Rhino: The difference between Ron and Rand is not substance but strategy.
Submitted by rhino on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 08:51Establishment: We want your followers so we need you.
Ron: You don’t understand. They are not my followers, so they won’t follow me. They follow a message.
Establishment: You’re wrong. Come on over and we’ll prove that we are right.
Ron: I’m right and no … you’ll have to adopt my message before I join the fold.
End of conversation.
Establishment: We want your followers so we need you.
Rand: You don’t understand. They are not my followers, so they won’t follow me. They follow a message.
Establishment: You’re wrong. Come on over and we’ll prove that we are right.
Rand: I’m right but O.K. … our peeps will work out a deal and I’ll come into the fold, but this is only going to prove that I am right.
Establisment: If your right and you can’t deliver, then you are of no value and will be discarded.
Rand: That is a risk I am willing to take to prove my point because in the end, you will begin to see that you will have to adopt the message.
End of conversation.
That is the only difference between Rand and Ron.
Also ...
Rand has six years to prove his point and rehabilitate his relationship with his base. Ron never had that luxury. He was always stuck with a 2 year time frame.
- Login to post comments
Playing politics
is a game we ALL need to learn if we intend to change the Republican party!
IT
SUCKS
BUT
IT'S
A
FACT!!!
A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.
Exactly !!!
This is about strategy not principles.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Not a good plan.
Getting in bed with the enemy to prove a point is not a good strategy either literally or symbolically like here.
Platitude
I greatly dislike Platitudes.
They are mainly used to denegrate and criticize dishonestly by avoiding specifics.
Carry on.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
You are just speculating to
You are just speculating to what their strategy is. You really don't know. Maybe it is what it is and what many of us just sees it is. That Rand is much more of a traditional Republican AND politician than Ron.
I am sorry, but there is no way in hell it is "GOOD STRATEGY" to endorse EVERYTHING we fight AGAINST!
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
Ron does it.
He endorses establishment candidates all the time.
He also funraises for them.
He has a standing policy of endorsing all Texas incumbants.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
The difference is that Ron
The difference is that Ron Paul has inspired a movement with his consistent voting record and adherence to principle. He has my support, regardless of the presidency, and the movement must continue.
While I don't think Rand is a bad guy--his voting record will tell us that over time--he used the power of his father's revolution to get himself into office. I don't think he has lied about his positions, or even his statement of supporting the eventual nominee, but he has shown that he will go along to get along. Are we better or worse for having his voice in the Senate? Time will tell, but don't expect me or any other self-respecting member of the Liberty Movement to take cues from him.
Quote ...
"Time will tell, but don't expect me or any other self-respecting member of the Liberty Movement to take cues from him."
If I am right, Rand is expecting, hoping, and praying that all of us adopt that mind set.
Like I said, "They are not my followers ... they won't follow me ... they follow a message."
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Agree on the differentiation...
It took Ron 30 years to get this much of a foot hold in American politics and most of that was because of us. Don't get me wrong, Ron stood his ground but it wasn't until we thrust him into the spotlight that he gained any national traction. All of this while the establishment attempted to silence him every step of the way. Both Ron and Rand realize we don't have another 30 years. This has never been about standing on principles for the sake of it but trying to save our country. While I'd rather watch the GoP burn, unless we're all ready to start moving to the mountains something must be practically done to influence the direction of the country. I'm tired of libertarian principles only being relevant on internet message boards.
NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.
Quote ...
"I'm tired of libertarian principles only being relevant on internet message boards."
I think that is about where I stand.
Carry on.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
I disagree. There are a
I disagree. There are a number of differences between the two regarding substance.
Care to name some?
Care to name some? BTW...please use voting record. The point of this post was in showing the Rand is willing to says things to get along but his actions are what really matters.
Their foreign policy is
Their foreign policy is different. Rand caved in on Civil Rights after Maddow. Ron would never do that.
In other words, your argument is that Rand will pander to get his way?
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
I don't think Rand has caved on the civil rights issue.
And Rand has admitted in an interview that his foreign policy would be less cut and dry than Ron's, but I don't think their principles differ.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
he absolutely did. First he
he absolutely did. First he said he wouldn't have voted for it, then he said he would. This was after pressure from the Maddow show.
Rand is much closer to neocons on foreign policy. I would have to do some digging, because it's been some time, but there is plenty of it.
he is FOR Gitmo. He wants to keep some troops around the world.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
The standard seems to be Ron Paul
"Ron would never do that."
"Ron would never cave."
I think your being a little obtuse if that is your point.
Ron's voting record has some inconsistencies. They can be explained, but they are there.
Gitmo is a civil liberties issue, not a foreign policy issue.
The Gitmo issue and the Civil rights issue was brought up during Rand's first ever campaign. He got off message. Way off message.
On Gitmo, Rand stated that he would not immediately close the base. He would put every detainee there on trial. If found guilty then they would remain. If found innocent, they should be released. I am not sure how that is different than Ron's position.
Regarding the equal protection amendment, Rand pointed out the errors in the amendment that regulate private businesses, but said he would have still voted for it. That is a strategy difference. Goldwater and Ron Paul opposed the amendment outright because of the issues that Rand pointed out. They all agree, but Rand is choosing a different strategy.
