For something so empty, it sure carried a lot of media attention and political weight. Tell me, if it’s so meaningless in real terms, and only matters to those pesky uncompromising Ron Paul supporters, why bother doing it?
And what’s more, not only was this endorsement a helluva lot more than some “yeah I support the Republican nominee”, it’s not the only time he offered it. He continued and continued in multiple broadcasts.
And then, campaigns for him? At what point does someone’s support become more than “an empty political gesture”, exactly?
He sold out a libertarian movement which his father started and which millions of libertarians assumed (incorrectly, evidently) that Rand was a part of. The fact that you don’t even attempt your acrobatics here, and try to portray Rand as some kind of libertarian is incredibly interesting, as it seems a large part of your argument here is that Rand is part of and helping a “cause”…when the only “cause” he was seen as a part of until this episode was the Ron Paul / libertarian cause.
And the continuation and reinforcement of that endorsement, and the campaigning for him, and the probable vote he’ll cast…all that’s just empty gesturing, which doesn’t really mean anything or help Romney in any way.
Yeah…“us”…statists. That’s the whole point. I think you’re probably right. And that’s the whole reason for the divide. People who are against statism agree with you…they realized that Rand probably will do good work for statists, and they therefore called him out on such.
Your whole problem is these anti-statists didn’t follow Rand down this road, but instead chose to remain the anti-statists they were before his overt proclamation of where he really stands.
You call this “confusion” and imply petulance and ignorance or simple-mindedness on their part, but the reality is you’re the one who is either dumb enough to favor of statism, or dumb enough to think you can rollback statism by playing the political quid pro quo.
Here you go again with this “us” stuff. When will you get it through your head, the entire point of this divide we’re talking about is because your “us” doesn’t include all the people who have called out and oppose Rand? You keep trying to lump everyone together and I don’t really know why.
You freely admit you’re a minarchist, that’s even your handle for crissake, and a great number of the people who called out Rand would not identify with that label. Get it…they do not agree with you.
It doesn’t even have anything to do with Rand at this point. You advocate something different than they do (the least of which is statist politicians.)
I honestly can’t tell if you really are just too dense to understand this, or if you just need to keep pretending so as to make it seem like you have more people on your side.