53 votes


Check this address for all of the latest DP postings on Rand Paul:

www.randwatch.com. The site defaults to this page on the DP: www.dailypaul.com/rand

It is an alternate view that Jon built of this site's Rand Paul Forum. Either of those links above will give you a one stop shop for all the user generated Rand Paul stories here on the site.

It isn't quite done, and we're still tweaking it, but the cat escaped the bag a little early.

I hope all of you enjoy this new feature of the DP.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Rand Paul supports filibuster against Chuck Hagel


His reasons seem pretty thin. Seems he desperately wants to be part of the Republican pack.

There's a great example of topic hijacking.

I thought this thread was about Michael's new site section for Rand Paul? How does this comment help in that discussion? It doesn't. It's tangential. The original discussion may get buried thusly, only to pop up in multiple new places. Michael, do you see how that works?

To the poster, I don't mean to single you out. You're just doing what's commonly done in the DP.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Michael Nystrom, you are suffering from trollitis. Get the cure.

As the creator and sole moderator of a large interactive site (131,000 pages and growing) over the last 12 years, I have some insight into the difficulty of keeping a community on track.

In my case, my site is dedicated to giving a voice to, to make up a fictitious example, organic apples and everything supportive of this subject. We have parasitic and divisive subjects that creep in—oranges, apple cider, and the ultimate superiority of Monsanto products. (I call them parasitic as they covet our free advertising base.) Hey, they're related subjects, right? Isn't this a free country, with free speech and all that?

No! This is not meant to be free speech. A privately created, owned and managed web property IS NOT a street corner, public park or other public facility. The Daily Paul is not tax funded. What gives it value is precisely the care the owner takes to keep it on course, and steer clear of the rocks. No one enjoys a nasty free for all, 24/7. A forum that allows everything without moderation soon devolves to catering to the lowest standard of discourse. Think about it. During the Constitutional Convention, our Founders locked that room up tight as a drum. It was vital that the debates stay true to the task, and not be at the mercy of those who would rather derail a movement with endless divisive argument whenever their points were not prevailing. If they hadn't done this properly, we wouldn't have a country.

In my online community, the members count on me to enforce my chosen policy, without exception or favoritism. My policy includes staying on topic, no topic hijacking, keeping off topics in the dedicated areas set aside for that purpose, and above all, no flaming or destruction of camaraderie. I've had to ban members that enjoy some popular support but use that influence to polarize and divide the community. I've had to remove trusted moderators that openly and repeatedly violated our stated rules. So it's very important to have those rules well thought out, and published.

Some of the latest developments at DP may invite trouble. Let's use my site as an example. Setting aside a forum for Monsanto, and announcing there would be no rules would eventually create a liability issue, since Monsanto may become concerned that the site owner is hosting defamatory or slanderous material without exercising any responsibility. Lawsuits can burn a great site to the ground.

Not to mention, the unmoderated flame wars that would follow would not automatically restrict themselves to the roped-off area. They would become empowered, and become even more of a threat to the enjoyment of the remainder of the site. Why give chaos a foothold?

If I perceived it correctly, Michael's original intent was to give a voice to supporters of Ron Paul, and the things they like to discuss. Somehow that morphed (free speech argument?) into anything liberty oriented. This allowed the camel to get his nose under the tent. Now, oranges, Monsanto and papayas need equal time! My site was intended to be about organic apples, the focus of my passion. But now all that material is shoved over to the corner to make room in the tent. For the camels... gotta be fair to the camels... am I going insane, or is that a camel in my tent?

My advice, unsolicited as it is, is for Micheal and moderators to lose their fear. Ron Paul is not going to sue you for dedicating an entire, hugely popular website to his principles! Refocus this monster to your original vision. Restore the branding of the site as exclusively Ron Paul and 'supporting' subjects. Eliminate like a drone missile anyone that disrespects and undermines your vision from within your domain. Why show mercy to someone who is openly mocking you until you succumb, clearly states that this is their object, and uses your own assets to accomplish it? Why use up your valuable time and energy to deal with manufactured, divisive arguments? A troll's sport is to drive you and your members crazy, to make you gradually lose your sanity, to make you spend all your time giving them attention. Why do we let ourselves be drawn into this? Realize there are most likely paid trolls with the assignment to distract, drain and destroy you. Do you feel that energy drain? Do you find yourself writing long explanations in your appeasement of trolls? Do you hear them taunting you to ban them? Do you spend some of your free time worrying about what so-and-so is saying on your site?

