It was totally Rand that divided the movement, but it was Ron who took the steam out of things.
The NIGHT that Rand was on that douche bag tv show you could see the divide in the comments. THEN, Jack Hunter et al came out for Rand. They are simply ambitious politicos who happened to be where we were at while Paul stood a chance (…if ever).
RON’S reaction to the divide was silence. This is what pushed him into the irrelevant category for me. I wish him the best, but calling off the troops AS SOON AS there were tiny bits of violence at the state conventions was the single most destructive thing (next to his kid stabbing him in the back) he could have done. He used his bare hands to pull embers from the engine.
what exactly are these “pragmatic decisions that help the cause long-term” again?
The decision to not do what many of the grassroots were demanding, which subsequently pissed off many of them. For example, the decision not to file lawsuits to release the delegates from their binding. The decision to acknowledge reality and admit that Paul could not win the nomination. The decision for Rand to endorse Romney. The decision to oppose certain grassroots plans for state and local conventions. I’m very pleased that the campaign chose to do what they did, rather than going down in a blaze of futility than would have damaged our image for years to come. I regret that some supporters can’t wrap their brains around this, but ah well. It was still a good decision even in hindsight.
As for the rest, I’m not saying those with a negative reaction to Rand’s endorsement are solely causally responsible for the divide. Both they and Rand are causally responsible. Likewise, if I say “hello JJ” and somehow the reaction this causes in you is for you to murder your wife, well we are both causally responsible. The question is which action was justified? Was Rand correct in doing what he did? I think he was. What he did was what was best for the cause. Were the grassroots correct in reacting the way they did? I don’t think so. I think it was an overreaction based on a misunderstanding of the process and politics in general.
The NIGHT that Rand was on that douche bag tv show you could see the divide in the comments. THEN, Jack Hunter et al came out for Rand. They are simply ambitious politicos who happened to be where we were at while Paul stood a chance (…if ever).
Baseless assumption. Apparently it’s impossible that anyone with good intentions for the liberty movement would think Rand’s endorsement was a good idea.
RON’S reaction to the divide was silence. This is what pushed him into the irrelevant category for me…his kid stabbing him in the back
Baseless assumption. You have no idea what Ron thinks of Rand’s endorsement. Is it possible that Ron is not JUST a principled politician, but also a CLEVER one? Is it possible that he knew they needed to make peace with the GOP, but HE couldn’t soil his image by doing an endorsement?
I wish him the best, but calling off the troops AS SOON AS there were tiny bits of violence at the state conventions was the single most destructive thing
“The troops” didn’t have the foggiest f-ing clue what they were doing, if by “the troops” you mean the folks who wanted to basically force their inept understanding of the rules on the GOP and try to somehow steal the nomination.
WHAT CAUSE? Rand is not part of Ron’s now defunct cause. I get emails from that goblin Romney because C4L sold my information to them like cheap Asian prostitute. As far as I am concerned, your cause is now different than mine. Doing what’s best for RAND is different than doing what is best for US.
Light bulbs or raw milk? Fuck the banks (not pejoratively of course), but fuck worrying about them…RAND knows what’s up…Bombing Iran, light bulbs and raw milk freedom. The FED is … (ahahah)
Oh, I better send Rand an email asking him to go to the Senate and raise hell…I am told I must acquire a low-flow toilet…
But, that is why you are a “minarchist.” You need the state…just enough state to bomb Iran and ban raw milk, right? How is Minarchy working out for you?
The cause he’s promoting. The cause that all his supporters who hold positions within the GOP will be promoting. The cause that all the candidates for public office he’s inspired will be promoting.
I’m about to lay down some serious philosophy (well I am not, but I’ll quote it).
“And as a person who looks much at his spectacles betrays that he has difficulties in looking through them, so people who appeal much to principles show that they do not know how to act.” - Gilbert Ryle Knowing How and Knowing That.
The first part is you. The second part is Ron Paul.
Ron’s not knowing how to act (by calling off the troops) is his appeal to principle. It is pathetic that people cling to ideals that they must bend over backwards to get people to even consider, let alone understand.
Revolutions are NEVER non-violent. I have said it before and (you guessed it) I will say it again. The Establishment endorses non-violent protest because they know that non-violent protestors do not pose a threat. If you want revolution…you must get your hands dirty…
Malcom X (endorses violence), Henry David Thoreau, John Brown (endorses not paying ANY taxes, endorses violence), the Sons of Liberty (endorses massive property destruction). They knew what is up. They helped get shit done.
hahahahah. Yup, those are the ones. The ones who took over Romney’s home state along with several others. YOU MUST BREAK THE RULES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. RULES ARE THERE TO PREVENT DIFFERENCE MAKING (particularly in politics).
