Buzzfeed hit piece on Rand staff: "Why Rand Paul Lost"

[BenMuldowney]

People can criticize the way Rand ran his campaign or his staff but the bottom line is Rand had to deal with more "outsider" competition than Ron ever had to deal with. Bernie to the left, Trump for the racists, and Cruz to the right.

Who was Ron's biggest competitor? Kucinich?

On Reddit and other liberal places only you'd see a lot of people liked Rand but Bernie was their guy, a lot of people on here jumped on the Trump train of idiocy, and several even went to Cruz as the guy with a chance to win.

So yes Rand could have ran a better campaign but the competition he had to deal with was a lot greater than Ron ever had to go through.

you sound like some campus feminist whining about her safe space. **vomit** trump is not a racist, he just knows all of this PC speak is killing this country.

[jmdrake]

People can criticize the way Rand ran his campaign or his staff but the bottom line is Rand had to deal with more "outsider" competition than Ron ever had to deal with. Bernie to the left, Trump for the racists, and Cruz to the right.

Who was Ron's biggest competitor? Kucinich?

On Reddit and other liberal places only you'd see a lot of people liked Rand but Bernie was their guy, a lot of people on here jumped on the Trump train of idiocy, and several even went to Cruz as the guy with a chance to win.

So yes Rand could have ran a better campaign but the competition he had to deal with was a lot greater than Ron ever had to go through.

I thought we were a movement that understood the free market. When something becomes popular, competition naturally comes in. Yet this movement is badly misinterpreting the results of Iowa. "Liberty is not popular! The hawks won!" Bull feces! The only true "hawk" candidates to do well in Iowa were Hillary Clinton (who seems to have won Iowa off some questionable coin tosses) and Marco Rubio who came in third on the Republican side. Oh but some "Cruz said make sand glow" and "Trump said bomb/steal the oil". (You can't bomb it and steal it at the same time. ) Ignore the rhetoric and look at the policies. Both Trump and Cruz have taken U.S. boots in the ground in Syria off the table. The hawk candidates are ready to send in boots on the ground to Syria. Trump and Cruz have taken no-fly zones over Syria off the table. The hawks are ready a complete no fly zone over Syria and a confrontation with Russia. Ben Carson split the difference by only calling for a no fly zone over the Turkey/Syria border to keep the Russians out of Turkey, but he has not called for a general no fly zone over Syria. So in the top 5 candidates on the Republican side, only Marco Rubio is the true hawk, he came in third, and somehow the hawks one? Bat guano! And sadly, neither Ron nor Rand have made the proper analysis of what happened in Iowa. In response to "Did the hawks win", Ron and Daniel McAdams conceded defeat of non-interventionism in Iowa, when non-interventionism actually won in Iowa, and then rambled on about how "Sure the killings in Paris and San Fransisco were bad, but we have violence in the inner city too." WTF Ron Paul? Here is the difference. The average American is smart enough to know how to avoid inner city violence. Don't go to the inner city. Or if you do go be very aware of your surroundings. What makes terrorism so scary is, there's literally nothing you can do to protect yourself besides concealed carry, not legal in many of the places you need to go like airports, most college campuses, and government buildings, and hope for the best. When it comes to terrorism there is no "inner city" for you to avoid. (Okay. Maybe you can just move out to the country and get everything that you might need from the city by ordering online.)

The problem is that Ron seems to have forgotten the difference between non-interventionism and passivism. And by extension the rest of the liberty movement seems confused too. Rand's been all over the map. Voting for sanctions against Iran and signing the Tom Cotton letter which stated "Screw you Iran. We don't have to keep the deal that Obama is negotiating with you." To then saying latter "Let's at least see of Iran is going to comply before we tear up the agreement." I understand what Rand was trying to do. I also understand, from a marketing perspective Rand failed in his attempt! The non-interventionists were against the sanctions and the Tom Cotton letter. And yes I've heard all of the "spin" as to why it "really wasn't so bad" and that "Rand is playing chess and everybody else is playing checkers." Well marketing is NOT chess! Marketing poker! Everything you do is a gamble and you have no control over the hand you are dealt or the hand that the other guy plays! And politics, if you haven't figured this out yet, is marketing! So the gamble Rand made was "If I vote for the sanctions and sign the Tom Cotton letter, but explain why a made the sanctions not so bad and give a good reason for the Tom Cotton letter then I can keep all of my dad's base while expanding it to the people that don't like my dad's foreign policy. After all....it worked in Kentucky." The problem with that logic is that in 2010 the establishment was running against Rand (Mitch McConnell fundraising for Trey Grayson, John Bolton cutting anti-Rand TV commercials) and both the teocons and the libertarians were willing to look past the fact that Rand was not their ideal candidate because both hated the establishment candidate and the power behind it. But 2016 is a much different story. The Ron Paul base was hoping that some of the things Rand said during the campaign, like Gitmo should be kept open and a military tribunal should be used because if there was evidence obtained from detainees through torture it would be thrown out in a civilian court and "that would be a problem" (actually it would be thrown out in a military tribunal too), or disavowing the position he stated when campaigning for Ron that Iran getting one nuclear bomb would not be a threat to the U.S. (Iran is not suicidal despite what the neocons on talk radio want you to believe.) But in 2016 the establishment was not running against Rand. "Oh but what about John McCain and Lindsey Graham?" They are neocon hasbins. Mitch McConnell is establishment and he endorsed Rand....and he is the kiss of death to political candidates these days. How good did his endorsement and fundraising do Trey Grayson? Why did we not learn from Trey Grayson and stay away from Mitch "the most hated Republican on talk radio" McConnell as possible? That's as good question to ask Jesse "Hold our nose and support McConnell" Benton.

