82 votes

Rand Paul Truce 2.0

Inspired by This post...

Since it is a sensitive, and potentially explosively divisive topic, may I suggest that we all:

1) Respect one another's opinion
2) Not push our opinions onto others, and not make others wrong and evil for not holding the same opinions we do.

As for me, I haven't made up my mind yet. I will be watching carefully. He's playing a big game of chess, and that is something that I find interesting.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I think you

really WORK for the FBI.

Actually

That about sums up the LP party meeting I went to, minus the college kid and the fact that we were in a Big Boys.

The description of "full" might be a bit much as well, there were less than ten people.

Nice guys though.

Eric Hoffer

"those who try to obfuscate and deny truth"

Indeed, AllPaul, you know all about that don't you?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No.7's picture

ZING!

We have a winning comment!

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

How very civil

of you.

I'm not the one claiming

Rand Paul is libertarian or that he is not a warmongering Neocon. I am not the one ignoring his record and pretending that he is any way trustworthy.

.

.

Rand Paul has ZERO chance of winning the presidency in 2016.

Think about it. Does anyone really believe the country is going to go from electing the most radical centralizing, Hamiltonian/Lincolnian/Rooseveltian/Johnsonian president in American history to two terms by comfortable margins to electing a Jeffersonian, Tea Party Conservative in just four years time? If Rand decides to run, he'll soften his views on foreign policy, fiscal policy, and strict Constitutionalism (His spine already caved on the Civil Rights Act.) and by doing so, he might even win the Republican nomination.

But, I looked at the exit polls. In order for Rand Paul or ANY Conservative or Libertarian to EVER become president, there's going to have to be:
1) a MAJOR intellectual revolution amongst young adult minorities. (But, in order to get that demographic to do anything intellectual, you've got to get them to stop screwing, doping, smoking, drinking, gambling, playing video games, and watching tv for at least ten minutes.)
2) a MAJOR change in the way young adult women of all ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds view abortion and whose responsibility it is to pay for their birth control

Without BOTH major above-listed intellectual revolutions taking place in this country, Democrats and/or Crispy-Creme Christie type Republicans will be president until the entire nation looks like California.

There was NO difference between Obama and Romney.

This is the only reason Obama was elected, he was considered a tad bit more tame than the national socialist corporate raider who created Robamneycare while signing an assault weapons ban in Mass.

.

If you keep telling yourself that over and over again

maybe you'll believe it.

The 61 million people that voted for Obama didn't vote for Obama because they oppose national socialism or assault weapons bans. In fact most of them voted for a president that signed an assault weapons ban back in the nineties.

'National Emergency' will probably suspend 2016 'elections'

anyway.
Heck there may be no USofA by then !
So why sweat the Rand question now ?

(O.K. - this is a little tongue in cheek - but the point is that a lot can happen before 2016. We'll just have to see.)

deacon's picture

the Rand Paul truce

is less explosive than the RP/GJ dribble that went on here.
that went on so long enemies were made of members here
some left and never to return,some were banned just for speaking
up to the lies
hindsight is nice beforehand! :)
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

And that's the truth, deacon!

If there's going to be that kind of nonsense here again, we've already lost in 2016, no matter who we support.

I'm all for the truce Michael has proposed. Just hope it is respected. Honest debate and opinions are good and help strengthen us. But, what took place with "the RP/GJ dribble" was really intolerable and weakened our movement and this site. It was anything but honest. We have a shot in 2016, if we stick together and not allow trolls to destroy our momentum by driving patriots away again.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

deacon's picture

In everything i do and say

i speak trust as i know it,it has come
at great personal loss( i know i am not the only one)
and if i had to do it all over again,i would do the same way
because the way i see it,our word is all that is left when we depart
this world
I totally agree with the rest of your post,it is spot on
happy to have you on this side,and not the other :)
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Should I respect an evil opinion?

1) Respect one another's opinion

2) Do not push our opinions onto others, and do not make others wrong and evil for not holding the same opinions we do.

I suppose we could do with less pointless flame wars, and be more objective about what Rand Paul is doing and the position he's now in. If we get behind him, he could win, but what are we getting behind if we do...

As far as respecting one another's opinion, I WANT people to challenge my opinion because I want to learn. I want to grow. It's not personal. I just want to understand, so I can better defend my position as a Libertarian. I don't want to serve bad ideas or losing opinions because I believe defensible ideas based on truth matter.

Yes. We must FORGET what

he did because we can trust him now........
WHY?????

There are reasons, but you're right, who is he?

Maybe it's not about forgetting, but understanding?

Maybe he wants to be something more than a puppet someday knowing he has a growing pool of liberty minded people to draw from; people he could use to build a wall around the his office and help him remove the criminal element he currently needs to maneuver through?

Maybe he wants to drop the hammer on injustice and criminality, but he's darn near alone and doesn't have the backup or the office he needs?

And maybe Obama

is REALLY a good guy, just tricking the elites til he can get a chance to free us all.
When it counted, Rand joined the dark side. We could have had Ron but you'll settle for his backstabbing Neocon son.
Not me. I won't forget what he did when we, and his father, needed him most.

Again, I didn't say forget, I said understand.

I didn't tell you to forget, or argue that Obama is a good guy.

"We could have had Ron but you'll settle for his backstabbing Neocon son."

I want you to think about that for a second. How could we of; had Ron Paul?

We didn't have the delegates to win, and even if we forced a vote having the states we had, he STILL wouldn't have got the nomination. So how is it "we could have had Ron Paul", and how am I "settling for his Neocon(says you) Son" when I've never endorsed Rand Paul, nor did I EVER have the opportunity to have Ron Paul as my President?

"Not me. I won't forget what he did when we, and his father, needed him most."

Again. I'm not asking you to forget, and he didn't do ANYTHING to his father, because his father didn't have the delegates needed, but he did have enough that we should of seen a vote and a speech by Ron Paul.

If anything, Ron Paul backed down for the sake of his son, and you want to condemn Rand for it. Fine. But like I said, Ron Paul wasn't getting the nomination and he knew it, and now you're going to make sure his son never gets it either.

That's okay. I'm a Libertarian. I WANT you to be the owner of your own mind, body and labor. Rand is your enemy. I get it.

Stop with the revisionist

Stop with the revisionist history. We had over 9 states for nomination, and that was *after* all the cheating we observed in the other states.

Rand Paul endorsed the enemy right at the peak of our momentum. Never forget. People that go trolling around this issue just make others mad and make matters worse.

Stop using fallacious arguments, admit the truth, and maybe we can move on.

What you or I want

means nothing. The game is rigged, they will install whoever they want. You think the illegal alien commie puppet in the white house now was elected? You are correct, they would have shot Ron before he would have ever been elected. I don't know about the delegates because they were throwing out legitimate delegates that Ron had. But even if true it is beside the point, it does not excuse Rands actions. He bailed on liberty and got in bed with the lying Neocon who was beating up his fathers supporters and stealing his votes. A person would have to be denial to support this clown. You think he's really a sly fox who is biding his time to get libertarian. I think you are dreaming and ignoring reality.
If I COULD make sure the traitorous Rand would not ever be elected I would.
If Ron backed down for the sake of his son then it is most likely due to blackmail, and it is more likely they have something on Rand than Ron or they would have used it already.

he's not playing chess

Ayn Rand in 2016

Which means Paul and Paul will be linking up. A Paul Ryan/ Rand Paul or Rand Paul/ Paul Ryan ticket seems so obvious to me. Why do you people down vote with no debate? Is this idea such an anathema to the DP community? If so, why?

FYI...

...I down-voted you because you're calling him Ayn Rand, which is bizarre and also very bad marketing (Ayn Rand is strongly disliked by a lot of people, even within the Liberty Movement).

As for the Rand/Ryan ticket, what is the advantage there? Ryan is trying to create an image for himself similar to Rand's - new wave fiscal conservative. We would be putting a Rand-impersonator in the VP slot next to Rand...seems pointless. That is, most of the people Ryan would attract would already be attracted by Rand. If you want to place a Rand-clone in the VP slot, do a real one, not an imposter.

Ideally, I would like to see a hardline Paulite in the VP slot, but practically it will probably be necessary to use the VP slot to draw in some constituency where we're not as strong as we'd like to be - as is usually done in politics. I'm thinking the social conservatives could be good bedfellows (oops, they won't like that...lol) over the next couple election cycles, ala what Steve Deace (social conservative radio show host) said recently.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

jrd3820's picture

Why?

They down vote what they do not like even if it might be a reality. That is why. I got down voted for saying IF Hillary runs I think she would sweep it because there would be hype over the 1st female president or whatever. It is not what I want to happen, I just think it is reality. People here are not fans of Paul Ryan so even if that is a realistic ticket they down vote it.

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

If I say that Mickey Mouse will be Rand's running mate

Does typing it on here make it any less untruthful? No.

bukojack is the only person on the internet right now saying that Paul Ryan will be Rand's VP. Based on what? Who's information? Did Rand EVER talk about Paul Ryan? There's been absolutely no evidence to back up this guys' claim and it appears to me that he just wants Paul Ryan so badly he's lying to himself to make it seem so.

My question to bukojack is what is his motivation? I like Judge Nap, but just based on that fact I'm not going to run around the DP saying Judge Nap is promised to be Rand's running mate. It helps absolutely no one.

Never said I wanted this ticket

I just believe that we will see this become reality and I will explain why when I have more time.

For the record, I think that Rand will more likely than not be the VP nod.

jrd3820's picture

No

You are right it does not make it any less of an untruth. He is calling what he thinks will happen, and he asked why he got down voted for it. I called what I think will happen I got down voted for it. I'm just pointing out that, what I think will happen is an opinion I based in my reality of the world from my vantage point.

I have not read all his other comments saying that about Paul Ryan, I just saw this one. I thought the guy just put out an opinion and got down voted for it.

I also do not know why he cares either way. I get down voted a million times a day, yet I come back and post anyways.

However, I am on board with Judge Nap, so maybe if I start saying that a lot it will come true.

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

Civility is always good, if not easy

"As for me, I haven't made up my mind yet. I will be watching carefully. He's playing a big game of chess, and that is something that I find interesting."

EXACTLY

Look, no one is going to replace Ron Paul. But I know where Rand comes from and that has to count for something.

Amen!

Amen!

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16