Well I guess we can write off another potential candidate for POTUS

[firehawk1]

Just finished watching a segment on Hannity. Rand Paul stated "we will never get EVERYTHING we want". He understands the concept of shades of gray and that life is never simply black or white. So he's toast huh... The hypocrisy should prove entertaining.

He also didn't denounce or call for repealing the Patriot Act when Hannity brought that topic up, just stated is is being used in a way that was never intended.

That being said, Rand Paul is someone I could/can support if he chooses to run in 2016.

 

[88GT]

IBGFGT

 

[firehawk1]

WOW, the silence is deafening.....

 

[Expat]

WOW, the silence is deafening.....

To paraphrase Plato, their silence signals their assent.

Actually that is the biggest difference I see with the libertarian cabal on here and those in the real world. The folks here seem to have no understanding of pragmatism.

I do hope Rand does well. We actually have a couple of promising potential candidates this time. I think the establishment though will try to destroy them unfortunately. Our resident cabal will certainly join in with that destruction when the time comes.

 

[jamil]

IBGFGT

Wow. Still no GFGT?

Glad I got my microwave fixed.

 

[Hawkeye]

What? No sharp rejoinders? No "never compromise" commentary?

 

[jamil]

Just finished watching a segment on Hannity. Rand Paul stated "we will never get EVERYTHING we want". He understands the concept of shades of gray and that life is never simply black or white. So he's toast huh... The hypocrisy should prove entertaining.

He also didn't denounce or call for repealing the Patriot Act when Hannity brought that topic up, just stated is is being used in a way that was never intended.

That being said, Rand Paul is someone I could/can support if he chooses to run in 2016.

It probably doesn't matter. Democrats/socialists will be in power for the foreseeable future. I think opposition to immigration will cave and Texas will become a blue state.

Rand Paul may be the best hope of a candidate who can politic his way through appealing to a diverse Republican and independent voter base. I think he'll get a lot more of the purist vote than Romney or McCain did, while not offending too many Evangelicals.

 

[lucky4034]

Maybe it would help if some of us actually seen the segment on Hannity to see what all of your commotion is about? I make it a point not to watch that dirtbags show....

 

[buckstopshere]

I am not sure why you would be expecting a big response from the libertarians on this thread this isn't surprising information about Rand Paul. I don't see the libertarians championing Rand Paul as their hero.

Getting Rand Paul as the nominee will certainly garner a much, much higher percentage of libertarian and JFK democrat voters than someone like Chris Christie.

What I don't get is if the libertarian vote not going to the GOP is the reason why the GOP keeps losing POTUS elections, why don't you just give the libertarians the candidate they want? The GOP voters have already shown they will vote for whomever the party puts up as the nominee. The GOP voters have said time and time again that we who voted 3rd party is the reason you lost so, if you want to win, give the libertarians what they want.

 

[lucky4034]

Nevermind... I found it.. but did you even watch it?

[video=youtube_share;WenXR30sxxQ]http://youtu.be/WenXR30sxxQ[/video]

He says "we are not going to get everything we want"...

... In reference to Republicans controlling only the house and not the senate or the Presidency. He simply says that Republicans should use what they do have (Congress) to leverage what they want and to force the Presidency and Senate to COMPROMISE or be gridlocked. With that said, he says... "We won't get everything we want"... in references to Republican demands. He CLEARLY SAYS that Republicans need to stand their ground and force Democrats to come to the table rather than just bending... or refusing to do anything at all.​

What exactly is the problem with this? It seems like common sense to me. The Republicans don't have a super majority so therefore... HOW COULD THEY GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT?



.................................

As far as the Patriot Act goes... you are correct he doesn't call for the Repeal of the Patriot Act in this interview... but he wasn't asked if it should be repealed. Hannity said that he himself supported the Patriot Act, but did not approve what the NSA is doing (blanket spying on all data). Hannity points out that the creator of the Patriot Act also did NOT INTEND it to be used in the way the NSA is using it and asks for Pauls input on that point.

Paul simply said that Sean is correct... the act was not drafted to be a blanket warrant for everyone, he then points directly to the 4th Amendment and says that specific warrants should be used when probable cause is present to spy on terrorists. The only thing he said about the Patriot Act was that the writer did not intend on it being a blanket warrant. Everything else he says is directed at the 4th Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

So again... where is the problem here? Were you listening selectively? Are you trying to create a scenario out of thin air in retaliation for all of the embarrassing Grand Ole Party threads that have popped up lately that you didn't have the balls to comment in? Did it bother you that much that you had to cower on the sidelines while the Libertarians and Non-Declared INGOers laughed at your heros? Nice try...

..Wait... No it wasn't.

 

[jbombelli]

We already knew he wasn't going to even ATTEMPT to do anything about the Patriot Act. He's fine with it. By extension I'm sure he's fine with NDAA, and everything else we stand firmly against.

You aren't telling us anything we didn't already know.


Did you expect us to come argue with you, or is this whole thread intended solely to cry about libertarians costing you elections because we don't vote for people we don't like?

What? No sharp rejoinders? No "never compromise" commentary?

Why should WE compromise? The Republicans are the ones who want our votes. Let the Republicans compromise. Put up a real conservative (not McCain or Romney type "conservatives", not people who will back the Patriot Act and NDAA, and not people who will cave on every debt ceiling increase) and maybe the Republicans will get somewhere. But the last several candidates had more in common with Democrats than with libertarians, and that's NOT how you attract the libertarian voter.

 

[lucky4034]

WOW, the silence is deafening.....

It sure is

 

[TopDog]

As promised this is for hornadylnl, "Anyone But Hilliary"

 

[HoughMade]

As promised this is for hornadylnl, "Anyone But Hilliary"

That's what I said in 2008 and.......

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

IBGFGT

Wow. Still no GFGT?

Glad I got my microwave fixed.

Sorry I'm late

[video=youtube_share;WenXR30sxxQ]http://youtu.be/WenXR30sxxQ[/video]

I saw nothing on here I disagree with.

 

[hornadylnl]

As promised this is for hornadylnl, "Anyone But Hilliary"

Still trying to understand how the INGOers who hated Ron Paul the most are now trying to tell us Rand is the best thing since sliced bread and that they're one in the same.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Indeed

 

[88GT]

Well yeah I expected the libertarian to make a stink. Bashing republicans is a fave pastime for a few on here.

 

[lucky4034]

Well yeah I expected the libertarian to make a stink. Bashing republicans is a fave pastime for a few on here.

Where in this thread?

Seems to me that you just described the OP but changed the keywords

 

[jbombelli]

Well yeah I expected the libertarian to make a stink. Bashing republicans is a fave pastime for a few on here.

Bashing libertarians is a fave pastime for a few on here as well. And this whole thread is intended to do nothing but pick a fight with libertarians.