may do "some good" is irrelevant to the issue of voting for him if we acknowledge that he may also do "some bad" as well. The problem of accepting a good/bad mixture is that implicit in this acceptance is the idea that some people's liberty is more important than others. I will not vote for someone whose stated intentions are to decrease the liberty of even one person. Ron was a dream come true, someone who could win (as he would have done in 2016 were he 20 years younger), yet was unabashedly pro-liberty.
There's also the question of whether Rand could win the general election. Unlike his principled father, he does not excite liberty oriented liberals and independents, because he comes across as an unprincipled Republican hack. Honestly, you Randroids who marvel how well he "plays the game" forget that a "game" in which lying is necessary to participate has no winners.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise represent