So back to 2016. In the debates Rand said things ultimately that would make us proud. Like "Maybe we shouldn't tear up that Iran agreement." Great! But that distanced him from the very teocons he won in 2010. But listening to talk radio the two charges I heard the most against Rand were "He supports amnesty for illegal immigrants and he's for means testing of social security which turns it into welfare." That was it. They weren't harping on the foreign policy issues. Rand had soft peddled that enough to satisfy them and many of them had changed positions. Some, like Michael Savage, were now against the Iraq war. Trump and Carson, at one point the top two leading contenders, had never supported the Iraq war. And Cruz and taken the opposite position of the neocons who said Obama pulled out too soon to instead say "We didn't leave Iraq soon enough."

The problem Rand ultimately ran into is that it took him a while to articulate a response to ISIS. It should not have taken any time to do that because nothing anyone might pose to the NON-STATE "Islamic State" counts as interventionism! Interventionism means meddling in the internal affairs of a legitimate country that has not attacked you. The "Islamic State" is not a state, and its brutal and publicized murder of an American journalist counts as an attack. So anything done in coordination with the legitimate governments of Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State terrorists within their borders is NOT NOT NOT interventionism. If the Iraqi government were to say "Would you please nuke this part of our country? We don't have nukes and we think that's the only way to stop ISIS from advancing", that would be brutal, it would be cruel and it would be stupid. But it would not be interventionism. Trying to cause regime change in Syria, whether it is through military force, or financial support of "peaceful protesters" IS IS IS interventionism.

Rand could have won this election and moved the ball forward on non-interventionism by saying this. "The rise of ISIS is exactly what I predicted when I said we shouldn't be army rebels in Syria. There are no moderate rebels in Syria. It was a faction of the so called Free Syrian Army that turned over that unfortunate American journalist to ISIS who then slaughtered him like an animal. Here is how we much respond. We need to recognize that ISIS is our number one enemy now, not Assad in Syria or Al Maliki in Iraq. We need to work with Assad and Al Maliki to take out ISIS and any group that is currently seeking the same aim as ISIS. The rebels in Syria should have one week to reach a cease fire with Assad after which time they will be considered legitimate targets of the U.S. Air Force. All aid to rebels in Syria from the U.S. must stop immediately. The U.S. is calling on other nations to stop sending any funding to any militant group in the region immediately. The one exception to this rule should be the Kurds as they were willing to stand up and keep fighting ISIS when the Iraqi army fled. Any country that is sending money to ISIS or is allowing its citizens to send money to ISIS will be considered an enemy of the United States and will be at the risk of economic sanctions. Any country buying ISIS oil or allowing it to flow across its borders will be at risk of being considered an enemy and that includes NATO ally Turkey. Turkey must control its border with Syria to keep ISIS oil out. The U.S. should be prepared to assist Turkey in that effort. But if that border is not sealed than Turkey's status as a NATO ally should be reviewed."

^That is the kind of statement that would have won Iowa.

[BenMuldowney]

you manginas can bash trump all you like but show me one rino willing to call out cruz/GS like this?

[jmdrake]

you sound like some campus feminist whining about her safe space. **vomit** trump is not a racist, he just knows all of this PC speak is killing this country.

