So what's your best anti-Rand argument?Submitted by jtstellar on Sat, 01/12/2013 - 14:23
There's no way we can elect more people after 2016? There won't be elections 2020, 2024? There is just no way we can work step by step toward ever more "Libertarian" presidents (by your standard) using Rand as a first step? His election would instead be a setback for us for some unknown reason?
Is there just simply no way to continuously work to shrink government because somehow Rand got elected? that the whole Ron Paul movement would just vaporize once that happens, therefore you have only one shot, and you must get it perfect with one single shot at presidency? Is that even logic? That's not even reality.
So you're saying somehow all attempts to hold Rand's feet to the fire during his administration will fail miserably just for some strange reason, therefore the alternative is--better he not get elected at all, because a +50 points for the movement is not +80 points and therefore +0 is the best. Is your brain functioning properly? Hi?
Do you think Libertarians will have an easier time pushing for small government agenda under Chris Christie or Rand Paul?
I don't get it.
RAND HAS A REAL SHOT HERE, we're not looking for a place to fall back on because we don't stand a chance in the first place, "we can't win so we might as well choose the most hard-headed, non-political person we can find to make a statement." THIS IS DIFFERENT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A SHOT HERE TO STRIVE FOR A BABY STEP.
So what's your best "we shouldn't take a baby step with Rand Paul" argument? Because so far I'm not seeing even one that qualifies as an argument, none of your babbling makes sense.
THIS IS BUT ONE SMALL BATTLE IN THE WAR THAT WON'T YET BE WON WITH MERELY HIS ELECTION, THIS IS NOT THE END AND NOBODY IS CALLING FOR IT TO BE THE END OF ALL LIBERTARIAN EFFORTS
I don't even get the perfect vs good argument. Even if you're defending Rand, are you even thinking when you pose this defense? We don't just have one election. Once the precedent is set of a libertarian conservative hybrid winning the election, the whole dialog will change. Ultimately, you have to be a credible political threat, enough to threaten people's financial interest in the higher up, for the rest of the population to start paying attention, because no matter how hard you try, there will always be that chunk of 30%+ that just don't pay attention. you WILL need an unquestionable mainstream credential at some point, and that time is now, we can continue to work to fine tune the details.
The good vs perfect argument is in a 12, 16 year time span, not 4 years. Is this the only election we will experience in our life time? Again, unless this is what you're saying, I don't understand the 'perfection' argument. You're saying "perfection with one guy", while other people are saying "perfection with 5~6 elects". Which side lives in fantasy land? It's obvious. Both are striving for perfection, one is on a realistic 12~16 years time span, the other is 4, FOUR.
What more whining is needed? What more reason to not get behind Paul? Do you just need some soap because TV is no longer good? I hope not. It's time to get down to work, be useful while we strive for our first step in a series of steps, put up or shut up time, if you're of no use, you are no use.
Edit: Think of all the good things as well. If he is a credible threat to win just the Republican primary, WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING GENERAL ELECTIONS HERE--EVEN IF ONLY A CREDIBLE SECOND IN REPUBLICAN PRIMARY--the entire national dialog would change already and you will have something to put on your "Libertarian resume".. And guess what.. HE IS ALREADY IN THE TOP 3 IF NOT ACTUALLY THE TOP 1/2.. This is the lowest hanging fruit practically handed to us begging to be taken and immediately we propel this movement forward by 20 years..
And if he is the remaining 3 candidate on the stage even the most establishment Republicans will have no choice but to come to us, and that will start a SERIOUS dialog, which like it or not, there's never been one where the establishment treated us seriously, where all the advantage is on our side. They will be asking what Libertarians want. Quite frankly if you see this scenario as a setback, you're a saboteur and there's no other way to it.
I have no doubt as well Rand Paul will run a much more organized campaign and his staff will have higher morale, because HIS STARTING POINT IS ALREADY THE TOP 2 IN GOP.. I for one will be giving as much as I did to Ron Paul in 2012 at the MINIMUM.. and I believe dollar for dollar it will be put to much better use
Update: Don't play with trivial facts please, "I don't like this thing about Rand".. "I don't like that".. Give me a comprehensive alternative moving forward that is realistically achievable WITHIN 4 YEARS and is indisputably better than Rand Paul.
Right now what I'm getting from opposition seems to be the impression that they don't even belong in the "I vote" camp and even though Rand Paul is good, the fact he has 1 or 2 things people disagree with just goes to show how voting is completely useless altogether, and they're mentioning the couple faults they manage to find in Rand just to prove voting is useless. They don't know what to do either. They probably just wish some miracle will happen to improve this country, or maybe they think it won't happen in their lifetime at all. I think we can safely ignore them, if they don't manage to come up with a comprehensive alternative before this thread dies rather than just propose we all pray and wait while sitting out the next election.
The default alternative to not voting Rand is already "doing nothing". You don't have to mention it again.