Rand Paul

Trump, Cruz Make Play for Paul Supporters, But Rand Says He's Not Going Anywhere

Republicans want to compete for libertarian votes.

|

Donald Trump is taunting Rand Paul again:

But Paul maintains he isn't going anywhere—and may even outlast the reality television star turned nativist presidential candidate. According to CNN:

Speaking on CNN's "New Day" with Alisyn Camerota, the Kentucky senator responded to comments from Trump that Paul's campaign was sputtering out.

Trump
Trump

"I'll tell you this, I think we'll be around just as long as Trump, or longer," Paul said. …

Paul said there's no truth to Trump's assertions that his campaign is having trouble fundraising. In fact, he said, his campaign is focused on organizing on the ground in key primary states and pleased with how that's going.

"Ultimately we're going to get to the truth, we're going to get to substance—it takes a while," Paul said of the campaign. "But by no means am I finished: I'm just getting started."

Meanwhile, Trump is making overtures to Paul's supporters:

It's hard to imagine libertarians—actual libertarians, who want the government to be smaller—heading in droves to the campaign of a man who despises trade, uses the government to confiscate private property, and would seek vast new federal power to kick hard-working Americans out of the country.

That said, there is a Republican candidate who seems to be cutting into Paul's libertarian base with some success: Ted Cruz. Cruz has picked up a few key endorsements from libertarians who supported Ron Paul's presidential campaign, and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr is chairing a new "Liberty Leaders for Cruz" coalition, according to The Washington Post:

As Paul's campaign has floundered and Cruz remains in the middle of the pack, Cruz's campaign has made the case to Paul supporters that the Texas Republican can remain in the race for a long time—and that while he does, he will espouse libertarian principles. At rallies this summer, Cruz has evoked the Fourth Amendment, railed against the Fed and talked about his efforts to end the bulk government collection of metadata.

In the video, Cruz's supporters talk about how both Pauls endorsed Cruz's 2012 Senate run and said they believe he has held positions consistent with the liberty movement, including a reluctance to send boots on the ground to Syria and support for Rand Paul's bill calling for an audit of the Fed.

Watch that video here (and below).

Cruz's relative success at courting Ron Paul activists suggests to me that the younger Paul has not done enough to shore up his libertarian base as he makes overtures to the more traditional, hawkish wing of the Republican Party. But he did a better job of this in the second debate, and the Iowa caucus is months away—meaning it's still premature to assume that Paul's presidential ambitions are dead.

Reason TV interviewed Paul in June. Watch that video here.

NEXT: President Obama Wishes The Libya Intervention Had Been More Full-Throttled

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How the #$!* did Bob Barr ever end up as the Libertarian presidential candidate? Between him, Obama, and someone who would put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away, I had to leave the top line blank on my ballot that year.

    1. I left my entire ballot blank that year.

    2. I had to leave the top line blank on my ballot that year.

      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      1. It’s a bad thing when even the Libertartian party nominates a statist Jesus freak for President.

        If I want to vote for one of them, I’ll vote Republican. Or Democrat…..

        1. What’d be bad is enough high-minded purists didn’t vote that we wound up with a Palin presidency.

    3. And the time before that, the 2 front runners knocked each other off, leaving a kook to be nominated.

    4. Bob Barr would have made a better president than either Obama or McCain.

  2. Well, I support individual liberty, free association, and limited government.

    Buuuut….on the other hand, I want Amurka to be great again and I think we need a wall to keep all thum goddamn illeeguls from takin’ ar jerbs.

    1. I believe in the autonomy and competence of the individual, but I really want a president that will take care of me. Someone get me a hat!

  3. Crowd: Hey, that’s Ted Cruz over there. Let’s go check him out.
    Rand: Wait, where are you going? I’m still in this race! *sobbing* I’m still looking this race…

    1. If this shitty phone Wednesday (autocorrected from were) mine I might just smash it with a hammer then get a new one.

      1. My goddam auto correct refuses to recognize the word ‘busty’ and drops in the words ‘busto’ and ‘bustu.’

        1. I’m not sure why, but your phone’s antics made me laugh harder than I have in days.

      2. I blame the free market….

  4. Except Cruz is not a natural born Citizen.

    1. As I fill out my wife’s paperwork for permanent residency, guess what. Naturalized citizens are a separate category from those who were born in the United States or born to American parents abroad. Again, my consular certificate never mentions naturalization. Neither does the law which explains the conditions under which a child of an American parent or parents born abroad, such as myself, is considered an American citizen.

