41 votes

I hate to say it, but Rand gives me more hope than Ron.

Been a long time since I posted on here. I'm glad to see the site is stil up.

I first became introduced to Ron Paul the way many Americans were. He was the kooky guy trying to get the Republican nod by disagreeing with all Republicans and flying a gigantic blimp as part of his campaign. It wasn't until I actually decided to watch a debate when I discovered I was wrong.

Ron Paul would consistently say something logical, something reasonable, something that I've always felt was true in the depths of my soul yet had never had a politician speak aloud, and he would be boo'd and/or mocked for saying it.

I was crushed when he didnt get the nod in 2012. My fervor never wavered, and with the wool no longer over my eyes I couldn't vote for either Barack or Mitt. I voted for Gary Johnson out of spite (because i couldn't decide on a running mate for a Ron Paul write in).

In the months since, I stopped blaming the Republican party for Ron not winning. The reason he lost was the reason he always admitted to up front: His message is great. His message is the one we crave from our government and have been denied too long. But Ron Paul was not able to deliver it to everyone.
I Believe Rand Paul is able, and I think he has already begun.

Ron Paul was "That old guy who's party hates him and wants to go back to using gold." Rand Paul is "That Tea Party senator that filibustered the senate for 13 hours." And today I see he has sponsored "The fourth amendment restoration act of 2013." These are things the media will actually report. These are things that reach those who arent looking for news about liberty, just stumble upon it. While he doesnt have 100% of the same views as his father, they seem to line up on the issue of liberty and personal freedoms.

I actually feel hopeful about politics again.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I don't know how to feel

I don't know how to feel about Rand, one thing is for sure though, He's definitely by far more preferable than anyone else other than his dad. If he runs he has my vote.

What's weird is my dad and his buddy (both avid fox news followers) seem to love Rand, I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or if my red flag should be raised? LOL. Maybe if I wait until the election cycle gets closer and see what their opinion of him is then, I'll know. My guess, and gut feeling tell me that they will start slightly smearing him around campaign time, and then it will be up to me to keep my dad and his buddy supporting Rand.

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!

Rand is trying to play the game moreso than Ron did

But he is despised by the establishment as much as his dad was. The establishment will try to clobber him when the time comes - probably sell him as Alex Jones' best buddy. I do think Rand is a brave and honorable man, tho.

Bologna

Rand isn't playing any games. Rand is telling it as he sees it and the people LOVE him. He's actually more open and honest than his Dad.

I admire and respect Ron Paul for going where no one dared to tread, so I can not and will not, knock him for taking the precautions, not fighting as many of us would have loved to see him, but never did. He had a mission, and that mission was to lay the groundwork for Rand.

Those of us with Rand are the ones who are going to make this happen, and we will, because we are the best there is.. we don't fear any ptb nonsense. We don't hate.. we work to win because freedom is popular and liberty is worth a good fight.

Not an Insult or a Bad Thing

I don't think you're thinking of the same kind of "game" that they are. Then again, more open and honest than his dad? It was jarring how open and honest Ron Paul was. Ron Paul seems more open and honest than the vast majority of Americans. Rand Paul is much more tactful.

I think that many "full" libertarians, as in ones without conservative leanings, who support Rand Paul tend to believe that he's playing "games." As in not advocating policies that are as libertarian as he personally is. Also, that he's picking his battles and prioritizing them. For instance, he might think that restoring civil liberty, ending the wars, and fixing spending are more important than ending victimless crime (too many people support the laws anyway) and he expects to spend his entire presidency fighting on those things and never get around to more radical libertarian policy.

Of course, they could be wrong and Rand Paul's beliefs could just be a blend of libertarianism and conservatism.

Perhaps

Just seems to me, Ron was more a gamer than Rand. Rand is backing up what he's saying with actions.. He's not pandering to Libertarians and I'm very grateful for this because it's a go nowhere party by design, and Rand wants to get somewhere, where Ron would drive me for one, nuts by not standing for himself, or throwing a curve ball.. 911 was not an inside job, but "blowback", for example.

