Rand Paul boycotts GOP debate, goes on media blitz #RandRally, sees jump in numbers.

How Rand Paul Spent the Night of the Debate He Boycotted.

Sen. Rand Paul announced that he would boycott tonight’s debate after he failed to qualify for the main stage. Instead, as his campaign explained in a statement, he would "take his message directly to the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa.”

He took his message to Twitter, a medium that undoubtedly includes Iowa and New Hampshire voters.

While the candidates slugged it out on stage answering questions from moderators, Paul was at Twitter’s NYC headquarters, taking questions from voters online using the hashtag #RandRally.

#RandRally trended nationally for the majority of the debate and the duration of his Q & A.

By the middle of the debate, Twitter said he had gained the second largest following of all candidates, Republican and Democrat...

What Rand Paul Was Doing During the Republican Debate.

After a two-day media tour of New York City giving interviews — all hinged upon his skipping the debate — Paul holed up at the Twitter offices and answered user questions on Periscope video livestream, calling the event the Rand Rally.

Eschewing the debate stage for a virtual exchange was a bold move, but it paid off for Paul. Amongst all candidates, regardless of party, Paul added the second most followers, according to Twitter Government, and #RandRally was the fourth highest trending hashtag in the United States.

The event also served as a fundraiser of sorts for Paul — he periodically sent messages linking to his Square Cash page for donations.

Even though the candidates themselves are capable of garnering media attention, the fact is that the media itself can make or break a candidate.

If the media decides to promote you to the general public, your numbers will increase. If they decide to ignore you, your numbers will fall. With a few exceptions, its a proven fact.

The idea that there is a "main" stage and a 6pm "under-card" is a bit ridiculous, especially this early in the process. How is a candidate expected to get greater poll numbers if he or she isnt given the same amount of time by the moderators?

Lets be honest, the establishment is scared of Rand Paul. Even though he has toed the Party line on a few issues, they are scared of his Libertarian principles and simply dont trust the (Ron) Paul genes.

The Pauls pose a threat to the two most powerful institutions in America: the banksters via the "Federal Reserve" and the Military Industrial Complex's foreign empire.

It doesn't matter what political party one may align with - Rand Paul is what it means to be a Conservative, in my opinion. As opposed to presidential candidate-clowns who use children and boast "Ameritude," Rand Paul (should) absolutely be the GOP's pick.

I remember watching a few hours of one of his filibusters, and at that moment I was absolutely shocked, imagine if you will if it was Ron Paul who was elected rather than Obama.

And this is coming from someone who is a supporter of the "Commie," Sanders - although I have to admit, voting for Rand is not a vote wasted, in my opinion.

The GOP could be assured of my vote if he is the candidate. Most of the others equal all bets off.

Rand should be able to siphon off enough votes to sink Trump. Maybe that was the plan all along.
The Donald needs to reacess his strategy now; without minorities, women and thinking republicans, he dosen't stand a chance of getting the GOP nomination.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I sure wish this guy could up his standing in the polls. I support him 100%. My opinion is, he's the man!

originally posted by: gladtobehere

Lets be honest, the establishment is scared of Rand Paul. Even though he has toed the Party line on a few issues, they are scared of his Libertarian principles and simply dont trust the (Ron) Paul genes.

Indeed. He is one candidate who all along has questioned
the Federal Reserve secrecy and power, and the surveillance state.

The establishment may be scared of some of Rand Paul's ideas and plans for what he would do with the Presidency, but the establishment is not scared of Rand Paul. Man couldn't seem Presidential to save his life. Maybe in 20 years or so, when he has enough of that "crazy old man" aura that helped both Ron Paul and now Bernie Sanders. But by then time will have past him by.

I have noticed that a lot of Ron Paul supporters have become hardcore liberal socialists for Bernie, which is weird because Ron was never anywhere near a socialist...I blame social media and liberal propaganda to be honest. Some kids just never grow up, and just want to follow the 'cool' crowd. This makes makes me seriously question if all the college kids who followed Ron actually ever cared about his message in the first place.

With that said, there are others who have suddenly turned to the extreme right, acting like Trump is some kind of non establishment candidate, which is nonsense. He's a billionare, I mean C'mon!

Rand isn't perfect, he's not his dad but I like him more and more. At least he actually does things, and he really does seem to be on the same page with his father on the important issues. Out of all the candidates, both dem and repub, he really is the best choice imo.

BUT, people would rather continue following the 'cool' crowd and cheer for socialism and what not. It is what it is. I'm not going to spend another year stressing about it. The people get whatever they choose. Politics literally are life-draining.

I may be somewhat iffy on Rand, but he's probably my favorite from the right and the only GOP candidate that even has the slightest chance of beating Sanders. He's probably the second best option. A Bernie Vs. Paul general election may have something genuinely good come from it.

Is Rand going with the same "Get money out of politics" that Bernie is?