You have trollitis. You need to perform some trollectomies. State your policies clearly first, but don't be surprised when you're called a dictator anyway. That will come. Use that opportunity to eliminate a few more that flame you. Pigs squeal when slaughtered. But they taste good. :D

(I've chosen to make my next website 100% Ron Paul, just his words without commentary. That reduces the moderation overhead and focuses the site like a laser on our favorite subject matter. I can't do it alone, so we need volunteer editors. It's built as a wiki, so everyone can participate. The original Wikipedia has over 31 million volunteer created pages. Who will step up for Ron Paul's wiki?)

Thanks for reading. I hope this has been helpful to Michael and his team. This site, the Daily Paul, is literally a dream come true. Congratulations on this fantastic achievement! It is a help to many with our gaze firmly on the horizon.

Does anyone know how I can reach Ron Paul, without being sidelined by some handler? I'd love to provide consultation and help him cut through some BS.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Yay! Thank You!

Yay! Thank You!

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. - Matthew 10:16


Thank you Michael

Notice my signature

First.. jon, GREAT JOB! THANK YOU!!!!

Now, I approve of the Randwatch.com and do not feel it is dividing anything on DP. As an elected republican who is preparing to attend my CA GOP convention, and am being swamped with political letters, I'm actually reading and replying.. randpaul.com is a great tool for me. It enables me to show republicans RAND, unbiased.. it's ALL things Rand, good, bad, ugly and right on. It gives the veiwer the ability to make up their own mind.. and if they like it,, then they can check out DP.

I think it's a win/win for all of us.

I intend to make business cards with www.randwatch.com and pass those out at te convention.. want to make sure karl rove gets one too.

www.randwatch is a great tool and I hope those who think it's not, reconsider and see it for what it's worth: opportunity to grow the GOP (restore the republic through education, freedom of information and access).

Thank you MN!

Here is the bottom line: If

Here is the bottom line:

If we embrace Rand and put him over the top, the liberty movement has a chance to grow.

If we don't, it will die with Ron.

Those are the cold, hard facts.


The Liberty Movement will not die. That's a bad argument.

I'm with you that we should elect Rand. He's by far the best option and has a REAL chance to actually change the world for the better, and not just TALK about it like Ron.

But freedom will not die because people won't embrace Rand. Every single human being on the face of the planet could completely forget about Ron Paul and everything we've done, and still, someone would emerge to talk about freedom. There is ALWAYS someone.

Because I believe that our sense of "morality" comes from the only universal truth, the only thing that we are truly all born with -- the "golden rule" or principle of non-aggression or whatever you want to call it. The idea that peoples' freedom should only end where another's begins.

Im not sure where you got the

Im not sure where you got the idea that someone always emerges. Even if they did, they are at square one.


conspiracy theories, bitcoin spam, and glen beck i can continue to post here as normal, right?

it's the pilthy rand stuff that I need to post, elsewhere, is that my understanding?


that's pretty much it.

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

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Sen. Rand Paul Fox Business News 8 PM EST

Cavuto has the Senator on his show tonight.

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath


Despite the knocks against him, it might be beneficial to start something like "LibertyWatch.com" also, for more general and Libertarian oriented stuff. Keep up the great work, Mike!

ytc's picture

Thanks for creating randwatch.com!

I was hoping to follow some of Rand's liberty-oriented bills, speeches & announcements, but I really had enough of his recent Israel-first moves. This dedicated forum will allow me to peek into his activity, when I wish to. . . without getting bombarded by his fans.

