Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
spartan max2

GOP about to fund huge $ against Rand Paul

27 posts in this topic

Soo apparently some of the same people who funded Romney and Newt Gingered are getting ready to spend huge amonts of money to make sure Paul doesn't get the GOP nomination. And other GOP donors

Not sure how much of this is true or just rumors but apparently this is what happens when you have a candidate that actually wants to make a change and not be controlled by special interest

http://reason.com/24-7/2014/03/31/gop-hawks-war-against-rand-paul

Quote from article

Several prominent GOP donors at the conference suggested that Adelson, who spent more than $100 million backing Newt Gingrich and Romney in 2012, is likely to spend vast sums against Paul if he appears to be well positioned in the Republican primaries. Adelson’s spending is largely motivated by his strong concern for Israel, and Paul’s positions may well put a target on his back.

According to TIME, one unnamed former Mitt Romney bundler said it was "scary" that Paul could win the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that's not good, if this all true. Sounds like a really bad division internally among conservative types.

I guess they're gonna shoot themselves in the GOP foot again.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like America will need to get used to the SOS for another 4 years with president Billary. At least the masses will get to watch a Jerry Springer type presidency again.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Rand does run and win it will still be the SOS for another 4 years.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Rand does run and win it will still be the SOS for another 4 years.

I don't see him winning anything, because #1 - He obviously doesn't have the backing of the GOP, just Tea party types. #2 - True Libertarians don't care that much for him. He doesn't compare to Ron Paul in their eyes, so they see him as a 'Fake Libertarian.

And I'm afraid And Then might be right.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Paul won the straw poll at CPAC and the most recent CNN poll (which that station isn't known for having many far right viewers) So I think the donors are scared because he actually has a chance to win :tu: and he is not the type of paid off republican they want.

Plus the GOP is a pro at shooting itself in the foot

Edited by spartan max2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul won the straw poll at CPAC and the most recent CNN poll (which that station isn't known for having many far right viewers) So I think the donors are scared because he actually has a chance to win :tu: and he is not the type of paid off republican they want.

Plus the GOP is a pro at shooting itself in the foot

Ron Paul won the 2008 cpac and 2012 cpac and pretty much every single msm poll during both primaries.

And he still lost the r's nomination.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put it this way. It doesn't matter if the R's dont want a Paul to represent their party. If the D's feel threatened by a player representing the R's there is no way in hell he'll get the R's nomination. I think it's pretty obvious the two parties candidates are hand picked. There is an illusion of choice. Duh-mock-racy.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing will change until the populace is so p*** broke they're starving. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Not with all the handouts a large percentage receives for doing absolutely nothing for themselves. Personally I've given up on ever witnessing a true democracy in my country let alone Amerika. It's a lost cause. The corporations own my gov. They win. They've won advantage of resources. They control the purchasing power of the currency. But there is one thing they'll never ever take from me: RESPECT

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul won the 2008 cpac and 2012 cpac and pretty much every single msm poll during both primaries.

And he still lost the r's nomination.

Huh? Mitt Romney won CPAC in both 2008 (35%) and 2012 (38%). Ron Paul won in 2010 and 2011 and the establishment blamed it on the "Ron Paul kids". That seems to be the case when establishment republicans get more motivated to show up during election years and promote their favorite neocon. The only other republican who came close to Romney in 2012 was another chickenhawk, Rick Santorum.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've voted Republican for 30 years because I tend to be fiscally conservative and Libertarian in my social leanings. I've finally concluded that I have to vote my conscience and the only party that even comes CLOSE any longer is Libertarian. I don't agree with every aspect of their stances but realistically they are the only choice now. Maybe it's a wasted vote from the point of "winning" but it's a statement that has to be made! For anything to have even a chance to change, people have to begin making these statements of conscience.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often wonder if the deal Rand made for endorsing Mitt was a R nomination in '16.... follow me for a moment.

A Rand R nomination.... with his father on the ticket. That would explain Rand selling out his father in 2012.

Now picture that... Paul/Paul 2016...

--sounds gravy doesn't it? ....Conservative-Constitutionalists/Libertarian united!

Hold on a moment longer.... there's more.... don't get too excited. ..... we're well aware both the D's and R's represent the same corporate and foreign interests...

Who would the D's nomination be? I think its fairly obvious it's going to be her-royalness Hillary Clinton. Forget her husband is a lying, cheating scum bag accused of sexual misconduct more times than Obama says,"Uhh.. uhh" without a teleprompter handy. She is an angel in the eyes of the average american and westerner. She stood by her man through infidelity. She forgave him for loosely giving into a man's greatest tempation while married. She stood strong for her only child during this difficult time. She kept the family together... Amerikas family. (I think you get the message) Her strength in this difficult time prompted her rise in politics.

I hope I'm not boring you. I haven't gotten to the good part yet. The part of the story which will further divide America public opinion on a grand scale never seen before.

