-53 votes

Rand Paul is a losing ticket.

Those who support rand are the ones that said Ron Paul had no chance.

Rand Paul chose to support Romney over his own father.

Get a fucking clue people.. If Ron Paul does not run again there is no way his son would be able to rally enough support. He is loved by neocons and hated by many independents and democrats. He cannot be trusted. He will choose party line over principal.

The only liberty canadate that will get support from the liberty movement is someone that voted and supported liberty in 2012. Rand Paul has many years to make up for his betrayal. He will never bring the liberty movement together so why waste time supporting him for president in 2016?? he is a losing ticket.

The only people I see at the moment running and winning in 2016 are.

Ron Paul
Jesse Ventura
Tom Davis
Judge Andrew Napolitano

Anyone who says these guys can't win are those same people that thought Romney could.

Just having these guys nominated would force real change in America winning no matter what.

Ron Paul - Republican

Jesse Ventura - independent

Tom Davis - Republican

Andrew Napolitano - Constitution

Another way to win is to flood the two party system with liberty minded people so do your job and vote.

The only republicans that won had the support of Ron Paul in 2012!

Comment viewing options

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

You're joking, right?

Nobody has ever heard of Tom Davis unless they follow politics REALLY closely.

Jesse Ventura is a crackpot who sees a conspiracy behind everything; there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that he'd win. When you take a guy seriously that thinks the world is run by shapeshifting lizard people from space, you've got issues.

Napolitano? That I could see.

Ron Paul? Give the poor guy a break! He's almost eighty, and quite frankly, as much as I'd love to see him as president, I think he deserves a freaking rest.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, has consistently bucked the Republican Party, contrary to what you think. Endorsing Mitt was just to ensure that The Party didn't shut him down; he's consistently sided with liberty over party. Is he *slightly* more hawkish than his father? Maybe so, but not much. The fact is, Rand is a winning ticket BECAUSE he's managed to get on the good side of Republicans through his rhetoric, while his actions tell a different story.

Ventura is a globalist,

Ventura is a globalist, though he won't admit it in public. He told Catherine Bleish to her face while she was taping the police state episode of his Conspiracy Theory show, that he thought that if the UN became the world Govt there would be no more war. I don't trust the man. Other than him, I think your list is good.

Blessings )o(

That is called hearsay, and

That is called hearsay, and there is a reason it isn't admitted in court.

It also goes against everything I have heard the man say. Go listen to his interview with Piers Morgan where he talks about the danger of world govt.

Why is there so much disinformation out there? So annoying

Rand Paul is the best hope we have for the future.

And I am sure Ron Paul would be a BIG part of a Rand Paul government.

Have you ever noticed that before a big debate between Obama and Romney, the two men would approach each other, embrace each other, and give a warm handshake and they SEEMED to be saying something nice to each other. Making all nicey nice.

Don't you imagine that each would rather tear the arm out of the other person's socket - than to do that?

Its called, diplomacy. Its something I couldn't do. And I bet most of you couldn't either. But its what makes a GOOD politician able to meet with his enemies and try to get beyond personal differences.

I have no doubt that Rand found endorsing Romney to be distasteful. Rand even campaigned for Romney - a few times - until top Republicans realized Rand was telling the truth and knocking Romney's foreign policy. Politics may require you to be nice - but they can't require you to lie. (Though coincidently many politicians pick up that skill on their own).

Rand is a bridge builder and its not always easy, but he does it.

Ridiculous

1 - "Those who support Rand are the ones that said Ron Paul had no chance." That would be the majority of the Republican party, the MAJORITY!
2 - "Rand Paul chose to support Romney over his own father." Wrong. Rand endorsed Mitt over Obama only after Ron's campaign ended and it was clear he wouldn't be the nominee.
3 - "Rand is loved by Neocons." That translates to the neocon vote, the majority of Republicans.
4 - "He will choose party line over principal." That's not what we see on the Senate floor.
5 - "The only liberty candidate that will get support from the liberty movement is someone that voted and supported liberty in 2012." Rand supports liberty on the Senate floor daily.
6 - "Anyone who says these guys can't win are those same people that thought Romney could." That would be the neocons and I don't see any support there for the potential candidates listed.
The way I see it is that Rand is the bridge between neocons and liberty.