      Now, I understand that you want to believe that people who are not born on US soil cannot be natural born citizens because, in your mind, that is unnatural. You can insist that Jus Soli is the only true test of natural citizenship, despite the lack of support for this in US law. Ultimately, though, this is the problem. Your idea of what is natural citizenship has no relevance in court for the same reason that one cannot effectually cite the Law of the Jungle or the Bro Code in court.

      1. US v Wong Kim Ark

        “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF CITIZENS,…” (emphasis mine)

        I’d call the Supreme Court support.

        1. BTW, it’s my opinion that an nbC is one born in a country to citizen parents, not just born in the country.

        2. The text you cite distinguishes between naturalized citizens and those belonging to “certain classes of persons” (e.g. foreign born American citizens). The term “natural born” is never referenced or defined.

          1. The text clearly states that foreign born children of citizens are naturalized. What do you think “enactments conferring citizenship” means?

            1. There is a difference between defining classes of people who are considered to be citizens and naturalizing. An enactment is a law. Naturalization is a process. Children born to American parents overseas never go through the naturalization process. They are considered under US law to be citizens from birth. Hence, they are natural born citizens.

              1. No. A law passed by Congress naturalizes them at birth. To be naturalized means to be made “as if natural”. It can be through the immigration process or by law at birth. You’re conflating immigration and naturalization.

                1. How you can make the argument with a straight face that someone made a citizen by law is natural is beyond me. Natural requires no law.

                  1. Think of the difference between natural rights and civil rights. A civil right may be an admixture of natural rights and rights define by law. Our Constitution is full of phrases like “due process” that have no meaning without reference to an existing legal system. Congress, the judiciary and the executive branch can mold the meaning of this phrase to a degree. Congress can pass laws. The judiciary can make rulings. The executive branch can set regulations. The definition is not infinitely malleable, but neither is it set in stone.

                    The same goes for the phrase “natural born citizen.” It is not something written in the stars. The existence of citizenship requires law and a state. Many other forms of government with other understandings of citizenship have existed over time. To suggest that citizenship is a natural thing that exists without reference to law is to misapprehend the nature of law and citizenship.

                    1. Wrong. The phrase “natural born Citizen” means exactly what it meant on September 17, 1787 when the delegates of the Constitutional Convention signed it and sent it to be ratified. The only way to change its meaning is an amendment. Tell me, can we make a person a natural born athlete by passing a law? Of course not. If natural born Citizen means born a citizen what do you think the word natural means? Under your definition it has no meaning. Natural born Citizen is a subset of born citizens and if you ain’t natural you’re naturalized.

                2. Wrong again. Naturalization is an actual process defined by law. The law governing children born abroad to US citizens does not state that such citizens are naturalized. In fact, the distinction between naturalized citizens and those belonging to “certain” classes is drawn pretty consistently in US law, on immigration paperwork and in the case you cited. If your theory is correct, then everybody else is wrong. But of course it isn’t correct. You are using your own definition of “natural born” and insisting that the courts need to adopt it.

                  1. Yes, naturalization is an actual process defined by law as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF CITIZENS.

                    It’s not my definition it’s the Supreme Courts.

                    1. Your argument is that a person who would not even be a citizen without the law is a natural born Citizen with the law. If Congress passed a law granting US citizenship to everyone in the world no matter where or who they are born to according to you they would all be nbCs and eligible to the the POTUS. Do you really think that is what the Framers had in mind when they included the qualification in order to protect against foreign influence? Use your head.

                    2. And you slowly arrive at a dim understanding of what I mean by an admixture of natural and civil rights.

                      It is not self evident that somebody born to an ambassador or another US citizen abroad does not inherit citizenship “naturally” from their parents. Strictly speaking, all citizen is artificial and therefore unnatural, so we have to take the term “natural born citizen” more as a term of art than a literal description. I guess you’re trying to use English Common Law as the basis of your definition, but Common Law is itself a mixture of codified and customary law, which supports my point of view rather than yours. Your personal definition of a natural born citizen has no more legal significance than the “Law of the Jungle” or the “Bro Code.”

                      Yes, Congress can redefine what a natural born citizen is, just as it can define what is “due process.” Does that mean that “natural born citizen” and “due process” have no definition? Well, to a degree. The courts can push back against overly broad definitions, but I would not count on it. The rule of law depends heavily on the people writing, interpreting and enforcing the law not being complete cynics.

