And, Just Like That, He Lost Their Votes

[mrjarrell]

Goldwater was right about the evangelicals in all particulars, but apparently Rand didn't pay attention to him or his dad. He just lost a lot of support and supporters by tying himself to that crew and refusing to attend to the demolition of the drug war. Sad to say that he must be abysmally blind to the damage the drug war has caused this nation and it's going to cost him. I can't cast a vote for a person that won't commit to ending that Constitution shredding war on the American people. Sorry, Rand. In your quest for votes you've lost more than mine.

Rand Paul "Assures" Evangelicals That He Doesn't Want to End the Drug War - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[steveh_131]

Goldwater was right about the evangelicals in all particulars, but apparently Rand didn't pay attention to him or his dad. He just lost a lot of support and supporters by tying himself to that crew and refusing to attend to the demolition of the drug war. Sad to say that he must be abysmally blind to the damage the drug war has caused this nation and it's going to cost him. I can't cast a vote for a person that won't commit to ending that Constitution shredding war on the American people. Sorry, Rand. In your quest for votes you've lost more than mine.

Rand Paul "Assures" Evangelicals That He Doesn't Want to End the Drug War - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Well. That is disappointing.

 

[jbombelli]

Disappointing, but not surprising.

 

[jerryv]

Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians ... they're all the same, they just pander to different constituencies .. Once you aspire to elective office, it's only about getting elected. Ideology is for citizens ... politicians run on influence peddling.

 

[level.eleven]

A stark departure from the Aqua Buddha days.

 

[gunowner930]

He's gotta win the primary i guess... Don't like the pandering though

 

[jbombelli]

He's gotta win the primary i guess... Don't like the pandering though

So is it your contention that he'll say anything to get elected and then do whatever he wants when he gets into office?

 

[jamil]

Goldwater was right about the evangelicals in all particulars, but apparently Rand didn't pay attention to him or his dad. He just lost a lot of support and supporters by tying himself to that crew and refusing to attend to the demolition of the drug war. Sad to say that he must be abysmally blind to the damage the drug war has caused this nation and it's going to cost him. I can't cast a vote for a person that won't commit to ending that Constitution shredding war on the American people. Sorry, Rand. In your quest for votes you've lost more than mine.

Rand Paul "Assures" Evangelicals That He Doesn't Want to End the Drug War - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Or, an alternative take on it could be that Rand, unlike his dad, has at least some ability to reason. He understands that he can't bring evangelical leaning Republicans, not an insignificant portion of the party, to the polls if he opposes everything they want.

You guys still don't get it. Not everyone believes all of the same things as you (which candidates must apparently do to satisfy you). A guest browsing the pages at INGO wouldn't be able to tell but FEW people believe all of the things that you do.

Most people's priority lists are ordered from highest to lowest priority. Your priority list is more like this one where order doesn't matter:

#1 - Repeal PATRIOT Act
#1 - Repeal NDAA
#1 - Remove market regulation
#1 - Repeal Obamacare
#1 - End the war on drugs
#1 - End the war on poverty and all entitlements
#1 - Et cetera ad infinitum

I personally think that the "drug war" causes more harm than it solves. But when a huge chunk of your voting block doesn't agree, you have to rearrange your priority list or you'll get none of it accomplished.

So, does this mean that if we have a Rand Paul / Hilary Clinton showdown in 2016, you'll be punishing Rand for his departure from 100% L P conformance?

 

[jbombelli]

Some of us don't vote for people who either 1) lie about their positions to get votes, or 2) espouse positions we don't agree with on major issues.

If he's lying about his position on the drug war, how do we know he's not lying about everything else he says to get OUR votes too? If he's telling the truth about the Drug War, he's not the candidate for us.

Put up a candidate we can get behind and we will. Until then, good luck storming the castle, boys.

 

[firehawk1]

It's good to see the all or nothing branch of INGO that ALWAYS ending up with NOTHING are alive and well...

 

[HmDBrian]

Some of us don't vote for people who either 1) lie about their positions to get votes, or 2) espouse positions we don't agree with on major issues.

If he's lying about his position on the drug war, how do we know he's not lying about everything else he says to get OUR votes too? If he's telling the truth about the Drug War, he's not the candidate for us.

