The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
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.

Who gives a shit? Why are you

Who gives a shit? Why are you talking about this right now?

Not so much an anti-rand issue as a level of commitment issue

I could point out that be hasn't had time to develop a long conservative record and his bows to the neocons (strategic as they may be).

But compared to some neocon, I'd vote for rand.

However, it's not likely that I'll donate or volunteer to/for his campaign...unless he really drops some big truth bombs on the gop. Since this revolution isn't violent, this an awareness war.

Think Rand would be great.

I'm sure the Libertain Party will just find another idiot. Sick of having to use these guys as my backup vote... like the past two elections.

Fight for Rand Paul, don't join the Neo-cons in their inevitable smear campaign.

Well said

I have one objection though: electing Rand would not be a "baby step" in the right direction. If the bills he's sponsored are any indication, it would be a giant leap: cutting $500 billion in one year, cutting foreign aid, eliminating several government departments in their entirety, repealing section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, requiring warrants for the use of drones, requiring judicial review for many of the surveillance activities which the feds currently do without judicial review, neutering the anti-trust powers of the federal government, severely restricting the powers of the EPA to violate private property rights - to name just a few of the issues he's championed thus far, and he's only been in the Senate for two years!

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

I forget to mention this to Libertarian Party loyals

Even if we have differences on where to take the starting point, whether that should be in LP or the GOP--it's really no argument there either, because a successful campaign by Rand Paul in GOP is going to confirm the question "Is the country becoming more libertarian" and that is going to give competitiveness to the Libertarian Party as well, exactly like how Ron Paul's run in the GOP brought attention to not just himself but also wide variety of characters in LP, John Stossel, Penn Jillette, and others. Expand this finite pie rather than fight over it.

If Rand's administration is ever under pressure to compromise, LP can provide competition as well under an environment now giving more acceptance to Libertarians. If people try to bring down Rand because they see it as helping Johnson's future career, they are making a mistake.

Serving as a competitive, dissenting party to GOP under a friendly environment for LP's views is going to be much better for the long term future of Libertarian Party, while LP can continue to gain protest vote while holding Rand's feet to the fire. This is much better than trying to bring down a realistic chance to a first measurable success the benefits all parties involved.

more suffering?

Ron suffered humiliation and scorn from his colleagues and the media. Many of us like an underdog, and Ron was it.

Look inside ourselves and ask if we need Rand to suffer to prove his beliefs. Rand saw his father work through that, and Rand is taking the path of working with power-brokers when appropriate. That will reduce Rand's suffering and help him become effective decades sooner. Those of us who want to support the tormented underdog may not find that in Rand.

JustLiberty4US's picture

You make some good points

You make some good points tstellar. I agree, Rand is not perfect, but you do have to start somewhere. The American public, and certainly the RNC, is just not ready for someone like Ron Paul. However, Rand is very close, and who knows, maybe he could move the nation towards the NAP and libertarianism in general.

He is our best shot. Does anyone have ideas for slots #2 or #3 (focusing on those who would be considered acceptable by the American public)?

Yes certainly


I'm tired of people saying

I'm tired of people saying Rand is a neocon Illuminati Zionist establishment shill with no beliefs or morals except getting in power and tricking us. Just because he doesn't agree with your policy or strategy opinions 10% of the time does not mean hes a fake who's out to get you. Maybe he is a man of convictions, just not YOUR convictions.

Andrew Napolitano for President 2016!

"Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping Graven images." - ironman77

Well stated. Thank you.

Though I am nowhere near ruling him out, I have misgivings about Rand's support for deliberately starving Persian children (aka "sanctions"). Though I'm familiar with the argument that 1 vs 99 is about as ineffectual as 0 vs 100, his capitulation to realpolitik still leaves a nasty aftertaste.

Staying tuned, and NOT tuning out Rand or Sarah or Judge Nap or Penn Jillette or...

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
to be continued