Cruz is better than Trump or Rubio, due to the Rand Factor - Let's Caucus for Cruz

[Makes Interesting Points]

Most people on here seem to be against any compromise vote, as if you guys think some guy at the election center will sit there reading your vote and say "Man, this guy really didn't stand up for liberty enough and is too willing to compromise". I like being picky as much as the next liberty guy as far as who I give high scores to, and Cruz's "Voter Violation" debacle has knocked him down a peg for me recently. However, the country's situation isn't just about the person elected, but the fate of certain issues. Have you guys already forgotten that Americans are nearing permanent desensitization to the NSA? What about government secrecy and that we need to do things like auditing the Fed and making Congress read their bills? What about all the ethical technology related issues that will come up in the next 4-8 years as the world changes? Who is going to be the voice that tries to put an end to all these injustices during the next President's term? It's Senator Rand Paul. And who, out of the top three candidates for the nomination, is most likely to back Paul's future proposed bills and filibusters? Ted Cruz.

Rubio, the man who aggressively calls Snowden a traitor, does not understand Paul at all, and would hardly be better than Obama at helping Paul's proposals. Trump, though having a couple sprinkles of libertarianism such as being against mandatory vaccines, is likely too stupid to "get" Paul, and won't realize the significance of anything Paul proposes. Ted Cruz very often votes with Paul on freedom issues, and has a much higher chance than the other two at backing Paul's Senate proposals while President. There are several issues that Paul is nearly the lone voice of reason for. The country's laws are not the only thing falling into a slippery slope - American citizens' are also sliding further into desensitization to their loss of freedom, as proven by the fact that there's no mass uproar over the NSA. Therefore, it may soon be our last chance to fix this issue, and we need a President with a chance of understanding it (at least Cruz is open minded about it and acknowledges it), as well as someone who will take Paul seriously on all the other proposals.

Cruz is undoubtedly the best choice out of the top 3 Republicans, because we need a President that is open minded towards Randism. Unless there's real reasons why Cruz is not the best out of the top 3, reasons that overpower the Rand Factor, we should all take our pride down a notch (temporarily) and caucus for Cruz in my opinion. Let's fight for every inch we can get, instead of giving up!

[Scott_in_PA]

Pls delete this sht.........I will write in Rand. I don't like Canadian Bacon

[CaptUSA]

Cruz is undoubtedly the best choice out of the top 3 Republicans.

Oh, but why would we limit ourselves to just those three?

F*** Cruz. F*** Rubio. And F*** Trump. If the GOP doesn't want to take us seriously, then they haven't earned our vote.

[Makes Interesting Points]

Oh, but why would we limit ourselves to just those three?

It's not just about the person in office, but the fate of specific issues. Who with a chance of winning has a higher chance of listening to Rand's future bills and filibusters than Cruz?

[nikcers]

It's not just about the person in office, but the fate of specific issues. Who with a chance of winning has a higher chance of listening to Rand's future bills and filibusters than Cruz?

Why won't you tell us what issues? Why are you being specifically ambiguous? Do you think we are dumbasses? Go troll Ben Carson supporters and tell them that he is dropping out.

[phill4paul]

Ban. Now. Neg.

[r3volution 3.0]

Have you guys already forgotten that Americans are nearing permanent desensitization to the NSA? What about government secrecy and that we need to do things like auditing the Fed and making Congress read their bills? What about all the ethical technology related issues that will come up in the next 4-8 years as the world changes? Who is going to be the voice that tries to put an end to all these injustices during the next President's term? It's Senator Rand Paul. And who, out of the top three candidates for the nomination, is most likely to back Paul's future proposed bills and filibusters? Ted Cruz.

Is that why Cruz voted in favor of NSA spying (USA Freedom Act) and didn't show up for Audit the Fed?

Let's Caucus For Cruz

No, let's not.

...I'm going to refrain from neg-repping you only because I think you might be well-intended but confused (rather than shilling).

[TheTexan]

I'm more of a Trump guy, but I do like how much thought and consideration you're putting into your voting decision. Who you vote for, really makes a difference, so I'm glad you're taking the time to really think it through.

[specsaregood]

If Rafael wanted my support he would have shown up to vote for Audit the Fed at the very least. He didn't bother to show up to vote for that; so I certainly won't be showing up to vote for him.

[Makes Interesting Points]

Why won't you tell us what issues? Why are you being specifically ambiguous? Do you think we are dumbasses? Go troll Ben Carson supporters and tell them that he is dropping out.

Most of the people here know what issues I'm talking about. Do I have to make a list of everything Paul stands for? The NSA, which I did mention specifically, should have been enough to make my point. I don't think Rubio or Trump would give a damn if Rand proposes a bill to stop corruption like "Read The Bills", or if Paul filibusters the debt ceiling, or a future moral-freedom issue that comes up in the future. Cruz on the other hand, would give a damn, and if we wait too long to elect someone who gives a damn, America will become desensitized to loss of freedom before we actually elect a paleocon/libertarian president.

