45 votes

Rand Paul...

Is he identical to his father? Of course not. Is he our best chance of putting a liberty minded candidate into the white house? Your damn straight he is. Now I know everyone has differing opinions of the man and that's understandable, but to go out of your way to demonize and shun the man is most definitely not the answer either. Now theres some people who look at Ron's support for Rand as something any father would do for their son, but that's also like saying that if Rands views were identical to say Bush or Barack that Ron wouldn't be a traitor for supporting him simply because it's his son. Now I ask you this... Do you think Ron would jeopardize the entire liberty movement by endorsing and helping his son if he were in fact a neocon just like the rest of the establishment republicans? I for one would like to give Dr. Paul much more credit than that, I mean he's the godfather of liberty for christ sakes. I said this in a comment to another post but I think we should trust in Ron that his son Rand is on our side rather than throw away the only chance we have at the moment of taking over the GOP or all of America for that matter.

Both Ron and his son realize that in order to take libertarianism to the mainstream we must change things from within. He's one of the only people we have that can actually make it. Just because he supports Israel does not mean he's their puppet. Rand is the trojan horse we've needed to take our movement to the next level. We can't all agree with one another on everything, hell even Gary Johnson for example has many views that differ from Ron Paul. I'd still rather have someone like Rand in office who supports Israel but is still fighting things like the NDAA, TSA, Patriot Act and supporting other constitutional principles such as the 2nd amendment over all our other options. If you take a hard look at what Rand is doing the only reason he went to Israel was to gain support from groups that are necessary to win the presidency. He may be saying that he wants to gradually end foreign aid but at least he actually wants to end it unlike all our other options. Even Ron Paul had to tone down his ideas of ending the FED by compromising and saying he only wanted to audit the FED. I know we're all unwavering in our beliefs and that's good thing but at the same time I think we all need to look at the bigger picture here... thats just my opinion.

In Liberty,

Comment viewing options

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

If Rand Paul...

... wasn't seriously considering running for president what would he gain in hinting at it so much? I would consider it almost lying if he didn't run. (Ok maybe not).

P.S. I like the slight change in your signature. Hardly noticeable, yet unable to escape the eye of a Viper.

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



of course he is considering it

but they are right in saying he has not announced that he is running. Heck the way logic works around here, he is just pretending to be running to cover up some other more secret plan. ROTFL

"The eye of a viper"


Rock on Viper!!! LOVE YOU!!!!!

Thanks Granger...

... Your AWESOME!!!

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



How about a compromise from

How about a compromise from the ant Rand crowd. How about get more involved with the local elections where it makes a difference and then when Rand Paul runs for potus you can vote for him because he would be the most the qualified candidate to choose from?

I agree with everything You

I agree with everything You said.
(except calling Obama by his first name *yuck* )

haha yea I hear yea...

I was leaning between Barack or Hussein. Obama just seems so generic nowadays ;) lol


You could call him Barry.

You could call him Barry.

I thought..

the title of this post was that game where you finish a sentence or phrase. I was gonna say "sux". :D

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~


...'Cult of Rand' thread.

Oh, goodie, what an absolute surprise.

What is with the seemingly desperate need to find 'a leader' in someone who has not demonstrated that he will consistently adhere to and act based upon the Constitution and the fundamental principles of individual liberty.

There are plenty of warning signs scattered amongst the 'Manna from Rand' low-hanging fruit that the COR (Cult of Rand) continually seize upon.

A thinking man would step back and assess over time, before putting on his lemming-suit and afixing a goofy, wide-eyed, slack-jawed look on his face and immediately begin advocating as if for the second coming of Christ.

By hey, that's just me taking.

Well...there are plenty

Well...there are plenty others bashing him too.

The DP is overrun with

The DP is overrun with atheists and anarchists now...that's really why we have so much anti-Rand stuff going on here. It's really hypocritical, though, considering Ron himself isn't an atheist, anarchist or a purist! Those who thought all along that growing the liberty movement meant being impractical utopians who only endorse perfect candidates have had it wrong from the get-go. Ironic, too, that these same people bash Rand so much when Ron himself voted for things and played politics for things that they would also condemn...

Cheap innuendo...

and unfounded smear. Show some empirical evidence of your claim. Disgusting...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

What empirical proof are you

What empirical proof are you asking for? What isn't clear? I visit the DP multiple times throughout each day and every time there's a new post about anarchy or how the Bible is false and God doesn't exist. Surely you don't deny this is a fact? It's clear to anyone who spends any significant time on this site. Other than pasting links to the actually threads I'm not sure how you want me to prove that.

Ron is not an anarchist, because he's a government official. If all government is inherently immoral, then all political offices are inherently immoral. That means that Ron or anyone else who votes or supports a politician are participating in evil. That's a clear inconsistency - one that anarchists like Lew Rockwell fall prey to. How can you praise a politician when you think politicians *in essence* are evil? If Ron were an anarchist he could not be a politician. Plus, he favors defensive war by a *government* military.

Ron is not an atheist by his own admission. He is a Christian and has been outspoken about his faith for decades. Ever read his books or listen to a house-floor speech? He frequently appeals to the Bible and Christian history to defend his views.

And Ron is not a purist - he knows that sometimes you have to vote for things that are less than desirable to get ahead. Two examples: he voted for Republican neocons to be House Speakers and he voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion ban, a bill he admitted was flawed. (That was also a big no-no to anarchists/libertarians who think abortion isn't a federal issue or that it is a woman's right to decide).

I don't see any anarchists on here criticizing Ron for being in politics, for voting for pro-life legislation, for authorizing military force, for endorsing neocons to be House Speaker, or for defending Israel's right to attack a potential threat - but when Rand does the same things they flip out and crucify him. It's a double standard that is very hypocritical and shows an unhealthy obsession/idolization of Ron.

You said:

"The DP is overrun with atheists and anarchists now...that's really why we have so much anti-Rand stuff going on here."

You make two claims here:

1) "The DP is overrun with atheists and anarchists"

I too visit Daily Paul most every day.

Right now I just pulled up the list of active forum posts sorted by recent activity. Here is what I see:

-- a forum post about an anti-abortion rally that is dominantly receiving upvotes
-- a forum post about how the bible supports the idea of liberty and freedom with upvotes dominating
-- a forum post about Lupe Fiasco with a comment disparaging him because he is muslim. The comment is dominantly receiving downvotes with others commenting that what religion he is doesn't matter
-- a post about Tom Woods is right with positive upvotes and positive comments. Woods is a catholic/christian and is very popular on Daily Paul.

All the other posts aren't religious oriented unless you consider Israel/zionism a religious issue and not a political agenda. But even most christians on DP are critical of zionism.

Now using search:

Beliefs of a libertarian Christian in less than 400 words.
heavy positive upvotes. lots of comments. comments critical of christianity are heavily downvoted.

Why Religion and Morality I think Ron Paul knew this as well.
positive upvoting. criticism of christianity and religion is downvoted. a well-known loud Rand supporter complains that the post should be hidden away in some obscure category out of view from the public.

3 Good Examples of Bible Errancy
criticizes the bible as having mistakes. massive downvotes (-41). comments defending the bible receive heavy upvotes. comments criticizing the bible receive a smattering of downvotes.

The Strength of the Liberty Movement Lies in Man!
declares religion (or belief in "sky daddies") to be stupid. several comments complain how atheists are banned on Daily Paul while heavy favoritism given to religious posts. one commenter complains of being banned for a pro-atheism post -- most comments are along the lines of "what does it matter? stop fighting over it"

Religion and government separate!
-2 downvotes. Most comments are from christians who somewhat agree that religion and govt shouldn't be too heavily mixed. Both the religious and atheists commenter generally question the need for such a post on Daily Paul.

Merry Christmas – Jesus as Our Libertarian Friend
positive upvotes -- one comment wishes jesus would come back with positive upvotes -- several people discussing the merits of various theologians -- one sourpuss complains that jesus' daddy is violent but gets a couple upvotes probably out of christmas spirit - conversation dominated by religious folk

I could go on and on. As long as I can remember on Daily Paul criticism of religion gets dominantly downvoted and pro-religion and religious tolerance posts and comments get upvoted. Haven't noticed a change lately.

Several atheists in the past couple of days have reacted to the "Rand haters are atheists!" meme with, "Hey! I'm an atheist and like Rand!!!! :\ "

Concerning anarchists, this recent forum post is absolute proof anarchists are just BARELY even welcome here with harsh reactions to anarchists even merely bringing the subject up:

The Daily Paul is more intolerant of anarchists than it has ever been and the intolerance is palpable and aggressive.

With regards to the second part of your assertion:

2) "that's really why we have so much anti-Rand stuff going on here." (because of the raging horde of atheists and anarchists)

Do you visit Daily Paul in an alternate universe? The Daily Paul I go to everyday is nothing like the one you seem to be describing. :\

The Daily Paul I've been visiting lately on-the-whole is quite a bit more favorable to religious folks than atheists, has a general attitude of preferring to discuss non-religious topics and is quite impatient with even the mere mention of anarchy much of the time...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

weebles, i'm impressed that

weebles, i'm impressed that you had the zeal to actually search out those threads and summarize them for me! with all due respect, however, i'm not just talking about recent activity within the last month, i'm talking about an overall emphasis on anarchy and/or atheism since summer of 2012. (a Google search for 'anarchy' on the DP is evidence of this, and it looks like we had a similar trend in 2009 as well). i'm not the only person who has acknowledged this trend so unless you want to say many of us on here are delusional... i don't see how you can deny that the overall tone for the last several months has grown more and more sympathetic to anarchy. Of course, I don't deny that there are still minarchists and constitutionalists, but in context my original comment was about the Rand-bashing. the majority of Rand-bashing is from the strict, purist, anarchist wing of this forum.


Ron just finished a featured-speaker gig at a Mises's Circle on the future of libertarianism with Rockwell and Woods. And as a jeffersonian/anti-Federalist type minarchist I will be hanging my hat with them. :)

Good luck and best wishes with attempting an alliance with the neocons and zionists by appearing to agree that Ron is extreme and unreasonable. Hope that works out for you guys... :D

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Is this directed towards me?

Is this directed towards me? I don't follow. No one is "appearing to agree" that Ron is extreme and unreasonable - neither me nor Rand! This convo hasn't even been about Ron, so I'm not sure where you are coming from... I'm a minarchist just as you and I admire Rockwell and Woods. But my position is the same as Ron's: Rockwell and Woods are being inconsistent as anarchists when they support politicians like Ron, but we can still work with them to shrink the government. They are inconsistent, but we aren't.

You said:

"No one is "appearing to agree" that Ron is extreme and unreasonable"

It's been said a thousand times here on Daily Paul that Ron couldn't win because he was too idealistic and his foreign policy and domestic views will never be accepted by mainstream republicans.

And all the snickering about Rand's "secret" plan to moderate his words to appeal to those with neocon, zionist and evangelical sensibilities. Even the mainstream media sources openly discuss it.

You said:

"Rockwell and Woods are being inconsistent as anarchists when they support politicians"

How so? It is perfectly coherent for an anarchist to work with minarchist politicians because minarchism is way closer to their goal of anarchism than the heavily statist system that arose in the 20th century. Rothbard for decades encouraged an alliance between ancaps and the Old Right and Rothbard FOUNDED the Taft Club and Taft was certainly no anarchist.

Restricting anarchist advocacy to only "100% anarchy or nothing!" and then yelling "hypocrite!" at them is a classic straw man with a dash of ad hominem.

I'm not against political compromise with other democratically competing groups at all. I'm against not being completely honest and forthright about ones true philosophies and beliefs in order to gain votes and political offices. Many Ron Paul supporters decided to support him even though they disagree with him on several issues because they admired his character and heartfelt honesty. When Ron Paul crafted legislative compromises with those across the aisle he was completely and eagerly open about any disagreements.

You said:

"This convo hasn't even been about Ron"

You didn't object to anarchists here on Daily Paul a couple comments up by appealing to Ron not being one? :) He's certainly hung out with them, worked with them politically and befriended them for decades and continues to hang out with them.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

weebles, i'm afraid you are

weebles, i'm afraid you are making several false assumptions about me and my comments and/or reading way too much into them, making them something they aren't. I am NOT the type of "Rand supporter" that says Ron was too idealistic and that he could never win. Hardly. Dude, I write for a blog that consistently defends Ron Paul and tries to let the public know of his efforts. Ron is my political hero, no doubt. So, please, do not make assumptions like that. It's ironic, that your whole dialogue with me has been about you trying to convince me that I'm wrong for making a false generalization about anarchists on the DP, yet you are falsely generalizing me.

You said: "It is perfectly coherent for an anarchist to work with minarchist politicians because minarchism is way closer to their goal of anarchism..."

no, it is not coherent for them to do this. the premise of anarchy is that all govt is *inherently* immoral/evil because all govt supposedly violates the non-aggression principle. thus, to participate in govt in any way whatsoever is to participate in evil. this is why guys like Rockwell say you shouldn't even vote, because you are participating in the evil institution that govt is. IF THAT PREMISE IS TRUE... then it logically follows that ALL govt officials are participating in evil and are endorsing the spread of evil whenever they vote on bills, encourage you to vote, etc. if an anarchist were to be truly consistent within his premises, Ron Paul should be viewed as an evil criminal. it's that simple. yet, guys like Rockwell praise Ron and want guys like him in office. that is a clear contradiction. again, i'm not saying that I wouldn't work alongside an anarchist, i would in a heartbeat. but i'm the consistent one, because I don't believe govt is inherently immoral.


the only way I've tried to characterize YOU is as being among the set of Rand Paul supporters. The rest of our discussion has been about the nature and composition of Daily Paul members that are not me and not you. I don't think I ever mentioned or made any claims about your position on Ron. I automatically assume that most Rand supporters were at one time or most likely continue to admire Ron.

With regards to anarchists engaging in political action, I see no internal inconsistency if someone decides "I believe anarchy would be the best form of governance and I will work within the political system to move society towards a more anarchical system".

Demanding that they view all instances of non-anarchy as maximum supreme evil and demanding they eschew gradualism and/or realism under threat of charges of hypocrisy is just an artificial external imposition.

