13 votes

Consensus Rand Paul 2016?

So I know many where disappointed when Rand Endorsed Mitt Romney for president. I myself was... but in the grand scheme of things, was it to gain credibility by the Republican party? As we all know how badly and cheated we where as Ron Paul supporters during the republican primary.. Physically abused, mocked, ridiculed.. I just want to say what if he didn't endorse mitt romney? Would we be ignored by the right wing media, and even the liberal media once again, would the voice of our supporters try to be silenced once again? I honestly believe so. I think he made a hard decision and sure he could have chosen to not endorse, but it would have made is run just as hard as to win as the last times.. I cant complain to much besides that fact. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul, but in the eyes of many he's electable, likable, and not as ''radical'' has his father... But, i can tell you Rand images his fathers message better than anyone we do have to run, to return this country to the future we seek. A free america, once again. With Rand Paul as president, i think i could wake up free of chest pains in the morning.. And our message would be able to spread that much more, and i believe we now have the numbers to win an election. Rand Paul 2016 has my vote and support! Does he have your's?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Why are so many people set in

Why are so many people set in their way and completely closed minded to the other side?

These are all warriors of liberty. Quit with the divisive bullshit, PLEASE. It doesn't help ANY of those candidates!!!!

Lol no one is trying to be divisive

But if you can't see the absurdity of considering a local news anchor (who is no doubt a great one) as a legitimate presidential candidate, without having ever served in any type of elected position, then I'm not quite sure what to say to you.

listen you won't get concensus

If Rand runs he doesn't need all of us to support him. What he needs is most Americans to support him.

I'm ashamed of this whole

I'm ashamed of this whole thread. I'm with Rand. You purists just head for the hills and grow your survival gardens.


what are you telling yourself? that everyone should agree with you, and be with rand? good luck with that kind of black and white thinking.

How ironic that it should be

How ironic that it should be I whose thinking is called black and white. That takes the cake.

that's right

according to your post there is either rand supporters or purists (who you mock)
nobody else? really?

Implicit in most attacks on

Implicit in most attacks on Rand is the notion that nobody save the perfect candidate, that votes "correctly" on every issue, is worthy of a vote. This is not just about Rand. It's about Gary Johnson, the pro choice, pro sanctions candidate. It's about Mike Lee of Utah. It is about the unwillingness of many to compromise enough to support someone who agrees 90% of the time. I would bet that when it comes to family members with differing opinions, those hard lines become softer. I think they all sat down to Thanksgiving dinner with someone who they disagree with. To me, that's a low grade hypocrisy.

Oh, so all purists who love

Oh, so all purists who love liberty are crazy? That statement just makes you sound crazy.

Iran sanctions are an act of war, yet there was no vote on war.
Rand lied about the NDAA amendment.
Rand endorsed the Neocon in chief Romney while his father was still running (don't give me that crap about how his father had dropped out at the time, it isn't true and you know it!).
Rand perpetuated the myth that the nomination was over before the convention.

I know, I know, I know all

I know, I know, I know all the points. If I hear them all again or read them again I might puke. By the way, if Rand were to decide not to run, and Jim DeMint ran, I'd vote for him. I'd vote for the judge. But believe this. Doing it Lew Rockwell's way and not voting and not participating will end in disaster. The whole thing may end in disaster anyway, and if so, then so be it. I didn't vote for Romney. Probably wouldn't have voted for any of the other republican presidential candidates in 12. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to sit around and wait for the perfect candidate. BTW, I wonder how many people on this site who are having so much fun bashing Rand voted for Gary Johnson. How did his policies measure up? Sounded mighty hawkish on Iran to me. Pro choice. Statist lite in my opinion. But I voted for the SOB. Just to send a f ckin message.

I have to Confess

I have only become disgusted with Rand as of late. Early on, I was a believer, a contributor, despite living in Arkansas.

For all of his apologists who are forever promoting his stock here, please, please, just give me five liberty positions Rand has taken and prosecuted in the last six months. Just five.

And the argument about Rand being the least worst senator, is a non starter. Stalin may have been worse than Hitler by the numbers. But that doesn't make Hitler anything but a less successful murderer.

