Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 155

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

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthanuf06 View Post
    It shouldn't be expected to bring anyone on board yet. Frankly he has learned from the failures of his father's campaigns.

    Rand's positions aren't meant to appease and make blacks/Hispanics/Israel firsters/etc love him right now. They are meant to make him palatable once their guys drop out. Ron was never palatable and that is why he had a ceiling. Other candidates would drop out and nearly all of those numbers would go to a different candidate. Rand is setting himself up to being able to gobble up some of the votes when candidates drop out.

    What Rand is banking on:

    1. Liberty group keeping him viable early on as candidates begin to drop out.
    2. Being palatable enough to those voters that no longer have a candidate
    We may not be that far off here, believe me, there were so many times I prayed to God that Ron would get a debate coach, I most definitely thought he would have been greatly helped by learning to present his ideas better or for that matter knowing when to bring something up and when not to.

    I really thought Rand was going to nail this concept, I will be the first to admit you can't just whack people over the head with this stuff, but at the same time I am just asking why is he putting so much effort into courting people who will never vote for him? It's bad enough that he is wasting his efforts, but it's worse than that, by pandering to these groups for a microscopic gain - if that - he is losing huge chunks of people that would be strong supporters.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    We may not be that far off here, believe me, there were so many times I prayed to God that Ron would get a debate coach, I most definitely thought he would have been greatly helped by learning to present his ideas better or for that matter knowing when to bring something up and when not to.

    I really thought Rand was going to nail this concept, I will be the first to admit you can't just whack people over the head with this stuff, but at the same time I am just asking why is he putting so much effort into courting people who will never vote for him? It's bad enough that he is wasting his efforts, but it's worse than that, by pandering to these groups for a microscopic gain - if that - he is losing huge chunks of people that would be strong supporters.
    I think that this is contradict your post.
    Last edited by Wilf; 07-31-2015 at 02:35 PM.

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    We may not be that far off here, believe me, there were so many times I prayed to God that Ron would get a debate coach, I most definitely thought he would have been greatly helped by learning to present his ideas better or for that matter knowing when to bring something up and when not to.

    I really thought Rand was going to nail this concept, I will be the first to admit you can't just whack people over the head with this stuff, but at the same time I am just asking why is he putting so much effort into courting people who will never vote for him? It's bad enough that he is wasting his efforts, but it's worse than that, by pandering to these groups for a microscopic gain - if that - he is losing huge chunks of people that would be strong supporters.
    He is going to need to get some of those people when candidates drop out.

    The problem with Ron was he was either the #1 option for a voter, or basically dead last. He wasn't the secondary choice for anyone.

    Rand needs to 'pander' to become potential second or third choices to voters when their guy drops out. You can't be a pure isolationist to get Cruz voters as an example.

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilf View Post
    I think that this is contradict your post.
    How so? He went to Israel - I still see Jennifer Rubin doing hit pieces on him all the time. He speaks to blacks, he spoke harshly of the Confederate Flag, he says the justice system is racist, yet the left still bashes him and brings up his stance on the CRA, and believe me, they have not even gotten started with their attacks when it comes to the CRA, if he gets any traction at all you better believe the ads with segregated drinking fountains are going to come out.

    He tries to be a little hawkish yet still no big donors will back him and people still call him isolationist. Please tell me who it is you see him bringing on board?

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    How so? He went to Israel - I still see Jennifer Rubin doing hit pieces on him all the time. He speaks to blacks, he spoke harshly of the Confederate Flag, he says the justice system is racist, yet the left still bashes him and brings up his stance on the CRA, and believe me, they have not even gotten started with their attacks when it comes to the CRA, if he gets any traction at all you better believe the ads with segregated drinking fountains are going to come out.

    He tries to be a little hawkish yet still no big donors will back him and people still call him isolationist. Please tell me who it is you see him bringing on board?
    So what is your plan,stormtropper.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by jkob View Post
    People have different priorities, a lot of people that like Ron were more hardcore antiwar and pro-civil liberties libertarians than dedicated pragmatic Austrian accountants. People have different lines that they won't cross and Rand is a habitual line stepper.
    To say that people who support Rand are less principled just because they have a more nuanced view of getting to the same place is wrong. Believing that Rand ultimately desires libertarian outcomes is not a practice of mind reading, it's also not necessarily wishful thinking. Sure some may excuse Rand with impunity, but really it's not difficult at all find the libertarian silver lining in the actions he takes. Combined with his voting record and an in depth recorded life history of Rand embracing his fathers ideas from the time he was 11 till now, it's simply a matter of connecting the dots.

