Comment: It depends on how important

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: He absolutely did. Ron Paul (see in situ)

It depends on how important

It depends on how important you think foreign policy is. I think it is the ultimate measure of the man, it tells you whether he is moral or not. Look at a man like Andrew Jackson, he was certainly a patriot but he was a warmonger because of his virulent racism(and I think Rand is probably tribalistic at a minimum) and so while he stopped the Bank in his time he totally discredited the movement going forward.

To some people here, human life is not the primary issue nor do they apparently see that most of our current problems flow from our foreign policy apparatus. So I would put Rand at about 75% of his Dad at this point. There are a lot of people in Congress that are closer to his dad especially in their ability to weigh the issues. Of course Im assuming he actually means what he says...which I think you can assume because the idea that he is some Mikhail Gorbachev is childish and asinine. That will not be allowed to happen again. What is a lot more believable is that he is selling out for power or is blackmailed.

A vote for Gary Johnson was no more relevant that upvoting this post is. You were voting for the party not the man, because the man could not win. Rand Paul is more dangerous because Rand Paul is the last best hope for this movement and if he's a judas goat then the movement probably dies with him. There's a lot riding on this thing. The loss would be incalculable.

Ventura 2012