isadore;1191645 wrote:I don't laugh, that would be cruel. I just feel sad you would use such a source.

Your sadness exhilerates me

LJ;1191672 wrote:Your sadness exhilerates me

gosh I am glad to bring some happiness into your world. minor point, it is exhilarates.

This guy gets it. Rand Paul sums up well what I and others have been trying to say in this and other threads. Just because one supports or votes for a weak nominee (Romney) does not mean one is abandoning all his principles. It just means he refuses to cry and take his ball home because his guy didn't get nominated.

I liken it to a basketball analogy. When your team is trailing by double digits, and you miss a shot on offense, you don't stand there and pout and whine- you sprint back and play defense. We missed a shot in the Republican presidential primary process. Now it's time to play defense by voting for the nominee. Oh, and you can still accomplish a lot at the state and local level races and by supporting strong nominees for the House and Senate.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/rand-paul-endorsing-romney-was-compromising-on-strategy-not-on-principle/

[LEFT]Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul wants people to know that his endorsement of Mitt Romney for the GOP presidential nomination does not signify an abandonment of his libertarian political beliefs.

When Paul endorsed Romney on Fox News last week, many supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul’s presidential bid took great offense. But Rand Paul said in an interview with Daily Paul Radio that he was “compromising on strategy, not on principle.”

“My participating and saying that I will support the nominee doesn’t change me at all or any of the issues that I’m fighting for, but it does change the ability of us, or the liberty movement, to have a voice in what becomes here,” Paul said. “We have the ability to have more say and more influence by saying that we will ultimately support the nominee.”

He told Daily Paul Radio that his recent record of pushing bills that would end the Transportation Security Administration, audit the Federal Reserve System and ban drone surveillance over the United States without a warrant shows that he has not abandoned his beliefs, and that there is a difference between politics and governance.

“I guess what I would say to detractors is that we need to focus on the issues and moving forward and not be too caught up in politics, which is a messy business and not always what everybody wants it to be,” he said.

Paul also urged delegates who have pledged their support to his father Rep. Ron Paul to still support the Texas Republican, as a way to influence the platform at the Republican National Convention.

He said that he waited to endorse Romney until his father’s campaign announced it would not have enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination, and that anyone who doubts his commitment to the Paul campaign is misguided.

[LEFT]I sort of take it as an insult that people think that somehow I don’t support my father or haven’t done an adequate job in the sense that I have traveled thousands of miles and been to thousands of speeches both with him and by myself,” the senator said. “And so I think there’s probably nobody in the liberty movement that has done more to support my dad than myself."

Paul cited a few reasons for his endorsement, including Romney’s promise to give all 50 states waivers from President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, and his support for auditing the Federal Reserve.
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

I wonder if O-Trap, Cleveland Buck & sleeper read jhay78's post?

If Ron Paul's own son can rationally explain why he's supporting Romney, why not yourselves?

At this point I'm voting for Obama since I'm tired of the arrogant Republicans and their shit. So instead of the "A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" shtick I constantly receive, how about I just go ahead and vote for the guy?

BGFalcons82;1202083 wrote:I wonder if O-Trap, Cleveland Buck & sleeper read jhay78's post?

If Ron Paul's own son can rationally explain why he's supporting Romney, why not yourselves?

Rand Paul held his nose and is voting for the less of 2 evils. That's all. Moreover, Rand is not Ron in many avenues. Rand doesn't have a big problem with neocons infesting Romney's cabinet. Ron does.

I've never seen Buck, Sleeper, Otrap, nor Pmoney sing any praises for Rand Paul. What Rand Paul thinks is irrelevant to libertarian absolutes.

Footwedge;1202132 wrote:Rand Paul held his nose and is voting for the less of 2 evils. That's all. Moreover, Rand is not Ron in many avenues. Rand doesn't have a big problem with neocons infesting Romney's cabinet. Ron does.

I've never seen Buck, Sleeper, Otrap, nor Pmoney sing any praises for Rand Paul. What Rand Paul thinks is irrelevant to libertarian absolutes.

This.

Rand's "rational explanation" is the same thing that has exacerbated the problem we're in now.

O-Trap;1202390 wrote:This.

Rand's "rational explanation" is the same thing that has exacerbated the problem we're in now.

I've tried typin 2 responses this afternoon, maybe this one will stick?

The question isn't whether or not you agree with Rand's politics, but will you follow his lead? NO ONE was a greater supporter of your cause as he spent more money, time and energy than anyone else. He said it's time to support the candidate NOT named Obama, why not join him?

