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.

Rand just loves to hear himself talk.

He seems to be far more concerned with getting on the Sean Hannity show then helping his constituents out in Kentucky. Kentucky has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation is the poorest state in the union per capita.Yet he seems far more concerned about whether a chamber clip can hold 7 bullets or 10 bullets.

I've heard that Rand was confronted with a number of working class people who had a lot of questions for him about what he was doing for them in Washington to which he would never answer any questions they had for him and pretty much snuck out the back of a town hall meeting into a nice limo waiting for him in the back.

How pitiful is that, Rand is nowhere near qualified to run for president he can hardly do his job as a Sen. in Kentucky.All this power just seems to have gone to his head,and I will tell you this if Rand tries to run for president he's going to lose his job in the Senate in Kentucky and rightfully so.

Politics is tough

if you walk into a room full of people wearing black robes and you're wearing a white one, you have a 1% chance of being treated as a god and a 99% chance of being beaten to death.

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

For Ron Paul's son he's more like a distant nephew.

- Years of secret meetings with Mitch McConnel.
- Secret meetings with Romney.
- After a few of these secret meetings he endorses Romney repeatedly and Jesse Benton goes to work for McConnel.
- Is for sanctions etc against Iran, won't rule out military options.
- Unable to answer Luke Rudowski and looked guilty. I've seen better responses from stars dealing with paparazzi.
- Talks about things like the TSA and FED but overall does nothing.
- No outreach outside of politics.
- Nothing close to an open plan for his supporters.
- Calls his supporters conspiracy theorists and other horrible things.
- Unable to articulate his positions like Ron. Everything is murky and 'needs to be looked in to'.

How's that for a start?

Fight the Ron Paul blackout on the Daily Paul (now 'P AU L'), put his removed poster back as your avatar:

You didn't mention...

You didn't mention his kowtowing to Israel.

On that outreach thing...

Industrial hemp?


Tweeting occasionally as his best friend @cracky4prez on the twitter.

I think he may have even bigger balls than his dad.

To put it rather crudely.

As a fervent Rand defender on this forum I tried really hard to think of something bad to say about Rand, just out of a sense of fairness.

Can't do it.

What I can say is that the guy has been doing all of the things he has for the last 2 years in the shadow of his father, knowing that he was being held to a monumental standard, knowing that he was acting under a microscope of potential criticism, knowing that the 'future' would be looking back at his early freshman days, knowing, knowing...

setting yourself up to be hated from within as well as without? clearly a masochist as I see it. And here he could be relaxing on some island as we speak...

OK, faults? Get a haircut. Making people jealous of your spritely curls just alienates the base...

Tweeting occasionally as his best friend @cracky4prez on the twitter.

Unapolagetic deviation from principles.

He voted for things he's against and isn't sorry about it.

Heck, even Bob Barr was ashamed with himself and called himself naive.

Michael Nystrom's fists can punch through FUD.

What I despise about Rand

What I despise about Rand Paul is that he plays with the truth. He has these little lies here and there. Some absurd comparisons and "points" here and there. That really bugs me.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Something I posted in November, which is relevant to this thread

Submitted by JoshArizona on Tue, 11/06/2012 - 12:57. Permalink

The fundamental problem is believing that you can actually elect a libertarian as president, and compromising on principle in hopes of reaching a larger audience of voters.

The only use for the political process in libertarianism is as a platform with which to educate people about our philosophy.

Ron Paul understands this, our job is to educate.

This system is to fundamentally corrupt and inherently broken.

The only way to bring about real change is to reach the point at which we have enough people willing to withdraw from the system.

Mass individual secession is the only way out of this.

To reach this goal, we first have to educate people.

Politics is useful as a platform to teach with, but it is not in itself a solution.

We are not going to repeal leviathan through the legislative process.

If we are going to educate, then we need to make sure our message stays pure and we must not compromise.

We have had tremendous success so far, because we have had a messenger who does not compromise and does not water down our philosophy.

Whoever we pick to represent the message of liberty in front of a national audience, must be principled and uncompromising.

Ron Paul has been the perfect representative, but he is now retiring.

Whoever we pick to carry the torch next, must be at least as good or better (if that were possible).

We cannot go backwards, we cannot begin to compromise, we are making incredible strides toward a free society.

If Rand can't even live up to the standard created by his father, then he's not a step forward, but a step backwards.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com

"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Concerning the recent edit of this post

"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."

There are plenty of ideas that eclipse voting. I could make a list, if you would like.


Counter-Economics(Thanks, Octobox)
Court(Lawsuits and such)
Relocation, Separation, Secession (opt-out)

Some other good alternatives to electoral politics...

Wishing upon a star
Clicking your heels twice
Pennies in fountains
Birthday wishes
Frontal lobotomy

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

I could use some perspective

here: S.1326

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

July 6, 2011

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


To implement the President's request to increase the statutory limit on the public debt.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


The Congress finds that the President's budget proposal, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, necessitates an increase in the statutory debt limit of $2,406,000,000,000.


Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof `$16,700,000,000,000'.

