63 votes

I fully support Rand Paul

Leadership takes balls. Rand has consistently stood up for our Liberty, laws and money. He forced a vote to make the Senate break its own law. He forced the administration to explain its position on killing Americans without due process. That is leadership.

Rand is leading the Republican party. That is why he is being attacked.

Rand is not his father. Rand is much more shrewd, political and has the desire to win. Imagine being the son of Ron Paul. Witnessing the amount of lies and bullchit. Would you be a copy of your father? Would you learn from what you witnessed and advance the same philosophy in a different way?

What is the goal? If it is to protect our rights and the rule of law, I ask this community to point at another leader that does it better than Rand!?

I am not excusing Rand. We should all remain very critical of his leadership. I am not excusing the grassroots either. We should look at our options and support those that display great leadership in the cause we believe in.

Our message is winning. Rand Paul is the leader of our movement whether you like it or not. Nobody else defends us, the rule of law and our Constitution the way he does. Rand is very smart and committed to our cause. His actions have proven that to me over and over again. Politics is a dirty ass game and I understand why he is playing the game the way he is. Rand wants to win.

I believe in the leadership of Rand Paul because he has consistently displayed the greatest leadership capabilities. Rand remains principled and committed to the cause of Liberty and Justice.

The apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Don't let anybody tell you

Don't let anybody tell you about how the delegate strategy will work. The only way Rand becomes the nominee is if he wins the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses. The delegate strategy has been debunked by the crooks at the RNC.

Down vote me if you will,

but I believe Ron's approach, not Rand's, would have won in the long run. Rand will find it hard to win the general election, because the liberty oriented segment of the left does not trust him, and for good reason. Lying will never gain any long term gain in liberty. That is a moral law and is as inviolable as the law of gravity.

I think that Rand Paul is a arseloch.

Absolutely do not trust the little scheiss.

I would never give him one iota of support.

People had better wake up. I consider Rand Who? to be
dangerous and a monster.

Agree with you

I think the GOP has an army of downvoters anytime they post a Rand propaganda here. Could so many of the people understand Ron Pauls message and be so ignorant as to support his wrong minded wrong directioned son? I do not believe so.

Rand is more of the same IzUnReal firster, Big fed, war mongering no change, love the GOP trash.


I don't fully trust him either,

but a vote for him may make liberty win in the end, as he will be forced to put a true liberty candidate on as VP in order to placate the liberty movement. I believe the exposure liberty issues will receive if he runs in 2016 may make the public demand liberty from its leaders, and Amash or the Judge could be in a position to pick up the pieces in 2024.

On the other hand, his promise to limit (!) the annual federal budget to $4 Trillion after 5 years does not inspire at all, and for this reason maybe he could not win a general election.

The truth is, we do not know which way he will swing on important issues, and for this reason, I believe skepticism is in order.


I may be too apodeictic in the trust department but

I dont consider trust to be a halfway thing.

You've got a point.

Let me break it down for you:

I DO trust him to take the correct positions much of the time.

I do NOT trust him to take all his positions from a perspective of principled support for liberty.

I MAY vote for him, if he puts a liberty candidate on as VP.

I would PREFER to vote for a principled liberty candidate such as Justin Amash or the Judge.

RandWatcher's picture

Does that mean you fully support Mitch McConnell too?

Mitch is going to need all the help he can get against that pesky "Tea Party."



Please reread what I wrote. Politics is a dirty ass game and I am happy that Rand is playing it the way he is. That doesn't mean I support McConnell.

We can bitch about his alliances and not like the people he supports. Thats fkn politics. Its dirty and ugly.

At the end of the day, Rand defends the principles and issues that matter most to me. Rand would be a fool not to support McConnell. McConnell is a very powerful Senator. Losing him could cost Rand big time in 16. Helping McConnell will only help Rand. McConnell knows he is in trouble and needs him.

This is chess and not checkers. In order to be effective, you must be strategic.

That is the point about leadership. Sometimes the trivial stuff doesn't matter when you are aiming for a higher goal. You and I cannot control everything and a good leader knows that. At some point you gotta have faith in the leadership they display. As long as Rands principles are not compromised, Im on team Rand.

