Comment: I can't disagree.

(See in situ)


I can't disagree.

I find Rand to be an extremely nice person, just like his father. I respect both of them. But the claims I've made against him have not been fallacies, demagoguery, gossip, or innuendo. They have been cold, hard facts that can be verified.

The argument from pro-Randers is that Rand is playing smart politics by compromising his principles to get others to come his way on other positions.

The argument from me is that that is exactly how every other politicians' career has started and it never ends well. Ron Paul gained our support through blood, sweat, and tears over the course of time that is longer than my lifetime, during the majority of which he had little-to-no support.

Now, when Dr. Paul is at his peak in support and we are ready to jump ship to someone trusting since Ron is leaving politics after this election (if he doesn't win) Rand betrays the traits of his father that we actually found attractive. Those traits being: unwavering in principle, never compromising, and speaking the truth to those who don't want to hear it.

The sanctions on Iran that Rand supported? His explanation was watered down dribble that I'd expect from Romney.

The gay jokes he made to the right-wing crowd after Obama came out in support of gay rights? Can you imagine his father making those comments? Did his response give you the impression that he wanted liberty for all?

The endorsement of Mitt Romney? We all know what Romney is. He's establishment. He'll continue the same nonsense that Obama has - he will never abolish the Patriot Act, NDAA; he will never produce a realistic budget cut plan; he will never stop the endless wars. Is this the type of person you want your constituents voting for? Compromising with someone like this is a RED FLAG.

The establishment is never going to change...we have to over-take them by majority because they will never come our way. That's the honest truth and anyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves.