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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
No.7's picture

Look at all the issues dude

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

Rand wants to balance the budget, legalize drugs, bring the troops home, end the fed, endorsed Liberty candidates, shrink size of Government, called Obamacare unConstitutional, is pro gun, and pro deportation of illegal aliens.

Looks pretty damn Libertarian to me, except for the few votes where he compromised because it was clear fighting was a losing battle.

Sun Tzu tells us to never fight uphill or fight a losing battle. Instead, position yourself for success. That is what Rand is doing in my opinion.

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

Oh, yes. Randy

is busy trying to fool the libertarians into thinking he's not owned by the Neocons. It's called "controlled opposition". The best way to overcome opposition is to control it. When it counted Rand bailed, jumped through hoops for the Neocons to the detriment of his own FATHER....but I'm sure YOU can trust him to do right by a lot of little people he doesn't even know.
I sure don't, I KNOW what he's made of.

No.7's picture

Couldn't he be fooling the GOP????

Just saying, the same suspicion can go both ways.

You don't know that any more than I do, we both assume. Neither of us truly knows the integrity of Rand Paul.

He endorsed Romney the day Ron told us that Ron couldn't win. RON PAUL SAID SO! Only then did Rand keep his promise and endorse "the Republican nominee".

His father no longer needed him at that point. He didn't "bail" on his father, his father bailed on winning the nomination because he knew he couldn't win. Rand made the most of it and pleased his party and kept his PROMISE. He got a prime time speaking slot because of it.

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

Considering he's jumping through all their hoops

that count while trying to appear libertarian I'd say the GOP has nothing to worry about from Rand. They own him. And you are wrong. He revealed his lack of integrity when he backstabbed his dad. His "promise" was to support the NOMINEE. YOU may be of the Neocon opinion that the convention was irrelevant and unnecessary and Dr Paul did not have enough delegates but we'll never know due to the Neocon cheating. DR Paul had not conceded or officially dropped out in spite of rumored blackmail by Rombama.
What is going on on this thread is the attempted Neocon take-over of the Paulian movement by the Neocons just like you did the Tea Party. It might work on the DP. Ron Paul forums has a thread specifically for Randicons to protect the forum from Randicon take-over. Randicons are prevented from flooding the forum with this kind of illogical distraction.

No.7's picture

I've only seen him jump through a few hoops

and those hoops were only when he knew he couldn't win. Have you ever heard of picking your battles.

For the fourth time, look at the mans record http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

Does that look like a neocons record????

Actually it looks a lot like his fathers
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

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

No.7's picture

I'd say it's the other way around

Dude OMG how many effing times do I have to tell you that RON PAUL HIMSELF told us he didn't have enough delegates. Read it yourself here http://www.dailypaul.com/238210/ron-pauls-latest-email-6-6-12

Do you trust Ron Paul himself? Who said the convention was irrelevant??? Even if Ron Paul was allowed to be nominated (which he wasn't) he didn't have nearly enough delegates there to win the nomination. This is why Rand endorsed Romney.

Please spend you r time slandering other people far worse than Rand like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Feinstein, Boehner, Priebus, Bush, Rubio...etc.

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

Why would I slander

commies who are open about their communism? Better to spend time outing a Neocon pretending to be libertarian. The entire liberty movement is not as stupid as the Tea Party.

That will free us up to argue about Alex Jones

and not a moment too soon.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

ROFL

Good one.

I'm glad to hear you say this, Michael.

I think it will be interesting to see how things play out with Rand. I don't think it is possible for someone to grow up in the same house with Ron and not come out with a majority of his views. With Ron doing the lecture/speech gigs at the Universities and Rand getting schooled in all things Washington, the liberty movement may have a great future.

~Your perception becomes your reality~

I Totally Agree...

... I am guilty of it sometimes but really think it is damaging when we go at each others throats on here on a disagreement such as this. I will try to be respectful no matter how passionately I feel about the topic.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

Sorry Michael, I know you

Sorry Michael, I know you didn't want this to be a Rand Forum but I see this fitting. Rand Paul 2016! I've made up my mind...until further notice.

