10 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

As usual, Julie nails it.

[and then]

I've voted Republican since Reagan.  I could support Rand IF he proves through word and deed that he grasps the need for the US to be engaged in the world.  Not to the extent that we currently are perhaps but still aware that we cannot simply walk away.  I remember being shocked last Summer when I answered poll questions here to determine which candidate best fit my views and it came up Paul in a big way.  His FP stance, though, was just something I could not get beyond.

[Yamato]

and then, on 09 December 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

I've voted Republican since Reagan.  I could support Rand IF he proves through word and deed that he grasps the need for the US to be engaged in the world.  Not to the extent that we currently are perhaps but still aware that we cannot simply walk away.  I remember being shocked last Summer when I answered poll questions here to determine which candidate best fit my views and it came up Paul in a big way.  His FP stance, though, was just something I could not get beyond.

That's the same thing establishment republicans said about his dad. I even posted a Youtube video answering to that very claim.  You might remember it:  "So you agree with Ron Paul on everything but foreign policy"?   Like Julie said, Ron Paul didn't care.  He was too principled to kowtow to the audience standing in front of him.  

Rand Paul might not be, but I don't need a carbon copy of his dad or some idealistic libertarian messiah to be capable of actually supporting a politician for President.  And I'm the most stalwart Ron Paul supporter that I know.  Rand Paul isn't perfect and nobody else is either.   The litmus test is whether he's good enough, not how perfect he isn't, and due to his long and growing list of good work so far, he's good enough for me.

[preacherman76]

She got one thing right, Rand is not his father. Personaly I want someone who is going to support and defend the constitution, without compromise. At this point anything that falls short of that is harmful to this country. His endorcement of Romney told me loud and clear that he doesnt see the constitution as the solution. Good luck in 2016 for anyone who is voting for him. Of course thats if he decides to run. I'll most likely be sitting that one out same as I did this last one.

[Yamato]

preacherman76, on 11 December 2012 - 01:39 PM, said:

She got one thing right, Rand is not his father. Personaly I want someone who is going to support and defend the constitution, without compromise. At this point anything that falls short of that is harmful to this country. His endorcement of Romney told me loud and clear that he doesnt see the constitution as the solution. Good luck in 2016 for anyone who is voting for him. Of course thats if he decides to run. I'll most likely be sitting that one out same as I did this last one.

The anti-Rand Paul backlash erupted when Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney.  Rand Paul told voters in his own election that he would endorse the Republican candidate for President if he got elected.  He was true to his word and telling the truth is a major value that I want to see in any politician that I can support.   Conversely, I don't understand how someone can think that giving false promises to voters is so forgivable.   Endorsing a politician isn't compromising the Constitution especially when the greater compromise was the alternative candidate.   Ron Paul has endorsed other politicians before too.   We didn't stop to see how clean they were behind the ears as some kind of a legitimate reason to stop supporting Ron Paul.

Rand Paul has done a lot for the liberty movement already and he's just getting started in politics.   But let's entertain the idea that he's not good enough.  What is someone's name who is?  And if there is nobody is it even helpful to just remain silent about every other politician out there, and pour all our disdain on Rand Paul of all people?   Doing that could make others very confused about what one actually stands for.

[preacherman76]

Yamato, on 11 December 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

The anti-Rand Paul backlash erupted when Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney.  Rand Paul told voters in his own election that he would endorse the Republican candidate for President if he got elected.  He was true to his word and telling the truth is a major value that I want to see in any politician that I can support.   Conversely, I don't understand how someone can think that giving false promises to voters is so forgivable.   Endorsing a politician isn't compromising the Constitution especially when the greater compromise was the alternative candidate.   Ron Paul has endorsed other politicians before too.   We didn't stop to see how clean they were behind the ears as some kind of a legitimate reason to stop supporting Ron Paul.

Rand Paul has done a lot for the liberty movement already and he's just getting started in politics.   But let's entertain the idea that he's not good enough.  What is someone's name who is?  And if there is nobody is it even helpful to just remain silent about every other politician out there, and pour all our disdain on Rand Paul of all people?   Doing that could make others very confused about what one actually stands for.

