Rand Paul On Trump: “I’ve Always Said I’ll Endorse The Nominee”

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

One of the major networks on the radio was reporting today that Rand had endorsed Trump, presumably based upon this interview. The neoconservative press will be making a big deal out of this.

Neoconservative is a well defined term. Bill Kristol - whose father Irving Kristol founded the neoconservative movement, and his paper the weekly standard, are neoconservative. They are against Trump and were the leaders of the nevertrump crowd. They tend to be socialist, originally from the democratic party, and pro-Israel (which itself has dabbled in socialism). Some people think they were part of open treason in 911 because of their (and Kristol's personal) involvement in things like the Project for the New American Century. (which made all the military neocon people being against Trump intersting when it happened).

Neoconservatives were also against Ron Paul, and are one of the leading forces against more libertarian politics in the gop. They are too big for us to defeat, but if they end up destroying their movement on Trump, it is good for us.

The only way the neoconservative press will make a deal about this, is "see - that loon's son Rand has endorsed Trump too. they're both bad".

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Rand is smart. Let the neocons hang themselves by opposing Trump because he isn't sufficiently pro-war and pro-globalist for their tastes. Don't throw years of hard work down the toilet like a crybaby after running a abysmal failed campaign. Time to re-group and re-strategize.

That too, but I think it's ultimately for them about not wanting anyone else to get power.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Trump will either lose or he will win. If he wins, it will be better for Rand if he had endorsed Trump, so that he may not have an openly hostile executive with which to try to pass his legislative program. If Trump loses, Rand will run again in 2020 and should he win (and his nomination prove unpopular to some elements in the party) he wants to be able to hook them into still supporting him in the general election.

What does he gain if he does not endorse Trump? I don't know, he allows himself to say he didn't, but there are no practical benefits. I don't think the idea that he is keeping his honor intact is in play since he pledged himself to support the winner, so either way he will either break his word or slightly contradict his idealism...so the correct choice for Rand is as he has done.

If Trump loses, Rand will still have trouble running in 2020, because he dropped out after only one primary, while Cruz, who definitely isn't libertarian, ran almost the whole season, building up a network we can't rival.

Rand pretty much shot the liberty movement in the ass by doing that. We'll need to start new - and can do that by either focusing on the libertarian message, and specific libertarian issues, and or support a Libertarian candidate - if they deign to nominate one (like McAfee).

The Libertarian party itself has fallen on hard times, and hasn't nominated a libertarian candidate in 8 years. I don't look for much support from it, or outside ourselves. The grassroots movement needs to grow itself without a candidate.

[Matt Collins]

Neoconservative is a well defined term. Bill Kristol - whose father Irving Kristol founded the neoconservative movement, and his paper the weekly standard, are neoconservative. They are against Trump and were the leaders of the nevertrump crowd. They tend to be socialist, originally from the democratic party, and pro-Israel (which itself has dabbled in socialism). Some people think they were part of open treason in 911 because of their (and Kristol's personal) involvement in things like the Project for the New American Century. (which made all the military neocon people being against Trump intersting when it happened).

Neoconservatives were also against Ron Paul, and are one of the leading forces against more libertarian politics in the gop. They are too big for us to defeat, but if they end up destroying their movement on Trump, it is good for us.

The only way the neoconservative press will make a deal about this, is "see - that loon's son Rand has endorsed Trump too. they're both bad".

Basically they are Wilsonians in the Republican Party (with corporate interests)

[phill4paul]

Trump will either lose or he will win. If he wins, it will be better for Rand if he had endorsed Trump, so that he may not have an openly hostile executive with which to try to pass his legislative program. If Trump loses, Rand will run again in 2020 and should he win (and his nomination prove unpopular to some elements in the party) he wants to be able to hook them into still supporting him in the general election.

What does he gain if he does not endorse Trump? I don't know, he allows himself to say he didn't, but there are no practical benefits. I don't think the idea that he is keeping his honor intact is in play since he pledged himself to support the winner, so either way he will either break his word or slightly contradict his idealism...so the correct choice for Rand is as he has done.

Much ado about nothing.

If Trump is the nominee Rand will endorse him.

His pledge has been to support the nominee. If Trump is the nominee Rand will endorse him.

I don't really understand why this is a point of contention or continuous threads.

It is what it is.

[erowe1]

If Trump loses, Rand will run again in 2020

I doubt Rand runs in 2020 regardless who wins this year. Maybe he'll try again in like 12 years. But I'm sure he's not eager to now.

[CPUd]

I doubt Rand runs in 2020 regardless who wins this year. Maybe he'll try again in like 12 years. But I'm sure he's not eager to now.

Before he does another POTUS run, he needs to grow some new supporters, to replace the fake ones. Pretty sure this is his last Senate campaign, because he is running on term limits. Maybe Gov of KY after Bevin, but that seems like a lateral move.

[Philmanoman]

I sure am glad Ive never voted outside of a primary.
Voted for Ron Paul twice.

I have no interest in any of the candidates this year.

Honestly if someone came up to me and told me they voted for either one Id look at them like they were really dumb...

[acptulsa]

Neoconservative is a well defined term. Bill Kristol - whose father Irving Kristol founded the neoconservative movement, and his paper the weekly standard, are neoconservative. They are against Trump and were the leaders of the nevertrump crowd. They tend to be socialist, originally from the democratic party, and pro-Israel (which itself has dabbled in socialism). Some people think they were part of open treason in 911 because of their (and Kristol's personal) involvement in things like the Project for the New American Century. (which made all the military neocon people being against Trump intersting when it happened).