If not for Ron, I would not be in the GOP, and I never thought I would like the GOP, but I really really like the GOP since my committee became a liberty committee. Ron needed us to join the GOP for him to get a nomination he wasn't going to get.. we had to fight.. and now.. so many people on my committee support Rand, it's like we have to fight each other to see who's going to the national convention.. The next RNC is going to be one hell of a party.

Rand doesn't need me.. He's set, and he owes his Dad for that start, but the gains he's made are his own.. he's not playing games, setting anyone up to fight to lose, he's definately in it to win.

yes ty someone else who sees this

I was mocked awhile ago for saying that he is playing the politics game. If you watch though and really pay attention he is doing things to get the republicans to agree with him on things more and more. I think that when, I believe it was senator lee who read the tweets from the night he did the 13 hour filibuster and the senate saw that the public was agreeing with him . That he really does have popular support. So at least to a degree the other republican senators (except Graham and McCain) are trying to work with and agree with him to ride his coat tails in attempt of gaining back popular support.

It also helps that the media wanted to try and grab his coat tails too in an attempt to try and regain viewers.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

Did Rand Know About The NSA Spy Program?

...prior to Snowden's leak to The Guardian? If he did, then that tells me all I need to know about him.

Watch some of the interviews

Watch some of the interviews Rand has given here on the DP...the people who were told about what was going on weren't allowed to talk about it. Congress was essentially stuffed by a gag order with a big smelly sock in their mouths.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

If you were in Congress

and they told you about the program and forbid you to talk about it, what would you do? Would you keep silent or would you blow the whistle?

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Defending the US Constitution is their job . . .

and their obligation. It trumps everything else.

Too many times "I was only following orders" was used as an excuse for evil acts.

Rand is a better politician,

Rand is a better politician, but he would be nowhere without Ron Paul. Remember that. And no, it wasn't Ron's fault he didnt get elected. It was the media. Rand without Ron is nothing(literally, but thats not my point). Ron without Rand is still a growing movement.

Ventura 2012

Rand Paul/Gary Johnson 2016 best path to victory?

Rand gives me more hope in the primary, but less in the general election. Ron turned on many liberals, but Rand turns them off (this might change during the general election when he can be a purer libertarian and less conservative). Maybe if Rand chose Gary Johnson as a running mate, it would help woo the socially liberal while solidifying his support among libertarians.

Completely agree

Ron could not articulate the message of liberty to be appealing to more then a fringe minority. Rand takes that message mainstream. He is careful of what he says and picks his battles. It amazes me how he gets so much criticism from liberty people. There are 99 other senators that are completely corrupt and the one they choose to bash is the one that votes are way 99% of the time. It blows my mind. The purist mentality will get us nowhere.

I think it depends one what your leanings are

I can see how conservative leaning people might feel that way, but as someone who has more liberal rather than conservative leanings, I always felt Ron was more broadly appealing, just not among conservatives.

I still love Rand though.

Sure set around and wait for

Sure set around and wait for someone to create the future you wish to have... See how that works.

I didn't read

Most of the replies, so I apologize if this is a dupe in some ways. Ron plowed and planted seeds. Rand is taking advantage of the harvest, as he should do.

To what degree is Rand committed to party over principle?

I like many things about Rand and he has already taken some very impressive actions in the senate, yet there also are some things that I find very concerning.

What is potentially at stake for the "liberty movement" if a candidate who advocates "principles of liberty" gets elected and yet does not have the strength of character to stand on principle against the military industrial complex, for example? I honestly believe Ron would have been able to do it to a large degree, yet I am unfortunately skeptical that Rand is ready for that.

I remember seeing Rand interviewed at the RNC convention where he appears to be unwilling to acknowledge directly that the RNC's treatment towards his father was clearly unethical and unfair. Instead he seems to rationalize tactics over principle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6vj-JtHrZo&feature=youtu.be

Ron Paul once said, "Patriotism never demands obedience to the state but rather obedience to the principles of liberty." Does this not extend to include obedience to a party?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Principles_+_Values...