[nikcers]

Most of the people here know what issues I'm talking about. Do I have to make a list of everything Paul stands for? The NSA, which I did mention specifically, should have been enough to make my point. I don't think Rubio or Trump would give a damn if Rand proposes a bill to stop corruption like "Read The Bills", or if Paul filibusters the debt ceiling, or a future moral-freedom issue that comes up in the future. Cruz on the other hand, would give a damn, and if we wait too long to elect someone who gives a damn, America will become desensitized to loss of freedom before we actually elect a paleocon/libertarian president.

In Cruz's own words he voted for the USA freedom act in order to have access to 100% of cell phone records. Thanks for trying though.

[Makes Interesting Points]

In Cruz's own words he voted for the USA freedom act in order to have access to 100% of cell phone records. Thanks for trying though.

Cruz voted for it, but that does not mean he will never support any other reform. He's against innocent Americans being spied on.

Likely future scenario: Rand Paul himself starts an NSA reform bill. Who is most likely to sign it into law?
A.) Marco Rubio
B.) Donald Trump
C.) Ted Cruz

If we elect someone besides Ted Cruz, what are our chances of this issue getting solved before America becomes permanently desensitized to freedom loss? Very low.

[nikcers]

Cruz voted for it, but that does not mean he will never support any other reform. He's against innocent Americans being spied on.

Likely future scenario: Rand Paul himself starts an NSA reform bill. Who is most likely to sign it into law?
A.) Marco Rubio
B.) Donald Trump
C.) Ted Cruz

If we elect someone besides Ted Cruz, what are our chances of this issue getting solved before America becomes permanently desensitized to freedom loss? Very low.

No he is not, he voted for a bill that included spying on 100% of cell phone records. You can't just say he is lying about just this if he is lying what else is he lying about? Ron and Rand don't support or endorse him, and Ted announced before Rand did. If Rand really thought he was such a good choice then he would of never even announced running for president. Your asking us to vote against Rands and Ron's wishes, and our own. You are either a really dishonest person, or you have no concept of rational thought or morality. If ted wanted our votes he would of voted for audit the fed. Ted can drop dead.

[Michael Landon]

$#@! Cruz.

- ML

[CPUd]

[Makes Interesting Points]

No he is not, he voted for a bill that included spying on 100% of cell phone records. You can't just say he is lying about just this if he is lying what else is he lying about? Ron and Rand don't support or endorse him, and Ted announced before Rand did. If Rand really thought he was such a good choice then he would of never even announced running for president. Your asking us to vote against Rands and Ron's wishes, and our own. You are either a really dishonest person, or you have no concept of rational thought or morality. If ted wanted our votes he would of voted for audit the fed. Ted can drop dead.

To me, Rand is a 10/10, Cruz is a 6/10, and everyone else is irrelevant. Yes, the USA Freedom Act is shaky for sure, but Cruz's public statements as to why he voted for it is to stop innocent Americans from being spied on. This would force Cruz to be open to a Paul-written NSA reform bill, because he'd look bad if he did something opposite of his previous justification on this issue. I have yet to hear a single reason from anyone anywhere on these forums why Rubio or Trump would be better than Cruz. I think we can all agree that Cruz is better than Rubio. And Trump certainly would not be as willing to listen to Paul and Cruz would, as Trump completely misses the point on many freedom issues. Normally, I'd be with you guys on only voting for someone who completely understands freedom instead of half understanding it, but there is a time limit on how much time we have to stop the freedom loss in America, which means we have to do what best tweaks the odds in our favor. Ever heard of the law, "evil only has to win once"? If Paul was still in the race, then I'd still vote for him over Cruz, even if Paul had no chance to win, because Paul having more votes would make his message look stronger. A candidate who isn't in the race however, does not have their message look that much weaker from less votes.

[nikcers]

$#@! Cruz.

- ML

This is the type of $#@! that makes me never want to vote for Cruz. If he or Trump ran an honest campaign I would have sympathies. The bastard is even too chicken $#@! to ask for our votes or try to earn them he has to cheat us out of votes by running rough-shot over Rand's campaign messages and lying to supporters by saying that he has the same values or that their candidate is dropping out in order to steal votes. If I was a betting man he is running on Bush's old tricks if you can't beat them cheat them, and he will probably pick bush for VP.

[nikcers]

but there is a time limit on how much time we have

You'd probably make more money in sales, or in telemarketing. You've got incredible technique. You almost sold me on your scam.

[specsaregood]

Rubio showed up to vote for Audit the fed, I'd be more likely to vote for him based on that. I could NEVER vote for a candidate that actually had a chance to vote for audit the fed and didn't.

[69360]

Meh, I will vote for Cruz, but don't feel the need to make longwinded posts about it. I guess he's ok.

