17 votes

So what's your best anti-Rand argument?

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.


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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I see him as too pro-Israel...

but that doesn't mean I wouldn't support him for President...I doubt I will max out my contributions to him, like I did his dad...Never again will I get duped into that BS

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

If the choice is Rand

Hillary Clinton
Lindsay Graham
Joe Lieberman
Newt Gingrich
Rick Santorum
or the other usual suspects

I'd vote Rand. Sure, why not?

His friendliness with the Neo-Cons is alarming, but I don't see Rand as a neo-con doormat idiot like George Bush was. He has a bit more backbone than Bush or Romney in that regard.

The best argument against Rand? Someone better. I have yet to see that person on the Republican side.

I am to support a man who "enthusiastically supported...

a candidate and campaign that committed fraud, bribery, intimidation, assault and kidnapping against Ron Paul supporters?

I would sooner tar and feather both Rand AND his apologists.

You pay taxes and support a

You pay taxes and support a government that does much worse than that. So you're sort of full of ****.

I pay taxes and support a government that does much worse...

because I haven't yet figured out of way to kill enough of the bastards to make a difference.

Any suggestions on where I should start?

The Federal Government

Has evolved to the point institutionally, where it has become in general violation of its constitutional mandate. It's tentacles, through finance, regulation, education and so forth, control so much that reform will not be possible through federal elections.

Only assertive local self-government, through ideas such as nullification for starters, can restore liberty.

While a cool Rand presidency can 'do so much more' for liberty than Chris Christie, the fact is that if Rand is to become President, he will have to sell out.

While that might seem 'worth it' to have 'just a little more libertarian influence' in the White House consider the effect:

All the time, energy, and money of an already stretched and limited liberty movement sucked up into a waste of time.

PLUS, there's the fact that Rand Paul will never be able to reform the federal government to the point where problems are fixed. So, as the federal government drags down the economy and society through its terrible policies, it will be 'liberty' that takes the blame.

Ron Paul was worth it because his platform was obviously indifferent to whether or not he could play the game to win. Sure, winning would have been cool, but a Ron Paul win would have been a major blow to federal power, and Ron Paul knew that his campaign would rally and educate so he focused on the message of liberty not 'winning'.

You're right about Rand being exciting.


Let me clarify

It is that totalitarian impulse that makes Rand seem exciting in the first place.

I can imagine the argument: "Well, we should work locally, but think about HOW MUCH we could accomplish in the White House."

That need for instant power and instant, broad, effect IS IN FACT why people turn away from liberty to statism. So the very idea of using the white house to advance liberty, and making that the main channel of our efforts is in some senses offensive.

Man you guys don't care about

Man you guys don't care about the Iran sanctions votes no more! I feel like I'm in LaLa land or something! Idk guys...

juan maldonado


If we keep hoping to elect someone at the Presidential level to fix local issues than we ourselves have ZERO CLUE what liberty and individual freedom actually stands for and more specifically state rights.

Anytime that position is available to be used to PROTECT or TAKE AWAY our born rights, it seems to me to be a position that should be REMOVED.

A President should be a talking head, the peace keeper, friend and have ZERO PULL politically as well as with laws. The senate/congress should be IN CHARGE but even then each state is leaving their fate in the hands of ONE PERSON which once again isn't something that screams individual liberty either.

We don't need anyone to speak for us at ANY LEVEL of government to live as we want to.


stop spending electing more idiots who will only attempt to take more rights from us.

look at rand, he is ALMOST like his dad yet he votes for romney, well what will you be ok with him "allowing" as President? He HAS compromised plenty so what makes you think he won't once he gets his butt into that chair?

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

"lesser of two evils"

I've been hearing what boils down to that from many of Rand's more die-hard supporters. Funny how that same logic is condemned whenever folks are discussing most anyone else.

I understand why some people still have high hopes for Rand, and I won't try to sway them, but I also understand that many of those same people only have those high hopes because of his surname.

I don't care that he's not a carbon copy of his dad, but I don't buy into that "playing chess" nonsense that some have used to rationalize some of Rand's more questionable actions. I've got news for you folks who still believe that: IT IS DISCUSSED OPENLY ON THIS WEBSITE ON A DAILY BASIS. Think about that for just a second.

A signature used to be here!

What we need to do

is get federal regulations out of local issues. Education being the number 1 priority.

End the DOE. That has to be done first.

that doesn't need to be VOTED ON though

If PARENTS would homeschool or take their kids to a private school there wouldn't be a DOE or public schools to re-educate our kids.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana



juan maldonado

What about at that the local

What about at that the local level? Are paying local taxes constitutional? For example let's say our town needs a fire department, what do we do? And how do the fireman earn a salary? My gf asked me this question yesterday, I didn't have an answer. I mean are local taxes the answer? And what if somebody doesn't want to pay? Do we just let there house burn down, like these guys http://rt.com/usa/news/home-pay-fire-bell-299/

juan maldonado

As far as the

As far as the constitutionality of local taxes- yes, they are constitutional (whether they are libertarian in a pure sense is a different issue). The Constitution only applies to powers of the Federal government, leaving other matters to the States (see the 10th amendment).