Regarding foreign bases, Rand clearly stated in his interview on "This Week" just after he was elected that we need to bring our troops home to save money.
The Iran sanctions are discussed in this thread and it is clear that it was more of a strategy difference than a principled difference. At least in my mind.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
the ends dont justify the
the ends dont justify the means, his strategy is immoral
Well ...
Ron has done the exact same thing.
He has endorsed establishment candidates.
He has fundraised for neocon candidates in TX.
He has played the game without watering down his message.
Is Ron immoral?
Rand is just in a position to play the exact same game on a grander scale. That makes the stakes higher, but the rewards are also more valuable.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
rand has voted certain ways
rand has voted certain ways to better the neocons perspective of him, you know like immorally voting to put sanctions on Iran
You mean like ...
voting in favor of invading Afghanistan?
Oh .. and by the way ...
Did Rand vote for these sanctions or did he allow it to pass by not opposing the unanamous consent motion?
That is a tool the Senate uses that the House does not normally have on issues like this.
I wonder what Ron would have done if he was a Senator.
Here is what Rand said about the sanctions ...
"Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding sanctions on Iran. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
In November 2011, the Senate began debate on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 (S. 1867). NDAA provides the authorization for spending by the Department of Defense (DoD) for procurement, base management and military operations.
While debating S. 1867, Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) introduced an amendment to place sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran (S.Amdt.1414). S.Amdt.1414 passed unanimously by the Senate and included in S. 1867. Following the passage of S. 1867, the language contained in S.Amdt.1414 was included in the conference committee version of NDAA (H.R. 1540). Despite my opposition, H.R. 1540 passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate by votes of 283-136 and 86-13 respectively. H.R. 1540 has been signed into law by President Obama.
The Iranian regime is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe. I supported S.Amdt.1414 because the sanctions are targeted to the regime's financing of those activities through the central bank and unlike other sanctions, not against the Iranian people.
Rest assured as debate continues in the Senate regarding Iran, I will keep your thoughts in mind. Feel free to contact me again regarding any federal issue in the future."
It would seem to me that his vote could just as easily be described as a vote against a central bank.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
ron voted for authority to
ron voted for authority to get bin laden not invade afghanistan
Ron has stated on the house floor ...
that he would like the bill to specifically call for a declaration of war and that he would vote in favor of such an amendment.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
well yea it would be
well yea it would be constitutional then but none of that happened did it, so dont even bring it up
It did happen ...
And it is part of the congressional record.
Ron Paul voted for sanctions on Afganistan dispite not declaring war.
He voted in favor of invading Iraq under Bush 1.
The key issue is what was Ron's explaination and why did he choose such a strategy?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
So his justification to vote
So his justification to vote on sanctions is because they pursue nuclear weapons? Who is he to decide who should have nukes?
And because they support terrorism? So do sanctions.
Sanctions of any kind are an act of war. They may be a different form of sanctions, but if you cut off money to the government through the CB, they will just take it from the people. What have you not learned my friend?
Rand characterized his vote ...
as a vote to not do business with the central bank of Iran.
If that is how Rand looked at it ... does that make a difference?
Is "not doing business with a central bank" the same thing as trade sanctions against a country ... ergo ... an act of war?
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
yes they are the same, if you
yes they are the same, if you dont want to do business with the central bank then dont, no need for sanctions.
The establishment is calling it sanctions but ...
I think Rand's point is that this is different than sanctions.
His position is exactly your position.
He voted to not do business with the central bank.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
It's clear to me he
It's clear to me he characterized his vote by saying "The Iranian regime is engaged in the pursuit of nuclear weapons and supports terrorism across the globe. I supported S.Amdt.1414 because the sanctions are targeted to the regime's financing of those activities through the central bank and unlike other sanctions, not against the Iranian people"
Clearly he doesn't understand how sanctions work:
Sanctions by the US, EU and Britain hurt trade industry in Iran:
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/12/03/180509.html
An excerpt: "Much of Iran’s imported needs including food and consumer goods are transported by sea via container ships. Oil tankers are used to ferry the country’s crude oil exports"
Clearly this hurts the people of Iran. It makes food and energy much more expensive because it limits supply.
This article proves that point:
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/15/11714780-ira...
And here again: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/world/meast/iran-sanctions-eff...
Oh and here: http://www.mintpress.net/economic-sanctions-harm-iranian-peo...
Here too: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/17/us-usa-iran-sancti...
An excerpt from the above link: "If previous sanctions efforts elsewhere are any guide, Iran's elites will find ways to insulate themselves from economic pain imposed from outside"
Oh my, here as well: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/15/irans-trade-...
This is why Ron votes no. Because even though you may think you have a justification in voting yes for "techincal purposes"...you're still wrong in the end.
I understand your point and to a point I agree but ...
could it not be said ...
that decisions by the Iranian government and the consequences of those decisions can only be laid at the feet of the Iranian government.
And choosing not to do business with a central bank is a strategy that can be persued without technically committing an act of war.
Ron Paul votes against foreign aid to foreign central banks all the time.
And Ron Paul would prefer that we never do business with any foreign central banks.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994