-6 votes

Justin Amash > Gary Johnson > Rand Paul?

Is Gary Johnson a better candidate to support in 2016 than Rand Paul?

Rand Paul supports sanctions on Iran and won't rule out military action. That's almost a deal breaker for me. Ron Paul has said sanctions are an act of war:


Gary Johnson is also against sanctions on Iran:


I'm beginning to think Ron Paul won't run in 2016. The only reason he hasn't ruled it out is because he would probably do it if we asked him to, but his goal was never to be president. It was to deliver his very important message, even if being president was the best way to ensure that. However, he has effectively delivered the message now and will continue to do that.

So we need to figure out who to get behind for 2016. If we're going to fix the country we may as well try to do it as best we can. What about Justin Amash? What are the gripes against him so far?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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


Thanks for playing.

I don't know who you think you are when you speak for "we" except some kind of collectivist.

I'm supporting Rand and Amash is not running no matter how much you want to delude yourself about that one.

How should

I say it? I'm not trying to speak for anyone. Saying "we" is a carryover from people here trying to elect Ron Paul president. Is it better to say there is no "we"? That DP readers don't share common beliefs?


wee wee wee wee... Do you have a mouse in your pants or something?

Clear your mind and speak directly and plainly rather than using the collectivist and anti-intellectual crutch in the form of the word "we".

And, yes, there is a better way to say things.
Figure out what YOU INTEND to say then freeking SAY IT. Don't collectivize it like a big p*ssy.

In this post you might have said something like:

"Hey *I* think GJ (or Justin Amash, or Rand Paul) is a great idea to get behind because of X, Y and Z. What do you guys think of this idea?"

That's how a non-p*ssy says it.

But that's

not what I intended. I really do mean WE. The reason is because pooled support is most powerful; so I'm trying to see if the people here, aka we, can have some consensus emerge on who to push for 2016.

You actually sound like your intention was not bad.

And I can appreciate that. Therefore, I will address you civilly as opposed to some of the other repliers to my replies who's brains are evidently mush beyond recourse.

But if that was your intention then why not focus on their RECORD rather than attempting to collectivize DP membership?

Again, be focused and clear in your thinking and writing. There is no need whatsoever here to refer to the collective "we".

Think through what you are trying to say one time as an exercise without using the crutch "we" and let me know what dawns on you.

Want to talk about Liberty? It is very liberating to get out from the collectivist chains that bind minds that one may be unaware of.


I get in this "we" debate too often. It's obvious WE are all hear because of our original support of Ron Paul, and using "we" isn't really a big deal. People usually just bring it up when they don't have any other valid points to argue.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Didn't you get the memo?

"Collectivist" is the new "racist".

A signature used to be here!


are allowed to join fraternities of their own free will. I'm sure the author of this thread was simply referring to the fraternity of liberty minded voters. Hopefully "we" can agree on that.

P*ss out. (*=u)

Either speak plainly and clearly what YOU INTEND or what you are ASKING FOR, or be relegated to the collectivist that you are due to your clouded, collectivist mind being unable to summon anything stronger than the collectivist "we".

Let it sink in, when you say wee wee wee you are speaking from whatever mouse is in your pants.

I know it's hard to stop collectivizing, but it truly is a weak thought from a weak mind if you are unable to parse what you are attempting to collectivize from your individual will.

There are appropriate times to use "we", like when you are making a factual statement. Examples:
You are on an airplane to New York City and you state: "We are going to New York City." - factual statement.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident." Factual statement about the words that follow.

I don't know what your problem is.

WE are living in a society here. Sometimes WE do things collectively, like in your examples.

How are your examples any different from, "WE are looking for a liberty candidate". If you are not lumped into that "WE", you are the collectivist, and not me.

I'm still sure WE can all agree on that.

It's compeltely different.

Liberty candidates differentiate themselves.

You sound like a pimp when you say "we are looking for a liberty candidate to get behind."

It's more "least worst" whoring BS just like was done with GJ.

And, yes, it is absolutely collectivist.

"Liberty candidates differentiate themselves"

This is a collectivist statement. Don't lump me into your Marxist vision of how I should act as a candidate. I personally, as an individual, use the word "we". Deal wit it : )

"You sound like a pimp when you say 'we are looking for a liberty candidate to get behind.'"

ummm... thank you.

Paul/Amash 2016 is my bet.

Paul/Amash 2016 is my bet.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

Hey, To Us That Would Be Great...

