-4 votes

Question: Would you rather see Rand Paul not endorse Romney?

Because here's my prediction what would have happened if that happened.

If Rand Paul didn't endorse Romney, the liberty movement wouldn't be as angry. However Republican politicians would respect him less, and 0 bills would be passed that Rand proposed. And unless the liberty movement takes over the state of Kentucky, he would probably be voted out because holding a senate seat is a lot challenging than holding a seat in the house.

So the question is

Would rather see

A. Rand Paul NOT endorse Romney, get no bills passed, and get voted out of the senate


B. Rand Paul endorse Romney, might get bills passed, and in 2016 become a strong candidate for President.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


I am a collectivist working for the elite and I am here to destroy the liberty movement (and I have several user ids to make the attack more effective). I have been instructed and am being paid to cause as much turmoil as possible on this site and others and I do this by going after true freedom lovers and dupe true supporters of liberty to follow suit.

I use the hatred that is so normal for people who have recently woken up to the fact that the elite is running the country/world. It is so easy to redirect this hatred back towards the movement and cause infighting. This is how the rulers I work for have consistently taken down any opposition over several decades or more. We count on many people not being able to see the wood for the trees and use our controlled mainstream media to reinforce any infighting and any perceived problems that we create and that "stick" within the movement.

SteveMT's picture

Your premisses are not correct. Ron Paul is the reason.

The last presidential candidate endorsed by Ron Paul was Reagan. None since. Ron Paul got all of 1 out of 600+ bills past in 30 years. Ron Paul did not want to play the game, and so essentially none of his bills got passed. Congress did not respect him any less, and I believe that they respected him more because of his consistency. However, he was not voted out of office, but he was elected 12 times to Congress. In order to do this, Ron Paul kept in close communication with his constituents, so that they understood what we was for and against and most importantly, why.

Life is full of choices. Rand Paul's constituents, the People of Kentucky, must be on-board with his plan of action. Those are the people that he has to ultimately answer to, not us. We have nothing to say about it. That strategy is none of our business. That is between him and the People of Kentucky.

Truthbearer's picture

Who am I to be...

...but to continue on and be and be...a supporter to the finish line! Ron Paul...RON Paul...RON PAUL!!!!


I hope you are just naive.

Has Rand won ANY VOTE so far, even after winning Kentucky in a landslide? Just WHAT makes you think anyone will follow Rand in the
future? His loyalty?

So you agree

with the criticism of Ron Paul that he has not passed many laws?


It sounds as if you're assuming that the bills he might get passed would be good ones. He certainly has done a lot of good and maybe a couple bad things, but he's only been in office a short time.
A. He would have had our support, time, campaign contributions
B. He gets to sit at the cool table and loses a minimum of half of his supporters.
Time will tell but at this point I don't think I would vote for him in 2016.

Gee, what a hard choice...NOT

Make a couple neocons happy or not disappoint a whole lot of people who put their trust in you, and adhere to principle?

I think it is obvious, that the better choice would have been NOT to endorse Romney.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

OK, here's the question...

is it more "principled" to endorse a man you don't have to vote for, or....have people who have fought SO hard to get their seats at state level, lose them, because of your lofty principles?
Rand Paul is "playing" by the rules.
Get over it...get ON with it!



gold = money
war = health of the state
liberty = prosperity