Sen. Rand Paul's legislation

Sen. Rand Paul's legislation to overturn current and block
future federal regulations that ensure our health and safety,
called the "Regulations of the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act", also referred to as the REINS Act, "reins" in the government but does not rein in the power of corporate giants like the Koch brothers.
Paul's legislation is designed to make it more difficult to implement
safeguards, including those that protect public health, the
environment, and food safety. It would shift decision-making from
experts to politicians; allowing Congress to undermine existing laws
and enabling a majority in one House of Congress to void legal
protections while dispensing with the role of the other body and the
President. Thus the REINS Act represents a threat on several levels.


"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale


I support Rand Paul because of his legislation! Complete audit of the Fed!

I am!

We're libertarians, remember?

Sen. Rand Paul's legislation to overturn current and block
future federal regulations that ensure our health and safety...Paul's legislation is designed to make it more difficult to implement safeguards, including those that protect public health, the environment, and food safety.

LOL, you think federal regulations "ensure our health and safety"? Try the Huffington Post, you might be more comfortable there.

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


articles and scientific studies is all good. If those who actually suffered can prove the cause of their suffering, they should go directly to court. If they cannot prove in court, why to bring special interest groups and wise central planners into the circus?

Government is NOT a solution.

Rand Paul is as good to me as Ron Paul. I do not think either of them, being the president today, could do anything to substantially change the system. At best, they would keep it "on hold" and redeploy the military for 4 years. Then Americans would vote them out. But I would vote for either of them as a way to spread our ideas. (In fact, I would support any person who stands for the separation of state and economy.)

Our challenge is different
1) Understand why RP ideas do not sell well under good economy;
2) Understand why GOP religious "right" is not a political right;
3) Understand why majority of Americans (and people around the world) support collectivism in one form or another.

No.7's picture

Shrinking Government is!

and Rand Paul is all for that, balanced budged, cutting departments, ending the fed.

"neither of then... ... could do anything to substantially change the system."

I call bull$#it, simply ending the fed or appointing someone like Peter Schiff to chairman of the fed would substantially change the country.

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


is true.

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale

My top 3 arguments against Rand Paul are:

1. Rand Paul's Top 5 Contributors, 2007-2012, Total...Indivs...PACs
Alliance Resourse Ptnrs .....................$40,650..$40,650...$0
Corriente Advisors.............................$19,400..$19,400...$0
Koch Industries..............................$17,000..$12,000...$5,000
Mason Capital Mngmnt.......................$16,800..$16,800...$0
American Financial Grp.......................$14,900..$14,900...$0

2. Rand Paul on mountaintop removal:
"I don't think anyone's going to be missing a hill or two here and there".

3. Rand Paul supports natural gas fracking.

"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale


1) $3,000 per year. He must be thinking they want a $3B per year return on that $3,000.

2 & 3) Libertarians think people can do with their property what they want. I don't know what Rand thinks, but you don't seem to think that way. Kind of curious what you're doing on a mostly Libertarian board.

On points 2 and 3

How is mountain top removal or gas fracking Federal issues. Where is that in article 1 section 8?


Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

The balance of federal powers

The balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the states.


"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale

Okay let's suppose you agree with Libertarians on nothing

except for non-interventionism and civil rights, and you have no care for the free markets--will Rand Paul be providing a step forward or backward on the two fronts you care about? I mean among people who can realistically win, don't even come up with a ridiculous name like Hillary Clinton for Andrew Quomo for the protection of civil liberties. i'm assuming you're (neo)liberal

Ron Paul supports nuclear energy

I am against it. That doesn't stop me from supporting him. It's really not a presidential issue anyway.

You should look up Ron Paul's top contributors. Some of them are not the greatest either...besides, Rand Paul does not have control over who his contributors are. Ron Paul got donations from racists. That doesn't make him a racist.

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Koch = wizardry

Turning the Ron Paul Revolution into a watered down Tea Party replete with neocons who call themselves Libertarians.

I mean, they funded the astroturf Tea Parties, they are behind Reason Magazine, they are all over the decoy Libertarian movement.

Natural gas fracking is destroying

our environment, I'm sorry to hear Rand supports it. But he supports the 2nd amendment and he is against policing the world. These are also very important issues. Who knows, maybe someone will run that supports both the constitution and the environment. (But I doubt it.)

Would someone please tell me....

How is fracking a Federal issue????

Why do we have a department of energy to begin with!!??


Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine

And mountaintop removal coal mining is no better.

The Journal of Community Health published a study that found
people who live near mountaintop removal coal mining have cancer rates twice as high as people living elsewhere in Appalachia. A peer-reviewed study also linked mountaintop removal to high rates of birth defects.
Another study pegged the public health costs of coal in Appalachia at
about $80 billion a year.
Mountaintop removal has been a controversial issue in Appalachia since at least the mid-1990s and coalfield citizens have long complained of health problems, and probable links to coal and rock dust from blasting and trucking, contaminated streams and groundwater, and toxic chemicals at coal preparation plants.
Implications of these findings are slow to sink into Appalachia’s
political realm - which is heavily dominated by mining industry money.
WVU’s economics dept. has doctoral fellowships named for the Koch
brothers, billionaire owners of refining, oil and mining interests. The Koch fellows at WVU churn out papers that, among other things, cast doubt on whether mine safety rules are a good thing.


"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more!"
- Howard Beale