... but if Rand got far enough into this thing to have the privilege of being able to pick a VP, don't feel like he is turning on us "AGAIN"
if he picks a Rubio, Ryan, Palin or Jindal as a running mate. If he gets the nomination his goal will be to win. Not to be racist but a Mexican running mate definitely would help.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



Rand 2016

...Some of ya'll aren't living in reality. Ron Paul "might not run"? Of course Ron isn't running in 2016. If it isn't clear as day to you that Rand is running and that Ron set him up to be where he is, then you just don't have a firm grasp on reality. Gary has no shot. I have no issue with him, but he doesn't have the connections and the headstart that Rand has. Not that Rand is any better, but he just has the headstart, the infrustructure, the name brand, and he is saying the right things. For every "purist" in this movement who has ditched Rand, 10 regular folks are warming up to him, as well as the 10 Ron Paul supporters who clearly see what they are doing, and are on board. Personally, I'm one of the Ron Paul supporters who sees what Ron did for Rand, and is on board with Rand for 2016.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

It doesn't seem

Ron Paul set Rand Paul up in any intentional way. In an interview with Neil Cavuto when asked if they had discussed if either would run for president Ron Paul said they never discussed it. That was for this last presidential run.

I wouldn't disagree.

I couldn't point to anything specific that Ron did other than establishing the "Paul" name. However, what Ron did for the last few decades set the example, established the brand, and whether by choice or not, put Rand in a position to have a shot, where Ron did not. I'd find it hard to believe that they don't talk about this though. I'd find it hard to believe that Rand doesn't consult his father when he has to make tough politically motivated decisions, such as that half hearted endorsement of Mitt. Ron never had to do anything like that, but Ron also never had a realistic shot. Rand has a real chance, and it would be odd if they didn't have discussions about what Rand needs to do to get over the hump that Ron wasn't able to get over.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

There was another

thing Ron Paul said now that I recall. He said when Rand Paul was a certain age (I think 16) he basically "turned him lose". I interpreted that as meaning Rand Paul could have his own views including on politics even if they were completely opposite of Ron Paul, and Ron Paul would still love and respect him as a son.

Rand is a dead end.

Rand is an Israel-Firster and that precludes him from getting the support of members of the liberty wing of the movement.

I voted for Gary Johnson last year and would do so again. He is the real-deal, not a fake wannabe riding on his father's coat tails.


How about a link or two?

I haven't seen anything leading me to believe Rand is a Zionist. What have you got? Bathing in the Dead Sea doesn't make him an Israel firster any more than pissing in the Mississippi makes you a Missouri riverboat gambler. I believe he is placating the Zionists.

Politicians have to pick their battles.* A pitched battle with the folks totally in charge of the media AND banking AND military industrial complex, early in a political career is tactically speaking, just not logical. He can come back to it.

* “Never argue with people who buy ink by the gallon.”
--Benjamin Franklin

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

I disagree.

Ron Paul never compromised. Even if it meant nobody would hear of him and the ones that did call him a kook.

It's true.

Ron Paul NEVER compromised. I've talked to the man, have supported his aspirations financially and have put my arm around his shoulders and after 24 years of following this amazing man can confirm that he is unequaled anywhere by anybody.

However, your comment is totally irrelevant because I'm talking about a different person. Do you understand? You cannot seriously compare anybody to Dr. Ron Paul.

Rand Paul is currently fighting authoritarian enemies on many fronts. His way.

Castigating him because he chooses to defer a particular battle until his troops and weaponry are ready for the fray is short sighted.

You wanted him to kick everybody in the balls on his first day?

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

Who says

he is deferring battles? How do you know he is?


He went to Israel to make nice. His recent policy statement about reducing foreign aid to the many countries is to start with our enemies first and we can talk about eliminating foreign aid to our allies later, sounds reasonable to me.



"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

And how did things work out

in Tampa for him and us?

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

a real-deal neocon in

a real-deal neocon in Libertarian clothing, imo.

End The Fed!
BTC: 1A3JAJwLVG2pz8GLfdgWhcePMtc3ozgWtz

JustLiberty4US's picture

My hope is that Rand is

My hope is that Rand is actually a libertarian in neocon clothing.

It doesn't

work like that. People listen to what you say when you run for office. Infiltrating the establishment and becoming delegates is different. Nobody elects delegates for their campaign rhetoric.

You're saying that the son...

..of Ron Paul, raised in his environment his whole life is going to pop out the house a neocon?

Don't be ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing up for discussion is his methodology.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

I wouldn't lift a finger for GJ


Free includes debt-free!