As the guy who created the phrase "Rand Hater"

As the guy who created the phrase "Rand Hater", at least as far as I know, I approve of this. Rand is not a messenger for liberty so he shouldn't be a main topic on DP. I can guarantee you that a vocal, open libertarian cannot win the presidency in 2016. So what is the point of attacking a liberty friendly potential candidate who actually has a chance of winning? We can't have what we want so lets sit around attacking the next best thing . . anyway I think the anti-Rand Haters have succeeded at breaking the consensus that was forming that Rand is the 'Devil' or whatever these delusional people think, that's all I hoped to accomplish.

I feel like we are being

I feel like we are being kicked off the buss.

I don't

Uhh... (updated)

This is a great idea, but are we expecting people to have to enter the web address to get to it?

I see it under a tab, but good luck to anyone else looking for it. Are we expecting everyone to bookmark it?

How about placing it as a hyperlink on the top margin or as a hyperling under "Forums" or something?

Having to go to Forums + this + that + only on a full moon + with the fog rolling in = Rand Paul is a bit



Forums and seeing a Rand Paul option is a good idea...

Ok, I am done.

(and no, I do not see myself clicking it very often)


I refuse to 'watch' rand. too many better options can pull together before 2016. e.g., someone not status quo.

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

there are only 2 equall..

there are only 2 equall.. Judge Napolitano and Chuck Baldwin.

Man, you hit that nail Twice on the Head...

Indeed they both are. Rand comes close and is playing the game. Hoepfully he gets it and then goes constitutional once there.

With Hitlery announcing she

With Hitlery announcing she is most likely going to run, If people do not get behind one candidate, any of these 3, we are in for 8 years of that bitch. Those 3 gents are the only 3 who can beat her.

I remember his winning speech

He said something along the line of "This is the Peoples Seat" refering to his Senate seat he won...

No Rand, it is the States Seat at the Fed table. The Congressional seat is the Peoples seat.

But I let it slide. But I am rather happy with his approach. Not going to trash on him yet.

Seems like a good idea

If you love Rand, you have a forum dedicated to him,
If you hate him, you don't have to use that forum,
If you're not sure, you have everything in one forum until you decide.
Quite simple, methinks.

Since you still carry the

Since you still carry the Daily Paul logo on Randwatch, you have just divided your site into two factions....pro Rand and the others. It's obvious that Rand watch is intended to intensify the promotion of Rand Paul as an umbrella site on the Daily Paul. Good luck with your agenda, now out in the open. Whoever is the driving force behind the Rand Paul fan club is relentless in making this happen.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Clarification: RandWatch is not "pro" Rand

It's obvious that Rand watch is intended to intensify the promotion of Rand Paul as an umbrella site on the Daily Paul.

You misunderstand. www.dailypaul.com/rand It is a place for people to discuss / argue & fight about Rand as they please without that brawl spilling onto the front pages of the DP.

I don't have much interest in Rand, and I have even less interest in seeing the inane back + forth arguments taking over the site, and even less interest in breaking up fights. So that section of the site will be largely unmoderated.

This is the best win-win solution I can come up with.

I think it's a great idea

I think it's a great idea because it will enable you to get more advertising flowing into your coffers from a target audience you may not always agree with, but money is money (or should I just say, "Yay, capitalism"!)

I don't think the arguments

I don't think the arguments for or against Rand are "inane" at all.

In fact, it is the crux of the movement. I don't see why we need to break up fights. I think we *need* to work through this stuff. Otherwise, we are dead like the tea party.

The Rand page is a bit too "controlled" for my taste, but it is your site (and I'm not a paying member, so who am I to complain?). IMHO, stifling this kind of debate will just stall our progress, and make people more angry. It's exactly the kind of thing that drew people into supporting Ron. When they ignored Ron and tried to stifle arguments for or against him, it made us more determined.

I respect the attempt to solve the problem, but like it or not, people now have firm opinions on Rand and "corralling" these opinions into a little outhouse just isn't going to work. Welcome to the Internet! :)

Rand arguments are not the crux of MY movement

He's just a semi-promising politician. Speculation about which way he will blow is just gambling and drama.

The crux of MY movement is liberty and the Constitution versus tyranny. Good luck to Rand in that battle, but I haven't got much faith in him, so as far as I'm concerned, "coralling" is a good effort. It brings his influence here down to a size proportionate to his relevance to the Ron Paul Revolution, emphasis on Ron.