    A basic understanding of Austrian economics also helps in realizing this as well, instead of looking at everything dogmatically and absolutes. One positive thing to come out of rand's political strategy is it has forced libertarians to introduce nuance into their ideas, making them challenge the validity of their beliefs.

    I'm not sure what you mean when you make a distinction between principled libertarians and "Austrian accountants." Idk if that is supposed to be an insult or if you literally think economists are the same thing as an accountant.

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthanuf06 View Post
    Maybe you are right, and it is too late and we are totally screwed. But why not give ourselves a chance? Even if that chance is minute. The only chance we have is Rand Paul building a coalition that hopefully gets America on the liberty train.

    Nobody is saying that it wouldn't be ideal for a Ron Paul type to win. It would be. That would be best.

    The problem is in this decision tree the question isn't what is "best" in isolation. That isn't the formula. The rationale action for you is "Best times probability". The problem is the probability of a Ron Paul type is 0% when there is a Rand Paul type alternative. The "best" variable may be lower for Rand than the Ron type, but the probability is quite literally an infinite amount higher resulting in much greater utility.
    Well of course. Why would I go down without fighting?

    But Rand has to help us out here. Stop confusing everyone. Let us know now: it's not whether WE stand with Rand...it's whether RAND stands with US. And by us, I mean the libertarian wing of his Dad's base...every last ugly one of us. The naked dope-smokers, the conspiracy theorists, anarchists, anti-vaxxers....all of us. Is he standing with us, or do we embarrass him?

    I'd like to know.

  9. #128
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    One positive thing to come out of rand's political strategy is it has forced libertarians to introduce nuance into their ideas, making them challenge the validity of their beliefs.
    Where's the positive in that?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    One positive thing to come out of rand's political strategy is it has forced libertarians to introduce nuance into their ideas, making them challenge the validity of their beliefs.
    How so?

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilf View Post
    So what is your plan,stormtropper.
    At this point? Hard to say. Personally I would have waited till 2020. I think one of Rand's biggest mistakes was running this time around. This time around all the fools are going to be doing that "first woman" thing, let them get it out of their system, in 2020 that will be 12yrs of Dems, 12yrs of crap and people will be more receptive to a Rep and he won't be running against Cruz.

    As for now, I would say Rand should have jumped on the immigration thing for one, he didn't, but he still could try slowly but surely, next instead of just talking tax cuts for businesses hammer the message of tax cuts for middle class workers, I'm not a speech writer but surely someone can come up with some speeches that get it across that keeping more of your own money is better than a raise any day of the week, those are just a few starters. I mean, come on, like I say, I'm not a speech writer but surely you can hire people that can make this happen.

  13. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    At this point? Hard to say. Personally I would have waited till 2020. I think one of Rand's biggest mistakes was running this time around. This time around all the fools are going to be doing that "first woman" thing, let them get it out of their system, in 2020 that will be 12yrs of Dems, 12yrs of crap and people will be more receptive to a Rep and he won't be running against Cruz.

    As for now, I would say Rand should have jumped on the immigration thing for one, he didn't, but he still could try slowly but surely, next instead of just talking tax cuts for businesses hammer the message of tax cuts for middle class workers, I'm not a speech writer but surely someone can come up with some speeches that get it across that keeping more of your own money is better than a raise any day of the week, those are just a few starters. I mean, come on, like I say, I'm not a speech writer but surely you can hire people that can make this happen.
    Do you understand Rand plan for immigration.

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilf View Post
    Do you understand Rand plan for immigration.
    I've read up on it. Point is what's the average voter's impression of Rand when it comes to immigration?

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    I've read up on it. Point is what's the average voter's impression of Rand when it comes to immigration?
    The cacus is not until 6 months you know- a lot can change.

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilf View Post
    The cacus is not until 6 months you know- a lot can change.
    True, we'll see, but that's just it "change", why wasn't he doing these things all along? His dad needed better 'packaging' but his message was solid throughout.

  17. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    How so?
    It takes nuance and critical thinking to recognize his end goals because unlike Ron it isn't as obvious to the casual observer. Like in economics there is the seen and unseen implications of public policy, the laws of economics and ratiocination allows us to look past the obvious immediate effects to disentangle and unravel the unseen long-term and holistic effects. Probably the greatest challenge to both the economist and libertarian is showing people the cause to the political problems they face, because unlike with the liberals whose positions superficially seem to be kind and make sense ours in contrast seems at the surface to be cold and naive.