He better be dedicated to the GOP

There are hundreds of us who had the guts to join the GOP for Ron, and we remain seated and in position to turn the GOP into a peace party. The naysayers are cowards, liars, cheaters, and have nothing but, fear, hate, blame and excuses to whine and sow doubt.

Rand, like his father who refused to leave the GOP, will not abandon us for the cowards among us, in all their arrogant self righteous BS.

thank you for saying that

Ron's integrity shines through with every word. I am not saying that Rand does not have integrity. It's just not as clear as it is with his dad.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus

Yeah, just keep following

Yeah, just keep following your perception of the lesser of 2 evils. What integrity you have.

The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good things is my religion. Thomas Paine, Godfather of the American Revolution

The underlying motivation

The difference between Rand and the lesser of two evils candidates IMHO is his underlying motivation.

He doesn't have all the same beliefs as his father, children seldom do. And I know there are some things I disagree with him on, but what two people are in complete agreement on everything?

But at his core I believe he is committed to lessening the grip of government on our lives, backing off the march of tyranny, restoring sound economics and re-establishing the Constitution as the rule of law. And he has publicly stood up for the same and garnered public support in the process.

In the end Rand/Ron are inconsequential in and of themselves, as is the presidency. The battle remains the same. We need to win over the hearts and minds of the citizens. To re-establish a thirst for liberty and freedom. And to fill our government and political parties from the grassroots up with people of integrity who support our constitution.

Mighty mountains in grandeur stand, but tiny raindrops turn them to sand! Noah, I think I just felt a raindrop!!

Rand would be nothing without Ron

Not just literally regarding his existence. But politically as well. imo, Rand is just a means for the tea baggers and conservatives to not lose face. Since they are all to cowardice to admit they were wrong and Ron has been right this whole time.

Rand is reaching more people, but he had to compromise on the non aggression principal and voted along side the statists on the Iran sanctions. Its hard for me to call Rand's attention a success for liberty as this is the most important principal of ours. What kind of message are we really trying to send? Not to mention the debates we shall have with the indoctrinated ones. They will call hypocrite...They will bring up the fact that his father Ron considers sanctions an act of war. I truly don't believe Rand believes in sanctions, but I think he voted that way to play the politics game....not sure which is worse...

I will concede I still like Rand and I still believe by far he is the only reasonable person in all of congress (not including amash, and massie of course. I think they are more solid on liberty principals then Rand).

.

.

What keeps me up at night is this...

That Rand come out for this Immigration bill.

If he does, then I cannot support him.

I find this sudden, almost uniform support of this bill on the part of the Obama/McCain/Graham, Jeb Bush, Rubio very erie, as though the unseen powers that be have put out the word and are calling in the IOUs.

I trust Sessions assessment completely that enforcement is a shame in this bill. So when I read Rand's "we'll find a place for you" speech, a cold chill ran down my spine. I fear he is prepping us for his support for this bill.

I cannot support any candidate who supports this bill. The fact that the very reasonable and fair view that real enforcement must precede amnesty is not considered acceptable by these people tells me that this bill is an act of violence against the middle and lower classes of this nation. It is a degradation of their citizenship. Further, this means a further shift to the left politically.

The is no more assimilation in this country, The very notion is ridiculed. There is no melting pot. The ideas of the founders grows more and more remote to the citizenry as the peasants flood in and are subsequently bought and paid for by the left.

Any "libertarian" politician who supports this either to false or too dumb to be president.

So I am waiting and hoping that i am reading Rand wrong on this bill and that ultimately he will stand and fight this. But if he bends and joins John and Jeb and Lindsey and Marco and Ryan, then I will know what he really is and I will run the other way.