Rand is not Ron. He has the potential to water down the liberty movement by his tainted neocon like behavior. I think it is fine to let Rand be what he is. Just don't confuse him as liberty minded and expect me to embrace it.... because he is not.

"He has the potential to water down

the liberty movement by his tainted neocon like behavior."

I hate to say it...but if it isn't watered down - our guy will never get elected in todays political climate....maybe with continued spreading of the message and information that is possible in the future...but not quite yet. Just look at the Paul Ryan budget plan - i think the majoirty of us here agreed it was nowhere near as big of cuts as was needed....what did the rest of america say about it? "Draconian cuts!! People will be starving in the streets!! There was absolute outrage against it.....and it wasn't anywhere near the cuts that needed to happen.

You may disagree with Rands positioning of himself - but i personally think it is necessary to play politics a little to get in a position to really change things...that's how politics works. Just look at what happened to Amash and some of the other liberty minded congressmen....booted for not playing "ball"...shunned because of not going with the flow. Rand is picking his battles (NDAA, patriot act etc.)...and one's he knows are useless to fight against that would only cost him political positioning - yeah, he's letting them slide...that's how politics works. Position yourself to fight the battles that you believe you have a chance at winning...to maximize your chances at changing the things you deem most important.

If we write off everyone who doesn't have every single belief that Ron Paul did - or approach politics in the exact same manner that he did....you're never going to be able to vote for anyone....because there isn't another Ron Paul.

I agree the more liberty people we get elected - the less the GOP will be able to sideline our guys like it just did (Amash)...but until we have the numbers - positioning like Rand is doing is logical.

"don't confuse him as liberty minded and expect me to embrace it"

I'm not expecting you to embrace it - i expect you will make your own decision - just giving you a different view on it.

Oh, so I guess you didn't

Oh, so I guess you didn't listen to Ron Paul's speeches about how compromise and "politiking" got us in this mess in the first place. Either you didn't listen, or you don't believe Ron Paul.

Don't you realize that the majority of Americans are neither Republican nor Democrat? They are waiting for something of principle to vote on. You don't get to principle by abandoning it.

This is just common sense. I really don't get all this propaganda about cooperating with the enemy to get things done. Would you have cooperated with Hitler???


listened to just about every speech the guy has ever given.

I'm not saying compromising is the answer....i'm saying until you get a majority of like-minded individuals in office-by playing politics you increase your chances of actually getting things done - and having a voice that doesn't fall on deaf ears when you do stand up to fight a good fight.

Even Doug Wead - who i'm pretty sure most of us respect here....says you need people in the liberty movement who can speak "the political language" in order for it to succeed. Rand is one of those guys.

Do i agree with everything Rand has done? Hell no....I despised Romney. But that doesn't lead me to believe that Rand is useless to this movement....or that i wouldn't vote for him over some other neocon the GOP decides to throw in the next election. I do get the concept of doing that to stay in the game to be able to be on the playing field to make some changes later on.

"They are waiting for something of principle to vote on."

If that were really true-Ron Paul would be president right now. There is still a lot of convincing and education for the masses to be done. We're exponentially better than where we were a decade ago....but there's a lot more to do.

Several Down Votes

But no one rises to the surface to meet the challenge. Five examples... that's all I asked. Action Talks Bull Shit Walks. The Rand Pom Pom boys are, as usual, firing blanks.


Long live the liberty movement!! We may never win and we may never do a single thing to change the country, but we sure do stick to the principles of our movement!!!

a wise old libertarian

once set me straight when i complained about elections. he explained that it wasn't about elections or even politics but rather the spreading of the message that should be first and foremost for a liberty minded individual. when the message is accepted by enough people you will see changes everywhere. it might not happen in our lifetimes, and it may never happen, but that is what should be the drive and focus. i've heard ron paul and others of the old school echo this sentiment too: it's not politics, but rather the intellectual argument, and the spreading of the message. ron paul has done more to spread this message than anyone who walks the earth, period. there is now a liberty, freedom movement which he started and it continues to grow.

this jumping up and down over rand seems childish to me. like the lost demanding to have a leader. we already have a spokesman: RON PAUL. i'm 1000 times more interested in what ron paul has in store for us than anything rand votes for or against, or his bad endorsements and curious behavior. he's a politician and will
do what politicians do: play along, compromise, distort and so on. i have no interest.
ron paul by being the anti-politcian, brilliant, honest and even humble created his own charisma and it speaks to a a massive growing movement. IMO it will take someone far beyond a regular politician (regardless of his surname) to fill those shoes.

