-3 votes

Rand Paul Vs Ron Paul

I have been closely following Ron since the beginning of his campaign this year and agree with almost everything he says. I know there is a good chance Ron will not become the president, however i am curious how similar Rand's views are compared to Ron. hoping Rand can continue the message in 2016, I think they are similar, but dont want to assume. anyone want to enlighten me?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hes a better candidate

he has better credentials than his father and he is more disciplined but i think he needs more time to get experience to run. we have had many senators that became president but not congressman. Things certainly have to get much worse to increase his chances and i am sure Obama 2nd term could do that.

No Rand

He's border line neo-con, too slick of a talker and acts like a professional politician. I've not read anywhere that he wants Guantanamo closed or the phoney wars ended. He also like the military tribunals. Those characteristics aren't the marks of a lover of freedom.

There's no time for "he's just warming up" when in political office.

Maybe he can appeal to the "palin" types but not lovers of freedom.

It's really not likely he'll be El Presidente ever.

The Republicans will win this November and whoever gets the job will be in for 2 terms.

If Ron Paul doesn't win in 2012

...Obama will be in for another term for sure and by-the-time 2016 comes around, there likely will be civil and world war and suspended elections throughout the "free" world

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy

we all have our roles to play

Rand is just warming up.

He's showing promise, but still allows his Dad to go for the throat, while Rand is more cautious. For now.

One day, Rand will elevate to become a liberty monster.

When the time is right.

tasmlab's picture

Read "tea party goes to washington"

It's a very short read, and/but will explain at least what Paul junior thinks. It's got a lot of cupcake kind of personal history as opposed to just solid policy and worldview, but it reads very libertarian and very close to Paul senior.

Paul Junior is vocally opposed to pork spending and earmarks as he sees it as how many legislators are bribed with it (good point). Senior believes in bringing tax dollars back to the payors and not letting the executive branch make the decisions (also a good point).

As some of the other posters noted, his voting record is not anywhere as strong and he doesn't wholesale reject our foreign policy, which doesn't suit me personally at all.

He's all but absent on civil liberty issues (like drug prohibition), for which I hope was just to ensure electability by social conservatives.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

He is strong on civil

He is strong on civil liberties. But I think Rand tends to speak out on issues and current events as they come up...he recently came out in opposition to a synthetic drugs bill, and used that to bring attention to federal drug bans and states rights.

Rand vs Paul

This is like comparing Thor(Rand) to Odin(Ron), we all know Odin is everything Thor is not. Ron grew up the way he has while Rand was influenced by him. Ron is one of a kind.

Rand is more aggressive

Rand is more aggressive pro-liberty than Ron.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Duuh...what!? Is that a

Duuh...what!? Is that a serious comment?

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT



"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

For me the simple gut check on Rand is:

If snapping your fingers right now would replace Obama w/ Rand;
would you snap your fingers?

If you only had the choice of Obama, Santi, Flip Flopney, Grinch or Rand and You alone decide that choice; who would you choose?

If You could have replaced Shrub Bush at anytime during his POTUSee with Rand by snapping your fingers; would you have snapped them? If Yes, when?

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in

wolfe's picture

They aren't the same person...

I will never support Rand. I will never stop supporting Ron Paul.

Having said that, my reasons may not be yours... Do your research.

As an aside... Something very similar to this happened with Barry Goldwater, and his Jr.

Many who supported Goldwater backed off of supporting Jr. because of the exact same watering down of the belief system.

Also, having said that, Rand isn't awful... Just not 10% of what his father is.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Rand was bought...

...by the Dick Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons in 2007 or else he would never have been allowed to win Kentucky

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy

I totally agree. too many things that Rand has done

(like voting for Iran sanctions) have turned me off.

Perhaps, but.......

After Ron, who's next best in line?



You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

Judge Napolitano!

He is next in line...
He is even better spoken than Ron

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Yer right.

I still admire Rand immensely.



You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

While I also disagreed and

While I also disagreed and disapproved of that sanctions vote, can you name anything else he voted on that you disagreed with? Overall his voting record is pretty stellar, ESPECIALLY being a Senator.

liberty lover in Nor Cal!

From Wikipedia:

Here are his positions that I really have a problem with.