What a cop out of a response. You know damn well that I named all of his causes…milk, light bulbs, and bombing Iran. Rand is a sellout and you are delusional for thinking otherwise.
“WHAT CAUSE? Rand is not part of Ron’s now defunct cause. I get emails from that goblin Romney because C4L sold my information to them like cheap Asian prostitute”
Aristophanes, it’s okay, you don’t have to hold back anymore. Tell us how you really feel. Let all of your emotions out.
So he finally actually names something, after being asked for examples three times.
“our” image?
That’s a terrible analogy. In the situation we’re actually discussing, the people who called Rand out on his selling out were doing the exact same thing they always have…sticking to a set of foundational principles and calling out people who don’t. They didn’t change. They simply continued doing what they always did. Rand just decided to move himself over to the sellout-who-gets-called-out group.
Revolutions are NEVER non-violent. I have said it before and (you guessed it) I will say it again. The Establishment endorses non-violent protest because they know that non-violent protestors do not pose a threat. If you want revolution…you must get your hands dirty…
When you and your rebel army are ready to storm the Bastille, give me a ring. In the meantime, I think we ought to try something that actually…you know…has a chance of success.
What a cop out of a response. You know damn well that I named all of his causes…milk, light bulbs, and bombing Iran. Rand is a sellout and you are delusional for thinking otherwise.
The “he” I referenced was Ron not Rand.
“And as a person who looks much at his spectacles betrays that he has difficulties in looking through them, so people who appeal much to principles show that they do not know how to act.” - Gilbert Ryle Knowing How and Knowing That.
The first part is you. The second part is Ron Paul.
That’s a terrible analogy. In the situation we’re actually discussing, the people who called Rand out on his selling out were doing the exact same thing they always have…sticking to a set of foundational principles and calling out people who don’t. They didn’t change. They simply continued doing what they always did. Rand just decided to move himself over to the sellout-who-gets-called-out group.
Precisely, it is because of those with confusion such as yours that Rand’s action was so controversial.
This makes absolutely no sense. You call calling out a sellout “confusion”, and allege that it isn’t the actual selling out that is controversial, it’s just the fact that people didn’t blindly go along with it that made it so.
Rand Paul freely admitted he wasn’t a libertarian years ago. There were just a lot of people who either didn’t notice, or assumed it was just semantics, and that he actually was part of a coalition that his father started. But evidently they were wrong.
The difference between you and them is, they recognized their mistake when it was thrown in their face. You have simply dressed it up and made excuses to justify it, and contort it so as to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Whether this is just because you’re too proud and don’t want to admit you were wrong about Rand, or can’t bring yourself to admit you were fooled, or don’t want to face the reality that there isn’t another Ron Paul ready in the wings to pick up the torch…or whether you’re just too much of a simpleton to even see what’s right in front of you, I don’t really know.
Plus, if the RON Paul delegates would have cause a stir that the media picked up, it would have at least shown the country that the GOP is withering and ready to be replaced. Instead when RAND comes out and starts blowing the senior ranking Republicans it makes it look like people like me really are Republicans (GOP).
I’d rather not be associated with that skidmark of a community (the underpants skidmark, not Laura Bush’s hit and run skidmark).
See, Minarchist, smarter people laugh at you. You should reread that quote I posted, get super high, and then read those links that I posted. Let your intellect be free. Circles aren’t squares as much as you want them to be.
See, Minarchist, smarter people laugh at you. You should reread that quote I posted, get super high, and then read those links that I posted. Let your intellect be free. Circles aren’t squares as much as you want them to be.
Uh huh, tell me more. Share with me your illumination master.
No, I call mistaking an empty political gesture for a sell-out confusion.
and allege that it isn’t the actual selling out that is controversial, it’s just the fact that people didn’t blindly go along with it that made it so.
Again, that is the interpretation that follows from your confusion.
Rand Paul freely admitted he wasn’t a libertarian years ago. There were just a lot of people who either didn’t notice, or assumed it was just semantics, and that he actually was part of a coalition that his father started. But evidently they were wrong.
And? Sorry, where did I say Rand was a libertarian? You’re the one who seems to be implying that he was, and that he sold out, and is no longer. Otherwise, what exactly did he sell out?
The difference between you and them is, they recognized their mistake when it was thrown in their face. You have simply dressed it up and made excuses to justify it, and contort it so as to fit a square peg in a round hole.
Or I’m correct and the endorsement was an empty gesture, and Rand may yet do good work for us.