I remember reading the article you linked about the fire department around a year ago. The quasi-free market fire crew refused to put out a fire because the family hadn't paid a fee (I say quasi-free market because I believe it was actually a local town's fire department who expanded into a sort of monthly subscription for the surrounding countryside). This story raises an emotional response due to the image of a fire crew looking on and refusing to help while someone's house burns down (I think they should have helped out, for the record). But to say they have some sort of obligation is an entirely different story. Does a car insurance company have an obligation to replace my car if I failed to renew my policy? I took the risk and now I have to take responsibility for my decision. Also, the fire department is not a charity and would not be able to exist without the funds collected from subscribers. In other words, there wouldn't even be a fire department to look on if no one paid for the service. This may not be relevant to this case, but what about all the times they did put out a fire?

All that being said, I don't think that taxes are necessary for things like fire department. An "insurance" model similar to the one used by the fire department in the article (albeit, poorly executed) would be much more effective. Price signals from rural areas like the ones in the article would draw fire departments to the area. Those who don't purchase the subscription could be charged a fee when the service is used (like emergency medical situations currently are for those without health insurance). Competition between different firms would drive down the cost, and no one would be coerced into paying for something they don't choose to.

This place is getting weirder all the time....

Rand Paul is the best senator we have, yet we read here he's the worst. How many others are trying to cut foreign aid, etc?

Guess we should have fought to get Trey Grayson elected after all!

How is Ran pro-Israel?

He follows his father's stance that we should not dictate to them how to conduct their foreign policy. And he supports removing all US aide.


How is Ran pro-Israel?

Did you miss it when he strapped on his knee pads and little white beanie and headed to Israel?

So visiting an "ally" that

So visiting an "ally" that wants money for us, and after voting to take away that money, makes him pro-israel?

Visiting Iran doesnt make you pro-iran.



Israel is a corrupt apartheid racist state of OUR (USA) making. We have an obligation to the Palestinian people, from whom we helped Israel steal their land, to give it back to them and this means Rand should be calling for the elimination if the state if Israel and the return of Palestine to the Palestinian people.

Do I have to make it any clearer than that? We created the puss pocket known as the modern state of Israel and we have an obligation to drain the pus and return the land to its rightful owners.

Ron Paul never went to Israel, donned the enchanted beanie and figuratively got down on his knees to "service" Netanyahu.

Ron Paul

wants to repeal the 14th amendment. I do not, if you are born here, anchor baby or not, you are and American. This is actually a MASSIVE issue, so because of this I should not have supported Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is for shutting down all bases around the world, I don't support that position entirely as well. We do need a very strong navy to protect free trade. They do need some bases, Because of this I should not have supported Ron Paul?

Ron Paul was not the perfect candidate, hate to burst your bubbles guys. He was the best.

Rand, He is second best. There will not be another Ron Paul for 30 years, why, because that is how long it takes to build a reputation like Dr. Ron Paul has.

I agree on the 14th, I've said it several times...

And I don't like Rand because I see him as pro-Israel...But that doesnt mean I wouldn't take em both in a heart beat...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

I agree with you on the 14th

I agree with you on the 14th amendment.

People who dislike Rand (not people who just criticize certain positions) don't like him because they don't agree 100% with all of his positions, without any concept that he is so much better than anyone else in the Senate. To support someone like Rand would go against their belief that they cannot compromise on any issue, because doing so is supporting the lesser of the evils. Then they wonder why why there are so few pro-liberty candidates.

The Rand haters

are just bomb-throwers from the bleacher seats. We need to win battles, not the whole war at once. They just don't get it. I also don't see myself getting as fired up for Rand as I did for Ron, but that is OK. We as a group need to move on. The grudge some hold against Rand is more than childish now.

I found it Disgusting

to see him wearing that little beany praying at that wall in Israel. I found it disgusting when Clinton and Romney did it too. Wishy washy flip flop. No integrity.


Why is it disgusting to pray?

Why is it disgusting to pray? And why do you refer to a yarmulke as 'that little beany'? And how is praying at the wall a flip flop?


He isn't Jewish to my knowledge, and it is fake as hell to go around pretending to be everything to everybody that you happen to be trying to please. If you don't see that then you don't have any integrity either. As far as what jewish people call those little caps on their heads, it's not my job to be educated about what every religion uses or calls their wardrobe. I am not jewish and I don't keep up with jewish traditions. I suppose you must be though so let me ask you something, do you know the traditions or names of all the things used by the other religions of the world? It looks like a little beany to me so that is what I called it. I saw one person on DP try to pass it off as light shining behind Rand's head because they couldn't bring themselves to admit what a FLIP FLOPPING FAKE he was being pretending to pray at that wall like a good Israel puppet! It is disgusting to try to suck up to Israel or anyone else if you are a true independent US senator and I am not afraid to say so! I am not attacking jewish people, JUST FAKES!


Thats just being respectful.

It doesn't mean he is converting to Judaism or that he is a slave to the Israel Lobby.

No principles

No balls, he's a Neocon, a compromiser, endorsed a Neocon prematurely over his own father helping sink the RON Paul campaign, supports acts of war against innocents, went along with the disrespect shown to Dr Paul and his supporters at the convention, toadies to Izrul.

wolfe's picture

He doesn't educate.

Even if every action he has taken since being elected was 100% flawless and in line with the ideals and principles of liberty (which they have not been), his rhetoric is a different story altogether.

He tries to sound mainstream. He tries to speak in the language of the neocons. Somehow he believes that getting a bill passed, or stopping one has more impact than educating the people involved. So he will speak like a politician, to try and get his version of things through. He's a politician, through and through.

His father understood that education was more important than getting a bill passed.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -