PDA

View Full Version : 2016: If not Rand, then who?




John F Kennedy III
06-04-2012, 08:29 PM
In my opinion our only shot at winning the White House in 2016 is uniting behind one candidate. In my opinion it should be Rand Paul. But not everyone here likes him. So let's discuss who else we could potential get behind. State the persons name and make your case. Some of you may want to debate the point of not being able to win unless we unite behind one candidate. You can do that too, but please also name someone.

Keep it civil.

-JFKIII

RickyJ
06-04-2012, 08:34 PM
Judge Napolitano, Tom Woods, OR RON PAUL!

No one really thought Ron would ever run for president again after 2008, but he did. If he is up to it in 4 more years, he would be the best choice.

Standing Like A Rock
06-04-2012, 08:35 PM
If Romney wins this year, we are going to have to wait until 2020 most likely.

paulbot24
06-04-2012, 08:36 PM
Judge Napolitano. He would flat out eviscerate anybody any day in a debate. I don't know much about his time as a Judge in New Jersey's superior court so I can't speak for that. I CAN tell you that his speeches are the only ones that rival Ron Paul's in the way of eliciting incredibly strong emotional responses out of me. He knows our Constitution and he will walk the walk.

tommy949
06-04-2012, 08:44 PM
Gary Johnson

jbauer
06-04-2012, 08:46 PM
Would love to get behind Judge Napolitano, but after being fired from fox do you guys really think he stands a chance? Sounds like the curse of the media blackout all over again. As much as I hate to admit it we need the media AND the GOP in our corner to be sucessful.

IF dumbo gets re-elected it will be because the economy just barley hung on and I think you'll see the deck stacked with mainstream GOP folks....Jeb Bush etc.

I think you're also putting a lot of faith into the USA even having an election come 2016. I fully expect Obameny to have assumed dictator status by delcaring permant marshal law long before 2016 gets here. I hope and pray that I'm wrong.

wrestlingwes_8
06-04-2012, 08:49 PM
IF dumbo gets re-elected it will be because the economy just barley hung on and I think you'll see the deck stacked with mainstream GOP folks....Jeb Bush etc.

I think you're also putting a lot of faith into the USA even having an election come 2016. I fully expect Obameny to have assumed dictator status by delcaring permant marshal law long before 2016 gets here. I hope and pray that I'm wrong.

This

There is no way the dollar will make it another 4 years

John F Kennedy III
06-04-2012, 08:52 PM
Judge Napolitano, Tom Woods, OR RON PAUL!

No one really thought Ron would ever run for president again after 2008, but he did. If he is up to it in 4 more years, he would be the best choice.

If Ron runs in 2016 then hell yes he has my vote. Even if Rand ran against him.

John F Kennedy III
06-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Gary Johnson

Why Gary over everyone else?

cubical
06-04-2012, 08:54 PM
Judge Napolitano would be epic!!!

John F Kennedy III
06-04-2012, 08:58 PM
This

There is no way the dollar will make it another 4 years

I 3rd this.

jbauer
06-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Let me also say, that if Ron runs again in 2016 and we actually have a decent chance of having an election. I'll quit my job and devote full time to an election bid. However, I think he's done this time. If he wanted to continue to be in public life he wouldn't be leaving his Congresional seat. The man has his r3volution. I hope he's alive to see it through because we're going to make him proud!!!

Anti Federalist
06-04-2012, 08:59 PM
If Romney wins this year, we are going to have to wait until 2020 most likely.

Even longer.

Romney is fungible and bland enough to twist in whatever wind is blowing and hold on two terms.

Then there will be, if modern political history is any guide, eight years of another "flavor".

That means, unless you are willing to wait until 2028 to run a Rand Paul, or any liberty candidate for that matter, you had better do everything possible to torpedo Obmaney right now in 2012.

No One But Paul!

phill4paul
06-04-2012, 09:14 PM
Even longer.

Romney is fungible and bland enough to twist in whatever wind is blowing and hold on two terms.

Then there will be, if modern political history is any guide, eight years of another "flavor".

That means, unless you are willing to wait until 2028 to run a Rand Paul, or any liberty candidate for that matter, you had better do everything possible to torpedo Obmaney right now in 2012.

No One But Paul!

QFT!


No One But Paul!

cajuncocoa
06-04-2012, 09:20 PM
Judge Nap for me.

Distinguished Gentleman
06-04-2012, 09:55 PM
The dollar will be fine, as long as Europe is chaotic.

