-20 votes

Against supporting Rand in 2016

This post isn't against Rand himself, but rather against supporting him in his quest for the presidency. Focusing on Rand misdirects our attention from ideas that could work, to a cause that is doomed to fail. If you feel that Rand is the best way to defeat the socialist, globalist elite, you have not properly assessed the situation.

No one can win without the support of the traditional media, which is entirely owned by them.

Their public school system has had access to the majority of young Americans since 1910.

The elite of both parties are made up of globalists.

They control the Federal Reserve system, with which they could crush the US economy in an instant.

They own the Supreme Court of the US, as evidenced by the Obamacare decision.

They control all of the behind the scenes, alphabet soup agencies. CIA NSA FBI etc.

They have majority stake in (through government funds), and alliances with, all of the major corporations.

They control the political process completely. Now with their electronic voting machines, it doesn't even matter how people vote.

The sum of all this is pretty conclusive: There is no victory through the system, it is just not possible. The system has been locked up for a long, long time. If Paul doesn't swear allegiance to the powers that be, he will never be president. End of story. Presidents are selected, not elected, and there will be no miracles. The last time a president stepped out of line, they shot him in broad daylight.

In the end, Rand's 2016 candidacy will be a black hole for money and enthusiasm, or if he is successful, a massive betrayal. There is, however, a way forward. This. Here is my alternative to the "Rand presidency fallacy", or RPF ;).

If this post freed you from the RPF, please come up with more ideas to subvert the elite and restore liberty. If you didn't suffer from RPF in the first place, please comment below with your ideas. If on the other hand, you still suffer from RPF, please detail below how Rands 2016 campaign will, against all probability, restore liberty.

Comment viewing options

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

A bit harsh, but altogether

A bit harsh, but altogether true. The Granger is an oddity, to be sure.

Not Arguing, But...

...when pointing out those who would restrict my liberty directly and/or by more circuitous methods, how then can a man of intense liberty-principle and ethic not bluntly call things as they actually are, rather than how they are falsely framed?

My underlying reason for doing so, is that if people continue to willfully ignore those like 'the granger' (the example), then this whole exercise in attempting the restoration of the Republic, is fruitless.

To be infested by faux-liberty is to never actually achieve liberty in the first place.

Not everyone can or does meet minimum core principles and standards and in my world, those who do not are never allowed in my foxhole or on my fire-team.

Not a popular set of standards with most, to be sure, but then, I am not a compromiser, a rationalizer or a justifier.

An analogy...

One does not hire a known child molester to babysit one's children, even if that molester claims to be reformed or not to be what is self-evident. Neither does one entrust one's life-savings to a known thief, whether an admitted one, or not.

metalhed19's picture

I don't want him to run

I don't want him to run either, and he's my favorite Senator by far, due to pretty much what was listed above. The MSM will dig up or do some scandal, "Newsletters" type thing, at the same time they are calling Hellery's candidancy "Historic" Rand will get asked stupid questions like his dad did, etc etc. Also via Kentucky State Law you can run for ONLY 1 office at a time. If he loses, he is out of politics. Just my gold standard .02 cents, Rand needs to stay in the Senate, keep making waves like the awesome fillibuster, keep his FB page, and keep imforming people. Also stuff like denying Georgia admittance to NATO, it had to be unanimous, and if he wouldn't have done it, we might be bound by treaty to be fighting Russia right now. Just be the Best Senator. He might have help by then..

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

Really Kentucky has that law.

Thats a great law and it should be the law for every state in the union.

metalhed19's picture

I don't want him to run

Double post Please delete Mods

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"


for the free-market of ideas