Can We Draft Tom Woods in '16?

[BuddyRey]

I'm serious, this guy has the knowledge, the command of language, and the charisma to kick mucho asso in the Republican debates and possibly change as many hearts and minds as RP has if given a national platform. I know there are naysayers who don't dig Tom for whatever reason, but I happen to think they're passing up a golden ticket in this guy. We've got to start grooming him now!

Who's with me....who's bloody with me?!?! :::warface:::

[trey4sports]

that is not his role in the revolution.

[BuddyRey]

that is not his role in the revolution.

Just because he hasn't yet pursued political office doesn't mean he wouldn't be good at it. Besides, he's only 40...the sooner we start cultivating a public image for him, the better his future chances at political success.

[Anti Federalist]

There won't be a 2016 shot for any freedom candidate, if we don't torpedo Obamney now.

No One But Paul

[LibertyEagle]

He's been too open about being an anarchist. It would torpedo him.

[musicmax]

We need people to run for and win LOCAL offices.

[SewrRatt]

Tom Woods is awesome, but for the sheep or the media to consider you as a serious candidate for the presidency at all, you have to have been at least a governor or US congressman. Not even the establishment could get someone without those credentials elected.

[Charlie Harris]

Rand Paul 2016

[XTreat]

Regardless I would LOVE to see TW in a debate.

[fr33]

He really is the principled type like Ron Paul. He would be an awesome elected official. It's amazing Ron was able to be elected so many times.

[Wesker1982]

http://i.imgur.com/XtZ55.png (http://imgur.com/XtZ55)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI

[TheTexan]

He's been too open about being an anarchist. It would torpedo him.

Maybe bringing anarchy into the public discussion as something to consider, instead of something to automatically dismiss and/or be afraid of, is what needs to happen.

We're trying to educate America in the ways of liberty... but we're basically throwing a bunch of different confusing policy issues at them, and they can't see the big picture. The non-aggression principle is that big picture. Even for minarchists, anarchy is the ideal scenario; they just don't think anarchy would work, but value the same non-aggression principles all the same.

When we use the phrase "a Constitutional Republic" that concept is viewed by most relative to the government we have today. Less taxes, less wars, less this, less that, etc. Less of everything is all well and good, but this approach doesn't make it clear the reason for wanting less of everything.

On the other hand, anarchy or voluntaryism makes these principles crystal clear. I can't speak for anybody else here, but the reason I was so excited when I first looking into Ron Paul was because I was able to read between the lines of what he was saying and quickly saw what was at the base of all of his decisions: the non-aggression principle. I didn't know it had a name or that's what it called, but it was his firm belief in NAP that drew my attention and ignited my enthusiasm.

If education is ever going to work, that education will need to have a foundation in non-aggression IMO. It's very difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about non-aggression without talking about anarchy/voluntaryism.

[John F Kennedy III]

There won't be a 2016 shot for any freedom candidate, if we don't torpedo Obamney now.

No One But Paul

Truth :(

[Karsten]

To those who say we can't draft Woods because some people and the media would call him and kook and mock him over past statements he's made, I say...

... And they didn't do that to Ron?

We're experts at uphill battles now. I actually like the idea. Woods is a very good speaker, which is all that got Obama elected anyway.

[LibertyEagle]

To those who say we can't draft Woods because some people and the media would call him and kook and mock him over past statements he's made, I say...

... And they didn't do that to Ron?

We're experts at uphill battles now. I actually like the idea. Woods is a very good speaker, which is all that got Obama elected anyway.

How so? Some of us learned Robert's Rules of Order, so we were effective at becoming delegates. But, we still haven't been effective at winning over everyday Americans.

[Raudsarw]

He has openly admitted to being an anarchist. That would be a serious problem. However, Ron Paul was considered nuts just a few years back. His ideas don't sound nearly as radical nowadays. We should get an anarchist candidate, along with a minarchist one like Ron Paul. The people need to be informed that there is an alternative to the state. Ron Paul made the Federal Reserve an issue, lets make the state as a whole an issue.

My god though, a debate with Tom Woods in it? It would be the most awesome thing on TV ever. The other candidates would break down in tears by the time Tom Woods is done utterly destroying them.

[Sola_Fide]

I think Tom would change more hearts and minds with a primetime radio show. I mean, could you imagine where we'd be if Tom Woods was 12-3 instead of Rush Limbaugh for the last 20 years? Ron Paul would have already been a 2 term president.

[IDefendThePlatform]

Maybe bringing anarchy into the public discussion as something to consider, instead of something to automatically dismiss and/or be afraid of, is what needs to happen.