On another level, this assures there will be no 3rd party run for dad. If anyone would know, it would be Rand. He wouldn't endorse a rival if daddy Ron was going to gum things up.

O-Trap;1202390 wrote:This.

Rand's "rational explanation" is the same thing that has exacerbated the problem we're in now.

That's what primaries are for. Your candidate couldn't get the votes. So if there's no 3rd party candidate you're going to not vote? Or you're going to write in Ron Paul? Same thing, really.

Honestly, if someone like Ron Paul can't even be a factor in the primaries do you really think anyone will care about your little "protest" vote? You're disenfranchising yourself whether you admit it or not.

sleeper;1202106 wrote:At this point I'm voting for Obama since I'm tired of the arrogant Republicans and their ****. So instead of the "A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama" shtick I constantly receive, how about I just go ahead and vote for the guy?

Sure, that's even more productive. You guys honestly sound like children. You didn't get your way so you're taking your ball and going home.

Or the Republicans are not what we want to vote for, so we are voting for the people who we want to win.

If the Republican party doesn't want to put up a candidate that resembles my belief system, that's their problem not mine. I'm not going to just vote for someone because they have an "R" next to their name like most people on here.

sleeper;1202460 wrote: I'm not going to just vote for someone because they have an "R" next to their name like most people on here.

So you're going to vote for Obama, who's much more of a risk, or not vote at all? Part of being an adult is choosing between crappy alternatives. If everyone stayed home because they didn't really like their choices then we'd end-up with 10% of the country choosing the POTUS. You're esssentially advocating scrapping the primaries and just having a free for-all for POTUS which would only ensure that not the best candidate gets elected, but the one with the strongest voting contingent.

And the reality is, a lot of people just don't like Paul. I like some of his views, but some of his economic ideas are flat out nutty. But if he was the Republican candidate, I'd vote for him because he's much better than Obama. I wouldn't stay home or throw away my vote. Again, there's a reason we have primaries - it's part of the consensus building process.

sleeper;1202460 wrote:Or the Republicans are not what we want to vote for, so we are voting for the people who we want to win.

If the Republican party doesn't want to put up a candidate that resembles my belief system, that's their problem not mine. I'm not going to just vote for someone because they have an "R" next to their name like most people on here.

More than any election in my lifetime, this one is a referendum on the current occupier of the White House. It is NOT about Romney. If the R's ran a toilet bowl as their candidate, it would still be about Barry and his band of socialists/communists.

You want more of ineptitude, ball-less leadership, and wanton disregard for a 235 year old piece of parchment, then by all means vote for Barry Soetoro or whatever name he wants to hide behind. I'll vote for the toilet bowl.

gut;1202483 wrote:So you're going to vote for Obama, who's much more of a risk, or not vote at all? Part of being an adult is choosing between crappy alternatives. If everyone stayed home because they didn't really like their choices then we'd end-up with 10% of the country choosing the POTUS. You're esssentially advocating scrapping the primaries and just having a free for-all for POTUS which would only ensure that not the best candidate gets elected, but the one with the strongest voting contingent.

And the reality is, a lot of people just don't like Paul. I like some of his views, but some of his economic ideas are flat out nutty. But if he was the Republican candidate, I'd vote for him because he's much better than Obama. I wouldn't stay home or throw away my vote. Again, there's a reason we have primaries - it's part of the consensus building process.

You're wasting your time. The Pauliban will share the blame if Obama wins re-election.

BGFalcons82;1202488 wrote:I'll vote for the toilet bowl.

Without hesitation.

gut;1202483 wrote:So you're going to vote for Obama, who's much more of a risk, or not vote at all? Part of being an adult is choosing between crappy alternatives. If everyone stayed home because they didn't really like their choices then we'd end-up with 10% of the country choosing the POTUS. You're esssentially advocating scrapping the primaries and just having a free for-all for POTUS which would only ensure that not the best candidate gets elected, but the one with the strongest voting contingent.

And the reality is, a lot of people just don't like Paul. I like some of his views, but some of his economic ideas are flat out nutty. But if he was the Republican candidate, I'd vote for him because he's much better than Obama. I wouldn't stay home or throw away my vote. Again, there's a reason we have primaries - it's part of the consensus building process.

Probably still going to vote for Paul. But I've been told a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama, so I guess I'm voting for Obama. Crazy, huh?