                      I agree that the danger of foreign influence is the impetus behind the Constitutional requirement for POTUS. That is precisely why barring the children of ambassadors and other citizens abroad is so ridiculous.

                    3. You’re an idiot.

                    4. I have demolished your arguments throughout this debate. If you are correct, then you have been repeatedly humiliated by an idiot.

                    5. Only in your feeble mind. I take it English is not your first language.

                    6. The law does not state that the foreign born children of citizens are naturalized. It says the opposite. You haven’t accounted for that fact yet, and you won’t because you can’t.

                    7. That’s EXACTLY what it says and you’re still an idiot.

                    8. The Supreme Court has said no such thing, as we have already discussed. Naturalized citizens are distinguished from “other classes” of citizens, as I pointed out to you above.

                    9. “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED.”

                      You’re an idiot.

                    10. Hmm. Let’s see.

                      “A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress , exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship”

                      My interpretation is consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is also consistent with how immigration authorities classify people. Your definition is consistent with your own feelings.

                    11. I see what you’re getting at now. Wong Kim Ark is saying that certain classes of people declared to be citizens are naturalized. This is incorrect. Naturalization is an actual process defined in law. In law, children of citizens born abroad are not considered to be naturalized. That is what the law says. Sure, Congress can pass a law naturalizing classes of people, but that’s not what they did in the INA. We know that because we can actually read the law and see how it is applied in practice.

                    12. If they are citizens at birth by law they ARE naturalized. The law you are talking about naturalizes them at birth.

                    13. No, it says certain classes of people, such as those born to citizens overseas, are naturalized.

        3. And if you want to talk intent, consider that John Adams was a diplomat to France. If John Quincy Adams had been born in France rather than Massachusetts, what difference would it have made? The idea that the framers of the Constitution would be worried about, say, that son of an ambassador becoming president is laughable, as is your entire argument.

          1. Ambassadors and their families are not subject to the jurisdiction of the host country.

            1. Neither are they on US soil.

              1. And their children are not citizens.

                1. Not US citizens? Since when?

                  1. Since the beginning of time. You are talking about foreign ambassadors in the US?

                    1. No. We have been talking about US ambassadors to foreign countries. You inability to follow the simple example demonstrates pretty clearly why you are incapable of understanding why your stance on nbCs is absurd.

                    2. The US is not a host country to US ambassadors dumb ass.

        4. And if you want to talk intent, consider that John Adams was a diplomat to France. If John Quincy Adams had been born in France rather than Massachusetts, what difference would it have made? The idea that the framers of the Constitution would be worried about, say, that son of an ambassador becoming president is laughable, as is your entire argument.

  5. I though Cruz did too much fear mongering in the debate in regard to Iran.

    1. What else does he have?

      1. An earnest delivery that feels fake?

      2. The smirk.

      3. A face that looks like he’s from a wax museum with no air conditioning?

      4. His father’s conversion story?

      5. A smarmy look and a punchable face?

  6. “It’s hard to imagine libertarians?actual libertarians, who want the government to be smaller?heading in droves to the campaign of a man who despises trade, uses the government to confiscate private property, and would seek vast new federal power to kick hard-working Americans out of the country.”

    Hard to imagine?

    You haven’t seen Corning’s fascinating explication of how Trump supporters are actually “cultural libertarians”?

    I always get a kick out of the people who say, “I’m totally libertarian.. i just draw the line at the “economic stuff”.

    1. There’s an explication? Can you replicate it GILMORE-style?

      1. I dare not try. He was channeling this piece here (and the author’s other comments on the same)

        Most of it isn’t about “what it is”, but rather what it is not… or, that anything derided by the Cultural Left wins instant Cultural Libertarian Cred because its “Edgy” that way.

        “HOW TO SPOT A CULTURAL LIBERTARIAN

        Identifying a cultural libertarian is easy. You’re likely to find them facing a wave of accusations of sexism, misogyny, rape apology, racism, homophobia, transphobia and islamophobia. Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos and British TV personality Katie Hopkins, in particular, deliberately seek out battles in order to mock hand-wringers and appear to take pride in being labelled by their enemies.”

        I think that’s all well and good.

        I hesitate to call people “libertarian”, however, just because they’re on one side of a Culture War conflict. I think the more-libertarian view is to insist that one’s position on cultural matters is *irrelevant*, insofar as you don’t intend to try and force your views on others, or use the force of the state to make alternative points of view verbotten

        I think “civil liberties” has a clearer libertarian connection – because of its cultural neutrality.

