2 votes

Rhino: The difference between Ron and Rand is not substance but strategy.

Establishment: 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.




Comment viewing options

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

No it couldn't. If we did

No it couldn't. If we did nothing at all Iran would still pursue Nukes and the people would not have to suffer.

Now, Iran is STILL building nukes, but the difference is that the people are suffering.

It's not that sanctions are only an act of war, it also incites more hate and violence. The people of Iran suffer because of this and you think they are ok with it?

Ron Paul votes against foreign aid not only because it's "doing business with a CB" but because we do not have the right to do it in the first place. Also, it's wrong to take money from the people and send it to another country in the "hopes" of helping them.

I admire Rand for trying to do the right thing, but he has not fully thought this through. It's one thing to say "I don't want us doing business with Iran's CB" but to not think about the unintended consequences is bizarre.

If you're voting no specifically to stop doing business with Iran's CB, then just say so. Don't also include "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and supports terrorism". You're misleading everyone as to why you vote a certain way. He worries too much about pleasing the wrong people.

And ...

Iran can still cause its citizens to suffer even if we continue to do business with the central bank.

That does not logically compute as I said above.

I think this was a failed attempt at refuting my argument.

No it wasn't a failed

No it wasn't a failed attempt.

The point is to not get involved period. What Iran does is their business.

So you're saying Iran should "give in" and stop its nuclear program? Because doing so would stop the sanctions? So that the people there don't have to suffer? Please tell me because your train of thought has derailed. If someone did this to us and tried forcing our hands we would be up in arms...literally.

I think you confused yourself on what this is even about.

You can't justify what is happening by stating he was voting on this for a different reason. Regardless of his intentions he was wrong to do it.

Then he tries to justify his vote by stating "Iran is after nuclear weapons and supports terrorism" If he was voting on this for a different reason or on different principle he should have just said it in the first place. You can't say "I was voting for this because I do not think we should be doing business with Irans CB" and then write a response that is auto-generated to anyone who asks and start by stating Iran is after nukes and supports terrorism...it's awfully misleading and quite distasteful.

I can't argue with much that you said in this response.

All I can say is that Ron has voting for sanctions in the past.

Ron has had his reasons for doing so and I am sure Rand does as well.

His voting record and his actions in the next four years will paint a more clear picture as to who Rand is.

I caution people to not put the cart in front of the horse.

God Bless.

Why sacrifice your principles?

If he has 6 years he does not need to go whore himself for anything. The problem is that he never had principles to begin with. He was catapulted into his position because of his Dad's principles. He has now blown his support and seriously injured all his Dad has worked for.

Very sad.

I strongly disagree with all of this.

Just because Rand endorsed Romney, does not mean he has to sacrifice his principles. He can continue to espouse the same principles his father speaks about.

Ron has endorsed establishment candidates on many occasions and has fundraised for them to satisfy the establishment, but his message has never waivered.

Maybe he is just like many here

There are many here that know it is going to hit terminal overload in the next four years no matter who is in office. There are many here that are biting the bit to get it started, Rand might think Romney would be the one to start it sooner? Either way he would have done just as well to endorse Obama.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

when and who?

when and who?

Well it has been documented thouroughly here on the DP.

If I put in the time to provide names and timelines, would it help you to change your mind?

yes it would i look at the

yes it would i look at the dailypaul 50 times a day, but my memory must be foggin

ok u may be right but

ok u may be right but endorsements arnt the problem voting records are, and rands record is not morally sound.

Well ...

this thread is littered with discussion about Rand's voting record and I don't think the jury has rendered a verdict on that yet.

To me it's a question of

To me it's a question of judgement. What makes anyone here, especially Rand think that we can change the party by playing "nice" with a bunch of criminal crooks who are hell bent on blowing up the Middle East? What makes you think you can overcome the power and money system that exists within Washington? You need the PEOPLE to wake up to change things not for the politicians who caused all of the problems to come to the rescue. Look at how much this movement has grown in just 5 short years? We are millions strong and people are waking up everyday. Very seldom do we lose people. I do not think now is the time to to play "nice" with the very people that are causing all of the problems.

Endorsing someone who for the most part is the direct opposite of who we are is a serious lack of judgement. For what? To change the "party platform" or to get a speaking slot at the convention? Or for a make believe audit of the Fed?

