PDA

View Full Version : Possible VP choices for Dr. Paul




Brendan Wenzel
10-04-2007, 01:32 AM
I have sat here and thought about this for days and I can't for the life of me figure out who would be a great VP on Dr. Paul's ticket. There aren't very many freedom loving politicians out there. Anti-war Republicans are just as hard to come by. I have had people ask me this question and it is the only one that completely stumps me.

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 01:34 AM
Stephen Colbert :D

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 01:35 AM
In all seriousness:

South Carolina Governor: Mark Sanford

Brendan Wenzel
10-04-2007, 01:35 AM
That would be cool if it was possible. There would be no chance of losing a Paul-Colbert ticket.

ctb619
10-04-2007, 01:42 AM
I second that: Mark Sanford.....by the way, there are already a ton of threads on this topic

HalogenFlood
10-04-2007, 01:43 AM
I third Mark Sanford. He's not only a freedom loving, fiscally conservative politician -- as a governor he brings the requisite executive experience to the ticket.

Lord Xar
10-04-2007, 01:44 AM
McClintock...

Drknows
10-04-2007, 01:46 AM
I third Mark Sanford. He's not only a freedom loving, fiscally conservative politician -- as a governor he brings the requisite executive experience to the ticket.

Heres my three choices Pat Buchanan, Chuck Haggel or Mark Sanford.

ctb619
10-04-2007, 01:49 AM
Why Chuck Hagel? Other than the Iraq war, he and Ron Paul don't see eye to eye on much, his record is pretty hideous on everything else.

McDermit
10-04-2007, 01:54 AM
not a huge fan of sanford or palin myself. *shrug*

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 01:55 AM
not a huge fan of sanford or palin myself. *shrug*

I am curious, what about Sanford's record do you disagree with?

LibertyOfOne
10-04-2007, 02:07 AM
Rand Paul for VP :P J/K In all seriousness we should get him in congress.

As for VP I am fine with whom ever Ron chooses. He will make the right choice in the end anyways.

austin356
10-04-2007, 02:10 AM
I wish it could be a radical libertarian from Mises, but in order to get a majority and build a coalition within the party we need to broaden support.

Sanford is by far the top choice for the reason of his state being SC. Not only a early primary, but also helps out in southern states where his war message does not resonate as well as other areas.

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 02:11 AM
Rand Paul for VP :P J/K In all seriousness we should get him in congress.

As for VP I am fine with whom ever Ron chooses. He will make the right choice in the end anyways.

Agree with both of your points.

Rand Paul in the 2016 election no matter what though :D

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 02:12 AM
I wish it could be a radical libertarian from Mises, but in order to get a majority and build a coalition within the party we need to broaden support.

Sanford is by far the top choice for the reason of his state being SC. Not only a early primary, but also helps out in southern states where his war message does not resonate as well as other areas.

When do candidates usually announce VP choices?

austin356
10-04-2007, 02:14 AM
Rand Paul for US SENATE.

Skip the state level. Skip the House level.

We need a Ron Paul Senator. Senators have soo soo much power even when they are alone. A powerful Senator can stop a bill with little to no help if he has the influence, can work the procedures, and is not under attack by the administration, his party, or the opposition.

Ron Paul as a Senator would save billions a year in government overages, especially if he was able to rally support behind his causes from other Senators.

austin356
10-04-2007, 02:17 AM
When do candidates usually announce VP choices?



Heavily depends. If a Candidate needs to (such as NE Republicans, who pick a southerner) they may very well do it before the first southern primary.

In 2000 everyone knew who was on the ticket.

The official decision is not even made by the presidential candidate but rather the party, through nomination, which this year will be the result of inside dealings, coalitions, etc.

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 02:19 AM
Officially yes. But, it is my understanding that the running mate is named by the candidate before the VP convention and the presidential candidate's choice is then nominated.

austin356
10-04-2007, 02:24 AM
EDIT: removed quote


Technically yea it is..... The party is the one who has to nominate the VP. The process is the same as the President. Though in the last 40 years it really has not mattered, since the VP the chosen candidate has put forward has always been what the party wanted anyways. The nomination process of the president has just been a formality for God knows how long, and the process of choosing the VP (same method) has been even more of a formality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Vice_President



Officially yes. But, it is my understanding that the running mate is named by the candidate before the VP convention and the presidential candidate's choice is nominated.



Thats how is works, but this year may or may not be different since there is no front runner and the circumstances are very different than usual.


HERES AN EXAMPLE:

Say Romney and Paul have 44% of the delegates each, then Thompson has the remaining. Ron may have to choose Thompson to be his VP just to get the majority needed. Not saying this will be the case but it is actually plausible this time unlike last nominations.

OptionsTrader
10-04-2007, 02:25 AM
edited my statement above.