We are already winning.

Why are so many completely obsessed with the presidency? Ron ran so he could spread a message. I trust Rand with power like a trust my dog guarding my steak from another dog. Rand has already showed us that he is green and power hungry. His two votes on Iran sanctions are acts of war. He voted to give Israel $9 billion for more war crimes while filibustering to stop money from Countries (Pakistan and Egypt) whose 'masses don't respect us'. As if the money actually goes to the masses and not suppresses them. The 'masses' are more aware of political oppression than Rand is. His self-appointed important person attitude in the deficit arena came shortly after his election when he interchanged the words debt and deficit willy nilly on several occasions. I wish he would sit back a learn something, maybe hang out in his dad's library some. Instead he plows into things like a egotistical freshman with a famous father trying to make a name for himself and deluding himself (and some of his dad's supporters) that somehow he inherited some of his dad's perseverance, courage, and honesty just because he shares his name. These are virtues. They are not genetic traits. I will get back to you in ten or twenty years about Rand's abilities.

Completely agree.

Completely agree.

I agree with the folks who say we should

focus first on upcoming elections for several reasons. That having been said, I will tell you that I will never again support any political candidate for any office that I do not support wholeheartedly, no matter how much lesser their evil may be. For that reason, I cannot support Rand Paul. The Romney endorsement... Well, I could see it as a political maneuver, a cowardly one, but perhaps a smart one, even if it does alienate most of the libertarian base, though I still wouldn't agree with it. But the sanctions... Dr. Paul himself has said on many occasions that sanctions are an act of war, and even if they weren't blatantly considered such by him, they are horribly devastating to innocent people.

So, no, I won't be voting for Rand.

There is only so many

There is only so many Countries that obey U.S. Sanctions. China, Russia, Turkey ignore what the U.S. says & still trade with Iran. Also the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recognise Palestine check out the vote its amazing

Voted for: France, Spain, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Turkey, China, Russia, India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria

Voted against: Israel, US, Canada

Abstained: UK, Germany, Australia, Colombia


but leaning towards No.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

The question shows we have a bigger problem

"If Rand Paul was king the country would be free again."
So we only have to elect the RIGHT dictator for a country of 300 million. NO! Ran Paul does not have such magic powers that he will convince congress and the fearful, manipulated masses of Americans to establish Liberty once again.

Politics does not work because it is based on force.

Secession of many states will bring more positive change than any elected politician can. Competition always trumphs monopolies.

We have to stop trying to force other people to do something for "a better world", instead just do it in our own lifes.

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world"

P.S.: Rand just lost all credibility, hard to swallow, we want to believe otherwise but wishful thinking is only that.

Gerald Mangold

Absolutely Not...

He showed me all I need to see of his 'conviction' and his 'principles'. Tainted and unworthy of trust or support, in my assessment.

jrd3820's picture

It is way to early

for me to consider pledging a vote to Rand for an election in 4 years. Who knows who else will come around by then. I am an ex liberal here, and I do not see what I saw in Ron that brought me over to the libertarian side of the world. I have vowed to not say anything negative or derogatory about Rand though because he is Ron's son. I have seen some pretty horrible immature name calling comments here about Rand, which confuses me because we do not have to support him or vote for him, but damn... this is Ron's son people are calling some horrible names.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss


Since your post, I was the only one to discuss Rand. I did not speak derogatory, immaturely, or call him names. Rand is a good man. This is politics, and the future of our nation. Proper vetting is required, and expected.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

jrd3820's picture


Proper vetting is required and expected. I am glad you can be mature about it though. I was just tired of a lot of Rand hate and I saw A LOT of it with some pretty vicious name calling. Vett away, and be proud of staying above the name calling.

“I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells. Fantasy is a necessary ingredient in living.”
― Dr. Seuss

Ben Swann 2016!!!

Ben Swann 2016!!!

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...


You can't possibly be serious..

im dead serious...

im dead serious...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...