We're trying to educate America in the ways of liberty... but we're basically throwing a bunch of different confusing policy issues at them, and they can't see the big picture. The non-aggression principle is that big picture. Even for minarchists, anarchy is the ideal scenario; they just don't think anarchy would work, but value the same non-aggression principles all the same.

When we use the phrase "a Constitutional Republic" that concept is viewed by most relative to the government we have today. Less taxes, less wars, less this, less that, etc. Less of everything is all well and good, but this approach doesn't make it clear the reason for wanting less of everything.

On the other hand, anarchy or voluntaryism makes these principles crystal clear. I can't speak for anybody else here, but the reason I was so excited when I first looking into Ron Paul was because I was able to read between the lines of what he was saying and quickly saw what was at the base of all of his decisions: the non-aggression principle. I didn't know it had a name or that's what it called, but it was his firm belief in NAP that drew my attention and ignited my enthusiasm.

If education is ever going to work, that education will need to have a foundation in non-aggression IMO. It's very difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about non-aggression without talking about anarchy/voluntaryism.

I completely agree. Very well said.

[John F Kennedy III]

What about Woods as Rand's VP in 2016?

[paulbot24]

"Then I began to wonder if I wasn't perhaps trying to circle a square, that I wasn't playing the role of sucker in someone else's game."

You always have my undivided attention when speaking that kind of truth. Give this man a microphone and some ADD meds and see what else he has to say!

[BuddyRey]

I don't see how having an openly anarchist President should or will be any more controversial and unacceptable to the electorate than the series of openly Fascist and/or Socialist ones we've had this century.

[BrendenR]

For those of you comparing Woods to Paul, you're comparing apples to oranges.

We're talking a congressional seat in texas in the 70's to a presidential campaign in 2012.

Ron ran in a different time, and built a record and his district respected him.

Woods has authored a ton of stuff, immediately accessible to the masses, that would make him unelectable.

Don't get me wrong, I love Woods, just not for public office.

Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, those are the types of people we need to look at and bring forward as candidates.

[paulbot24]

I think we would have to draft Woods because he will not volunteer.

[risk_reward]

He's way too easy to paint as a racist. There is no way he would run with all he has written on controversial topics.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

What about Woods as Rand's VP in 2016?
Doesn't neuter his bad political qualities, it just shifts them onto Rand.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

He's way too easy to paint as a racist. There is no way he would run with all he has written on controversial topics.

Yeah, his league of the south involvement would kill him.

[BuddyRey]

He's way too easy to paint as a racist. There is no way he would run with all he has written on controversial topics.

Wait...Tom Woods is a racist? What did he say that was racist? I hope it's not true.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Wait...Tom Woods is a racist? What did he say that was racist? I hope it's not true.

No, but he is a southern sympathizer, as am I.

That easily turns into him supporting slavery, hating blacks, being a klan member, hating Jews....and once the media starts it won't stop.

[fr33]

No, but he is a southern sympathizer, as am I.

That easily turns into him supporting slavery, hating blacks, being a klan member, hating Jews....and once the media starts it won't stop.Oh yeah it's like Ron Paul, the heroin dealer, all over again. How scared the sheep must be of themselves.

[LawnWake]

The newsletters didn't stop paul from getting his seat in congress, even in adversity from establishment Republicans and what someone else said is true, a presidential candidate needs some time in office when they're not strictly establishment. So why not draft Woods to run for congress or the senate at a later date? Let him gain some more fans/support through his radio show for some time and draft the dude.

We'll figure out later if he's presidential material. Even if he wouldn't make it, I'd love to see him take down neocons and making them look like socialist hacks at a debate.

[BuddyRey]

No, but he is a southern sympathizer, as am I.

That easily turns into him supporting slavery, hating blacks, being a klan member, hating Jews....and once the media starts it won't stop.

Well, I'm a southern sympathizer too, but that doesn't seem like enough evidence to convict him of racism in the court of public opinion, even up north. They were able to pull it off with Ron because of the newsletters, and even those inflammatory quotes weren't enough to convince most people (besides easily duped leftists who hated him already).

As long as he hasn't said or written anything overtly bigoted, I would think he'd be fine. Lots of respectable members of society are into civil war history/southern pride who aren't racists.

[risk_reward]

Tom Woods called the defeat of the South

"a defeat for the values of civilized life in the West". Opponent Response: Tom Woods believes civilized life is typified by a slave owning culture.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html

[tfurrh]

Tom Woods called the defeat of the South

"a defeat for the values of civilized life in the West". Opponent Response: Tom Woods believes civilized life is typified by a slave owning culture.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods31.html

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy
and..oh yeah....screw you