Where did it all go wrong /pol/?
Did Trump and Sanders completely sap away his potential voting base?
he isn't his father
He had no voting base
>>55878922
this. the only reason /pol/ supported ron paul was because of the racism accusations
rand needs to start using the word "nigger" more often if he expects us to back him up
>>55878870
It's not over. Rands problem was his shitty debate performances up until the last one.
The last debate has been the only one where people actually had positive shit to say about him. It's a shame but it's pretty much his own fault.
>>55879005
>It's not over.
you are delusional if you seriously think he is getting the republican nomination
He's a cūckservative
>>55878870
>Sanders
How the fuck is a communist socialist like sanders going to sap away from Paul's voter base? Paul couldn't be anymore different than Sanders. Paul wants to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government where as Kike Sanders wants to bloat the government as much as he can.
>>55878922
Holy shit is he shorter than his father?
XD
>>55879027
>you are delusional if you seriously think he is getting the republican nomination
If people believe Sanders has any chance at becoming president I can live in a fantasy world where Rand pulls off the upset faggot.
>>55879044
>How the fuck is a communist socialist like sanders going to sap away from Paul's voter base?
Because there are lots of people who swing towards the alternative vote, regardless of what that particular ideology is. People who may have heard and been swayed by Rand's message against the military industrial complex are now swayed by Sanders' overt criticism of corporatism in America.
Politics 101.
>>55878870
The real answer is because he's 5'8". Once people saw him on stage they couldn't ever take him seriously. No manlet has ascended to the US presidency since TVs were popularized. In fact there's a sharp discontinuity in Presidential heights around that same time, right before JFK's presidency.
>>55878922
WAIT REALLY? ARE THEY RELATED?
>>55879120
They are equally delusional thinking that Sanders will get the democrat nomination. At BEST he is 20 points under Clinton.
/pol/ will have a field day when he drops out and supports Clinton (which he said he will do if he drops out of the race). Tears will be shed.
RAND IS STILL THE MOST QUALIFIED AND DEDICATED CANDIDATE
I STAND WITH RAND
I STAND WITH RAND
I STAND WITH RAND
>>55879160
Even pre televised debates this has been the rule more than not. Taller candidates generally win election over shorter statute candidates throughout US presidential electoral history.
>>55879217
Rand is the only candidate redpilled enough to know that moving in to fight ISIS in the Middle East is not our best possible solution.
>>55878870
>>55879263
these desu, the western public is overrun with sex competition to the point where men look at other men from the frame of a woman instead of being patient and reasonable enough to evaluate philosophies individually.
just digging our own graves at this point. i don't think anything will wake us up.
>>55879392
only hope for second amendment rights out of all candidates.
plus removing tax barriers that force businesses to move over seas
god hes so fucking based
said things with more substance than
" hurr durr make american great "
>>55879623
>only hope for second amendment rights out of all candidates.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
> NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.
Would Rand support this?
>>55879392
I recall an interview I watched on youtube of him saying something to the effect of "We're with ISIS in Syria [since they're fighting the SAA] but against them in Iraq" in regards to his stance on ISIS.
Also don't forget he's FOR the TPP.
These two things destroyed my trust in him. He was the only candidate that I had liked. I think his father would be ashamed at the double speak of him.
>>55879675
no he wouldnt. He wouldnt be about licensing a natural right.
go get fucked trump fag
>>55879889
>GET A WARRENT
Yes he would.
>>55879889
So Rand would not support expanding concealed carry to all 50 states is what you are saying. You can argue about the philosophy of licensing a natural right but currently you have no way to carry a concealed weapon depending on the whim of the Sheriff's office of your local county.
If you don't agree with expanding concealed carry to all 50 states then you are supporting the status quo of the local sheriff's department of your country dictating whether you can possess a concealed weapon or not.
Rhetoric means jack shit if you can't get it edified into law.
>>55879997
rather than license a natural right why couldnt he manipulate state governments into not licensing natural rights by executive order.
essentially saying.
you cant license freedom of speech you cant license the right to self defense. concealed carry permits go away. if you can buy a gun you can carry a gun.
no regulation needed.
>>55880094
For political purposes one would be easier to actually achieve than the other. The mechanism is already in place for CCWs and what you are proposing would involve a much more arduous process that would be prone to failure than just using the current mechanism already in place.
I don't disagree with you about the 2nd amendment being unambiguous about the right for an individual to own a firearm (DC vs Heller supports this as well) but one of these is a more politically viable solution than the other.
>>55879806
>Also don't forget he's FOR the TPP.
Source? His stance seems to be that no one should be voting on TPP without reading all of it, and that he voted Yea on a procedural vote to move the bill towards a final decision.
As for your quote, that's the reality of the situation. We're funding and arming "rebels" in Syria who just pass it all on to ISIS.
"Although Paul believes that ISIS should be dealt with in order to protect foreign interests, such as our embassy in Iraq, he doesn’t believe that American boots should be put on the ground to do it, nor that the President should be allowed to act against ISIS without Congressional authority. He calls on conservatives to see the light on this particular issue."
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/11/202931-senator-rand-paul-blasts-president-obamas-war-isis-illegal/
Here he warns of accepting refugees and also says he is against intervention:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/14/after-paris-attacks-gop-hopeful-rand-paul-warns-refugees/0fK1q8CstGnVLgjvsSYRTJ/story.html
>>55880213
I agree, bro.
Rand was soft on borders and was a globalist isolationist. That's why.