Hillary is a shoe in for the D's. Ron Paul not so much. He was a threat in 08 and a bigger threat in 2012. The rise of the internet was the rise of Ron Paul. Truth and trust became synonymous with his brand of politics. To many internet warriors he was seen, and still is regarded as the grand father of the Tea Party. Not Freedomworks brand(Koch bros need not apply). RP is the real deal. He cannot be purchased for he has preached for decades the need for competing currencies as the first step in regaining true liberty for all individuals - not just in America but for individuals around the world.

Now, that last paragraph wasn't the good part. We're all easily distracted by rhetoric repeated. Pumping the tires of my hero is something I'll never get tired of doing but it was done for a reason. The reason is this:

'Inflation and War'

America's version of democracy within their Republic is organized corruption at its finest. Its a beautiful display of two wolves and one sheep voting what's for dinner. Take the most recent election in 2012 for instance. While monetary and foreign policy should have been the most important issues the debates between Obama and Romney focused almost entirely on a health care plan which was anything but Universal for the average american. It was a compete waste of time for Romney's plan wouldn't have been much different. Obama and the D's didn't win the election anymore than the R's lost. It was a win-win for Corporate Amerika.

Corporate Amerika. What is that? Like the oligarchs who rule in mother Russia the corporate oligarchs rule Amerika. In Russia the mob has names in Amerika they have logos. They've got friends in high places. The highest being the Federal Reserve corporation. The Fed... the enabler. The means to control who gets what, where and when. It's a private club and you aren't invited. And it fears Ron Paul. It fears the rise of freedom loving individuals who yearn for nothing more than being left alone to choose our own interests for our families. Do what you want to do just don't force me to do what interests you. Do it yourself if that's what you want.

Now, who will the D's choose as Hillary's running mate? Who could stand beside her without standing over her? Who could support her ideals while she defends her position from her party's previous predecessor policies? Who eles possesses the same vitriolic techniques in defience debate?

Most important: Who could lay out a guilt ridden manipulative trip on RP and his supporters using the collectivist technique of evoking the holocaust. Who could get away with doing this? Who would not be attacked by the main stream media for pulling this card?

Rahm Emanuel

*****

Clinton/Emanuel vs. Paul/Paul

Only on MSM

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above post is me having fun... not meant to be taken seriously.

But I will admit I seriously think Rahm Emanuel will be Hillary's running mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I remember, Rand Paul promised his constituency in Kentucky he would endorse the republican candidate in 2012 whoever that turned out to be. When the writing was on the wall that it wouldn't be his dad, he couldn't betray his own voters and go back on his word, right? He didn't rise to power expressing undying loyalty to his father. Not sure why that was ever the expectation during the campaign season. W wasn't his father either. W led the rush to war. Herbert was a reluctant warrior (Margaret Thatcher: "Come on George, we've got to DO something!") and was actually a war hero, not a weekend warrior gone AWOL. Rand isn't a carbon fascimile (sp?) of his father either; nothing shocking. But Paul/Paul would be a dream ticket I could vote for unequivocally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Mitt Romney won CPAC in both 2008 (35%) and 2012 (38%). Ron Paul won in 2010 and 2011 and the establishment blamed it on the "Ron Paul kids". That seems to be the case when establishment republicans get more motivated to show up during election years and promote their favorite neocon. The only other republican who came close to Romney in 2012 was another chickenhawk, Rick Santorum.

I stand corrected Yamoto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I remember, Rand Paul promised his constituency in Kentucky he would endorse the republican candidate in 2012 whoever that turned out to be. When the writing was on the wall that it wouldn't be his dad, he couldn't betray his own voters and go back on his word, right? He didn't rise to power expressing undying loyalty to his father. Not sure why that was ever the expectation during the campaign season. W wasn't his father either. W led the rush to war. Herbert was a reluctant warrior (Margaret Thatcher: "Come on George, we've got to DO something!") and was actually a war hero, not a weekend warrior gone AWOL. Rand isn't a carbon fascimile (sp?) of his father either; nothing shocking. But Paul/Paul would be a dream ticket I could vote for unequivocally.

Yeah... I'd probably slip across the border and illegally vote if they were on the same ticket.

lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... I'd probably slip across the border and illegally vote if they were on the same ticket.

lol

If you were sure you could get away with it, I don't doubt that you would bro.

Ermm...did I just accidentally condone voter fraud? Fight fire fraud with fire fraud, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that's not good, if this all true. Sounds like a really bad division internally among conservative types.

I guess they're gonna shoot themselves in the GOP foot again.

Repeat of this....

Romneyshotinthefoot_zpsc3c9dda6.jpg

If the Repubs are more concerned about that fossil Adelson and his money than they are about the country, our rights and our prosperity...then they need to lose...again.

Main stream media and the pundits tell the sheep that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote....and apparently it works...now if people would do the opposite and vote for an alternative to the two party paradigm...guess what would happen?