Congrats on your early and uninformed decision!

Just a couple questions because I'm curious about your timing in the matter.

1. What is your favorite economic policy from Rand?
2. What is your favorite monetary policy from Rand?
3. What is your favorite civil liberties policy from Rand?
4. What is your favorite foreign policy from Rand? (I personally loved the sanctions on Iran)
5. What is Rand's plan to get our country back in order?

I was being facetious with the questions because you really can't answer any of them (Rand hasn't been in politics enough to form all of these stances wholly) and you really need get responses to those types of questions to really make an INFORMED decision. Otherwise you're just as dimwitted as the zombies that voted for Bush and Obama.

People, please get a goddamn clue and validate the records of politicians first. That's Ron Paul 101.

Hold on bud...you don't know

Hold on bud...you don't know anything about me or where i come from so don't be rude.

In answer to your questions:

1. His plan to immediately cut 500 billion in spending from the federal budget. See S.162

2. Auditing the Fed per Ron Paul's plan. See S.202

3. His plan to strengthen 4th amendment protections. See S. 1050

4. His plan to eliminate foreign aid.

5. Not sure what this question is asking...all of the above help "get our country back in order."

I was being facetious with the questions because you really can't answer any of them (Rand hasn't been in politics enough to form all of these stances wholly) and you really need get responses to those types of questions to really make an INFORMED decision.

You need to read the bills he sponsors, then you'll be informed.

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

Thank you for that! Right out

Thank you for that! Right out of my own thoughts.

So I guess you only want to focus on the ones

He sponsored since the ones he didn't (but still voted for) aren't very appealing.

S Amdt 1472 - Prohibits Consideration of Bills Containing Earmarks (No earmarks)

S 627 - Increasing the Debt Ceiling (Self-explanatory)

S Amdt 655 - Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (More money for disaster relief)

And of course the voice vote for $9 billion to Israel (Still not proven): http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/rand-paul-remai...

Response

S Amdt 1472 - Prohibits Consideration of Bills Containing Earmarks (No earmarks)

Ron Paul defended his use of earmarks by saying that the money gets spent either way, and it's better for the Congress to allocate the funds than the executive. That does indeed absolve RP of the charges that he supported the spending contained in those earmarks. However, one might still disagree with his reasoning about earmarks: specifically, his claim that it's better for the Congress to allocate the funds than the executive. The earmarking process in Congress is extremely corrupting. The leadership bribes members with earmarks that benefit their districts, and this results in a lot of bad bills getting passed which otherwise would not pass. If, on the other hand, you got rid of earmarks, you'd get rid of that corrupting influence in the Congress, but at the price of handing over another source of patronage to the executive: i.e. now the President can allocate funds to benefit his constituents. You see it's not a black and white situation? Is it better to keep earmarks and further corrupt the Congress, or get rid of earmarks and further corrupt the executive? Obviously Rand takes the latter position. In any case, the earmarks issue has nothing to do with the core libertarian principles.

S 627 - Increasing the Debt Ceiling (Self-explanatory)

No question that was a bad bill which should not have passed. Throughout that entire debt ceiling crisis, Rand was extremely vocal about cutting spending. He's introduced a budget several times which would cut $500 billion per year from the federal budget. We know he doesn't support a continuation of the massive deficits of the status quo. So why did he vote for this bill? Well, I don't know, but it is far more reasonable to assume that he had some good reason (something to do with practical politics), than to assume (contrary his record as a whole, which is overwhelming libertarian) that he sold out.

S Amdt 655 - Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012 (More money for disaster relief)

I looked this one up, and it's not clear to me what it actually does. Can you find some text in the bill which supports you claim that it increases disaster relief spending?

And of course the voice vote for $9 billion to Israel (Still not proven):

"Not proven" is one way of putting it. A more accurate way would be to say that there's no evidence whatsoever that he voted for it, none.