There are so many revisionist

There are so many revisionist lies in your "rebuttal" that I'm not even going to bother.

LOL

Yeah, I'd run that marathon, but it's so easy I won't even bother.

Sure thing.

Eric Hoffer

Oh please Brer Fox, whatever

Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don't throw me into that briar patch.

1 - "Those who support Rand are the ones that said Ron Paul had no chance." That would be the majority of the Republican party, the MAJORITY!

You don't know the true majority because the delegates were not allowed to vote at the convention.

Moreover, you certainly know that Ron Paul was cheated out of votes in many states.

Despite this, Ron Paul either won or should have won: Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Virginia, Alaska, Hawaii. That's majorities in 13 states.

Given all the vote fraud, surely there are more states I'm missing, but hopefully you get my point that things were much different than you let on.

2 - "Rand Paul chose to support Romney over his own father." Wrong. Rand endorsed Mitt over Obama only after Ron's campaign ended and it was clear he wouldn't be the nominee.

Rand endorsed Mitt before the convention to nominate the nominee. Ron had not ended his campaign when Rand endorsed Mitt. It was never clear he wouldn't be the nominee until the convention was railroaded. Your statement was revisionist and showed your spots.

3 - "Rand is loved by Neocons." That translates to the neocon vote, the majority of Republicans.

Neocons are not the majority of Republicans. Where is your data to back up your claim? Most independents and conservatives stayed home this go around.

4 - "He will choose party line over principal." That's not what we see on the Senate floor.

The sanctions on Iran he voted on were one example of towing the party line. Sanctions are an act of war. There are plenty of votes he has made that Ron Paul would not have. Rand is a politician, Ron is a statesman. Quit trying to confound the two.

5 - "The only liberty candidate that will get support from the liberty movement is someone that voted and supported liberty in 2012." Rand supports liberty on the Senate floor daily.

See #4 above. There are also other votes which were more than questionable. Check it out for yourself.

6 - "Anyone who says these guys can't win are those same people that thought Romney could." That would be the neocons and I don't see any support there for the potential candidates listed.
The way I see it is that Rand is the bridge between neocons and liberty.

Neocons are the minority. Rand is making deals with the devil. He is playing games. That's exactly what his father advised against all year during his tour around the country. "Going along to get along" does not work. Compromise is what got our country in this mess in the first place.

"A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example."

Do you think this applies to Rand? I certainly don't, and many others are with me. That's why we are turned off by his endorsing Romney and towing the Hannity line by pandering to the neocon minority. Be a man Rand!

Rand would be the leader at

Rand would be the leader at this point I think for the libertarian wing nomination for the GOP for POTUS. Tom Davis is a good guy, but he's a STATE Senator in SC and would seriously doubt he would have the money, be able to get any media, or even get in the primary debates.

argue Rand Paul's policies and not his endorsements

So if a guys has 2 and will be 6 years of solid liberty minded bills and policies but because he endorsed romney it means nothing? sorry, but if we argue about endorsements and not real policies then we are no better than the hypocrites we are facing. Stick to the issues. Stick to his voting record. In six months no one is going to remember his endorsement of Romney nor will it matter. If you have been demanding the media to discuss Ron Paul's issues but then ignore Rand Paul's issue and don't discuss them then you are no better than the media and the sheep that follow them.

I think Rand could win

but Hitlery will be tough to defeat.

I have noticed a striking similarity between Rand and Laurel from Laurel and Hardy. Maybe we could run Rand and Cris Crispy on the Laurel & Hardy ticket.