"Paul is opposed to abortion and supports a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act. He also opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Paul has proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches. He opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. Paul has said that courts should review the 14th Amendment... If court challenges fail, Paul would support a constitutional amendment that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

He supports eliminating issuance of visas to people from “about ten rogue nations.” He supports trying terrorists caught on the battlefield in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

He supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq."

I also can't tell if he's against the War on Drugs.


"During his campaign for the Senate, for example, Rand Paul declined to rule out using force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

(from a New Yorker article)

But to the point of use of force...

Dr Paul has never ruled out use of force either. He, like many of us, simply want to to be CONSTITUTIONAL. IF there is a valid reason, and Congress believes it enough to pass a vote FORMALLY declaring War, then Dr Paul has said numerous times he'd go in with that clear agenda, a clear scope for what a "Win" would entail, fight it, win it, and bring the troops HOME.

That's use of force. It's just rooted in what the Constitution TELLS us would be the PROPER and LAWFUL manner in which to do things, rather than the ad hoc "let's invade via Executive Order today" that happens now.

So, use of force and fighting a war in and of itself is not an abandoning of principles. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Concerning the issues you raised...

...I don't find much to disagree with.

Whether and to what extent abortion should be legal is entirely dependent on how we define "person." There's no justification for any particular definition except a utilitarian justification. I don't personally have a strong opinion either way, and though it would be better to allow the States to decide, as decentralized power is always preferable, a constitutional amendment on abortion is not a violation of any principle I adhere to. So I can live with Rand's position on that.

I'm in favor of eliminating birthright citizenship, and of controlling the borders - that's proper for sovereign nation. I'm with Rand on that.

As for denying visas to those from "rogue nations," I disagree: not because it's improper for the government to deny visas to immigrants from hostile nations, but because those shouldn't be hostile nations, it's our foreign policy that's to blame, etc. So I'm not with Rand on this, but, as with the abortion issue, this is not a matter of principle. Foreign policy is a practical question, and people of good will and libertarian principles can disagree on foreign policy. Also, prisoners of war are not entitled to Constitutional protections, only American citizens are. I have no problem with special military trials for foreign prisoners of war, but, even though I'm alright with the principle here, once again I disagree with Rand's foreign policy altogether.

And so of course I disagree with him about Afghanistan and Iraq.

Altogether, I find that my disagreements with Rand are mostly about practical matters (e.g. foreign policy) and not matters of principle. He's not his father, but he's alright in my book.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

hmmm, although Ron is

hmmm, although Ron is pro-life and he would repeal roe vs wade, he would not make it illegal to have an abortion, he would just leave it to the states. not like he wouldnt let you have one if you wanted

No, that's not true.

Ron Paul said in the Personhood Forum in South Carolina that he has supported Constitutional amendments in the past to define life at conception and will continue to pursue this once he becomes president. He believes states should outlaw abortion once he removes the jurisdiction from the courts (repealing Roe v. Wade). Once this is done, the next step is the Constitutional amendment.

I personally disagree with

I personally disagree with Paul on the idea of such an amendment, so I want to remind anyone else who feels similarly that for such an amendment to be created it would (almost certainly) have to reflect the will of the people. As such, I'd ask anyone with a view similar to mine to consider that:

1: Such an amendment isn't very likely to be pushed through.

2: Even if the election of Paul ensured that such an amendment would be created, it is really a minor issue in comparison to interventionism, waning civil liberties, and our fiat monetary policy.

As far as I know...

...Rand's views are almost exactly the same as his father's (with the exception of Guantamo Bay's existence) except that Rand tries to comes off more "mainstream". He bridges the gap between conservatives and libertarians.

Rand Paul / Justin Amash 2016
Continue the Ron Paul R3VOLUTION

As long as people have the

As long as people have the impression that he's more "mainstream", that's a good thing. But he's made quite a name for himself in the Senate, I'd say even more so than Ron Paul in Congress. Rand Paul has more power and really annoys the statists.


They are very similar. How

They are very similar. How they portray the message can be a little bit different. I know there are a lot of anti-Rand people on here, and I never quite got why. Rand is going to make a great 2016 candidate for our message.


They are very similar. How

Why can't Ron be a two term president? I know many men in their 80's that can out work men half their age and I am willing to bet that Dr. Paul will be able to handle it!