Why are libertarians not more pumped about Rand Paul?

weso1

weso1

<B>Clique Leader</B>
I guess he's not literally stating exactly the libertarian philosophy, but this is about as close as the libertarians will get to an actual chance to win an election. Look you have to think that maybe Paul is just trying to win an election and when elected he'll do the best of his ability to get some libertarian things through. I think that's an amazing risk for the libertarians to take. If you're wrong then it's just the same old same old.

I feel like this is a perfect example of the ultimate detriment to the libertarian party. They get a guy in there that best suits their interest with an actual chance to win, but in the end they aren't willing to vote for him, because he's not exactly what they want. In the end they will just stand on the side lines telling all of us why they are right and we are all wrong.
 
weso1 said:
I guess he's not literally stating exactly the libertarian philosophy, but this is about as close as the libertarians will get to an actual chance to win an election. Look you have to think that maybe Paul is just trying to win an election and when elected he'll do the best of his ability to get some libertarian things through. I think that's an amazing risk for the libertarians to take. If you're wrong then it's just the same old same old.

I feel like this is a perfect example of the ultimate detriment to the libertarian party. They get a guy in there that best suits their interest with an actual chance to win, but in the end they aren't willing to vote for him, because he's not exactly what they want. In the end they will just stand on the side lines telling all of us why they are right and we are all wrong.
Click to expand...

Because he's about as much of a real Libertarian as I am for $100 Alex?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Because he's about as much of a real Libertarian as I am for $100 Alex?
Click to expand...

I disagree with you Hawk. And I know that's not a shock to you. I think he's a libertarian at heart, but I think he knows what it takes to get elected. I'll put it this way. This is the closest the libertarians will ever have to getting elected.
 
weso1 said:
I disagree with you Hawk. And I know that's not a shock to you. I think he's a libertarian at heart, but I think he knows what it takes to get elected. I'll put it this way. This is the closest the libertarians will ever have to getting elected.
Click to expand...

He may have been a Libertarian at some point in his life, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago. I think he is a true politician, someone who tries to be whatever he needs to be depending on present company. I actually like his dad, though I don't agree with him on politics very much. I think he's a decent guy at heart.

Oh and it's OK to disagree isn't it? We don't insult each other do we? Agreeing or disagreeing is nothing to feel bad about for either of us, at least not in my opinion.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
He may have been a Libertarian at some point in his life, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago. I think he is a true politician, someone who tries to be whatever he needs to be depending on present company. I actually like his dad, though I don't agree with him on politics very much. I think he's a decent guy at heart.

Oh and it's OK to disagree isn't it? We don't insult each other do we? Agreeing or disagreeing is nothing to feel bad about for either of us, at least not in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think sometimes we do insult each other, and for that I apologize to my debating friends on this board. But with that in mind I always enjoy the opposing opinion. Now with that in mind I still disagree with OHawk as I actually believe that Paul is a born and bread libertarian with a mindset on what it takes to get elected. Now, will he choose libertarianism over politician? I think that's a risk libertarians should take.
 
weso1 said:
I think sometimes we do insult each other, and for that I apologize to my debating friends on this board. But with that in mind I always enjoy the opposing opinion. Now with that in mind I still disagree with OHawk as I actually believe that Paul is a born and bread libertarian with a mindset on what it takes to get elected. Now, will he choose libertarianism over politician? I think that's a risk libertarians should take.
Click to expand...

Right back at you!!! :icon_biggrin:
 
He is but there is a few things he needs to let go to actually have a chance and that is what going to doom him.

Of all the candidates, I would vote for him. But he has some issues that scares me.
 
Because he's gone very far to the neocon side - especially when it comes to foreign policy. And he frankly isn't nearly as smart on the economics side of things as his father was. He also just seems so much less principled and will go which ever the wind takes him.

If he runs, I'll be conflicted because I have a sliver of hope that he is "playing the game"... but I'd have a hard time voting for him over someone like Gary Johnson.
 
sturg33 said:
Because he's gone very far to the neocon side - especially when it comes to foreign policy. And he frankly isn't nearly as smart on the economics side of things as his father was. He also just seems so much less principled and will go which ever the wind takes him.

