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.


has a bad reputation for absolutely no reason.


The companies have an incentive

to not pollute so that they are not sued.

In Cabot the methane was likely already in the water wells before the fracking began.


Wish I got a minimum payment of $50 grand for nothing : )

Rand Paul is a great guy.

We will be fortunate to have him for president in 2016! But our votes are manipulated - I don't know how we can stop the cheating.

He's an unknown commodity

Maybe I will "vote" for him (not that I believe elections are real) but it would be a gamble. Who knows what he's about, he equivocates and smooth-talks so much.

He's not unknown!

Have you been paying attention?

Browse through the following list of bills he's sponsored.


I feel like a lot of the Rand critics only get their Rand related news from other Rand critics. They hear bits of news about a handful of questionable votes in two years, but nothing about the rest of what Rand has done, and he's done a lot! His record is overwhelmingly libertarian.

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

Putting your weak arguments in bold doesn't make them

any stronger.

It's gibberish to assume you know how Rand's critics come to their conclusions. It's not even worth saying. Maybe you are too young to realize that yet.

I don't need a lecture from you. Rand's votes don't reveal enough about him, as far as I'm concerned. He has pandered to neocons and voted for sanctions on Iran. There is nothing Libertarian about that...sanctions are an act of war. What ideology does he embrace, that lets him sleep at night knowing he voted to make Iranians suffer?

So is he a real neocon or a panderer who's just trying to blend in until he can break out and reveal his inner freedom crusader? Is his strategy for the Greater Good or for personal gain? He turned his back on his own father by endorsing Romney while his dad was still in the race...you think he has loyalty to YOUR cause?


It's gibberish to assume you know how Rand's critics come to their conclusions. It's not even worth saying. Maybe you are too young to realize that yet.

You know how I know how they think? Because I read what they write! Gee whiz, amazing eh?

I don't need a lecture from you

No, you really do. Rand may be an unknown quantity to you, but he's not an unknown quantity for anyone who's done their homework.

Rand's votes don't reveal enough about him, as far as I'm concerned. He has pandered to neocons and voted for sanctions on Iran

Hmm, I don't follow your reasoning. His votes don't reveal enough about him, but you're comfortable judging him on the basis of his vote on the Iran sanctions. So..which is it? His votes reveal his true nature or not? Because it seems to me (just, seems to me), that you're perfectly willing to judge him on the basis of a handful of votes, while ignoring (because you are ignorant of?) everything else he's done...precisely the problem I was commenting on.

What ideology does he embrace

What ideology is expressed by the bills he's sponsored? Have you looked at them?

So is he a real neocon or a panderer who's just trying to blend in until he can break out and reveal his inner freedom crusader?

Um, he's already "broken out," and you would know this if you'd look at his record: the whole record, not just the handful of votes (none of it on legislation he sponsored) that the anti-Rand faction likes to talk about. Go to his website, click on "about," click on "sponsored legislation." Scroll down. Read.

He turned his back on his own father by endorsing Romney while his dad was still in the race

He endorsed Romney after his Dad officially announced that he could not win the nomination. If you think Ron and Rand weren't cooperating then, and aren't still cooperating now, you're a bigger fool than you've led me to believe.

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

I'll take 80% of Ron Paul vs

I'll take 80% of Ron Paul vs any Commie or NeoCon period!

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr

There is no good argument against Rand.

Ron Paul supports him.

This is like asking what is your best argument for suicide, all while promoting death as an option.

It is not a "good" option. It is a really, really bad option; one that will land you in hell.

Those who push this anti-Rand agenda are trying to suicide the r3VOLution.

I agree, Rand is not Ron Paul. He is a different man. But in some ways he is even better while in other ways a bit worse.

So what? Ron Paul supports Rand.

There is not this utter division that some wild-hair, hypocritical Libertarians want to claim.


In others words...

"If you don't agree with me then I'm going to create fictitious rumors about why."

Your unquestioning allegiance is worrisome for the future of this movement.

Unquestioning allegiance? I have had many questions.

All questions have been answered and resolved in favor of Ron and Rand Paul.

Maybe you like Jeb Bush 2016? Or Rubio? Or some other well known sellout, someone who has sold out on every issue every single time.

Who is better than Rand Paul who has also been a US Senator or state governor? Who else even has a chance in 2016?


I don't support neo-cons

And since one of my complaints about Rand is his neo-conservative leanings, I'm quite certain that's not the issue.

Once again, proving my point that just because I don't agree with you you have to justify it with some illogical reasoning. You know damn well why I don't trust Rand. We've been arguing with each other for several months on it.

And don't lower yourself to use the "better than" argument. "Hey guys, let's vote Romney! He's 'better than' Obama!"

I'll vote or not vote Rand based on his voting record and use of rhetoric. It's premature for me to make a decision on who to pick for president in 2016. I'm currently undecided.


a Ron Paul dittohead.

"So what's your best

"So what's your best anti-Rand argument?"

He is not Ron Paul. He speaks too much like a politician. Not very straight forward. he caved on a number of issues after being pressured in the media. His support for US foreign policy is not far from the neoconservatives.