    2. I’ve seen people type out with no sense of wrongness “yeah, I’m pretty much a libertarian and I think the government should be doing more to address inequality.”

    3. There are very few “real” libertarians. Just 1.4% of Americans[1] favor reducing spending on social security and increasing immigration. Those aren’t all libertarians, the majority are probably neocons.

      1. http://www.vox.com/2015/8/18/9…..mmigration

      Libertarians benefit from people who don’t like the Left but also don’t like the incompetence and sexual morality of the “conservatives” calling themselves libertarians when they really aren’t. It allows libertarians to have an illusion of widespread popular support.

      1. “the majority are probably neocons”

        sigh.

        What’s your definition of “Neocon”?

        1. Supportive of a pre-emptive attack foreign policy, wanting to “reduce” the size of government by spending billions or trillions more on military engagements on every continent and do away with civil liberties just until we’ve got terror and drugs wiped out, but open to maybe taking a look at a 5% cut in the Department of Education’s budget.

    4. I’m totally libertarian, I just draw the line at businesses that don’t cater imaginary gay pizza weddings.

  7. “It’s hard to imagine libertarians?actual libertarians, who want the government to be smaller?heading in droves to the campaign of a man who despises trade, uses the government to confiscate private property, and would seek vast new federal power to kick hard-working Americans out of the country.”

    Paul went from a high of 11.3% in the Real Clear Politics average to 2.4% today. A lot of Paul’s supporters evidently weren’t real libertarians.

    1. Re: Jason Bayz,

      Paul went from a high of 11.3% in the Real Clear Politics average to 2.4% today. A lot of Paul’s supporters evidently weren’t real libertarians.

      Or were disappointed at Paul’s libertarian bona fides.

      So far the only pure libertarian still supporting him, even if only nominally, is Dr. Walter Block.

    2. In the GOP most of his supporters were not libertarians and never claimed to be. But I doubt they went to Trump, anyway. Probably Fiorina, Carson, and Rubio.

  8. Maybe Trump thinks Rand has a stranglehold on the support of Librarians.

  9. Other than the first name and the last name, most of Rand’s libertarian bona-fides are questionable. Can’t we find a pro-choice Libertarian who doesn’t hedge about the issue? One who truly doesn’t think it is any of the government’s business who sticks their dick into what, and whether they marry he/she/it/Cthulu afterwards? Are we so desperate for candidate that we have to throw out the most successful parts of the Libertarian message in order to find one?

    1. If you are telling me to pick no candidate to support versus supporting Rand then yes. Yes I am that desperate. Look at the leaders in the polls. Look at the issues that grab the most attention. I am very fucking desperate for a candidate that at least resembles someone who will support the America I believe in. I want an America where the role of government is to protect the rights of everyone and that’s it. Full stop. Rand is the only voice in the arena even offering a mirage of that.

    2. Garry Johnson

    3. I never understood the notion that it is better to remain ideologically pure and lose than to compromise and win. No politician can do anything unless without first getting elected.

      1. remove “unless”

      2. “There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.”

        Ayn Rand

        1. That’s why it’s not a good idea to think in terms of moral issues. It just makes everybody seem like an enemy. Think that way, & you’ll act that way, & then they’ll actually become an enemy.

          1. It’s not a good idea to think in terms of moral issues? So when someone you love is murdered you’ll just shrug and say “Whatever, I don’t consider the morality of it”?

            1. Neither Cruz nor Paul share Rand’s morality, such has it was. Neither of ’em is libertarian either ..

        2. In democratic politics, unless you have a majority supporting you, refusing to compromise makes you irrelevant.

  10. I would vote for Rubio long before I voted for Cruz. Fuck Cruz. At least Rubio isn’t bad on some issues. Plus, the way Cruz would stare into the camera during the debate made me uncomfortable.

    1. I’d go completely the opposite. I find Cruz far more palatable than Rubio.

      From what I have seen Cruz at least would consider the financial implications before bombing someone and isn’t as much of a drug warrior as Rubio

      1. seriously they both kind of suck but I might vote republican if Cruz was nominated, and I def. won’t if Rubio is nominated.

    2. Rubio is demonstrably worse than Cruz. At least Cruz pays lip service to some libertarian principles, Rubio openly despises libertarians.