'Politics makes strange bedfellows.' Charles Dudley Warner

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

you make a very good point. I

you make a very good point. I remember not to long ago Ron was supporting someone from Texas who we liberty types did not care for and Ron said I can't alienate my own party. Basically saying sometimes you have to play politics.

Dammit man! Where did all the

Dammit man! Where did all the Rand haters go? Did we change their minds or did they leave? I hope it's the former.


the "haters" just got tired of all the USA! STAND WITH RAND! USA! STAND WITH RAND! and the refusal of a lot of his supporters to see any faults whatsoever and adamantly refuse to debate any issues in question, answering all critique with: he's playing chess. he's tricking them. like the GOP old boy network would be that stupid to not see through that.

granted, some posters were totally out of line, and i'm glad to see them gone as well.

all and all i think rand is a fantastic senator, most of the time.

The shills will be as persistant as they get paid

Agree with you completly. Bah stand with rand.

A stand with Rand is a stand with Mitch M, Mitt Romney, Jessie Benton. A stand with Rand is a stand with IzUnReal mddle east genocide of palastine. A stand with Rand is ww3. Stand with Rand is GOP statis quo.

No is my final answer on Rand.


All I ever had to hear was

All I ever had to hear was "End the Fed." I've heard it early and often from Rand. All the rest is just noise.

actually i haven't heard

it mentioned by rand now for about a year, and i have wondered whats up with that. am i wrong? can you show me otherwise?

that's audit the FED

your post claimed he wanted to end the FED like his father. ron paul already had the FED audited, not that it shouldn't be audited again and again, but the issue is END THE FED. please show me something where rand advocates that.

A full audit has never been

A full audit has never been done. The audit you refer to during Ron Paul's tenure was only partial. Campaign for Liberty's position is that a full audit is the first step toward abolition. The editorials you posted are meaningless.

meaningless to you

doesn't make it meaningless to others. when i see people chanting END THE FED at rand paul speeches like they do at ron's you'll not only get my attention but many, many others.

Yes, meaningless to me. You

Yes, meaningless to me. You have posted editorials, works of opinion written by people with opinions. I have my own, thanks. One of those is that Rand Paul is committed to ending the Federal Reserve. Maybe you don't believe that. Maybe you're one of the Rand haters I was posting about earlier in the thread. That's cool. Believe what you want. But I remember listening to Rand before he was famous. I believed then that he was sincere and I believe it now, regardless of where celebrity politics may take him in the short run.

I haven't considered

myself a "Rand hater" by any means. I think he's been a mostly terrific senator, although each time I began to build more enthusiasm about him he'll do or say something that kills it. His latest comment that he has no sympathy for Pvt Manning, a man who exposed war crimes and was then tortured, and then Rand saying that Snowden too should be behind bars I found utterly disgusting, and perfectly in line with the neocon establishment, still it doesn't cause me to hate him, just his philosophy. I much prefer Gary Johnson who I've never caught in a lie (like Rand) or shamelessly pander (like Rand does). I hope you're right about him wanting to end the fed, and that he continues that fight with a full audit. I'd also like to see him follow Dennis Kucinich's lead (a good friend and supporter of his fathers) to also end the NSA.

Not disputing you, but please

Not disputing you, but please show me where Rand said Snowden should be in jail. I have not heard that. All I have read is that he was reserving judgement and that he, along with James Clapper, in lying to Congress, both broke the law. All of his comments that I'm aware of are tempered, to say the least.




no, you're right, tempered up to now

but then he gave a speech the other day at CATO that once it is made available we will see exactly what he said or didn't say. there's a whole thread here on this issue based on this report: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/08/rand-paul-on-br...

which is based on DLmagazine. which is based on the speech. there is a lot of arguing about the exact wording he used, but as EPJ states the tone is the same. i for one hope he didn't demean manning and snowden, but we shall see. a lot of outcry from libertarian websites, one has gone so far as to withdraw their endorsement.

I guess I just see things

I guess I just see things differently. I read the article and the comments. I just don't see the big deal with what Rand is saying. Manning and Snowden DID break the law. There is no way to write-in an exception to this law for ethics based whistle blowing because the circumstances are different in each case and different people have different moral values. It would be antithetical to a system that is supposed to strive for objectivity. Having said that however, I think Manning should've gotten about 5 years with time served and Snowden should be offered a plea to a minimal charge and brought back to sit down in front of a televised Congressional hearing. I think Rand's opinion, based on what I've heard, is probably pretty similar to mine. Let's recognize that laws were broken, in respect for the rule of law, and proceed from there to get to the bottom of why those laws were broken, namely a runaway intelligence structure trampling on the Constitution. Rand is not an anarchist, and I'm glad of it. I think people like Wenzel do us all a dis-service in slamming people like Rand.

yes we sure do

i think manning should be released for exposing war crimes and given the peace prize obama received, and snowden should be given a full pardon and a ticker tape parade, and i'm glad i'm not alone in that opinion. why not lock up the lying clapper and and the thugs who were/are involved in torture and blowing civilians to smithereens? rand has stated that he is not a libertarian, altho he plays to that side as well as the establishment republicans. here's something else you're not going to like but i give you credit for at least listening:

You are right about that.

You are right about that. Clapper should be prosecuted for lying to Congress. The pilots in the helicopter video footage that Manning delivered to Wikileaks should be prosecuted. I would just make a couple of observations. One, if Rand Paul is lying to one group, as the guys in the Adam vs the man video say, which group do YOU think he's lying to? And two, take a look around. Are there not more than enough current issues wanting a libertarian commentary that would perhaps be a better expenditure of one's time than raking Rand Paul over the anarchist coals?

the theme of this thread

is "i fully support rand paul" so there are going to be some folks who don't, and some who are still watching him or support him sometimes, or support him as a senator. i never had much of an interest in politics and then i read about this ron paul guy and before i knew it i was working on his campaign. there has never been anyone like him before or since. so, you could say i'm spoiled. from what i've seen so far i could not get behind rand, donate money and time, and i believe ron when he says it's an intellectual revolution. i think it's going to take time and events before we see any real swing towards liberty. i think rand lies to both groups,and also tells the truth to both groups. one step forward, two steps back. his advisors will will steer him more towards one group as 2015 approaches, and my guess it will be the establishment republicans. he will bring along some of the liberty crowd because he is ron's son,and because some will feel that once in office he will do some good. ralph nader wrote a very good, fair and intelligent critique of rand: http://nader.org/2013/08/09/the-dilemma-of-senator-rand-paul/
unless i see some drastic change, like rand proclaiming himself the peace candidate i will vote for gary johnson, who is not perfect either but more in line with liberty, and seems a trustworthy man, something that i never get from rand. do you think rand will ever draw the massive, passionate college crowds like his dad did without becoming the peace candidate? politicians in general are bad news in my opinion, and so ones who offer a glimmer of sanity,one holds even more to the fire to make sure they are the real deal, and not just after power and stardom.

I do believe Rand is playing

I do believe Rand is playing politics to OUR ultimate benefit, but that opinion is biased by my own personal opinion of the man. I had a chance to meet him at a C4L function and I've been behind him ever since. I'm a street wise kind of guy and a good judge of character. I'm trusting my own instincts. As for Gary Johnson, I voted for him in 2012 and he'll surely get my vote again in '16 if he runs again and Rand is not the nominee.

i'm sure he's a swell

guy to talk and have a beer with, (after all he is ron paul's son!) but if you're really a street wise kind of guy then you realize that one meeting with someone doesn't seal a deal. i wish i could tell you all the people i've met (who put on their good side) and turn out to be something else. no, i'm not saying he is a bad person, but he is a real politician (unlike his dad) so for me he's already got a strike against him. for OUR benefit? so none of this is for HIS benefit? sorry, i don't buy that. johnson seems more like ron than rand does, to me. out of the three i've met ron and there my friend is a man who is one in a million (no hidden agenda, no pretense, no craving for power or ego. what you see is what you get). we probably agree on that, but i don't base that on one meeting, but rather a close study for many years. we may both end up voting for the same man after all. good luck to you.