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Rand is against getting money out of politics, but more importantly, getting money out of the FED, and IRS by obliterating both while also getting rid of lobbyists, which is legal corporate bribery. Do that, and we will see this corruption destroyed. Bernie would rather add more to government by enacting some type of 'democratic' socialism.

Bernie's main goal has nothing to do with ending the fed or corrupt government. It seems to me, he just wants to make it bigger while making himself sound good by wanting to get rid of walstreet and rich people. Sounds great, but it really means nothing unless the root of the problem is weeded out. Creating more government is not going to be fun. Get ready for it because we may just see the people rally for it to happen. It's just pure ignorance.

Social media and propaganda are powerful tools.

originally posted by: Wookiep
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Rand is against getting money out of politics, but more importantly, getting money out of the FED, and IRS by obliterating both while also getting rid of lobbyists, which is legal corporate bribery.

Bernie's main goal has nothing to do with ending the fed or corrupt government. It seems to me, he just wants to make it bigger while making himself sound good by wanting to get rid of walstreet and rich people.

Where do you think the the money in politics comes from? Walstreet and rich people.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Not exactly. Where do you think all these rich banks keep getting loans from that they never have to pay back? That's right, the FED. They just keep printing money while the middle class pays for it.

a reply to: Wookiep

And who do you think wants the FED to stay in business?

The wealthy and Wallstreet.

a reply to: Wookiep

Why do you think that's why people follow or stopped following the Paul's? I'm a hardcore left winger on most issues, but Ron's foreign policy & anti-Federal Reserve policies were exactly what I agreed with. Even now, if I ran for President, I'd ask him to either advise or join my administration in specific committees to help us nationalize the Fed, shrink our overseas empire of bases, and end the War on Drugs. I don't know if he'd do it, but I agree completely with him on those topics.

However, I don't agree with his domestic policies on nearly anything (except the War on Drugs). I want a stronger social safety net and a drastically improved infrastructure, which I think he's against. However, I was more supportive of him when it looked like we were about to go to war with Iran because he was one of the few politicians who was staunchly against it. I figured Congress would reign in his more aggressive domestic policies, while he as commander in chief could prevent the wars. I also find many of his rants entertaining lol.

Unfortunately, there's another reason myself and many liberals have backed away from the Paul's: race issues. Admittedly, I only semi-supported Rand because of his dad. But his interview with Rachel Maddow was horrific to me. He defended saying he would NOT have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His reasoning was basically "I hate racism but don't think govt should regulate private property, so people should just boycott the places of business that wouldn't serve minorities". Screw that.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was literally the thing that ended forced racial segregation in America. It wasn't just private businesses that openly discriminated by race; it was hospitals, gas stations, government agencies, hotels, and every other place imaginable. We couldn't walk down streets in white-majority neighborhoods, had the different water fountains & entrances for businesses that allowed us, and couldn't even testify in court or serve on a jury against white people. Both of my parents grew up in the Segregation period and the first time they went to a racially integrated school was in college. Even my grandfather fought in WWII in a segregated unit under Patton & helped save Europeans from Nazis. But when he came back to the States, he was still legally a 2nd class citizen stuck in a segregated neighborhood. Rand burned every possible bridge with me & many minorities I know over that issue. He might as well have said he would've had MLK arrested.

And Ron had the infamous racist newsletters incident. You probably know what I'm talking about. Ironically, I didn't have much of an opinion about that when it came out. Everyone's done stupid stuff in their past & one of my core beliefs is that anyone can change over time. In other words, I didn't care about it because I didn't even want to believe the story. Like I said above, I'd still ask him to work with my administration on several specific issues (and would undoubtedly get a huge backlash from many of my fellow liberals for it). But that also pushed a lot of people away from him. It had nothing to do with us "following the cool crowd".

a reply to: MystikMushroom

ALL of wallstreet and rich people? That's a rather broad brush to paint with. I agree there is corrupt capitalism going on, but without the Fed, that corruption ends, period. No more government/corporate partnerships and secret deals, same with lobbyism and the IRS and it's shenanigans.

Getting rid of wallstreet, capitalism and rich people and transforming into a big govt socialistic nation will not solve our problems at all imo. There are plenty of honest people who have climbed up the ladder and earned their living. But everyone has their opinions. Like I mentioned earlier, we get what the people decide. I'm not going to stress over it anymore, but I think Rand is the only one with his head screwed on tight.

a reply to: Wookiep

And without the Fed, there goes walstreet and most rich people.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I agree for a while yes, it's going to crash but it HAS too, it's inevitable no matter what. The sonner the better. But true capitalism would rebound again without all the govt controlled socialism stuff. We need to get back to the basics, not become an extention of Europe.

Rand is the reason I registered republican and the only reason I have watched any of the GOP debates. The entertainment was a side bonus. My only concern with Rand was when he and Don exchanged "pleasantries" about campaign donations and how Donald has contributed to Rand's campaign. That's it. I don't live in Kentucky so I don't have any issues with him as a state senator. I'm sure the Kentucky natives can chime in on his state policies and his voting record.