Rand has said that he supports the amnesty bill

which includes provisions for a national biometric ID card. ('Terrorism' and this bill are excuses they use to create this 1984 police state.) This will absolutely kill what little is left of what America was supposed to be about. It will legitimize the illegal acts of millions of people and bring in millions more. There are enough ignorant Americans who have no idea of what their nation's history and foundational principles are. We don't need millions of ignorant foreigners who come here only for financial reasons. They definitely don't come here to become Americans, (often waving the flag of Mexico). This is designed to destroy the national sovereignty of America.
There is no immediate, pressing need to push this bill. That is especially the case given the dire economic conditions and the high level of unemployment among Americans. I fear this could cause division and violence. D.C. politicians are pushing this for their own selfish reasons. Is Rand a fool or is he playing politics ? In either case he and the other politicians are playing with our lives and that of our families and that of our America. Many of us don't like it one bit.

Rand Paul ain't Ron Paul by a long shot. Some seem to think his last name gives him a free pass.

Personally, I don't think there are any 'solutions' to be had out of D.C. That place is a corrupt cess pool. The answers are at the state and local levels . . and with us as individual Americans.

We will find out soon enough if Rand is another D.C. liar.

Rand has offered an amendment that would require the Gov to implement specific border security measures, including hundreds of miles of additional fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, and provide a report to Congress each year on its progress. Then Congress would vote annually as to whether the agency had met its goals. "Each year, another group of illegal immigrants would earn legal work visas if the metrics are met", Paul said.

He did indicate that if this amendment was rejected he would vote no.

Maybe this a sham, and i find it totally unsatisfying. But I also doubt it will be adopted, So we will find out if Paul is a liar. Because if he votes yes after this amendment is not incorporated, then he will have lied.

Progressers insist on

Progressers insist on everyone living in the land of pretend and make believe. Basically they're clinically insane. They think by sheer will they can make their vision of utopia happen. Rand is working within that paradigm, and what he is sculpting is a way to boobytrap the outcome so it works for his base.

For all I care if Rand is not successful, I could care less if black unemployment goes from 16% to 25% under this bill.

Whether you care to

Whether you care to acknowledge the millions of "hidden" immigrants in the US or not, they won't simply disappear and there is no conceivable way for police and government to round up every one of them for legal deportation. This is a plain fact. They're here and they're not leaving no matter how much one refuses to see that.

You don't solve a problem . . .

by making it worse.

You should ask why its defined as a 'problem', and for whom.

No other nation is quite as stupid about illegal immigration as the US. This is allowed to happen because powerful interests want it to happen.

I believe I said amnesty is acceptable with real enforcement

I don't get your point at all. What about the next twenty million that enter after this group is taken care of? Without border control, this same scenario plays itself out over and over again.

Do you know how many babies of people here on visitor's visa's are born into US citizenship under emergency medicaid paid for by you? Do you know how many are allowed in more than 5 months pregnant? If, as Dr. Paul says, we have no money for foreign entanglements and wars, from whence does the money come for this?

Do you honestly believe the Rubio lie that this means "15,000,000 more tax payers", as though adding to an impoverished underclass will make us all wealthier?

I am struggling to understand your motives. Do you accept the simplistic stupidity of these arguments because you haven't learned to think, or do you really want a cataclysmic collapse of American society?
Do you hope for one, either because you want to try out your neat survivalist skills and stores of food and ammo? Or do you just want the consequences of all this to provide the cover for more and more Government?

I reject the idea that the Govt cannot restrict the employment of illegals. I reject the idea that there is no way to avoid putting them on the public dole.

As I said, I accept a compassionate program to help and assimilate those already established here, primarily because they are here at the complicity of a corrupt and cynical Gov't. But only if measures are taken to prevent this from happening over and over again.

Do you think there won't be a market for illegal workers after these folks are legalized and under minimum wage and Obamacare? Is your position that it is desirable to continue this cycle over and over up to a total of 50,000,000? 100,000,000?

No one can truly be a constitutionalist and want an unlimited number of poor immigrants flooding into this country to have their children indoctrinated by inner city public schools on the blessings of big government and the evils of the racist founders.

This notion of the desirability of open borders is the poison pill within libertarianism. To think that real freedom means no borders is to deny the reality that only in a consensus on the the rights of man and the legitimate role of government is there hope.