and immature remarks. Maybe Rand is working on the part of the electorate. like legislators or people who don't get polled, and who are not buying this Donald circus or Cruz's childish behavior and empty rhetoric. Just maybe, Rand is the only adult on the campaign trail and it could benefit him to exhibit that. I'm sure the campaign has done their polling, and they know what to say at this point and what candidates they need to cut off.
R∃VO˩UTION
Cruz has got to go. Cruz is one of Rands' major obstacles in this race. And Cruz knows this, and is knowingly and willingly siphoning off tea party etc. votes from Paul and trying to split the freedom caucus. Cruz has already thrown Rand under the bus more than once. Cruz once rallied with the Pauls and praised their name, but for what? For himself only. He never had the courtesy to endorse Ron in 2012 and he's undermining Rand this time around. Cruz needs to remove himself for several reasons.
R∃VO˩UTION
When someone wins a House or Senate seat and is sworn in, they have made promises to voters and donors, have publicaly expressed their principles, and have sworn to defend the Constitution. That is where their loyalties should begin and end. Who promoted "Senate rules" (that the candidate did not run on, or swear to defend) to this equal level of homage? If Rand is going to be the anti-establishment statesman, he needs to consistently present that way, not appear to be nice towards reporters, or defend the Mitch McConnells, the rules be darned.
Rand should be attacking Cruz the same way he should have addressed Trump---via triangulation. Instead of attacking the candidate directly, he should have addressed both ends of the issue, which is frustration over the leadership holding the rank and file back, AND Senators who are dividing the Tea Party, and have treated others so poorly that they can't get a bill co-sponosred. Rand would come out looking like a statesman and a outsider on this basis, instead of merely an establishment guy bashing other outsider candidates for self-serving reasons.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
Wow, I didn't know this was a Ted Cruz forum. Cruz's goal isn't for Rand to win; I never said anything of the sort. If you've been paying attention long enough, and seen how the Tea Party was hijacked and how Cruz rapidly became the posterboy for neocons who want to call themselves limited gov't conservatives, then you would see that Cruz's only goal was to prevent Rand from rallying the anti-establishment vote. To top it off, Cruz is siphoning support from Rand, knowing full well that he isn't even Constitutionally eligible. Ted Cruz talks a good game and pretends to support the Constitution, but he does't always support in favor of it. He's all talk, and nothing but a deceiver. He's got to go.
R∃VO˩UTION
Connect With Us