Reminds me of one of my favorite campaign ads of all time.
"THESE ARE THE STAKES [...] WE MUST EITHER LOVE EACH OTHER, OR WE MUST DIE."
Why are libertarians not more pumped about Rand Paul?
- Thread starter weso1
- Start date
Reminds me of one of my favorite campaign ads of all time.
"THESE ARE THE STAKES [...] WE MUST EITHER LOVE EACH OTHER, OR WE MUST DIE."
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I just think if libertarians don't throw their full support at Rand Paul then they have no hope in winning an election ever. Gary Johnson is literally one of the worst presidential candidates I've ever seen in my life. Rand Paul seems to at least have some presidential potential in him. Even though he's clearly leaned more to the center, he's still pretty close to the libertarian side. I just think that the libertarians lack of support for Rand shows me that the idea of libertarianism is more of a fiction than it is a reality. I mean they back this idea that they and their ideas are the best thing since sliced bread, but they don't ever actually face any scrutiny because they vote for candidates that have no chance of winning anything ever. They live in a very comfortable world. It's such a cop out to me. And then they have a chance to vote for Rand Paul who is clearly more on their side then isn't on their side, yet they choose to stay in this window of invincibility.
I get voting for Gary Johnson when your choice was either he or Romney. But voting for Gary Johnson over Rand Paul just strikes me as cowardice. I feel if you stake that claim then in reality you just don't want to face the scrutiny.
I get voting for Gary Johnson when your choice was either he or Romney. But voting for Gary Johnson over Rand Paul just strikes me as cowardice. I feel if you stake that claim then in reality you just don't want to face the scrutiny.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
[video=youtube_share;NpwdcmjBgNA]http://youtu.be/NpwdcmjBgNA[/video]
I prefer this, because of how it wonderfully undercuts its own fear-mongering right at the end.
"Isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear ... if there is a bear?"
Can't I turn that around and say that every vote going to a Rand Paul, Gary Johnson etc really does nothing but keeps the liberals in office?
What's more important? voting for a guy that has no chance of winning or voting for the guy who has the best chance to slow down big government and stop the entitlement system?
I just wish the libertarians (who are more conservative than they are liberal) realize that it's more important to stop this country from going into the ****ter than it is to waste a vote.
sturg33
I
That's ridiculous. Voting for who you want to be President is what voting is all about, no? Or are we only allowed to vote for who everyone says to?
Rand has gone so far to the left that I simply don't trust him. I will vote for the guy who I believe espouses my values and that is Gary Johnson.
sturg33
I
If anyone the right put would actually slow down government you'd have a point. but they won't, so you don't. Anything that an R might cut, they will throw into defense and that is just as wasteful.
But boy, I love a good "lesser of two evils argument"
acesfull86
Well-known member
I might agree with you if conservatives elected to office actually governed like conservatives. Instead, we have a GOP House and a Dem executive branch proposing $3.8T and $4.0T budgets, respectively. Just look at polls of tea party members who say they are taxed too damn much and spending is too damn high......but they don't want to touch defense/military, SS, or Medicare. At the end of the day, I think most Reps are frauds. I'm not expecting them to be true libertarians (they're not and they don't have to be), but I'm not convinced that the difference between them and the Dems is large enough to justify abandoning principles.
I probably would vote for Rand Paul. I think it would depend on his agenda. There are certain issues I feel stronger about that others.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Correct aces. We've got essentially 35 years of the same politician in office. There's been no major changes from the executive since at least Reagan took office, you could argue since JFK was shot.