    3. Rubio isn’t a natural born Citizen either.

  11. I will do a much better job for them.

    There are two rules to leadership, #1) Don’t tell everything you know and #2) See Rule #1. That seems to be the Essence of Trump. He’s always insisting that he’s going to be so awesomely awesome at everything he does but he remains just a little coy about revealing any details about how he plans to accomplish this. I can only imagine this “much better job” Trump speaks of is predicated on Donald Trump being the judge of what constitutes “better”. For my money, a better job would involve Donald Trump dying in a flaming woodchipper falling off a cliff into a shark-filled lake of acid.

    1. Sounds good to me dude!

    2. I would certainly prefer this happening to Trump than to Paul, that is for sure.

    3. I assume this shark/acid lake was created by an EPA cleanup crew?

    4. THIS

  12. I usually hate the Onion, but this is pretty good:

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…..-oth-51213

    Ted Cruz Worried All The Good Countries To Wall Off Taken By Other Candidates

  13. I hope when Rand Paul gets out of the race?he is at 1%–his supporters come over to me. I will do a much better job for them.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    That made my morning.

  14. Trump is delusional enough to believe he will capture a significant portion of the libertarian vote.

    I can’t think of a worse candidate to represent the libertarian philosophy currently running, and we have an avowed socialist in the mix.

    1. US voters will never elect a true Libertarian. The best we can do is support whatever candidate is most likely to leave us alone and allow us to keep more of the money we’ve earned. Compared to all the religious nuts in the GOP, Trump doesn’t look so bad.

      1. Compared to all the religious nuts in the GOP, Trump doesn’t look so bad.

        What did they say in the Wiemar Republic?

        Compared to all the communist nuts in Reichstag, Herr Hitler doesn’t look so bad.

        1. Agreed, religious nuts are as dangerous as Communists. But comparing Trump to Hitler is a bit of a reach, don’t you think?

            1. Damn, didn’t expect you to make such a persuasive argument! You’ve convinced me.

              1. Comparing Trump to Hitler is exactly right. Trump promises to make America great again without saying exactly how he’s going to do that except that he seems to expect he’s going to be an extraordinarily strong executive and unilaterally get rid of those policies and people who are keeping us from greatness. Hitler promised to make Germany great again by becoming an extraordinarily strong executive and unilaterally getting rid of those policies and people who were keeping Germany from greatness. Plenty of people were willing to overlook Hitler’s hitlery-ness as long as he was going to fix things and, hey, things couldn’t get any worse then they are now, right? Wait until Trump announces a deal to greatify Mexico using kinetic military action and a trade negotiations policy of nuking the Middle East.

                1. Not bad. You have a gift for fiction and imagining the absurd. Keep at it!

      2. i think the could. the problem is getting the nomination. the two parties have done a good job blocking third party involvement in the general election, and the base for each party is pretty adamant about those pet issues that make them look nuts to the rest of us.

        1. Unfortunately, the media has done too good of a job vilifying Libertarian ideas and depicting us as childish, selfish, greedy, and cold-hearted. Ask the average person on the street what they think of Libertarianism, and the vast majority will either not know what it means, or will have a negative opinion. A third party will never get off the ground, so the only solution is to hijack one of the major parties and steer them in a more Libertarian direction. That’s what Rand Paul is trying to do (like his father before him), but he doesn’t have the persona or charisma to convince your average idiot voter.

    2. In Trumps defense he hasn’t been exactly clear what policies/philosophy he will defeat this countries problems with besides that he’s Trump. Also you could argue that a vote for Trump is technically a vote for liberty as it is saying “what the fuck lets nominate a mouth-breathing retard to run things he can’t possibly be worse” which is a fair assessment.

      1. Trump is retarded but in all honesty can anyone tell me how he would be much worse than anybody else that is likely to get a nomination? They all completely suck it’s like a beauty contest featuring nothing but humpbacks, burn victims and the obese.

        1. But the humpbacks and burn victims make up only a small part of the population, as opposed to the obese, (depending on your definition), that could be up to 60% of the population of the US! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It sounds like your view is blind to reality. And, bigoted, at the least! (sounds like Trump!) A locker room bully, with a big mouth, and little empathy, is not going to be a good choice, either. What he has presented, so far, as policy goes, is vague and has minimal substance. He is the worst of all of the candidates in having any specific policies, that are going to be workable. Stating that because he is Donald Trump, he will get it done lacks any substance, at all. He is worse than most of us, in that he has lost more money than any ten of us would make in a lifetime. He is no more perfect than any of the rest of us,. He puts his pants on one leg at a time! He bloviates and self elevates, which in the end, shows less character than the other candidates, running at this time!