Sign the "I'm an idiot and I support Rand pledge" like this

Bump this thread again. Those supporters who feel the need to comment on this appear to miss a key element of their defense:
You keep a post titled "Rand Paul is a losing ticket" on the discussion board ' front page of a website called "dailypaul"
Now you and I know it is and was about RON Paul, but new folks to politics might not get that, at least not the first visit.
For me, I do not see me supporting Rand. I rarely say "never" but this is pretty close. But I respect Ron Paul and those who still wish to attempt reforming the GOP enough to try not to interfere with their plan, therefore I do not comment on this thread. But I watch it roll by over and over, so I got curious, and sure enough- mostly Rand supporters keeping it alive.
So here you go, rip me a new one, post away and tell me how and why I am wrong. I mean, how dare I?! Or LET IT GO. Rand has 4 years to make or break his OWN campaign, stop "helping" him so much.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Andrew Napalitano on the

Andrew Napolitano on the Constitution Party ticket? Do you even have a clue what their platform is?

Concerning future campaigns.

I think it is extremely important to note that we should be wary of where the money from campaign contributions is really going.I would myself only give money to back the airing of specific commercials/videos that CLEARLY promote the principles of truth,freedom and peace.Why can't we condense all of our great principles and contrast the liberty candidates from the typical politician of both parties in one tv ad or youtube video?Personally, I would give money ONLY to directly fund the airing of such a commercial.Maybe we could just get behind and fund an ad that promotes our agreed principles and mentions several liberty candidates as well as one that does not mention specific candidates.Remember the end of the "Ron Paul Stop Dreaming" video where it simply got the point across that Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes,never voted for an unbalanced budget,voted against the Iraq war,etc?THAT is getting your point across and I can't understand how " paid professional" campaign managers could not see the logic in this method unless they had no intentions of winning in the first place. And if we had a great video that got simple points across,I think we could make it go viral on the internet,nationwide and worldwide, without asking people for money.All it would take is a united,focused effort of people taking the time to help spread a video on the internet.

The Ron Paul REVOLUTION Would Go To War Against "Randy".

The Ron Paul REVOLUTION Would Go To War Against "Randy".

Don't worry about the "minus" votes you have gotten.

Those come from either the Benton / Doug Wead crowd who are counting on milking tens of thousands if not millions of people from their hard earned money, already salivating thinking about "Randy Paul Money Bombs", or...

..."Brand-Name Groupies" or:

The Neo-Cons.

R.I.P. - G.O.P.

We Don't Deal With Traitors.

RON PAUL R[3]TRIBUTION.

Wisdom Strategies

LOL

Comments like these turn your handle "Wisdom Strategies" into a bit of a running joke.

Eric Hoffer

I Am Curious

Who in Kentucky would you like to run against Rand for his Senate seat and why do you think that would be a better choice?

Is there anyone? And, if so...how do they measure up as far as championing "true" liberty and in comparison with Ron Paul and all he stands for.

Also am wondering where to find "retribution" in the Golden Rule.

fonta

So what will you say when....

Ron Paul, Tom Davis and Judge Napolitano all endorse Rand in 2016 for President?

To think that Jesse Ventura has a chance is a bit naive my friend. Although he makes some very good points, he will never be president. That's a fact, not opinion.

Yes. Jesse Ventura Will Never Be President.

Yes. Jesse Ventura Will Never Be President.

He does not carry himself as a potential Presidential Candidate.

Wisdom Strategies

LOL!