Put up a candidate we can get behind and we will. Until then, good luck storming the castle, boys.

So you will let one thing determine your vote for a candidate? Thats ridiculous, you will never find someone who agrees with everything you feel in your heart should be law. Yes, the war on drugs is a joke, and always has been, but im not going to base my vote just because of this one factor I disagree with him on. Otherwise, I would never have someone to vote for, there is always something I dont agree with no matter who it is im voting for.

 

[steveh_131]

So you will let one thing determine your vote for a candidate? Thats ridiculous, you will never find someone who agrees with everything you feel in your heart should be law. Yes, the war on drugs is a joke, and always has been, but im not going to base my vote just because of this one factor I disagree with him on. Otherwise, I would never have someone to vote for, there is always something I dont agree with no matter who it is im voting for.

I haven't yet ruled out Rand, personally.

I will say that the drug war is a pretty good litmus test. You can't really claim to be in favor of liberty if you want to control what people put in their bodies.

 

[hornadylnl]

So you will let one thing determine your vote for a candidate? Thats ridiculous, you will never find someone who agrees with everything you feel in your heart should be law. Yes, the war on drugs is a joke, and always has been, but im not going to base my vote just because of this one factor I disagree with him on. Otherwise, I would never have someone to vote for, there is always something I dont agree with no matter who it is im voting for.

Are pro life voters expected to compromise for pro choice repubs?

 

[steveh_131]

Are pro life voters expected to compromise for pro choice repubs?

Check and mate.

 

[jbombelli]

So you will let one thing determine your vote for a candidate? Thats ridiculous, you will never find someone who agrees with everything you feel in your heart should be law. Yes, the war on drugs is a joke, and always has been, but im not going to base my vote just because of this one factor I disagree with him on. Otherwise, I would never have someone to vote for, there is always something I dont agree with no matter who it is im voting for.

Of course you won't. The biggest factor for you is the (R) after his name, not his honesty, nor his integrity, nor what he stands for.

The War on Drugs is a pretty big issue for a lot of us. It ranks right up there with gun rights. It's been the driving force behind a whole lot of bad legislation.

It's good to see the all or nothing branch of INGO that ALWAYS ending up with NOTHING are alive and well...

I see the crowd that wants us to put aside our beliefs and help them win and pass more legislation we don't want is alive and well too.

The fact is you're not going to get us to vote for your guy if we don't like your guy. Put up a guy we like and maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, good luck storming the castle.

 

[hornadylnl]

Check and mate.

But that's different though.

 

[firehawk1]

I see the crowd that wants us to put aside our beliefs and help them win and pass more legislation we don't want is alive and well too.

The fact is you're not going to get us to vote for your guy if we don't like your guy. Put up a guy we like and maybe we'll have something to talk about. Until then, good luck storming the castle.

Look up in Webster's the word compromise. To accomplish anything in this life compromise is required. You may not like it (I know at times I don't) but is the reality we must live in.

None of the Founding Fathers got EVERYTHING they wanted, compromise is required to get most of what one wants. Then one builds on that percentage they got and moves forward.

 

[jamil]

Some of us don't vote for people who either 1) lie about their positions to get votes, or 2) espouse positions we don't agree with on major issues.

If he's lying about his position on the drug war, how do we know he's not lying about everything else he says to get OUR votes too? If he's telling the truth about the Drug War, he's not the candidate for us.

Put up a candidate we can get behind and we will. Until then, good luck storming the castle, boys.

That's the problem, with you guys they're all major.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

The "drug war" just put 3 out of the 4 guys who broke into my house and stole my guns 6 months ago into the slammer when the evidence from the break in couldn't put them there. I'm developing a favorable view of it.

 

[jamil]

Are pro life voters expected to compromise for pro choice repubs?

Check and mate.

This is an issue about which I spent a lot of time arguing with evangelicals. But there's a difference. You are ALL issue voters. They are ONE issue voters. Both positions, especially since they will never hope to overturn R v W anyway, are losing propositions.

Stick to what is possible at the time and work your way up your priority list after you get the possible stuff accomplished. Of course you'd actually need to prioritize the list. Seems like a better strategy than beating your chests and claiming "principle".