Trump is an opportunist. As late as June 2015 he was saying that he was open to amnesty for "good illegal immigrants." He knows what sells. He once called for a ban on assault rifles. Now he says "Let's let the teachers have guns in school." He knows what sells. He's a great salesman. He's good at marketing. Caring about what is "killing this country" does not at all factor into his analysis. He is still on record as supporting the banker bailout. That's only because the tea party has now forgotten how angry they were about that. He's still on record saying that eminent domain for private developers is a "wonderful thing." That's because the tea party has now forgotten how angry they were about the Kelo decision. He's tapping into the current wave of anger which is immigration sparked by the wave of "dream children" that came from central America. But if the tea party quit thinking that was the most important issue on the planet, he wouldn't push it. He is the opposite of Ron Paul. He is the "anti-Paul." Paul took an issue that nobody cared about, the federal reserve, and made it common knowledge at least to people who are somewhat politically literate. Trump is just riding the latest wave of xenophobia. In a way he's the most politically correct candidate running. Political correctness doesn't mean "be nice." The term originated in the Soviet Union and they were anything but nice. Political correctness means do what is politically expedient. Trump is doing that. His poll numbers prove it.

[jmdrake]

you manginas can bash trump all you like but show me one rino willing to call out cruz/GS like this?

You understand that Trump actually is on record supporting the very Goldman Sachs bailouts that is the reason for the concern about Goldman Sachs right?

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...bailout-club-/

[BenMuldowney]

Trump is an opportunist. As late as June 2015 he was saying that he was open to amnesty for "good illegal immigrants." He knows what sells. He once called for a ban on assault rifles. Now he says "Let's let the teachers have guns in school." He knows what sells. He's a great salesman. He's good at marketing. Caring about what is "killing this country" does not at all factor into his analysis. He is still on record as supporting the banker bailout. That's only because the tea party has now forgotten how angry they were about that. He's still on record saying that eminent domain for private developers is a "wonderful thing." That's because the tea party has now forgotten how angry they were about the Kelo decision. He's tapping into the current wave of anger which is immigration sparked by the wave of "dream children" that came from central America. But if the tea party quit thinking that was the most important issue on the planet, he wouldn't push it. He is the opposite of Ron Paul. He is the "anti-Paul." Paul took an issue that nobody cared about, the federal reserve, and made it common knowledge at least to people who are somewhat politically literate. Trump is just riding the latest wave of xenophobia. In a way he's the most politically correct candidate running. Political correctness doesn't mean "be nice." The term originated in the Soviet Union and they were anything but nice. Political correctness means do what is politically expedient. Trump is doing that. His poll numbers prove it.

i said "PC speak"... and he has crushed it. has trump evolved on certain issues? duh.. so have i. we live in the information age and there are 100s of layers to this onion. but trump did speak out on the iraq war in 2004 on record... so im guessing he was against it before that too... but that said, he is not your typical neocon/rino pandering to goldman sachs and the other elite deep pockets. and honestly you don't know trump's heart..... he told the truth why he gave people like hillary money.. he was playing the game and he knows the other candidates are taking money from the big corps and that they are owned by them.

ron paul was great... the fed message was great (i've been spreading the news on the fed for decades myself) but what did it get us? "we got the message out"? so did the communist occutards. look, we are still in bondage as a nation, but trump is not bought off like ALL OF THE OTHERS. ron/rand had zero chance even if they had the voters, which they didnt. it takes someone that knows how to fight these scumbags and has extremely deep pockets. there is no one else out there that can win.

lastly? please, if you want anyone with testicles and a rational brain to take you seriously, never ever use the term xenophobia again unless you are mocking others for using it seriously.

[BenMuldowney]

You understand that Trump actually is on record supporting the very Goldman Sachs bailouts that is the reason for the concern about Goldman Sachs right?

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...bailout-club-/

do i like trump's support for the banker bailout scams ? no... (i have not heard him on the issue but i will trust you) but did i like ron paul's stance on immigration? no.. i am more conservative, but he was better than most of the rino neocons. do i like rand pandering to BLM in ferguson? hell no. there is no one perfect candidate.

[PowerOfLiberty]

One has to admit that the very thing Rand is getting criticized for was exactly what people were hyping up in 2013 and 2014. Everyone was saying that Rand was someone with a libertarian message but with broader appeal. When he attempted that people had a problem with it.

[cajuncocoa]

Mangina, like cuckservative, is another word that will earn an automatic neg-rep from me whenever I see it. The user comes off like a pimply-faced 12-year old. We're adults here.