Yer brain must hurt with all that "Big Thinking" going on...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

.

dear libtard,

Rand Paul, as senator- has done MORE in one year then ANY of the other candidates you have mentioned- in their entire careers.
He holds up unconstitutional bill after unconstitutional bill.
He called McCain a TROLL!lol
TO HIS FACE!
If any moron here believes BOTH drs paul did not previously discuss rands endorsement of Romney LAST YEAR, would have underestimated them BOTH. They are dumb like foxes and plan and pre meditate EVERY action they make. You had better believe that. Even Pauls own supporters do not know how smart BOTH men really are.
Good thing they count on this underestimation and use it to win time and time again.
Rand does not seek or NEED support of democrats. democrats are confused and do not understand our system of gvt- and infect everything they touch, including the DP.., they dont understand how our system should work- never have and never will.
ALL Rand Paul haters are cloaked liberals that do not understand conservative economic policy or limited constitutional gvt and NEVER will,

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

^ This guy ^

What this guy said. Minus the libtard calling and all that because that's not my style, but the points in are generally correct.

Eric Hoffer

Im sorry but it has been way

Im sorry but it has been way too long and have gone way to far to NOT understand ron or rand paul, which is what this thread represents.
A MAJOR lack of understanding on how the Pauls play politics and win, even when they lose.
There is only one kind that do not understand ron or rand paul by now and they are confused libtards. These same ones are the ones who at the last minute throw grease on the fire or water and embarrass our revolution by confusing the message and have no idea what a fiscally conservative, strictly constitutional- limited gvt really is- nor do they care. They are more interested in calling it a liberty movement or paulfest or what ever- which always ends up standing for things both drs paul loathe, and im sick of it..
They dont like the GOP or the Tea Party and want to start something else which leaves pauls most imprtant philosophies behind.
they seek to divide by offering the same msg, with a twist..
maybe it is the "prochoice" twist- they want changed.
maybe "humanitarian intervention is OK"..
maybe the fed is "OK" for now. or "I dont think the gold standard will work"... always something to change with pauls msg and then do everything they can to get others on board, and mindlessly they wander off together leaving the most important parts of pauls msg behind!

so many here try and cajole and sway with ease and take the time to write- over and over again, page after boring page- NICE things to these people, that have a MENTAL BLOCK going on. I choose to use a more literal tactic in trying to wake these people up.
I call them libtards. because they are!

This thread, in my opinion was written by a retarded liberal who takes 25% of the paul message and wants to change the other 75% to fit their wishes for big gvt "sometimes"
rinos do this as well.
and i call them out also, but not as many here as are libtards for some reason...

listen.
if there are people here now, like this OP who do not get what the pauls are doing, then they never have on anything the pauls have done and never will.
they belong after GJ, jill stein, obama or JV, AJ- or another one who does not understand the complete "paul philosophy" of gvt.

for a real constitutionalist, a real conservative and a TRUTHFUL freedom seeker- there is no replacement for the paul philosophy of gvt. it goes unmatched by any other philosophy by one/two men.
you either accept it all in its entirety or you accept none and move on. Paul will not compromise and thats why we sent him back over and over again. neither will we.
anyone trying to cloud or water down ron pauls message and think they can get away with it will never fly and there are millions more who feel just like me.

real liberty starts with a gvt mandate to protect innocent life where ever it may be found. This is Pauls main philosophy of gvt- like it or not and until the gvt starts doing this we can never even begin the process of accepting, all out liberty.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

GeorgeHenry85, I'm glad you

GeorgeHenry85, I'm glad you made this post. Now I know not to pay any attention to anything you post in the future. Douche.

Those who support rand are

Those who support rand are the ones that said Ron Paul had no chance.
Wrong. Baseless accusation. I think Ron Paul would have had a real shot if he hadn't had Maine stolen.

Rand Paul chose to support Romney over his own father.
Wrong. That's just a lie. Rand made it clear he preferred his father, he also said all along that he would endorse the nominee.

Get a fucking clue people.. If Ron Paul does not run again there is no way his son would be able to rally enough support. He is loved by neocons and hated by many independents and democrats.
You're in the minority, believe it or not. Most of us are for Rand, because his record is solid. The fact that he is "loved by neocons" is hardly a bad thing if we want him to get elected.