CONCLUSION: if this is the best mud you can dig up on Rand, your case is extremely weak, considering that the overwhelming majority of his legislative activity as a Senator advances and agrees with libertarian principles, and that he is without question (and by a mile) the most pro-liberty Senator in many decades.

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

Michael Nystrom's picture

That may be the case

But I may see it fitting to ban you down the line, depending on your behavior.

F Y I

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

No no...I completely respect

No no...I completely respect your rules. I just saw the post and went with it.

closet-anarchists may not accept a truce

Ron Paul seems to be the only person in the world who can bring together the full spectrum from socialists to anarchists.

If anybody but him ran for presidency, they will be pouced on by anarchists who have disavowed any hope of incremental improvement in government.

Rand-hatters just aught to admit they are anarchists, and only came along for the ride. Now that there are so many here on the dailypaul, it would take quite a truce.

I'm an anarchist and...

...I don't think you'll find anyone here more passionately pro-Rand than me. Don't conflate political theory and political practice. Being an anarchist or some other variety of libertarian (minarchist, paleo-conservative, et al) has nothing to do with whether you can accept an incremental political strategy or not.

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

I am an anarchist.

I supported and voted for Ron Paul though. You are an anarchist hater, tea parties aside (hatters only). Anarchists are realists. We are amused at the amount of support Rand receives for merely being the son of Ron. His voting record is pretty bad. His rhetoric even worse. And yes, I am keeping score. If he was as great of an individual as his dad I would not sit another one out. But he has not shown us any signs of that yet.

I agree with Michael. I wish we could all be more civil to one another.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Then perhaps they will be more comfortable someplace else

after they get banned.

All I'm asking for is civility. Things fell apart here over GJ, and I didn't have the time or energy to deal with it. I figured it would be over soon enough anyway.

This situation is a little different, so I'm trying to get out ahead of it and make sure people understand the ground rule.

The ground rule - which is no different for anything else here - is: Civility.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

duly noted

But as an anarchist I would like to state that pointing out short comings in a candidate isn't being uncivilized. The uncivilized part comes in when the supporters of the criticized politician get defensive.

Most anarchists aren't that interested in elections anyways...we don't vote. Ron was an exception to the rule. 2016 is just going to be your average politicians running. Average politicians make the skin of anarchists crawl.

I still feel for you on this Mike, from what I hear Gary Johnson is running again. You think it will be different this time around? I bet the get out the vote folks on here will go nuts! Are you going to just pick a side and just ban everyone not on your side?

My two cents.

Again, I'm sorry to plug my

Again, I'm sorry to plug my previous and all but ignored post, but Michael, you just said the very thing that syndicated radio talk show host, Steve Deace said earlier this week. On one of his programs, Deace told Thomas Woods that he is closely watching Rand Paul. He finds what Rand Paul is attempting to be fascinating. He suggests that an alliance between social conservatives and the liberty movement could be the biggest political movement in modern history. Thomas Woods then told Deace that Rand Paul is doing a balancing act...keeping his father's supporters and attracting the Sarah Palin conservatives. http://www.dailypaul.com/269485/syndicated-radio-host-steve-...

As long as Rand

warmongers for Israel Fox will love him.

Good post Michael

Thanks.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

ytc's picture

Notice that many of the acerbic posts below come from

those who joined DP a little over a year ago, around the time the pre-Tampa surging support was suddenly hacked with chaos.

I'm all for civil exchange of ideas, MichaelN! It's going to be MANY HOURS of managing and refereeing for you and your staff.

I suggest that those who wish to have this site SURVIVE & prosper to SUBSCRIBE @ whatever level of contribution you wish @ http://www.dailypaul.com/dp-subscribe

We are asking them to fight the paid shills on behalf of us. They need our utmost support, imho.

Rand is Inside and is Fighting the Establishment Den of Lions...

so he must "play" as one.