[BenMuldowney]

Mangina, like cuckservative, is another word that will earn an automatic neg-rep from me whenever I see it. The user comes off like a pimply-faced 12-year old. We're adults here.

on noes.. please don't neg-rep me. LOL

this reminds me of being a ron paul delegate and these other delegates were terrified of rocking the boat. they wanted to enmesh themselves with the party leaders so we could eventually vote our people in and their people out in like 2020. my guess is out of the 100 that got involved in 2012? probably 3 will be back at the mass precinct meetings this year. you people are the reason this country is going to hell fast.

but hey... you're an adult!!! so you got that going for you, which is nice huh?

[cajuncocoa]

on noes.. please don't neg-rep me. LOL

this reminds me of being a ron paul delegate and these other delegates were terrified of rocking the boat. they wanted to enmesh themselves with the party leaders so we could eventually vote our people in and their people out in like 2020. my guess is out of the 100 that got involved in 2012? probably 3 will be back at the mass precinct meetings this year. you people are the reason this country is going to hell fast.

but hey... you're an adult!!! so you got that going for you, which is nice huh?

It's not about rocking any boat. Rock all the boats you want. Go off sounding like a racist Neanderthal for all I care. We're seeing that on a daily basis from you alt-right people lately. Just use grown up language when you come in here....many of us are college educated. We left Junior High behind many decades ago. Grow up.

[Occam's Banana]

you manginas [...]

if you want anyone with testicles and a rational brain jackasses who actually use words like "mangina" to take you seriously, never ever use the term xenophobia again unless you are mocking others for using it seriously.

FTFY

[BenMuldowney]

It's not about rocking any boat. Rock all the boats you want. Go off sounding like a racist Neanderthal for all I care. We're seeing that on a daily basis from you alt-right people lately. Just use grown up language when you come in here....many of us are college educated. We left Junior High behind many decades ago. Grow up.

it was about rocking the boat... the local gop was committing fraud to alter the votes and our ron paul "leadership" was scared to death to call them out. so basically we just sat on our thumbs and did nothing about it. when we finally lost the count at district these same guys told us we had actually won and we'd get em in 2016. trust me when i say this... you would have been right there with them and probably a little annoyed by people like me that wanted to fight (figuratively).

[cajuncocoa]

it was about rocking the boat... the local gop was committing fraud to alter the votes and our ron paul "leadership" was scared to death to call them out. so basically we just sat on our thumbs and did nothing about it. when we finally lost the count at district these same guys told us we had actually won and we'd get em in 2016. trust me when i say this... you would have been right there with them and probably a little annoyed by people like me that wanted to fight (figuratively).

Just goes to show how little you know about me. Go back and find my posts from 2012 and see how pissed off I was about all the bull$#@! going down by GOP operatives and campaign enablers to give away our delegates. Ask anyone here how much I screamed about even staying in the GOP after that (I didn't, but most of you wanted to...like sheep, doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.)

[BenMuldowney]

Just goes to show how little you know about me. Go back and find my posts from 2012 and see how pissed off I was about all the bull$#@! going down by GOP operatives and campaign enablers to give away our delegates. Ask anyone here how much I screamed about even staying in the GOP after that (I didn't, but most of you wanted to...like sheep, doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.)

well i guess i am staying in the gop (vomit).... and i will be a trump delegate this time. but i am the antithesis of a sheep or a mangina. seems you are all over the place dude. look.. rand is done and you have to choose someone else now. wrongly screaming racists and crying about someone using the term mangina is the path to losing.

anyways, knock yourself out... this board is dying.

[nikcers]

well i guess i am staying in the gop (vomit).... and i will be a trump delegate this time. but i am the antithesis of a sheep or a mangina. seems you are all over the place dude. look.. rand is done and you have to choose someone else now. wrongly screaming racists and crying about someone using the term mangina is the path to losing.

anyways, knock yourself out... this board is dying.

You know how I know you are a racist, you get upset about it. If someone called me racist, I would laugh off that nonsense. It's okay though the group think tells you it's the right thing to do so go campaign your guts out for Trump. If Trump gets anywhere close to the presidency there will be the highest Hispanic turnout on the democratic side in the history of our country. They will probably vote democrat for life too, this is why Trump is the anti Obama, and why he is also doing democrat outreach for the democrats.

[carlton]

It's not about rocking any boat. Rock all the boats you want. Go off sounding like a racist Neanderthal for all I care. We're seeing that on a daily basis from you alt-right people lately. Just use grown up language when you come in here....many of us are college educated. We left Junior High behind many decades ago. Grow up.

I think you are my best friend, positive reps for you, neg for Ben.

Only acceptable use of mangina is when referencing 49ers defensive coach Mangini... for obvious reasons.