He cannot be trusted. He will choose party line over principal.
You have absolutely nothing to back this accusation.

The only liberty canadate that will get support from the liberty movement is someone that voted and supported liberty in 2012. Rand Paul has many years to make up for his betrayal. He will never bring the liberty movement together so why waste time supporting him for president in 2016?? he is a losing ticket.
He didn't betray anyone. This is politics. It's the world we live in. For Pete's sake, the whole point is to judge people by what they DO, not what they say! An endorsement is just rhetorical.

The only people I see at the moment running and winning in 2016 are.

Ron Paul
Jesse Ventura
Tom Davis
Judge Andrew Napolitano
Good for you. I'd be behind any of those tickets. But frankly you demonstrate a clear lack of political intelligence if you think any of them have a better chance than Rand.

Anyone who says these guys can't win are those same people that thought Romney could.
You're a fucking tool. How dare you?

Just having these guys nominated would force real change in America winning no matter what.

Ron Paul - Republican

Jesse Ventura - independent

Tom Davis - Republican

Andrew Napolitano - Constitution
That doesn't even make any sense! Two Republican nominees? And you relegate the greate Judge Napolitano to a fringe extremist party? WHY would we want to split the vote 4 ways anyhow when we've demonstrated ourselves to be less than 3% of the population?!

Another way to win is to flood the two party system with liberty minded people so do your job and vote.
Finally, a good idea out of you.

The only republicans that won had the support of Ron Paul in 2012!
Lol, oh god, so wrong -_- are you saying he supported Orrin Hatch? Good lord.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Its true that he is hated by

Its true that he is hated by Democrats and Independents. He would have to win them over to win a general election. This is not impossible.

Ventura 2012

The endorsement

of Romney was setting Rand up for 2016. He made one cruddy decision (endorsing Romney), but we shouldn't write him off. 2016 will be the first election I will be eligible to vote in, and I plan on registering Republican and voting for Rand Paul in the primaries and hopefully the general election, and if you won't only because he endorsed Romney, then you are being as narrow minded as the neocons that run the GOP. We cannot take over without all the support we can get, and if you are ready to give up on the best chance we have over a small mistake, then you obviously aren't as dedicated to Liberty as you think you are.

Think, Ron made plenty of mistakes too, but we stood by him. Rand's entire career is based off dedication to liberty, but he needs to be more moderated in order to win, something Ron didn't and couldn't do.

So don't give up, the race for Rand Paul 2016 has only just begun.

-Casey Hamlin
15 Year Old Liberty Activist

The point of the liberty

The point of the liberty movement is to get a group of people into the government that have the same idea. Not to accept a necon or mob rule agenda but to enforce one rule. The rule of liberty for all.

There can be no playing politics when it comes to this.

Rand Paul is not the type of person we need leading the liberty movement. His ideas tarnish the whole idea of sticking to your guns and saying "no" when everyone else says yes.

Without that type of leadership, someone with moral integrity, there will be deception, lies and corruption.

Rands Plan of action is, act like you agree even though you dont. The GOP can't be won over that way. It needs to be won over by only sound moral principels and truthful means.

Otherwise it is all for nothing.

There are thousands of leaders that Ron Paul has awaken its probably best to choose one without a tarnished reputation.

Ok

So some of you think we need to push Rand Paul up even though it's going to take him a hell of a long time to get back any support he lost after endorsing Romney?

I honestly think that Rand will do great at what he does but we need someone that's not betrayed the Ron Paul revolution to represent the movement next time around.

Ron Paul has inspired so many future leaders let's not ruin it by choosing the person that should have stuck by him till the end but choose to go and buddy buddy with Romney and the neocons. There are a slew of better choices!

LMAO

Jesse Ventura? He may have a few valid points, but he would never make it. This gave me a laugh....It's one thing to have valid ideas, another to be able to communicate those in a manner that invites the general public to at least listen. Good luck with you predictions.

T.Rogers