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.




Comment viewing options

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

Ever wonder . . .

who made it possible for illegal immigrants to get US paid medical benefits ?

Do you think you can land in Mexico or other foreign countries and have your medical costs covered by their taxpayers ? Just by showing up on their doorstep ?

Who created the 'problem' and why ? How come the problem wasn't nearly as bad in the past ?

Who is framing the argument ? (Not our discussion here, but the illegal immigration issue ?) You do know about the push for a North American union, don't you ?

Just how much of your tax

Just how much of your tax dollars are you willing to commit to beefing up border security?

You said: "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."

I don't for one second believe it is possible to provide anything close to 100% coverage with no failure rate border security. Our borders are large and very porous.

Lets take all the money we use to invade other countries

half a world away and use it to monitor and protect our own border.

Further, if they can watch me with drones, cant they watch the freaking boarder with them?

And I'll take 95% effectiveness.

"I actually feel hopeful about politics again."

Yikes! That's not good! Quick, read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Must-Speak-Large-Print-Edition/dp/1479...

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I agree

Rand also is doing everything a good politician does by providing specific and practical solutions to our society.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?
http://youtu.be/yNF09pUPypw

hope

Now where have I heard that one before?

Want a leader? Look in the mirror.

With that said, I have nothing against Rand supporters; we can't expect others to walk the paths we lay out for ourselves-- its just that I already see a cult of personality being built around him, in part because of his surname. Not just on the DP, either. I tend to support an idea rather than the person saying it.

I can appreciate what he does, and I talk him up around my Republican acquaintances, but I'm done with national level stuff, and have never been fond of the idea of 'following' political figures to begin with. I much prefer 'bottom up' politics, and focus on where I live.

A signature used to be here!

Keep dreaming.

No matter what you do at the local level, if we don't win at the federal level, one day you will either give in, pay aaalllll your taxes, including an energy usage tax, give up your illegal guns, acquire your biometric federal ID card and take your impoverishment with a smile... or the ATF will surround your house one day and your neighbors will see them carry you out in a bag.

I agree OP.

The liberty movement has never been stronger than it is now.

Public opinion and media coverage have never been more favorable than they are now.

We have never had a better shot at the presidency than we have now.

This is it. From now through 2016.

Make hay while the sun is shining. Get excited!

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

1980

It was a similar climate in 1980. Reagan appeared to be a great liberty candidate. Partisanship mattered less in the 1980 election and Reagan marched right into the white house despite harsh treatment from the press (which never ceased). He took the oath and starting acting like a good president and then he got shot. After that, he became no better or worse than any other president in recent memory. He became the founder of neo-conservatism. Will the same thing happen with Rand? Are we fooling ourselves to believe that this system at its current level of entropy can be saved by a good man? Or will the entropy turn the good man into a bad man? Or will it simply render him impotent? What if the executive branch is largely operating outside the control of the executive himself? I think this is very likely the case and yet presidents get blamed for things the NSA does in the dark. I think the NSA does what it wants and doesn't care about who is president.

Rand has a better chance at

Rand has a better chance at winning because he knows how to be a "team player," changing his words in order to not offend his party and constituents whereas Ron tells it like it is and doesn't care what his party thinks by sticking to principle - and I like that.

His straight-forwardness was a powerful tool to encourage people into doing their own research and use critical thinking rather than blindly going along with what their party tells them.

I could trust Ron Paul.

I can't trust Rand Paul.

Heck, look at Rand's past few days. alone:

-- Rand vowed a Supreme Court challenge.
-- Rand said he was aware of the surveillance operation.
-- Rand can't tell us what he knows due to a gag order.
-- Rand wouldn't say whether Snowden was a hero or a traitor.
-- Rand said he doesn't know anything, that he knows nothing, that he can't actually say whether there is anything to Snowden's allegations.

HOW is Rand going to challenge the surveillance operation in the Supreme Court, of all places, when Rand can't talk about what he knows, when Rand can't trust Snowden, when Rand can't make a judgment calls about Snowden, and when Rand doesn't know anything about the operation?

Either, Rand knows everything and is part of the cover-up, Rand knows a little and can't really do anything, Rand doesn't know anything and doesn't have a case to bring, or Rand is bullshitting for kudos/attention (an act that I've always hated about politicians).

Politically, I agree.

I have been thinking the same thing for past couple of days and it does make me happy. But, its important to keep things in perspective. Rand is sharp-as-a-whip politically and could find himself in the White house as a result. That would be a great thing for the liberty movement, but it is still only a political victory and that alone will not save this county. We need more Ron Pauls (rather than Rands) to wake people up, to educate them, and to move public in our direction. In those regards, Ron Paul has laid the ground work for real victory. Rand would never even be a contender if it were not for Ron and Ron's campaigns. So, we need to keep pushing Ron's message and keep building coalitions. As the liberty message SLOWLY creeps its way into the public dialogue, political victories will follow.

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as 'free enterprise.' I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live..." - Robert A. Taft

Maybe Rand in the white house

Maybe Rand in the white house would be great for the liberty movement... however that does not seem to be a foregone conclusion.

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?

Is it a foregone conclusion that a Ted Cruz in the white house would likewise be great for the liberty movement? After all, he does sign his name following "In Liberty".

I do like many things about Rand and he has in many ways exceeded expectations... nevertheless, It seems to me that the risk of a neo-neo-con hijacking of the "liberty movement" is real and growing.