Mike Lee is a guy I could see doing well in Iowa. With us where it counts but appeals to the broader Republican activist base.

Rand has the habit of putting himself in hard to defend posiitions and rarely shows the warm parts of his personality. I don't see him doing well on a national stage.
Amash: great guy, not sold on his political skill. I'd definitely get behind him though.
Massey:. I think he'd draw attention for his age and background. Honestly don't think it would be a bad idea. I think he'd immediately pick up Ron's crowd if he got name recognition.
Johnson: if you can't appeal to social conservatives, Iowa ain't for you.

Tom woods: my pick for entertainment value.

Keith and stuff
06-04-2012, 10:06 PM
Whomever hires Matt Collins to be his or her campaign manager has my vote!

Warrior_of_Freedom
06-04-2012, 10:33 PM
If not 2012, then 1776. Who honestly thinks we can keep waiting?
"Aw damn, another election stolen. I'll try again in 4 years"
Fuck. That.

(POST INTERCEPTED BY CYBER POLICE: Famous last words!)

John F Kennedy III
06-04-2012, 10:33 PM
Even longer.

Romney is fungible and bland enough to twist in whatever wind is blowing and hold on two terms.

Then there will be, if modern political history is any guide, eight years of another "flavor".

That means, unless you are willing to wait until 2028 to run a Rand Paul, or any liberty candidate for that matter, you had better do everything possible to torpedo Obmaney right now in 2012.

No One But Paul!

There sure as shit won't be elections in 2028 if we don't elect Ron Paul in 2012.

ProIndividual
06-04-2012, 10:42 PM
Judge Nap...hands down.

Anti Federalist
06-04-2012, 10:58 PM
There sure as shit won't be elections in 2028 if we don't elect Ron Paul in 2012.

I thought this about Bill Clinton.

I reaaaaallly thought this was likely with W.

But you know what, "elections" will roll on, because, you see, it gives the system credibility.

As long as it goes through the motions, the masses are kept happy and under the illusion that they have some control over the process.

And as long as the system keeps a steady stream of "Coke" or "Pepsi" candidates that all follow the same script, how can they lose?

No, there will be elections of some sort.

Jandrsn21
06-04-2012, 11:00 PM
Gary Johnson

ProChoice Republican! Never going to happen.

BuddyRey
06-04-2012, 11:00 PM
My lot is cast wholeheartedly with Tom Woods. He would be the very best successor to Ron Paul in terms of maintaining the latter's ideological principle and willingness to tell the unvarnished truth. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be even remotely interested in pursuing public office. Didn't Mark Twain say something to the effect of "the guy who wants to be president is the one who never should be, and the guy who should be president will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the office"?

Feeding the Abscess
06-05-2012, 03:14 AM
My lot is cast wholeheartedly with Tom Woods. He would be the very best successor to Ron Paul in terms of maintaining the latter's ideological principle and willingness to tell the unvarnished truth. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be even remotely interested in pursuing public office. Didn't Mark Twain say something to the effect of "the guy who wants to be president is the one who never should be, and the guy who should be president will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the office"?

This. I love Nap, but anyone who saw him with Stewart saw him get exposed a bit. He's just not a great debater. He's an awesome orator, but someone like Woods would be absolutely dynamite for the task.

Dogsoldier
06-05-2012, 03:36 AM
I honestly don't see another.Thats why I've switched to libertarian.

LibertyEagle
06-05-2012, 03:38 AM
Would love to get behind Judge Napolitano, but after being fired from fox do you guys really think he stands a chance? Sounds like the curse of the media blackout all over again. As much as I hate to admit it we need the media AND the GOP in our corner to be sucessful.

IF dumbo gets re-elected it will be because the economy just barley hung on and I think you'll see the deck stacked with mainstream GOP folks....Jeb Bush etc.

I think you're also putting a lot of faith into the USA even having an election come 2016. I fully expect Obameny to have assumed dictator status by delcaring permant marshal law long before 2016 gets here. I hope and pray that I'm wrong.

He wasn't fired from FOX.

paulbot24
06-05-2012, 03:42 AM
+rep to the OP of this thread. I am currently listening to a Tom Woods speech and he is damn good. I'd never heard of him before....I'm still new here....:)

paulbot24
06-05-2012, 03:42 AM
+rep to the OP of this thread. I am currently listening to a Tom Woods speech and he is damn good. I'd never heard of him before....I'm still new here....:)

LibertyEagle
06-05-2012, 03:43 AM
You guys act like you are going to sit on your thumbs until 2016 rolls around. The likelihood of us winning a presidential election is slim. We have to get liberty-minded people in state government all over the country and in the U.S. Congress. Those are very doable. If we want to make our odds better for a 2016 presidential run, then the more we have gotten elected to leadership positions in the GOP, the easier it is going to be. If we just do nothing until 2016, expect the same results.