I dont think he should have said he'd support who ever got the nod. Especialy considering what that might mean. Why would you say you would support someone who is down right horrible for the country? His kept promise doesnt impress me what so ever.

Im not going to :"pour all our disdain on Rand Paul". I just not going to support him. Im not saying he is the problem. Im just saying I dont believe he is the solution.

Edited by preacherman76, 11 December 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Yamato]

preacherman76, on 11 December 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

I dont think he should have said he'd support who ever got the nod. Especialy considering what that might mean. Why would you say you would support someone who is down right horrible for the country? His kept promise doesnt impress me what so ever.

Im not going to :"pour all our disdain on Rand Paul". I just not going to support him. Im not saying he is the problem. Im just saying I dont believe he is the solution.

Rand Paul spoke on why he supported Mitt Romney.   When I took the compass quizzes back in 2008, asking about my positions on the issues, I was surprised how many times Mitt Romney would come up as my ideal candidate (Ron Paul was never included on the quizzes, of course!)

So what's the solution?   If he didn't keep his word to his voters that wouldn't matter to you at all?  That's the reason for my disdain and many other peoples' disdain for all the rest of the politicians we get voted in to lead us.   Rand Paul is the best.  He's not perfect.   But when we can't name anyone better, bells should go off and you should start to recalculate your about-face refusal to support him at all.   Unless violent rebellion and revolution is your idea you might not have anyone to support at all in 2016, and peaceful reform through the government and incidentally the Republican party has its best chance at present with Rand Paul at the helm.

[Yamato]

Ron Paul's constituents were very good to him and kept electing him to office for 11 terms in office.   He had a real fortress in the loyal support in his district that let him keep his seat despite being very uncompromising towards his own party and we shouldn't take this immunity for granted.  

Rand Paul has no such immunity being a freshman from Kentucky with no prior legal experience.   What if Rand Paul's very career in the Senate was to a large degree reliant on that promise?  

Would it be better for Rand to lie to his constituents, turn his own party against himself, and not get reelected for a 2nd term as Senator instead of surviving in his new role and not sealing his own fate as soon as we get him over the walls? As he entrenches his political position in the Senate, I think he'll be the lone voice that comes out sniping at the Republican party when nobody else will.   In quite the Ron Paul fashion at that.  

Our expectations of him seem too accelerated.   Give time a chance and his good works will continue to grow.

Based on Rand Paul's record so far that Julie Borowski touched on, if he keeps it up, he'll be one of the largest voices in our government to get rid of the NDAA, to get rid of the Patriot Act, to in other ways restore our liberty again.  

[Yamato]

Fast forward to 3:38 of the video for a sweet resume.  

Hired.  

I see media messiahs on the airwaves and on TV driving a rift through the middle of the Ron Paul movement by preaching hate at the son and trying to kill his political life using tactics like fear, hate, demagoguery, hypervigilance and conspiracy (or all of the above) are false friends of the liberty movement.   Alex Jones has something in common with a lot of other media pundits whether it's Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, Neil Boortz, Cenk Uygur, Adam Kokesh, Greta van Susteren, Lou Dobbs or Rachel Maddow.   They're sensationalists who fight for ratings making us angry, afraid, ready to turn on one another for all manner of partisan and divisive reasons.

It made my stomach sick to see Ron Paul's support evaporate into an internet epidemic of infighting like it did.   He deserved better.  And he's retiring.    I'll buy his books as he publishes them and continue to learn from him as my small part in saying thank you.

I'll also put my chips down on Rand; there's nobody else better to put them.

[preacherman76]

Whats the solution? I have no idea. Id like to start with finding someone I dont have to make excuses for, like you are more then willing to do.

[Yamato]

preacherman76, on 12 December 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

Whats the solution? I have no idea. Id like to start with finding someone I dont have to make excuses for, like you are more then willing to do.

That Rand Paul is awesome for liberty (LOOK at his record) is making an excuse?   Great!    

Jonestown bitterness is a poor excuse to jeopardize liberty and reject the best champions of it we've got.