BGFalcons82;1202488 wrote:More than any election in my lifetime, this one is a referendum on the current occupier of the White House. It is NOT about Romney. If the R's ran a toilet bowl as their candidate, it would still be about Barry and his band of socialists/communists.

You want more of ineptitude, ball-less leadership, and wanton disregard for a 235 year old piece of parchment, then by all means vote for Barry Soetoro or whatever name he wants to hide behind. I'll vote for the toilet bowl.

Every election we hear the same shtick, "This is the most important election of our lives" blah blah blah; while the reality is, you could flip a coin between D's and R's and still end up trillions in debt with trillions in unfunded liabilities and zero hope for anyone under 50.

A vote for Paul is a vote for a referendum on a party that's lost its way. If it takes 4 more years of Obama to get the Republican party back to reality, then I hope Obama wins.

The "Party" is much bigger and more diverse than the policies and preferences of the current nominee for President. It took 80+ years to get to where we are now fiscally- do you really think it's going to be turned around overnight, and by one man (with limited powers) running for president?

Even if Paul won 300+ electoral votes in November, it's going to take multiple presidencies and multiple Congresses to turn things around. And if Obama gets reelected we may not get another shot. I have 5 children- I'd like them to have a shot.

No I don't expect it to be turned over night. But why wait? Electing Paul is the first step; time to stop kicking the can down the road.

sleeper;1202786 wrote:No I don't expect it to be turned over night. But why wait? Electing Paul is the first step; time to stop kicking the can down the road.

Electing Paul????
Really???
Its N E V E R going to happen. Ever. Forget about it. Forever. Even his son no longer supports him. What else do you need?

Just vote for Barry. Stop with the anti-Obama posts. Just claim your undying devotion for socialism and be done with Dr Paul. Nobody else supports his loser campaign anymore.

BGFalcons82;1202403 wrote:I've tried typin 2 responses this afternoon, maybe this one will stick?

The question isn't whether or not you agree with Rand's politics, but will you follow his lead? NO ONE was a greater supporter of your cause as he spent more money, time and energy than anyone else. He said it's time to support the candidate NOT named Obama, why not join him?

Because I don't think his battle cry of "it's time to support the candidate NOT named Obama" is a step, regardless of how small, in the right direction. It perpetuates the false dichotomy that there are only two options, and given that (especially as of late) those two have shown to be equally as damaging to our economy and our global positioning, voting for the "guy not named Obama" assumes the logical fallacy, but doesn't fix the problem. It keeps it headed right on down the same line it's been heading down. Romney will continue to spend out of control, devalue the dollar, and further exhaust our current military by the appearance of "intended global conquest."

Romney won't fix the cluster that Obama has furthered. He'll further it, like Obama has done of the problems before him.

That's why I won't get behind him. I don't mean to vilify those that somehow think Romney will be better than Obama. I don't see how they could think so, given his track record and his own admissions.

And to be fair, if Paul doesn't run, I won't vote for him. It's not "Paul" I support (again, on any other level of government, I wouldn't vote for him). I feel like too many people get tied up in a name ... kind of like "Obama." It appears to me that so many Republicans are obsessed with removing "Obama" from office, that it's no longer about the policies he has enacted that they wish to remove, but the name itself. Does that not seem problematic?

BGFalcons82;1202403 wrote:On another level, this assures there will be no 3rd party run for dad.

I'm fine with that. It's his choice.

BGFalcons82;1202403 wrote:If anyone would know, it would be Rand. He wouldn't endorse a rival if daddy Ron was going to gum things up.

I believe this is most likely, as well. Ron wasn't the only good counter to the Obamney machine, and since I vote on policies, not people, it doesn't change anything.

gut;1202404 wrote:That's what primaries are for. Your candidate couldn't get the votes.

"My candidate" doesn't exist. A candidate who I believe is best for the country exists. If Paul is no longer a candidate, I know of someone else for whom I will vote, though I also reserve the right to pencil in someone if I choose to do so.

gut;1202404 wrote:So if there's no 3rd party candidate you're going to not vote? Or you're going to write in Ron Paul? Same thing, really.

Technically, voting for ANYONE who doesn't win is akin to not voting, in that case.

If there are no options I can even see as "good" (at this point, I'm not going for perfect, even), I would either pencil in or not vote. Why would I vote for someone bad for my country. Seems anti-patriotic, wouldn't you agree?

gut;1202404 wrote: Honestly, if someone like Ron Paul can't even be a factor in the primaries do you really think anyone will care about your little "protest" vote?