For example, William Kristol recently wrote an article titled "Born Free" where he writes that the IRS scandal is about "liberty" and "self-government"... he speaks of exposing the "bureaucratic arrogance that lies beneath the claims of governmental benevolence". Less than a week later he wrote an article titled "IRS Bad, NSA Good" where he quotes "America's leading libertarian legal thinkers" to back-up his claim that the NSA is "Good". This is after the NSA prism program was revealed... indeed his paper was in response to Snowdens revelations.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/william-kristol

Rand appears to be walking a fine line... how he would walk that line if he were to be elected president is hardly certain.

Again, we need to distinguish between political victories

and victories for the freedom message. You are correctly distinguishing between the two. Political victories MUST be measured by our ability to put candidates that support the liberty message in office. Of course a political victory may harm the larger movement if the wrong the candidate is put in office. Case and point, George W. Bush did great harm to the conservative message.

Personally, I believe that the message is more important than the politics, but I would not forgo the chance to put Rand Paul in the white house b/c he may not be 100% on the same page as me. From what I can tell, he is a pretty strong supporter of liberty on most, if not all issues. Time will tell. But, politically, we should not be hell bent on an all or nothing mantra b/c we will loose that. I see your points though and I'm not sure that anyone really knows the correct balance between promoting a message and political success. I sure don't, but I try to go with my gut.

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as 'free enterprise.' I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live..." - Robert A. Taft

Hope for what?

Political solutions? Political resolutions?

I should remind you that liberty manifests itself in infinite ways the least of which is politically.

Ron Paul was and continues to be a force for the expansion of individual liberty.

In Minnesota this individual liberty has been and continues to manifest in (but not limited to):

- Barter and voluntary trade
- Expansion in home gardening and the preservation of non-gmo seed trading and preservation and the aquisition of agricultural land for same
- Expansion in beekeeping
- Expansion in firearm use and carrying permits
- Expansion in homeschooling networks

"I actually feel hopeful about politics again."

Which is precisely what they are hoping for.

Round and round we go....

You can't lose the game if you're not playing it.

"You can't lose the game if you're not playing it."

Whether you participate in politics or not, you still have the live with the consequences of what the politicians do. That is, you can still be taxed, regulated, unjustly imprisoned, tortured, murdered, etc. There's no freedom in dropping out. You're only going to be free by taking control of the government back from the people who want to make you a slave.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Play a different game...

As a gedankenexperiment I like to put myself in the position of a prole in the Soviet Union around 1975 or so - the era of stagnation (which lasted until the 90's). I would of course have opportunities to meet with my local soviet and pretend to be a good socialist democrat, but would I bother? Or would I just focus on na levo? Given that wages in real terms were dropping 10% a year (hmm), and increasingly the products available in the legal market were of cheap quality or unavailable except to the nomenklatura, I think I know what I would do.

Over 2 billion+ people in the world now (estimated) live and work the "illegal" economy. And from anecdotal accounts (sorry no macro econ in the shadow), their prosperity is increasing rapidly. Meanwhile, western so-called civilization is now a sucker's bet.

Comrades, we are all equal in one thing - time. I hope you enjoy yours - I'll be damned if I waste any more of mine.

couldn't say it better myself

Ron was extreme and we loved him for that, hence his relentless hardcore following. Rand is progress and will help get the neocons and RINOs still sitting on the fence wondering why we lost 2008 and 2012. I will take 75% of Ron Paul and accept Rand Paul because if we fall any further into this hole then we will be too far to pull ourselves out.

Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice,

moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I've never considered RP to

I've never considered RP to be extreme. One of the reasons I believe in him is because he is so reasonable. All he does is simply expect our gov to follow the constitution, our nation's highest law. What can be more reasonable than that?

"Extreme" is a label for politicians who break their oaths, who violate our constitution, etc. They are the true extremists.

...

Ron Paul = extreme? Really?

Ron Paul = extreme? Really?

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

Barry Goldwater...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Barry's quote says

Barry's quote says specifically that "extremism" is a virtue in defense of liberty. So why would it bother you if Ron Paul is described as just that?

Wow...

I haven't posted in a long time either.. and the irony?

I had the exact same thought today as I listened to the Cavuto interview.

Im reading a book 'Everything I learned about Marketing I learned from Google' In the book, the author describes how Barry managed to attain the White House.

My thoughts are that we could use the exact same tactics. The Democrats are already in fear that we shall.

If there are still activists on DP, May I humbly suggest staying active during the midterm elections. Identifying Rand supporters and focusing on helping a candidate you all agree with. Build your coalition early... that way when Rand announces his bid, you hit the ground running with allies you know.

That is what I am doing in Columbus, Ohio. A HUGE battleground state.

Rand is a much better politician than Ron. I believe Rand will protect our rights, get us out of the middle east and get our economy moving again. The way I see it, nobody else is stepping up to the plate the way Rand is.

I am sure as hell going to do what I can to help him win.

Thanks for the post.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

let's complete the analogy you started

Once Rand gets to the White House, he will keep all the promises that brought all those people together, right? Unlike Barrack Obama, who promised to turn back all of Bush's abuses. Cause Obama has just a black, evil heart, while Rand is pure and incorruptible, right?

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Why are you being a dick?

Seriously. GFYS.

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

sorry you took that personally, brother

Just remember that power can corrupt even the most well-intentioned of hearts.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

I'm in Columbus, too. I do what I can here.

Look me up on Facebook. My name is Mark Lundgren.

We should meet up. I rarely meet any active DPers.

yay columbus

Funny, I am also in columbus ohio lol

Send me an email.

Everyone else in Ohio also send me an email. The Central Ohio DailyPaul action committee is commencing.