A third party would win...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've voted Republican for 30 years because I tend to be fiscally conservative and Libertarian in my social leanings. I've finally concluded that I have to vote my conscience and the only party that even comes CLOSE any longer is Libertarian. I don't agree with every aspect of their stances but realistically they are the only choice now. Maybe it's a wasted vote from the point of "winning" but it's a statement that has to be made! For anything to have even a chance to change, people have to begin making these statements of conscience.

:tu::yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeat of this....

Romneyshotinthefoot_zpsc3c9dda6.jpg

If the Repubs are more concerned about that fossil Adelson and his money than they are about the country, our rights and our prosperity...then they need to lose...again.

Main stream media and the pundits tell the sheep that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote....and apparently it works...now if people would do the opposite and vote for an alternative to the two party paradigm...guess what would happen?

A third party would win...

Main stream media and those pundit talking heads can suck it! This boyz ah voting third party, yo. ;)

...and yeah, there gonna lose again. You'd think they'd learn by now.

(P.S. I'm copying the pic, hope you don't mine, bro. :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know 'and then' won't vote for Rand Paul and I know why. And it's the same reason why Adelson would spend a hundred million dollars on a glorified smear job. He has other priorities.

So we're abandoning Rand Paul now for some unknown candidate of some third party because a major donor is going to spend a hundred million dollars smearing him? Or is this sudden rout on this thread just a coincidence? What is this? If discussions where Rand Paul is the topic suddenly deviate to "I'm voting third party!" then suddenly I just lost whatever remaining shred of hope I had for the 2016 elections. This phenomena happened to Ron Paul twice in a row too.

So now Rand can't win either. Might as well just bow down to our masters. Pwned, by a hundred million dollar threat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

He is going to get the nomination. All feel free to quote me in a year or so. or tell me you told me so.

But I think he is going to get it

And to the people voting third party instead of him. I understand the frustration and the point. I voted third party last election. But you should take a step in the right direction when it is offered to you. Or else our ideas will just die in our purity

Edited by spartan max2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're right Spartan, and Paul does get the nomination, it'll be a shame to see people snub him over some sense of party loyalty.

Not because small parties don't have good ideas. I think they have the best ideas. But we're nowhere near electing a third party candidate in this country yet. Hopefully in our lifetimes, not in 2016. Because where was Kucinich on the ballot? Where was Nader? Where was Baldwin? Where was McKinney? Where was there ever a debate sponsored by the two party system where these third party candidates were invited? These people can't even get in a debate, much less on a ballot. Bob Barr got on the ballot but wasn't in the debates. (And Bob Barr as a libertarian? Really?)

I would have voted third party too, they just weren't on the ballot. The two parties have us by the balls. We've got to do better than just affirm our loyalty to a third party on a Rand Paul thread. Taking a stepwise approach from the place were in now, we need political action to rid ourselves of the stranglehold the two parties have us in and get these voices in debates. I'll write some letters or participate in some events to do that. And I'll vote for Rand Paul.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They will kill Rand Paul before they let him become president. Of course I will vote for and support him for as long as they allow him to breath.

Edited by preacherman76
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A month ago I was disenchanted with Rand Paul. I wasn't sure if I could vote for him or not.

This OP just earned Rand Paul my vote. I should credit Spartan Max for posting it. Unless Rand Paul does something really stupid between now and the elections of course. But Adelson hasn't even started spending his hundred million yet and it's already backfiring. I can't go full-Paulbot for Rand though. I have issues with Rand Paul. He's got party ooze all over him and it's painful to watch. But I think his politics are brilliant compared to his fathers' if winning our highest office is the mission. Rand has risen to be a true leader on his own merits. I like a king who raises himself up.

On balance this GOP is just despicable. We need to be hazing it until it improves significantly. It needs competition within itself, hopefully over ideas and principle. The republican party is the one I should be able to identify with. It's why I ask more questions of it frankly. However...

Unfortunately, the conservative party in America today largely boils down to two things: Lower taxes and foreign adventures.

On the first tenet of our conservatives' faith, you can't keep lowering taxes in perpetuity. If they even mean what they say. Their brains have to be fiscally disconnected to have this cognitive dissonance in their Gospel. I believe that to a large extent they don't mean what they say about taxes either. Running on lowering taxes is sleazy politics. Bob Dole came right out and said it: "I'll give you money." But conservatives never make the philosophical arguments about fiscal responsibility in general, about debt and monetary policy, about inflation of our money supply and the Federal Reserve. Conservatives appease the continued growth of these things, in dollars and in powers.

On their 2nd tenet, foreign adventurism (Neoconservatism, Zionism, Wilsonianism), you can't have limited government if you're robbing US taxpayers to build the nations of strangers. To take the US armed forces, to take our nation's finest citizens, and act like hypocritical barbarians on the world stage launching wars AT ALL, much less on false pretenses. In addition, American conservatives want to separate foreign policy from economic policy. A delusion, deliberate. Conservatives are smart enough to understand it, they're just not honest enough to admit it. They're foreign policy silent appeasers at best and outright cheerleaders at worst.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.