It appears he was a "factor." He didn't win, but most didn't expect him to.

And my vote is not for the purpose of making someone care. My vote is my civic right and responsibility to do what I can at this point to protect the rights of my fellow citizens, regardless of whether or not they care, if for the only reason that our Constitution enforces it.

gut;1202404 wrote:You're disenfranchising yourself whether you admit it or not.

If Paul doesn't run, did I say who I'd vote for?

And the two party names in power (an apt description, I'd say) are doing plenty good-enough a job of disenfranchising those who aren't blindly committed to them, so it would appear that another option is becoming all the more necessary. The Republicans and Democrats have abused the rights of the American people to the point that many of them are refusing either as necessary evils.

jhay78;1202663 wrote:The "Party" is much bigger and more diverse than the policies and preferences of the current nominee for President. It took 80+ years to get to where we are now fiscally- do you really think it's going to be turned around overnight, and by one man (with limited powers) running for president?

Of course not. Nothing changes overnight, but I see no reason not to struggle to take the first step in a good direction for a change. I feel it to be my civic responsibility.

jhay78;1202663 wrote: Even if Paul won 300+ electoral votes in November, it's going to take multiple presidencies and multiple Congresses to turn things around.

Naturally. I fail to see that as a reason not to take a step in the right direction, though.

jhay78;1202663 wrote:And if Obama gets reelected we may not get another shot. I have 5 children- I'd like them to have a shot.

Our odds are just as good or bad (again, going off track record and his own admissions) if Romney gets the nomination. I'd like my children to have a shot of seeing a free people in America as well. A vote against a name, policies be damned, doesn't help that happen.

BGFalcons82;1202961 wrote:Electing Paul????
Really???
Its N E V E R going to happen. Ever. Forget about it. Forever. Even his son no longer supports him. What else do you need?

Just vote for Barry. Stop with the anti-Obama posts. Just claim your undying devotion for socialism and be done with Dr Paul. Nobody else supports his loser campaign anymore.

Classic false dichotomy. Bush-supporters used the same fallacy when they said if a person was against the war in Iraq, they were supporters of the terrorists. Obama-sympathists did also, when they insisted that anyone who was against Obama's idiotic healthcare plan wanted poor people to be denied healthcare.

BGFalcons82;1202488 wrote:More than any election in my lifetime, this one is a referendum on the current occupier of the White House. .

Why? Your statement makes me scratch my head. Do you honestly think electing Mitt is going to make things better? Really? And the "more than any election in my lifetime" leads me to believe you have very little experience in knowing what's happened over the past 35 years.

There is NO DIFFERENCE regarding the 2 political parties as it relates to fundamentals. revisit O-Trap's "little game" thread. Not only are the 2 running candidates all on the same page regarding the issues, it has been this way for 35 years.

You have an oligopoly operated by the corporatists. That's it. It's all you need to know. War? Follow the money. Expanding the military? Follow the money. Medicare Part D? follow the money. Government spending? Follow the lobbyists. And any dissidence to this staus quo will be dealt with the way Ron Paul has been dealt with.

Let's review..

1. The stock market has done better under D's
2. The national debt has increased by percentage higher per GDP with R's in office, (Gap closing under Obama though)
3. Social programs have increased at the same rate with either R's or D's at the national level.
4. The GDP has a higher growth rate under D's than R's over my lifetime.
5. Each party is complicit to international murder with the ridiculous lies for reasons to be militarily active in places that are no threat to us. Bush the 43rd was the worst since LBJ, but Obama is a war criminal too...make no mistake about it.
6. Much ado about health reform...all jibberish, as we have had socialized medicine since I've been alive.

I could go on for an hour...not worth my time.

The doublespeak from the far righties here make me LOL. As the Bible states..."those in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones". The GOPers need to do a little soul searching and review the policies of Nixon, Ford, and the 2 Bushes. Collectively, they are no different than the D's...including Jimmy Carter and Obama.

BGFalcons82;1202961 wrote:Electing Paul????
Really???
Its N E V E R going to happen. Ever. Forget about it. Forever. Even his son no longer supports him. What else do you need?

Just vote for Barry. Stop with the anti-Obama posts. Just claim your undying devotion for socialism and be done with Dr Paul. Nobody else supports his loser campaign anymore.

Well it certainly isn't going to happen if no one votes for him.

You sound mad bro.

O-Trap;1202984 wrote: Romney won't fix the cluster that Obama has furthered. He'll further it, like Obama has done of the problems before him.

.

Thread/