If he runs, I'll be conflicted because I have a sliver of hope that he is "playing the game"... but I'd have a hard time voting for him over someone like Gary Johnson.
Click to expand...

Baby steps. Break a few eggs to make a omelet.

Think about it.
 
I'm registered as a republican so I can vote for him in the primary. I hope he wins the nomination, then I'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Other than him, I'm not seeing much to like on the rep team.
 
sturg33 said:
Because he's gone very far to the neocon side - especially when it comes to foreign policy. And he frankly isn't nearly as smart on the economics side of things as his father was. He also just seems so much less principled and will go which ever the wind takes him.

If he runs, I'll be conflicted because I have a sliver of hope that he is "playing the game"... but I'd have a hard time voting for him over someone like Gary Johnson.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't. He may be "playing the game" but I'm pretty sure he's like most politicians, in it for the money. He won't get the rep nod anyway. It will be another Romney type. It's been a Romney type for most of the R nominations. Only kind of exception to that was Dubya, but he still wasn't that far out to the right running.

Huckabee and Paul will generate interest and be in it until the end, but they won't win.
 
Because **** the republican party. I hope they lose every election until they are non existent. They were handed a golden goose the last presidential election and they chose to run a loser with no chance to win. I dont even think they wanted to win. Theres always the hope he is just playing the game to get elected but after seeing them move heaven and earth to keep the nomination away from Ron I thinkthey would just assassinate Rand if he tried to end the insanity that is our current foreign policy.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Because **** the republican party. I hope they lose every election until they are non existent. They were handed a golden goose the last presidential election and they chose to run a loser with no chance to win. I dont even think they wanted to win. Theres always the hope he is just playing the game to get elected but after seeing them move heaven and earth to keep the nomination away from Ron I thinkthey would just assassinate Rand if he tried to end the insanity that is our current foreign policy.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the Republicans had really rallied behind (Ron) Paul a few years ago he stood a decent chance of becoming a legitimate candidate. He had some powerful, revolutionary ideas.

But .... do you have any idea what Rand Paul's foreign policy actually is? He's toed the party line on virtually every major issue that has confronted the country in the past year. Iran, Syria, Russia, etc.

Unless you are one of those that are buying into the wolf in sheep's clothing thing.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Romney was considered "electable", so the word is really meaningless.
Click to expand...

He was more electable than say Rick Perry -Rick Santorum - Michelle Bachmann - Ron Paul -
Howard Cane - Donald Trump
See what I mean?

Not only is (R) bereft of electable candidates they are non existent with electable ideas. Sure a handfull on a baseball message board will agree with the Paul's but outside of that-- not so much. For instance, after Hurricane Sandy does any one with a working knowledge of current events think Ron Paul would have stood a chance with a platform of deal with it on your own ?

Remember in the past two election cycles (D) has outdrawn (R) for vote. Yet (R) secured the two houses of the legislature. Don't let the mirage of ReDistricting cloud your political vision.

(R) doesn't stand for anything people outside of Dumbphuckistan will vote for. Romney came as close to the mainstream and for lords sake, Jeb seems to this cycle
 
57Brave said:
He was more electable than say Rick Perry -Rick Santorum - Michelle Bachmann - Ron Paul -
Howard Cane - Donald Trump
See what I mean?

Not only is (R) bereft of electable candidates they are non existent with electable ideas. Sure a handfull on a baseball message board will agree with the Paul's but outside of that-- not so much. For instance, after Hurricane Sandy does any one with a working knowledge of current events think Ron Paul would have stood a chance with a platform of deal with it on your own ?

Remember in the past two election cycles (D) has outdrawn (R) for vote. Yet (R) secured the two houses of the legislature. Don't let the mirage of ReDistricting cloud your political vision.

(R) doesn't stand for anything people outside of Dumbphuckistan will vote for. Romney came as close to the mainstream and for lords sake, Jeb seems to this cycle
Click to expand...

57 - just curious?

Do you think that the US eventually winding down the debt is important? If yes, do you think the democrats (or republicans for that matter), are the people to do it?
 
No never said it isn't important ,

I think it very complicated and don't have the time to understand it to a degree where I feel comfortable having/discussing an opinion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top