[The Gold Standard]

Kiss my ass. I will never have the bloodshed Cruz would inflict on the world on my hands.

[Makes Interesting Points]

This is the type of $#@! that makes me never want to vote for Cruz. If he or Trump ran an honest campaign I would have sympathies. The bastard is even too chicken $#@! to ask for our votes or try to earn them he has to cheat us out of votes by running rough-shot over Rand's campaign messages and lying to supporters by saying that he has the same values or that their candidate is dropping out in order to steal votes. If I was a betting man he is running on Bush's old tricks if you can't beat them cheat them, and he will probably pick bush for VP.

You'd probably make more money in sales, or in telemarketing. You've got incredible technique. You almost sold me on your scam.

I think we libertarians and paleocons should be careful not to use nitpicky logical elitism on the internet, where people stick a needle in a less relevant part of a topic and then use aggression to give the illusion that they're making a point which is better than what they're actually saying. This style of logic only encourages the elitism culture of the internet, which is the reason why liberals are running so rampant and have a stranglehold on internet and youth political culture.

On the subject of vice presidents, I will say that if Cruz wins the nomination and picks Bush or Rubio as VP, I would feel betrayed so much that I'd consider voting Democrat to protest.

[nikcers]

Meh, I will vote for Cruz, but don't feel the need to make longwinded posts about it. I guess he's ok.

You've been posting about your love for Canadian bacon for months now. You've said it in multiple threads, that's why you don't want to make a long-winded post.

[cajuncocoa]

I will never vote for Cruz.

[CPUd]

To me, Rand is a 10/10, Cruz is a 6/10, and everyone else is irrelevant. Yes, the USA Freedom Act is shaky for sure, but Cruz's public statements as to why he voted for it is to stop innocent Americans from being spied on. This would force Cruz to be open to a Paul-written NSA reform bill, because he'd look bad if he did something opposite of his previous justification on this issue. I have yet to hear a single reason from anyone anywhere on these forums why Rubio or Trump would be better than Cruz. I think we can all agree that Cruz is better than Rubio. And Trump certainly would not be as willing to listen to Paul and Cruz would, as Trump completely misses the point on many freedom issues. Normally, I'd be with you guys on only voting for someone who completely understands freedom instead of half understanding it, but there is a time limit on how much time we have to stop the freedom loss in America, which means we have to do what best tweaks the odds in our favor. Ever heard of the law, "evil only has to win once"? If Paul was still in the race, then I'd still vote for him over Cruz, even if Paul had no chance to win, because Paul having more votes would make his message look stronger. A candidate who isn't in the race however, does not have their message look that much weaker from less votes.

GTFO no real Rand supporter is gonna buy that bull$#@!

[nikcers]

I think we libertarians and paleocons should be careful of nitpicky logical elitism on the internet, where people stick a needle in a less relevant part of a topic and then use aggression to give the illusion that they're making a point which is better than what they're actually saying. This style of logic only encourages the elitism culture of the internet, which is the reason why liberals are running to rampant and have a stranglehold on internet and youth political culture.

On the subject of vice presidents, I will say that if Cruz wins the nomination and picks Bush or Rubio as VP, I would feel betrayed so much that I'd consider voting Democrat to protest.

Why did he hire Elliot Abrams to help craft his foreign relations? James Woolsey? General Michael Hayden, former director of the NSA?

[Chester Copperpot]

Ron paul came out against cruz... said cruz was bought by goldman sachs... that prerty much disqualifies cruz from ever getting voted in for anything

[Brett85]

Kiss my ass. I will never have the bloodshed Cruz would inflict on the world on my hands.

I don't know if you supported Rand, but a Rand Presidency would've led to civilian deaths since he supported air strikes against ISIS. I understand the argument that it violates one's conscience to vote for someone who will be responsible for killing any civilians at all overseas, but to apply that consistently, that would also rule out Rand for consideration for President as well. Rand also voted for sanctions against Iran, and sanctions cause people to die from starvation. I don't see why it's such a stretch to vote for Cruz if we supported Rand despite Rand's positions that will be responsible for killing at least some innocent people overseas.

[nikcers]

I don't know if you supported Rand, but a Rand Presidency would've led to civilian deaths since he supported air strikes against ISIS. I understand the argument that it violates one's conscience to vote for someone who will be responsible for killing any civilians at all overseas, but to apply that consistently, that would also rule out Rand for consideration for President as well.

Strawman much? if Rand hired neocons, had voted for neocon spying programs, and cheated in the Iowa election I would be saying no one but Ron.

[Brett85]

Strawman much? if Rand hired neocons, had voted for neocon spying programs, and cheated in the Iowa election I would be saying no one but Ron.

He voted for sanctions against Iran and supported air strikes against ISIS. Those are certainly positions that Ron disagreed with, and positions that would lead to civilian deaths overseas.