        2. That’s easy, some libertarians feel better when they are lied to, though they know the guy they are voting for is not libertarian, will not be libertarian, will never embrace libertarianism. That way they can say they were lied to, that they were duped and it’s not their fault they voted the guy in in the first place, that they voted for the “lesser of two evils.” Trump is no different than all the other bozos running, the difference is, he is open about what he wants to do and people believe him and that is what is troubling everyone. The others, well, we don’t really know what they will do, since politicians always tell us what they think we want to hear. That is good enough for most, as is seems that is good enough for most libertarians.

  15. The goal here is to keep Hillary out of the White House. Nothing else matters and I’ll vote for anyone who isn’t her.

    1. Why? What would Hillary do that’s worse than what Trump would do? Or Sanders?

      1. My biggest objection to Hillary is on principle. And to give the coveted title of “First Female President” to that lying, conniving, evil harpy goes against everything I believe. Oh, plus she’s wrong on literally every issue. Sanders is a Socialist, and in my eyes that disqualifies him from public office.

        1. That seems .. non specific.

  16. “Paul maintains he isn’t going anywhere!”
    Damn! Why did I think he was going to do another interview?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com…..mmigrants/

    http://news.yahoo.com/rand-pau…..31655.html

    1. Usually when they say that they are on their way out. Didn’t Rick Perry virtually say the same thing, just before he bowed out?

  17. It’s hard to imagine libertarians?actual libertarians, who want the government to be smaller?heading in droves to the campaign of a man who despises trade, uses the government to confiscate private property, and would seek vast new federal power to kick hard-working Americans out of the country.

    So Trump wants to deport adults US Citizens now? Or does Americans refer to South and Central Americans. maybe Canadians, too?

    What if let the hard-working Americans stay, but kicked out the not-so-hard working Americans? You know the type. Leaves early on Friday. Frequently calls out sick on Monday. Spends most of the day surfing the web and picking his Draft Kings Fantasy Team. Can we kick that guy out?

  18. No one who even leans libertarian would vote for that short-fingered vulgarian.

  19. The Ted Cruz campaign can’t even be bothered to spell check its videos?

  20. First of all Trump is a moron. Anyone sounding Hitleresque is not getting my vote. If you have a problem with illegal immigrants take away the incentives to come here and they will leave on their own aka self-deportation. Cruz stands a better chance of wooing Paul supporters such as myself. Cruz and Paul are both staunch libertarians. Either one would make a great President but Paul favors marijuana legalization just as I do while Cruz doesn’t. Cruz may want to change his mind as marijuana legalization can be very profitable. Just ask the dispensaries in Colorado.

    1. Cruz is a career politician. He, just like any other career politician, will say anything he thinks you want to hear to get elected, once elected he will do whatever he thinks it takes to get re elected. And being a “true” republican, he is in favor of big gov’t, though he won’t say it, just like every other “true” republican.

    2. Cruz is a career politician. He, just like any other career politician, will say anything he thinks you want to hear to get elected, once elected he will do whatever he thinks it takes to get re elected. And being a “true” republican, he is in favor of big gov’t, though he won’t say it, just like every other “true” republican.

  21. “It’s hard to imagine libertarians?actual libertarians, who want the government to be smaller?heading in droves to the campaign of a man who despises trade, uses the government to confiscate private property,”

    Yes, that is hard to imagine, You know what is even harder to imagine? That the author thinks any significant number of Paul’s supporters are “actual Libertarians”!

  22. “It’s hard to imagine libertarians?actual libertarians, who want the government to be smaller?heading in droves to the campaign of a man who despises trade, uses the government to confiscate private property, and would seek vast new federal power to kick hard-working Americans out of the country.”

    So, it’s hard to imagine actual libertarians to vote…..republican? I agree, sadly though, many do vote republican then whine about their lack of libertarian policies.

  23. Ilike Cruz and Paul both: they remind me of myself in that none of us is ever going to be president.

  24. I won’t vote for any Israel First zionist .
    If not Rand , I’ll probably vote for Gary Johnson again .

  25. Any libertarian who favors Cruz over Paul is a moron. Cruz is far more hawkish than Paul, far more of a drug warrior, and far less of a pragmatist.

  26. A significant amount of Paul support has probably defected to Trump over the issue of immigration. Reason may not like it, but Ron Paul was probably the most nativist Republican there was when it came to immigration, and so were many of his supporters. Rand Paul’s turn to open borders sent many of those supporters running, which isn’t surprising in a year in which Mass Migration is literally the biggest story on the planet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.