What makes any of you think that Rand is somehow going to change who Romney is? Or who he would become if he is President? Or his actual policies? So now he has Rand's endorsement. He got what he wanted. What did Romney have to "promise" to Rand for his endorsement? What difference does it make? Does anyone think he would actually follow through on those promises? Do you really think Romney is going to get up on stage and call for an audit of the Fed? The same Fed that is supporting Goldman Sachs? Who support Romney financially? This is a bit backwards to me. We all know that a true and full audit of the Fed is what we need. Not a watered down one. If Romney does call for an audit it will be so watered down that it will destroy what a large part of our movement has become and that is ending the Fed. If the american people see the results of a watered down audit of the Fed, that fails to show any wrong doing or illegal transactions it immediately discredits us. No longer could we blame the Fed for anything and expect the people to side with us on this issue....sorry i've gone a bit off topic.

To me Ron is right. You change things from the bottom up. Not from the top down. Change the hearts and minds of the people, then you take over at the bottom where it's easiest to get in.

*The only thing I can think of is that Rand truly believes Romney has no shot at winning and so to him there is little downside to his endorsement. And now he has some capital to take with him into 2016. But for now he has to deal with our blowback because unfortunately we won't know for a long time how this may play out. And the problem there is that the longer this takes to play out the more and more that people will walk away from him. Especially if Romney does win and turns his back on us like we all know will happen.

I think I agree with all that ...

but I think you are missing the strategy.

We all know Rand is going to be proven right ...

Case in point ... us die hards have already revolted against Rand ... which is what he was hoping for.

So follow the chess pieces.

If Romney does not adopt the message ...
He will lose. (If Rand is right. This is risky because the economy is going to make this a closer election than it should be.)

Now the party is left to searching for answers.

Rand will be in that circle adding to the discussion.

Especially since McConnell (his fellow KY collegue) is the defacto leader of the party establishment.

"If Romney does not adopt the

"If Romney does not adopt the message ...He will lose. (If Rand is right. This is risky because the economy is going to make this a closer election than it should be.)"

Wrong. My point is that how and when will we know he did not "adopt the message"? Again, politicians will say anything to get elected. So Romney starts campaigning with Rand and calls for for an Audit of the Fed...or and end to the TSA. Then he wins...and then does nothing. Who am I going to blame? Romney of course, but Rand will share in that blame for letting us all down.

So We blame Romney, and maybe he loses re-election in 2016. But he loses it to a Democrat...and this helps us how?

Well ...

Ron endorsed Reagan because of his rhetoric.

And then withdrew his support and exited the party when his behavior did not match his rhetoric.

Rand has that option as well.

Rand might have 6 years in

Rand might have 6 years in office, but I wonder if he will be able to "rebuild" anything. This gives the establishment all the time they need to tear the liberty concept to pieces. Also, I suspect the hole they are digging will be too deep by then.

As for my part, I don't believe a word coming out of the establishment or the MSM's many mouths anymore. Thanks for that at least Dr Paul.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein

If in fact this is Rand's strategy ...

It is quite brilliant.

He is counting on us to revolt against him.

The bonus is that if he is right ...

Obama wins ...

and in 2016 ...

Rand is up for re-election ...

or ...

gearing up for a presidential run ...

depending on the trade winds.

I think the main point for

I think the main point for the objections to this are that we may not have until 2016...

Well ...

That may be true ...

but ...

we might not have but one option and that is to hope that we do have until 2016.

I agree with him

I don't think we have time. This country has come up against the wall,It is out of time. Unfortunately.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

That may be true ...

as I stated above.

But we may not have a choice but to hope and pray for time.

Ron has said he doesn't have the delegate numbers.

Now what?

It appears that Rand is positioning himself in case we are blessed with more time. That, to me, appears to be what Rand is up to.

He may also think that 2016 is too late, but things change, and there is no reason to stop adding your chips into the pot.

True,but...

The chances of drawing to a flush are very slim at this point. The dealer is pulling cards from his sleeve. It begs the question, all in or call as the last card is dealt? What are the chances of getting the one card you need?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

All in?

I don't get it.

We are doing what we need to do.

Ron is doing what he needs to do.

We are all fullfulling our roles.

Romney is going to get the nomination.

What does all in mean?

Confidence and trust

That the card will come up in your favor considering what the dealer is pulling. This is may be the last hand in the game. Would you go all in with trust or would you cut your losses and reserve chips towards a later game with a different dealer? Question is, will there be another game?

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Hope you are correct. My

Hope you are correct. My moral is low right now. Need a couple of weeks to wrap my mind around all this.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein

Maybe

I hope you're right. I don't accept it as fact, but it's a good theory.

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

Well ...

Rand does have 6 years to implement his strategy.

A luxury Ron never had.

So we shall see.