[cajuncocoa]

well i guess i am staying in the gop (vomit).... and i will be a trump delegate this time. but i am the antithesis of a sheep or a mangina. seems you are all over the place dude. look.. rand is done and you have to choose someone else now. wrongly screaming racists and crying about someone using the term mangina is the path to losing.

anyways, knock yourself out... this board is dying.

First of all, I'm not a dude. Secondly, I don't have to choose anyone else now...there is no one else. And if you don't see the unique qualities that Ron and Rand had vs. everyone else, I don't know what else to say.

[r3volution 3.0]

you manginas can bash trump all you like but show me one rino willing to call out cruz/GS like this?

Calling out Goldman Sachs huh?

Well, Trump supported the bank bailouts.

...which involved the gifting $618 billion of taxpayer money to Wall street, including $10 billion to Goldman Sachs.

Not to mention the subsequent multi-trillion dollar stealth bailout known as QE (I, II, and III), which he also supported.

So there's that...

[BenMuldowney]

You know how I know you are a racist, you get upset about it. If someone called me racist, I would laugh off that nonsense. It's okay though the group think tells you it's the right thing to do so go campaign your guts out for Trump. If Trump gets anywhere close to the presidency there will be the highest Hispanic turnout on the democratic side in the history of our country. They will probably vote democrat for life too, this is why Trump is the anti Obama, and why he is also doing democrat outreach for the democrats.

LOL.. so because i am a strong constitutionalist when it comes to the legalities of immigration i am now a racist on the rand/ron paul forum? you people are completely nuts. i mean cuckoo for cocoa puffs nuts. i loved ron and i think rand is the best senator we have ....but you guys need to sign up for the feminists studies major at yale and cry about your safe spaces. thank God i wont be dealing with you guys and the legalize pot activists this time around.

[BenMuldowney]

First of all, I'm not a dude. Secondly, I don't have to choose anyone else now...there is no one else. And if you don't see the unique qualities that Ron and Rand had vs. everyone else, I don't know what else to say.

i loved ron and dont regret being a delegate for him for one second. i like rand and i am very grateful he is in the senate. i would agree with you about there being no choice if trump weren't running but he is and he keeps saying the right things. is he perfect? no... but neither was ron (soft on immigration) nor rand (groveling to blm in ferguson).

i know many of you libertarians think your cause is the greatest but it's not.... survival of this nation is and she can't take another 8 years of massive immigration or you will never ever see precious liberty.

[BenMuldowney]

Calling out Goldman Sachs huh?

Well, Trump supported the bank bailouts.

...which involved the gifting $618 billion of taxpayer money to Wall street, including $10 billion to Goldman Sachs.

Not to mention the subsequent multi-trillion dollar stealth bailout known as QE (I, II, and III), which he also supported.

So there's that...

yes.. i pointed this out.. i do not support the banker bailout scams... but i dont support ron paul's stance on immigration nor rand's cowering to blm in ferguson. there is no perfect candidate. but i already pointed this out earlier.

[r3volution 3.0]

yes.. i pointed this out.. i do not support the banker bailout scams...

If you know that Trump supported the $10 billion bailout of Goldman Sachs, then why are you pretending that he's "calling out" Goldman Sachs?

Has it occurred to you that he's "calling out" Ted's Goldman connection not because he has a problem with Goldman (he obviously doesn't, since he supported the bailouts), but because he knows that you have a problem with Goldman, and he's willing to say anything to bamboozle you into supporting him?

but i dont support ron paul's stance on immigration nor rand's

Do you support Trump's plan to deport all illegals and then let almost all of them back in?

Did you support Trump when he criticized Mitt Romney's immigration policy of self-deportation as "mean spirited" toward immigrants?

Did you support Trump when he said he doesn't want to further restrict legal immigration?

Do you support Trump when he employs illegal aliens to work at his hotels?

Did you support Trump when he met with DREAMers and said "you convinced me."

...or did you just listen to Trump's inane ranting about how Mexicans are rapists and assume he must be on your side of the issue, without doing any research at all?

cowering to blm in ferguson.

"Cowering" means what exactly?

...not screaming insults at them like a retarded 3rd grader?

[jmdrake]

First I will continue to use the term xenophobia because I have a brain and could care less if a moron trumpster respects what I have to say or not.

Second, there's nothing wrong with evolving on your positions as long as you do it before you run for public office! Trumps positions have "evolved" to fit what he believes the voters want to hear. He was okay with amnesty until he realized he needed to be against it. In contrast Ron Paul, who's position on immigration you have criticized for no articulated reason, has steadfastly been against amnesty. He's also against giving welfare to immigrants. Since you don't like Ron Paul's position on illegal immigration does that mean you support welfare for immigrants? Or is it all about "da fence" for you? As Ron Paul has pointed out, that fence could be used to keep Americans from taking themselves and their money out in the event of a full blown economic collapse. You think that's just "conspiracy theory"? Just last year the IRS announced plans to revoke the passports of Americans who owe taxes.

You didn't know Trump was for the bailouts? So you support a candidate that you haven't completely researched? Not surprising. What's concerning is that you will cheer Trump for being a hypocrite and excuse his hypocrisy for saying "Well he's not perfect." Well why not say that about Ted Cruz? Yes Ted Cruz got a loan from Goldman Sachs and he's married to a Goldman Sachs exec but hey "He's not perfect." Trump should not be saying jack about Goldman Sachs while still supporting TARP and eminent domain for private business and other forms fascism. He needs to clean his own house up first. It's like Jimmy Swaggart preaching against adultery.

As for Rand supposedly "pandering" to BLM, you need to wake up and smell the gunpowder! Violent crime is at an all time low in this country but killings by police are at an all time high. And it's not just black youth being killed. Here is a white teen who was an airforce ROTC honor student that was killed by cops who raided his home by mistake and thought the Wii controller in his hand was a gun.



To coin a phrase by Barack Obama "That could have been YOUR son!" And Rand isn't the only republican to see there's a real problem going on. In the wake of Ferguson Mike Huckabee said there is a problem of militarization of police, and there most certainly is. The tea party was concerned about this until it all became about "black lives". Well Bundy Lives Matter as well! (The white ranchers that had the stand off with the federal government. One of their supporters got killed by police not too long ago.)

But hey, keep buying Trump's snake oil. I hope he becomes president and then follows through on his pledge to rid America of assault rifles just so that people in the Liberty Movement that keep defending him can realize how mistaken they were. Like I said, Trump is an opportunist. He would be your version of PC (which really is the false definition of politically correct) if he thought it would get him more votes. I do appreciate his position on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Russia but that's about it.

i said "PC speak"... and he has crushed it. has trump evolved on certain issues? duh.. so have i. we live in the information age and there are 100s of layers to this onion. but trump did speak out on the iraq war in 2004 on record... so im guessing he was against it before that too... but that said, he is not your typical neocon/rino pandering to goldman sachs and the other elite deep pockets. and honestly you don't know trump's heart..... he told the truth why he gave people like hillary money.. he was playing the game and he knows the other candidates are taking money from the big corps and that they are owned by them.

ron paul was great... the fed message was great (i've been spreading the news on the fed for decades myself) but what did it get us? "we got the message out"? so did the communist occutards. look, we are still in bondage as a nation, but trump is not bought off like ALL OF THE OTHERS. ron/rand had zero chance even if they had the voters, which they didnt. it takes someone that knows how to fight these scumbags and has extremely deep pockets. there is no one else out there that can win.

lastly? please, if you want anyone with testicles and a rational brain to take you seriously, never ever use the term xenophobia again unless you are mocking others for using it seriously.

do i like trump's support for the banker bailout scams ? no... (i have not heard him on the issue but i will trust you) but did i like ron paul's stance on immigration? no.. i am more conservative, but he was better than most of the rino neocons. do i like rand pandering to BLM in ferguson? hell no. there is no one perfect candidate.

[jmdrake]

i loved ron and dont regret being a delegate for him for one second. i like rand and i am very grateful he is in the senate. i would agree with you about there being no choice if trump weren't running but he is and he keeps saying the right things. is he perfect? no... but neither was ron (soft on immigration) nor rand (groveling to blm in ferguson).

i know many of you libertarians think your cause is the greatest but it's not.... survival of this nation is and she can't take another 8 years of massive immigration or you will never ever see precious liberty.

You keep saying you don't support Ron's position on immigration. Why? Do you even understand it? Here it is:

1) No amnesty. (Trump has supported and still supports some form of amnesty)

2) End welfare for illegal immigrants. (I haven't seen Trump take a position on that or not.)

3) Amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship. (Actually I disagree with Ron on that, but I don't understand why you would).

4) Don't increase the power of the federal government by building and manning an expensive wall.

Is that it? #4? It's all about the wall?

[BenMuldowney]

If you know that Trump supported the $10 billion bailout of Goldman Sachs, then why are you pretending that he's "calling out" Goldman Sachs?