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    It takes nuance and critical thinking to recognize his end goals because unlike Ron it isn't as obvious to the casual observer. Like in economics there is the seen and unseen implications of public policy, the laws of economics and ratiocination allows us to look past the obvious immediate effects to disentangle and unravel the unseen long-term and holistic effects. Probably the greatest challenge to both the economist and libertarian is showing people the cause to the political problems they face, because unlike with the liberals whose positions superficially seem to be kind and make sense ours in contrast seems at the surface to be cold and naive.
    I'm sure Joe GOP will appreciate Rand's holistic approach.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    It takes nuance and critical thinking to recognize his end goals because unlike Ron it isn't as obvious to the casual observer. Like in economics there is the seen and unseen implications of public policy, the laws of economics and ratiocination allows us to look past the obvious immediate effects to disentangle and unravel the unseen long-term and holistic effects. Probably the greatest challenge to both the economist and libertarian is showing people the cause to the political problems they face, because unlike with the liberals whose positions superficially seem to be kind and make sense ours in contrast seems at the surface to be cold and naive.
    I see nothing in this reply that supports your claim that libertarians were made to challenge the validity of our beliefs. Please explain.


  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I see nothing in this reply that supports your claim that libertarians were made to challenge the validity of our beliefs. Please explain.

    Did Rand change his beliefs

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I see nothing in this reply that supports your claim that libertarians were made to challenge the validity of our beliefs. Please explain.

    Maybe what I should have said is it creates the opportunity for libertarians to challenge their initial dogmatic beliefs whereas reality fits neatly into their world view without problems. Rand is taking an experimental approach that may or may not work, but libertarian theory and economics is much more diverse and complex than the simple antidotes that Ron gave in the GOP debates to familiarize people with it. Ron likely realizes this and so does Rand. For example when Ron was challenged about the environment and how it would fit in with his individualistic views he gave some free-market solutions such as a legal system that would have more coherent and concrete property right laws. This is a simple answer to give people a simple introduction to free market environmentalism. The problem that arises is that when it comes to things like air pollution the market doesn't have a perfect answer, because you can't privatize the air, thus you have a problem with the tragedy of the commons. No one owns the air thus no one has an incentive to protect it. With this "market failure" in mind it may seem that a government solution would be by default better, however, the very problem that limits the ability of the market to provide a solution for air pollution is a problem that universally plagues all government action, that is moral hazard.

  23. #140
    So in summary for libertarians to get on the randwagon they must make some thoughtful considerations as to why hes taking certain actions. It's either this or they just take it for granted that he will do the right thing because he's Ron's son, or people get off the Randwagon all together.

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Well of course. Why would I go down without fighting?

    But Rand has to help us out here. Stop confusing everyone. Let us know now: it's not whether WE stand with Rand...it's whether RAND stands with US. And by us, I mean the libertarian wing of his Dad's base...every last ugly one of us. The naked dope-smokers, the conspiracy theorists, anarchists, anti-vaxxers....all of us. Is he standing with us, or do we embarrass him?

    I'd like to know.
    That isn't the question at all.

    The question is he most similar to the "we" that you referenced out of any other candidate.

    The answer is a resounding yes.

    In order to win a war you actually have to win a battle.

  25. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by Matthanuf06 View Post
    That isn't the question at all.

    The question is he most similar to the "we" that you referenced out of any other candidate.

    The answer is a resounding yes.

    In order to win a war you actually have to win a battle.
    No, that is not the question.

    In any group of candidates, there will always be one that is closer to us than the others....whether that candidate is far away or as close as gravy on rice.

    I stand by my original question.

  26. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilf View Post
    Did Rand change his beliefs
    Why ask me?

  27. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by T.hill View Post
    Maybe what I should have said is it creates the opportunity for libertarians to challenge their initial dogmatic beliefs whereas reality fits neatly into their world view without problems. Rand is taking an experimental approach that may or may not work, but libertarian theory and economics is much more diverse and complex than the simple antidotes that Ron gave in the GOP debates to familiarize people with it. Ron likely realizes this and so does Rand. For example when Ron was challenged about the environment and how it would fit in with his individualistic views he gave some free-market solutions such as a legal system that would have more coherent and concrete property right laws. This is a simple answer to give people a simple introduction to free market environmentalism. The problem that arises is that when it comes to things like air pollution the market doesn't have a perfect answer, because you can't privatize the air, thus you have a problem with the tragedy of the commons. No one owns the air thus no one has an incentive to protect it. With this "market failure" in mind it may seem that a government solution would be by default better, however, the very problem that limits the ability of the market to provide a solution for air pollution is a problem that universally plagues all government action, that is moral hazard.
    OK. That doesn't challenge the validity of my beliefs (speaking only for myself.) But I'll take that as a sufficient answer to the question.

    I've always known that the general public isn't ready for total freedom. AF has said that many times on this board, and I've agreed with him.

    Not that you asked, but I feel I need to say this here before we go too far along...as of right now, I still plan to vote for Rand...I think there's still enough difference between him and the rest of the field to justify my vote.

    The argument I'm making in this thread isn't about MY vote....it's about whether he's had a consistent message (no) and whether that may be causing some confusing among voters who may be answering these polls.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by jkob View Post
    I don't considering trying to avoid war to be entangling alliances, isn't that part of peace/commerce/honest friendship?

    Israel can do what they want but that doesn't mean we have to support it. I very much doubt Israel will attack Iran on its own, they're going to try to force us to do it as they have for the last 20 years and even if they do it unilaterally finally they're basically handcuffed to us to so we'd be forced to be involved and take their side. So no, I oppose all Israeli aggression towards Iran, Iran needed reassurance that Israel would not attack them to give up their nuclear program and they need reassurance that the US won't renege on their deal. I do not support any aid to Israel, I do not support the Israeli occupation of Palestinians lands.
    No, we shouldn't have to support Israel bombing Iran. But this deal forces our government to try to stop Israel from bombing Iran, and then apparently forces our government to take action against Israel if they bomb Iran. How does that not clearly violate libertarian/non interventionist principles?

  30. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    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.
    That's not exactly majoring in the majors. As they say, stats are for losers. What's the difference between a crushed beetle, and a crushed cockroach, in the crushed scheme of things? Aside from projecting with counter-certainty that, if losing, Rand's stats would not be much different from Ron's, the big picture would be that Rand lost, or we got crushed again, and we thereby got nothing electorally from taking the pragmatic approach.

    If the pragmatists want to hold a position that is unfalsifiable (i.e., that we all follow that path no matter what actually happens), then it is just another belief system or dogma, not the "superior approach." I'm suggesting our progress should be truth and bottom-line driven, not compromise and diss-the-purists driven. Pragmatism should be pursued at the service of principle, not instead principle, or for the disparagement of principle. If Rand can't win, it will show the compromise tactics FAILED, period, and its advocates should take responsibility for that outcome, not scapegoat the purists.
    Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 08-01-2015 at 06:21 AM.
    -----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
    Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Why ask me?
    Why not?

  32. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    That's not exactly majoring in the majors. As they say, stats are for losers. What's the difference between a crushed beetle, and a crushed cockroach, in the crushed scheme of things? Aside from projecting with counter-certainty that, if losing, Rand's stats would not be much different from Ron's, the big picture would be that Rand lost, or we got crushed again, and we thereby got nothing electorally from taking the pragmatic approach.

    If the pragmatists want to hold a position that is unfalsifiable (i.e., that we all follow that path no matter what actually happens), then it is just another belief system or dogma, not the "superior approach." I'm suggesting our progress should be truth and bottom-line driven, not compromise and diss-the-purists driven. Pragmatism should be pursued at the service of principle, not instead of the disparagement of principle. If Rand can't win, it will show the compromise tactics FAILED, period, and its advocates should take responsibility for that outcome, not scapegoat the purists.
    We are currently ex ante so all of this is irrelevant.

    In an ex ante world you have to make a decision on the facts at hand.

    Would you rather have a purist max out at 10-15% and be guaranteed of a Clinton or Bush presidency?

    Or would you rather side with Rand and have a chance at the a White House? A chance that's very small, but a chance nonetheless. And that's why your ex post is irrelevant, Rand would probably lose even if everything went his way.

    So what do you choose? It's not about what you wish for, what you want, or who you hope was really running It's about what and who you pick out of the people that are running.

    Stand with Rand and have a small chance at a Liberty friendly President?

    Or push for the continuance of the Bush/Clinton dynasty?

    That choice is yours. There is no third door to open

  33. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilf View Post
    Why not?
    Because I'm not inside his head. Duh.

  34. #150
    Quote Originally Posted by Peace&Freedom View Post
    That's not exactly majoring in the majors. As they say, stats are for losers. What's the difference between a crushed beetle, and a crushed cockroach, in the crushed scheme of things? Aside from projecting with counter-certainty that, if losing, Rand's stats would not be much different from Ron's, the big picture would be that Rand lost, or we got crushed again, and we thereby got nothing electorally from taking the pragmatic approach.

    If the pragmatists want to hold a position that is unfalsifiable (i.e., that we all follow that path no matter what actually happens), then it is just another belief system or dogma, not the "superior approach." I'm suggesting our progress should be truth and bottom-line driven, not compromise and diss-the-purists driven. Pragmatism should be pursued at the service of principle, not instead of the disparagement of principle. If Rand can't win, it will show the compromise tactics FAILED, period, and its advocates should take responsibility for that outcome, not scapegoat the purists.
    It would seem that you don't appreciate the nature of this war.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •