-3 votes

Did y'all expect Rand Paul to write his father in?

First of all, let me say that I despise Sean Hannity and am disappointed that Rand decided to endorse Romney before the convention. He should have waited until AFTER the convention to see if his father's delegates could pull off an upset.

But, that brings me to my second point. After coming home from work and hearing a clean-cut, intelligent, young black man who generally despises people with an entitlement mindset brag about how he voted for Barrack in 2008 and how Barrack is going to win again this year and then say the only thing good about Romney is Romney-care, I get on the Daily Paul and see Ron Paul supporters pitching a fit like a bunch of immature three-year olds because Rand Paul endorsed Romney. Did any of you REALLY think Rand was going to NOT endorse Romney if Romney became the GOP nominee? I know. Romney is NOT the GOP nominee yet. But, did any of you really think that after August Rand would NOT endorse and vote for Romney?

I'm just curious if anyone here is really so naive that he thought Rand was going to sit this election out, vote for a third party candidate, or write his father in in November. If you did expect Rand to support the Republican nominee, then at least put your anger at him in perspective.

If that is the case, you should be mad at him NOT for endorsing Romney, but for doing so while his father has not officially dropped out of the race yet. Those of you who would have called him a traitor for endorsing the GOP nominee in September need to realize Rand Paul is a Republican!!!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You don't get it!

The Ron Paul campaign was loaded with Rand Paul supporters!!!

Millions and millions were horded by these people!! Your money was not spent for getting Ron Paul nominated it was sat on and will now be spent getting mitt Romney elected president, while also spreading the idea that Rand Paul is the leader of the liberty movement! Same thing happened with the tea party movement!

If you do not understand how Really cruel that is, then you never really cared for Ron Paul to begin with!


What the heck is the Liberty Movement? Is there a difference between the Ron Paul movement (Revolution) and the Liberty Movement?

I think you have your

I think you have your sequence of events backwards. Who was the Tea Party co-opted from in the first place.

Republican means nothing

And apparently so does Rand's endorsement now.


I expected Rand Paul to stand on his principles and either forgo endorsing anyone, or endorse someone who shares an iota of the same principles as he.

Romney will expand the federal government.

Romney will increase the deficit.

Romney will start a provocative war with Iran.

Romney will continue to rely on the Federal Reserve System to, in his words, "manage the money supply".

What else do they agree on, other than to call themselves "conservatives" and the fact that they're both in the Republican party?

This is no different than the "poor decision" Rick Santorum made to "take one for the team" and support No Child Left Behind, even though he knew it was wrong. Why? Because that's how politics are.

Sorry, but the Liberty movement is more than just a set of principles guiding governance. It's about a dedication to truth, honesty, and openness. Rand repeatedly dodges questions about his support of sanctions against Iran. Rand is endorsing Romney because of political expediency.

Rand, I'm sorry, is not a Liberty candidate.

Stop the nepotism and find another torch bearer.

This movement is dead unless you and others are willing

to become realists.

FACT: Neoconservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has a listener audience of over 16,000,000 daily.
FACT: Neoconservative talk show host Sean Hannity has a listener audience of over 14,000,000 daily.
FACT: Neoconservative talk show host Mark Levin has a listener audience of over 7,000,000 daily.
FACT: Ron Paul had less than 2,000,000 people vote for him.
FACT: All it takes is the spoken word form any one of those above mentioned douchebags and Rand Paul's tenure in the Senate is OVER!
FACT: This movement has no future unless it expands and the only way it can expand is in one of the two major parties.

If you consider principle to mean never voting for anyone unless you agree with them on over 90% of the issues, tyrants like Obama will sweep every election because good people refuse to vote for someone they disagree with on 15% of the issues.

I don't give 1 freaking bit

I don't give 1 freaking bit about Rand Paul's career - and neither do those millions who voted for Ron Paul.

Rand Paul can jump off of a bridge into Mississippi for all I care.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!

That comment

doesn't have anything to do with the comment you responded to.

When 15% 'disagreement' are violations of supreme law!

There can be no compromise, not even 1%.

Obama is a criminal and so is Romney. Criminals should not be President, even if they commit less crimes than the other candidate. Nor should they be supported at all.

Only violating our law 15% of the time is a reason we should support McCain or Romney? You sound exactly like the Neocon radio hosts yourself. Listen to their programming much?


Gary Johnson is a criminal too then since he supports judges overturning the will of the people concerning Prop. 8. Johnson is a criminal since he supports the slaughtering of innocent babies in the womb. If you take that kind of purist outlook, you might as well never vote. That's why once Ron Paul moves out of the picture, this movement is going to have to go through a major reshuffling as the purists like you get out of the way of our retaking the Republican Party.

In regards to Prop 8: GJ is

In regards to Prop 8: GJ is actually right here. The Bill of Rights applies to the states as well, and Prop 8 was a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. State Constitutioninal Amendments cannot be used to define prayer or marriage, thus denying the individual the inherent right of religious freedom.

Defining marriage does not

"make any law regarding the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I wonder if we were to bring James Madison and the bunch back from the grave and ask them if the First amendment should make it illegal for marriage to only be between one man and one woman if they would agree with you or me.

Marriage is an exercise of

Marriage is an exercise of religion. If property is shared, it can also involve a contract between two or more parties, which is only government's business if one of the parties breaches the contract, in which case the courts (not the lawmakers) may get involved.

If marriage is more than an exercise of religion and (maybe) a private contract, what else is it?

Marriage is not an exercise of religion because

you don't have to be religious or have a religious wedding to get married. Marriage may or may not be religious depending on the couple getting married and whether or not they want a religious marriage. But, to claim that every state that doesn't allow homosexual marriage has been violating the 1st amendment as long as those states have existed is loose-constructionism which is anathema to classical liberalism (libertarianism).

I wasn't refering to either of those!

Romney is much worse than that. He likes infringements on our right to bear arms, government mandates, counterfeiting, bank fraud, impossible wars on drugs, and wants to take us into more unconstitutional unwinnable wars on terror.

Those are major violations against the entire nation.


I disagree with the notion that if you vote

for the lesser of two evils you always end up getting evil. Here's why. If every Conservative, Libertarian, and Constitutionalist, American patriot took that attitude, socialist Democrats would win every single election. Socialist Democrats would always dominate the Senate and House and occupy the White House. You can stretch the word evil a long way to mean anyone who disagrees with you on any issue. We're not going to be able to get the Fed audited, all the bases closed down overseas, all the military intervention stopped, all the domestic spying, groping, overbearing taxes and regulations, abortion, insane government spending, and all of the crony capitalism ended at once. But, if we throw up our hands and say, oh, well, if we can't end it all at once, let's don't end any of it at all, we'll all go to our graves without any of it ever getting accomplished. If Ron Paul doesn't get elected, we might have to change our strategy a bit and chip away at the federal government.

How's that logic?

Since Democrats are also always saying, "The lesser of two evils" as they cast their vote. If they are winning, then they are right in their minds.

Most of what is being presented here is logically convoluted, in my opinion.

The Liberty movement, the Ron Paul movement, that I am supporting is based on a new paradigm. The old matrix can never produce a transformed world.

The Light is growing. Have faith, Freedom lovers, and avoid getting caught in matrix arguments. They are old fruit, dying on the vine. Continue to establish fertile ground for new fruit, new wine skins. (Those who know to what I refer, know...)

Have faith and carry on.

Gwen Kraft

"Personal Liberty & Personal Responsibility" -- Dr. Ron Paul

"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." -- Bob Dylan

I'm all for expanding...

But not by sacrificing our principles, which is exactly what you're suggesting.

And if we're even going to bother doing that, why don't we start supporting wars of aggression? And the Federal Reserve? And the NDAA?

See? We've already won!

Rand can suck up to all the neocons he wants, but when he starts supporting them for public office (the HIGHEST public office, mind you) and starts voting like them (as he did with sanctions against Iran), how does he even differ?

Principles not perfection

There's no such thing as a perfectionist. Well, maybe Ron Paul, but there's a couple of things I even disagree with him on and a few things he's done that I find...troublesome to say the least. If you're looking for a perfectly, principled politician to follow, I'm afraid you'll have to end up dropping out of political action once Ron Paul does because there never will be another Ron Paul. For many Ron Paul supporters, Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be good enough because he struck the Barbary pirates without a Congressional declaration of war and supported and signed the Embargo Act of 1807.

Rand Paul voted for sanctions one time and helped defeat a bill placing sanctions on Iran another time. I can live with that. He's still the best Senator we've got. "Sucking up to Neocons?" I don't know if you realize it or not, but the Neocons took over the Republican Party back in the 80s. Most Republicans are Neocons and don't even realize it. If we're going to change hearts and minds, we're going to have to be able to talk to and learn to find common ground at times with Neocons. If you're not willing to do that, you might as well go bury yourself in the Libertarian Party which never has and never will have a prayer of attaining national success.

First off it's ya'll.

And hell yes people are upset at Rand. He surely could have waited til after the convention! He knifed his own father in the back. If that sets well with you, well yippee shit!
It pisses me off.

Formerly rprevolutionist

Y'all is a contraction.

It+is = It's, You+are = You're, You+all = Y'all. There is no a in you.

Apparently you can read even worse than you can spell. If you would have read my post you would know it DOES NOT sit well with me. What I'm pissed off at is people being mad at Rand for endorsing Romney period. Anyone with a brain in his head knew Rand was eventually going to endorse Romney. Being mad at him for endorsing him so soon is one thing, but, being mad at him for endorsing him at all is pure naivite.

I'm disappointed in him, and angry, that he did it now and

if he did it later I'd be disappointed too. Because I'd know that he was still trapped, as he is, in the matrix.

Gwen Kraft

"Personal Liberty & Personal Responsibility" -- Dr. Ron Paul

"A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom." -- Bob Dylan