One thing I think that we can hopefully (and ironically) agree upon is that anarchists and minarchists LOVE to argue! :D

In summary, i have not tried to characterize YOU in any way other than you are pro-Rand. I never doubted you respected Ron. My only conscious focus during our exchange has been on the composition, reception, treatment and behavior of anarchists and atheists here on Daily Paul. :)

On a closing note, I burnt my cheese toast.... :\ But luckily I have more bread and cheese. :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

If that's the reason why I dislike Rand

Then why do I love Ron?

Justify the sanctions on Iran.

I'm not here to justify the

I'm not here to justify the sanctions on Iran. I don't like it either that he voted for them. I don't know if he had a secret agenda in doing that or if he truly does not see sanctions as we do; he may honestly have a different opinion. The point is this: even if Rand is OK with sanctions, that is perhaps his only verifiable flaw. everything else he has said or done that is questionable is also very vague and ambiguous. It's very well that he is simply choosing his words carefully so that the liberty movement can move along.

The liberty movement has never been about "perfect" candidates with "impeccable" views/votes. Dennis Kucinich is a die-hard socialist, but he's great on foreign policy - so RON himself worked alongside him on foreign policy. People like Jim Demint or Mike Lee might not be great on foreign policy, but they are for the most part good on economic issues. So we can work with guys like that when it comes to economics. We can work with someone like Alan Grayson to beat up the FED, or John McCain to oppose torture. Just because you work with someone on ONE issue doesn't mean you endorse EVERY issue they hold. Even Justin Amash has some questionable votes regarding Israel and the Middle East. So, what? Do we crucify him, too? Ron even supported Israel when they preemptively attacked Iraq. Will you take back all of your support for Ron over that? No one is perfect, not even Ron. To write Rand off for one thing, when 95% of everything is great, is foolish and shortsighted.

I'll Take a go on this one...

Maybe because he'd become a laughing stock in the eyes of the GOP, Dems, and MSM if he were to look as if he didn't mind Iran getting a nuke just like his father.... I too disagree with Rand on Iran sanctions but if thats what it takes for the mainstream to take him seriously than I'm all for it. As soon as he's elected he can turn this country around for the better. Sometimes you have to pretend your part of "the group" in order to infiltrate it.


So, voting against sanctions on Iran

Isn't in the same league as bills like The Patriot Act and the NDAA? Rand voted against those, but he can't vote against sanctions?

Where's the line, exactly? Which bills does Rand absolutely, positively need to support in order to gain neo-conservative repoire? And which ones will make you think twice about Rand?

Your answer is in your on words...

Where's the line exactly? Which bills does Rand absolutely, positively need to support in order to gain libertarians support??? You need to remember that Rand has taken allot of flak for supposedly not supporting Israel, or in the eyes of the jewish voter, not supporting the jews. Thats a huge voter block that Rand needs to win over and by not voting for Iranian sanctions it just makes him look even more anti-semitic to those same jewish voters no matter how much we liberty minded people know thats not the case. He must also gain support from the neocons who for some reason have this love affair with Israel and almost every conservative to vote against Israel or against sanctions for Israels enemies gets thrown under the bus. He's playing politics and knows that even if he voted against sanctions their would still be a majority of votes in favour so why not play along and bring people of all different beliefs and ideologies into the liberty movement rather than alienate the voters he needs to win the presidency.



So, are you saying that eventually Rand will need to support or even author bills similar to the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, etc. so that he can gain enough support to get presidency?

What about spending increases? Tax increases? Drone strikes? Will he need to support those as well?


We have slowly but surely educated the GOP and other groups on the dangers of legislation such as that and we all know Rand is a fierce opponent of all those things you've just mentioned. So what if he differs in opinion on one or two issues than you. We still need to turn this country around and with all this infighting and hatred we're not going to get anywhere.



Are you claiming that the GOP doesn't support the bills I listed above anymore?

What evidence do you have to support that? Because by my observations, the GOP is doing exactly what it's been doing since the Bush administration.

And this is not "infighting or hatred" - this is genuine worry and concern.


What I'm saying is that the VOTERS, the true meat and potatoes behind every elected official in America are finally coming around to our way of thinking. They're embracing liberty and it's a beautiful thing. And even if we're outnumbered at the moment there are currently more liberty minded congressmen in DC than there have been in many, many years. Another thing I meant by the GOP is their mouthpiece Fox and the rest of the so called conservative talk radio... I used to tune in and all I'd hear was warmongering and hate. Now I tune in and they are actually talking about the constitution, the bill of rights, TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, Drones, you name it they are discussing it. We just need to take it one step further and in order to do that we need more than just libertarians on board. I can sense your anger over what I've had to say but please think about it. Now is not the time to go our own ways... now is the time for us to fight together as Americans no matter what ethnicity, religion, or ideological beliefs.