But the main thing is the way he represents himself. It's always "well, it's interesting," rather than just saying yes or no.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

"He is not Ron Paul"

Who is? There will never be another Ron Paul. He was a once in a lifetime candidate. The liberty movement has to accept that if we are going to get anywhere politically.

If you are doubtful about Rand, just look at his Senate record. Except for a handful of bad votes (nobody is perfect), it is flawless. He is clearly pro-liberty and is a lot like Ron. His record is important. Not what he says.

“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

Can you give

an example of something he caved on? I haven't followed him closely enough, yet.

Civil rights act and property

Civil rights act and property rights.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

The biggest thing for me

is I simply don't trust him...yet. That may change.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

I don't plan on voting

That said, I am watching Rand closely.

Would his father have voted differently if he was in the senate? I haven't read the bills yet, so I just don't know.


Many liberals followed ron paul simply because of his foreign policy.
They ignored his TRUE conservative credentials.
Ron is not a greenie. He is not a lib. He is not prochoice.
He is all for big corporations who seek to do business the right way and the honest way because he knows we need these corporations to bring wealth to our country and keep us powerful.
He does not like big gvt, he does not want a federal abortion law and he lets his followers do most of his campaign work because he feels if we want him, we should know what to do.

Many liberals and libertarians can not get with some or all of those programs.
Rand Paul is NO DIFFERENT then his father. He speaks the same tongue but in a different way. Rand WILL NOT cater to libs- like his father did (who was from a different generation)
The ones you see bashing Rand were NEVER conservative, do not understand conservatism and do not understand the constitution the way a conservative does.
That is why many here could never bring themselves to pull the lever for a republican, because they are full fledged liberal democrats at heart- and were confused by ron paul and in truth hate everything conservative or republican.
Ron Paul is a MLK republican.
Libs can/do not get this.
That is the distraction and nothing more.
Many here will never vote for a conservative constitutional republican(which BOTH Drs Paul claim) and never will.
Neither is libertarian.
They do not describe themselves this way and never have.
Journalists do, and the Pauls never correct them.
but both pauls have described themselves as constitutional conservative republicans and always will- whether the libs/libertarians agree with it and like it, or not.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

election or electing is a fraud in democracy

You can't elect someone who is and has 100 years deception control already. What makes it for your best interest or the people? starting from the fed banks. president assassination. the battle is not politics, elections, conventions, moneybombs. It is all deception and divides. The REAL battle is in court and law. law is law. Take a look here. http://www.dailypaul.com/269892/our-justice-system-has-been-...

down voting

down voting shows there is sheeps here.

If You Believe We Live In a Republic, then Why are you Registering to Vote in a Democracy? http://www.dailypaul.com/262071/if-you-believe-we-live-in-a-...

Why Don't We Ever Get Honest Politicans Fearless Enough To Tell The Whole Truth? http://www.dailypaul.com/268858/what-say-you-daily-paul-are-...

It's posts like this...

...which make me wonder if the "freeman on the land" movement is controlled opposition, seeing as how they want to lead us in a direction which any reasonable person can plainly see is a dead-end. Even if their legal theories are correct (they're not), what do they think is going to happen? They're going to walk into court one day, say the magic words, and the feds are going to just give up? Ridiculous. To believe this is to demonstrate a catastrophic ignorance of how society actually works.

We have only one realistic option for restoring liberty in America: win elections, replace the current government with libertarians. That's it. Any effort not furthering that goal in one way or another is a waste of time.

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

Quote from Emma Goldman

“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.”

― Emma Goldman


Obviously you don't know what your talking about.

Rand Paul/Jesse Benton 2016

Rand Paul/Jesse Benton 2016

libtards here HATE you for

libtards here HATE you for that!lol

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Or Marco Rubio/Karl Rove

Your pick. Ya I realize if you go down the list of unrealistic candidates, you can include more. Gary Johnson comes to mind. We're talking about getting 50% of the nation's popular votes here, 100+million people adjusted by participation rate, not just to improve a certain party's poll numbers from 7% to 11% and blow your own trumpet calling it a success. If you're a hardcore Libertarian, you only need a fraction of that 100+million potential infusion of new blood and you instantly expand your future potential. If that's what you care about, of course. I often find many Libertarians not having a care for much of anything, it's like things just automatically get better with everyone sitting on the Libertarian couch.

It's not the President, it's

It's not the President, it's the people. We are obviously not ready for Liberty, and I don't think trying to trick ourselves into the WH is a good idea; see Alinsky; it will push the movement back. We have to win the battle of ideas first. Period.

What are you talking about?

It's not the President, it's the people? What does that mean? You don't think it would advance the cause to win the Presidency? You don't think having exclusive control of the loudest microphone in the world for four consecutive years would help spread the message? You don't think a libertarian with the power to veto all legislation would make a difference? You don't think the powers of the imperial Presidency would be less dangerous if in the hands of a libertarian? If that's not a worthy goal, then what the hell is? Oh, right, "the people"...meaning what, educating them? And how do you do that? Ron Paul believed and proved through his actions that the best way to educate people is through politics. Those who discount politics in favor of education are pushing a false choice.

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