Has it occurred to you that he's "calling out" Ted's Goldman connection not because he has a problem with Goldman (he obviously doesn't, since he supported the bailouts), but because he knows that you have a problem with Goldman, and he's willing to say anything to bamboozle you into supporting him?



Do you support Trump's plan to deport all illegals and then let almost all of them back in?

Did you support Trump when he criticized Mitt Romney's immigration policy of self-deportation as "mean spirited" toward immigrants?

Did you support Trump when he said he doesn't want to further restrict legal immigration?

Do you support Trump when he employs illegal aliens to work at his hotels?

Did you support Trump when he met with DREAMers and said "you convinced me."

...or did you just listen to Trump's inane ranting about how Mexicans are rapists and assume he must be on your side of the issue, without doing any research at all?



"Cowering" means what exactly?

...not screaming insults at them like a retarded 3rd grader?

why would i defend the banker bailout? i disagree with trump if he said he supported it. as far as immigration goes i have evolved myself... as i see what the scumbag bankers are up to and how they plan to use it. it's time to shut it down and get the unemployment rate down from 23%. so far trump is the only one talking about the real unemployment rates. so far trump is the only one that connected the dots of vaccines to autism (and then had the balls to say it during a debate). trump also said let putin take care of isis... and no to bringing the refugees here. trump also called out the iraq war in 2004. he tells the media to go F themselves... and doesnt cower to megyn feminist kelly.

when i see the new york elite (rino/neocons) media circle the wagons bashing trump i get a "tingle down my leg." i saw david brooks almost have an orgasm last week on npr when trump only placed second... that tells me there is a sliver of hope.

but r3.. you have all the answers just like the 2012 ron paul leadership that told me we won by "getting along" that yr and we would take over in 2016... so who is your candidate now? let me guess... you are going to sit home and do nothing and help put this in the WH again:

[GunnyFreedom]

i said "PC speak"... and he has crushed it. has trump evolved on certain issues? duh.. so have i. we live in the information age and there are 100s of layers to this onion. but trump did speak out on the iraq war in 2004 on record... so im guessing he was against it before that too... but that said, he is not your typical neocon/rino pandering to goldman sachs and the other elite deep pockets. and honestly you don't know trump's heart..... he told the truth why he gave people like hillary money.. he was playing the game and he knows the other candidates are taking money from the big corps and that they are owned by them.

ron paul was great... the fed message was great (i've been spreading the news on the fed for decades myself) but what did it get us? "we got the message out"? so did the communist occutards. look, we are still in bondage as a nation, but trump is not bought off like ALL OF THE OTHERS. ron/rand had zero chance even if they had the voters, which they didnt. it takes someone that knows how to fight these scumbags and has extremely deep pockets. there is no one else out there that can win.

lastly? please, if you want anyone with testicles and a rational brain to take you seriously, never ever use the term xenophobia again unless you are mocking others for using it seriously.

There is a big difference between evolving positions and just telling people whatever they want to hear.

Also, the ball-less people are the ones who actually have the irrational fears, like xenophobia, and not the ones who are mocking them for clinging to said irrational fears.

[BenMuldowney]

You keep saying you don't support Ron's position on immigration. Why? Do you even understand it? Here it is:

1) No amnesty. (Trump has supported and still supports some form of amnesty)

2) End welfare for illegal immigrants. (I haven't seen Trump take a position on that or not.)

3) Amend the constitution to end birthright citizenship. (Actually I disagree with Ron on that, but I don't understand why you would).

4) Don't increase the power of the federal government by building and manning an expensive wall.

Is that it? #4? It's all about the wall?

SEVERE BACKSLIDING ON AMNESTY

In his book, Dr. Paul sounds very much like supporters of Comprehensive Amnesty measures by talking about the impossibility of sending back home 11 million illegal aliens.

Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose "amnesty," Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between "legalization" or mass deportation. Since he says mass deportation isn't possible, he feels he has to choose some kind of legalization.

He fails to support Attrition Through Enforcement, which is the middle way supported by most anti-amnesty Members of Congress.

He would limit the legalization by perhaps not allowing the illegal aliens to ever be citizens or to vote. But they still would get to stay in the U.S. and to keep their U.S. jobs, while millions of Americans who want the jobs would have to stay unemployed.

"It could be argued that (this system) may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits -- a much better option than deportation," Rep. Paul writes on page 156.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...n-grade-f.html

[BenMuldowney]

First I will continue to use the term xenophobia because I have a brain and could care less if a moron trumpster respects what I have to say or not.

Second, there's nothing wrong with evolving on your positions as long as you do it before you run for public office! Trumps positions have "evolved" to fit what he believes the voters want to hear. He was okay with amnesty until he realized he needed to be against it. In contrast Ron Paul, who's position on immigration you have criticized for no articulated reason, has steadfastly been against amnesty. He's also against giving welfare to immigrants. Since you don't like Ron Paul's position on illegal immigration does that mean you support welfare for immigrants? Or is it all about "da fence" for you? As Ron Paul has pointed out, that fence could be used to keep Americans from taking themselves and their money out in the event of a full blown economic collapse. You think that's just "conspiracy theory"? Just last year the IRS announced plans to revoke the passports of Americans who owe taxes.

You didn't know Trump was for the bailouts? So you support a candidate that you haven't completely researched? Not surprising. What's concerning is that you will cheer Trump for being a hypocrite and excuse his hypocrisy for saying "Well he's not perfect." Well why not say that about Ted Cruz? Yes Ted Cruz got a loan from Goldman Sachs and he's married to a Goldman Sachs exec but hey "He's not perfect." Trump should not be saying jack about Goldman Sachs while still supporting TARP and eminent domain for private business and other forms fascism. He needs to clean his own house up first. It's like Jimmy Swaggart preaching against adultery.

As for Rand supposedly "pandering" to BLM, you need to wake up and smell the gunpowder! Violent crime is at an all time low in this country but killings by police are at an all time high. And it's not just black youth being killed. Here is a white teen who was an airforce ROTC honor student that was killed by cops who raided his home by mistake and thought the Wii controller in his hand was a gun.



To coin a phrase by Barack Obama "That could have been YOUR son!" And Rand isn't the only republican to see there's a real problem going on. In the wake of Ferguson Mike Huckabee said there is a problem of militarization of police, and there most certainly is. The tea party was concerned about this until it all became about "black lives". Well Bundy Lives Matter as well! (The white ranchers that had the stand off with the federal government. One of their supporters got killed by police not too long ago.)

But hey, keep buying Trump's snake oil. I hope he becomes president and then follows through on his pledge to rid America of assault rifles just so that people in the Liberty Movement that keep defending him can realize how mistaken they were. Like I said, Trump is an opportunist. He would be your version of PC (which really is the false definition of politically correct) if he thought it would get him more votes. I do appreciate his position on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Russia but that's about it.

what i see concerning cops and blacks is the media lying during initial reports and then a mob mentality defines the narrative after that. are cops wrong sometimes? yes.. but they kill more whites than blacks. please dear God tell me you didn't fall for the whole trayvon martin scam? i exposed that day one of coming across it. posting all the pics of a 12 yr old and interviewing a bunch of women that swore they heard a young boy screaming for his life. LOL that lil boy screaming turned out to be zimmerman as his head was being pounded into the cement.

LOL @ xenophobia... seriously guys go to u of missouri and find your safe spaces. you have no candidate.. you have no voice.. you will feel right at home with those screwballs. the blm leader there set up a hoax and im sure you all will have a grand old time gobbling it up. keep thinking that you are libertarians while rome burns.

maybe you guys can start a campaign to free kristian gonzalez:

[GunnyFreedom]

SEVERE BACKSLIDING ON AMNESTY

In his book, Dr. Paul sounds very much like supporters of Comprehensive Amnesty measures by talking about the impossibility of sending back home 11 million illegal aliens.

bull$#@!.

Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose "amnesty," Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between "legalization" or mass deportation. Since he says mass deportation isn't possible, he feels he has to choose some kind of legalization.

He fails to support Attrition Through Enforcement, which is the middle way supported by most anti-amnesty Members of Congress.

He would limit the legalization by perhaps not allowing the illegal aliens to ever be citizens or to vote. But they still would get to stay in the U.S. and to keep their U.S. jobs, while millions of Americans who want the jobs would have to stay unemployed.

"It could be argued that (this system) may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits -- a much better option than deportation," Rep. Paul writes on page 156.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/n...n-grade-f.html

"Amnesty" has always meant citizenship. Numbers USA is moving the goalposts and placing them squarely around Rand, because they do not like Rand. Numbers USA has always been a pro-establishment neocon thinktank with their primary issue being anti-immigration. They hated on Ron Paul too, just making crap up about his immigration policies, because he was not a pro-establishment neocon.

The reality is that Rand's plan is even more against illegal immigration than Trump's, as Trump's plan would eventually allow them to become citizens and vote whereas Rand's plan would not. I do not for a minute anticipate that fact will penetrate into your thought process, of course, as I have dealt with Trumpaloompas in the past and I have come to learn that they do not have a proper appreciation for truth.