Is there a point to this? Is this a 'support one faction in the internal neocon struggle over the other faction in the internal neocon struggle or you're a neocon' type of argument?

Does anyone really think this...



...is some kind of proof that Dubya and Cheney weren't terrorists themselves?

Neoconservatives were also against Ron Paul, and are one of the leading forces against more libertarian politics in the gop. They are too big for us to defeat, but if they end up destroying their movement on Trump, it is good for us.

The only way the neoconservative press will make a deal about this, is "see - that loon's son Rand has endorsed Trump too. they're both bad".

So, your suggestion is that we do nothing at all, for fear the media will use whatever we do to make us look like bad guys? Just elect Trump so he can screw everything up and make a fool of himself?

Duly noted. But we aren't entirely at the mercy of the media in the internet age, as the internet age allows us to talk back. And now that Obama and his former Secretary of State have had eight years to screw up, we are in a unique position to get support from 'The Left', and we will lose that support with a crappy strategy like let the Republicans have plenty of time and power to screw things up. They did that, from 2001 to 2009.

Trump has already done all the damage he needs to do, by proving that the GOP can no longer nominate a candidate capable of winning the general election. Waiting for a more perfect situation for a third party run is like staring into an oncoming tornado waiting for a more perfect opportunity to use your underground shelter.

[dannno]

Before he does another POTUS run, he needs to grow some new supporters, to replace the fake ones. Pretty sure this is his last Senate campaign, because he is running on term limits. Maybe Gov of KY after Bevin, but that seems like a lateral move.

I don't understand why somebody who runs on term limits should feel the obligation to stick to whatever term limits they wish to pass.. It's because of dumb people I guess who will call them hypocritical because they don't understand the purpose of why they are passing term limits, not to mention how are you going to pass term limits with all the politicians who want to pass it voluntarily leaving office? Let's give a fair playing field to those who want to pass term limits with those who don't, and maybe they will get passed..

[CPUd]

I don't understand why somebody who runs on term limits should feel the obligation to stick to whatever term limits they wish to pass.. It's because of dumb people I guess who will call them hypocritical because they don't understand the purpose of why they are passing term limits, not to mention how are you going to pass term limits with all the politicians who want to pass it voluntarily leaving office? Let's give a fair playing field to those who want to pass term limits with those who don't, and maybe they will get passed..

I think it is something he truly believes in. Just like if Ron was elected POTUS, he would probably have a strong VP and only serve 1 term. He may have even ran on that in 2012.

[dannno]

I think it is something he truly believes in. Just like if Ron was elected POTUS, he would probably have a strong VP and only serve 1 term. He may have even ran on that in 2012.

This is the kind of horse $#@! I'm talking about.. Something "he truly believes in"???? Really? What is this? Some fairly tale where we magically get more liberty when good politicians leave office early while the $#@!ty ones get to stick around?? The whole point of term limits is to get $#@!ty politicians out of office, the good ones need to stay there as long as possible - the point of term limits is that the $#@!tiest politicians tend to stay there the longest, that doesn't mean a good politician who stays in office will become $#@!ty, although it certainly could happen, not one with principles like Rand or Ron.

Peter Schiff said he would only stay in the Senate for 1 or maybe 2 terms max, which one I don't recall. It's a decent talking point during a campaign which leads into a whole conversation about career politicians and if you promise it I suppose you should stick to your promise, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't make any logical sense for a good politician to leave office and people should end the bull$#@! and stop giving good politicians who believe in term limits a hard time for sticking around. They should stick around at least as long as it takes to get the term limits passed.

[CPUd]

This is the kind of horse $#@! I'm talking about.. Something "he truly believes in"???? Really? What is this? Some fairly tale where we magically get more liberty when good politicians leave office early while the $#@!ty ones get to stick around?? The whole point of term limits is to get $#@!ty politicians out of office, the good ones need to stay there as long as possible - the point of term limits is that the $#@!tiest politicians tend to stay there the longest, that doesn't mean a good politician who stays in office will become $#@!ty, although it certainly could happen, not one with principles like Rand or Ron.

Peter Schiff said he would only stay in the Senate for 1 or maybe 2 terms max, which one I don't recall. It's a decent talking point during a campaign and if you promise it I suppose you should stick to your promise, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't make any logical sense for a good politician to leave office and people should end the bull$#@! and stop giving good politicians who believe in term limits a hard time for sticking around. They should stick around at least as long as it takes to get the term limits passed.

Would you stay in the Senate more than 12 years if you couldn't get anything passed?

[acptulsa]

Would you stay in the Senate more than 12 years if you couldn't get anything passed?

I'm like Ron Paul. I have an infinite capacity for hanging around and being a pain in the @$$holes' @$$es.

[dannno]

Would you stay in the Senate more than 12 years if you couldn't get anything passed?

If I thought it was the most effective way for me to fight for liberty in the longterm and I was keeping statists from taking my seat, then I probably would.

[EBounding]

If Rand does leave after 2 terms, it's probably because he just doesn't want to be there anymore. Saying it's because he believes in term limits is a better excuse though.

[CPUd]

[dannno]

Duh, we know that..

Do you honestly think that Rand thinks the country will be better off if he leaves after 2 terms when the people who are ruining the country get to stay?