John F Kennedy III
06-05-2012, 04:18 AM
I honestly don't see another.Thats why I've switched to libertarian.

Which won't do anybody any good. That's where the establishment wants you.

ryanmkeisling
06-05-2012, 04:55 AM
Whomever hires Matt Collins to be his or her campaign manager has my vote!

This. Collins is gettin' skillz as we speak...:cool::toady:

Hopefully Rand is too:toady:

MikeStanart
06-05-2012, 06:01 AM
Rand. He's the only one who can bridge the gap between us and the "sheeple"

Liberty74
06-05-2012, 06:09 AM
Judge NAP!!!

Bastiat's The Law
06-05-2012, 07:04 AM
Would love to get behind Judge Napolitano, but after being fired from fox do you guys really think he stands a chance? Sounds like the curse of the media blackout all over again. As much as I hate to admit it we need the media AND the GOP in our corner to be sucessful.

IF dumbo gets re-elected it will be because the economy just barley hung on and I think you'll see the deck stacked with mainstream GOP folks....Jeb Bush etc.

I think you're also putting a lot of faith into the USA even having an election come 2016. I fully expect Obameny to have assumed dictator status by delcaring permant marshal law long before 2016 gets here. I hope and pray that I'm wrong.
Actually he looked like a very weak debater against Jon Stewart of all people.

Cleaner44
06-05-2012, 07:32 AM
Rand will run and Rand will win in 2016 if Ron doesn't win this time. Rand delievers the message in a way that people eat up. We will own the GOP in 4 more years and the voters will argue for what Rand says, while forgetting they argued against it in 2012.

John F Kennedy III
06-05-2012, 07:38 AM
Rand will run and Rand will win in 2016 if Ron doesn't win this time. Rand delievers the message in a way that people eat up. We will own the GOP in 4 more years and the voters will argue for what Rand says, while forgetting they argued against it in 2012.

*fingers crossed*

brandon
06-05-2012, 07:39 AM
Rand would be the only viable one. I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who has never won an election as a Republican before, or someone who just defected to the LP after getting last place in 2012.

No Free Beer
06-05-2012, 07:50 AM
rand/judge 2016

morely webb
06-05-2012, 08:15 AM
Judge Nap all the way!

Sola_Fide
06-05-2012, 08:39 AM
Rand will run and Rand will win in 2016 if Ron doesn't win this time. Rand delievers the message in a way that people eat up. We will own the GOP in 4 more years and the voters will argue for what Rand says, while forgetting they argued against it in 2012.

Agreed.

JK/SEA
06-05-2012, 08:53 AM
I agree with LE, but if we really need to focus all our efforts on President AGAIN, i nominate Glen Bradley.

COpatriot
06-05-2012, 09:05 AM
Edit: With Rand's endorsement of Romney, I retract this post.

kuckfeynes
06-05-2012, 10:55 AM
Barring a miracle in Tampa, I don't see it happening. Four years is a LONG time at this stage in the game. How many more QE's will be needed by then?

I think we will see some kind of major collapse, if not "the big one" then still something bad enough to REALLY disenfranchise people.

Both parties will continue to lose members to independents and apathetics, eventually creating a dangerous vacuum. I say dangerous because I think we all know, deep down, that even if both parties were down to 1% of the population each, they would still have the power and connections to pull the same crap they are pulling now, and they would, only it would have to be a much more comprehensive crackdown to deal with the much larger opposition.

The GOP will use Rand to try and placate some people, to stave off the tide for as long as possible, but they will NEVER let him or any liberty candidate come close to having real power to dismantle anything.

It's not that I don't believe in our peaceful revolution, but I don't believe that they will let that power go without instigating violence themselves, like we just caught a glimpse of this week. Even if a third party managed to become bigger, without impartial judges and cops, it's a kindling box for violence.

Frankly I'm worried about what's going to go down in Tampa.

RonPaulFanInGA
06-05-2012, 11:05 AM
Whomever hires Matt Collins to be his or her campaign manager has my vote!

Lordy, not another campaign with Benton/Collins.

John F Kennedy III
06-05-2012, 03:33 PM
Bump

bolil
06-05-2012, 03:42 PM
Bolil, of course.

RonPaulFanInGA
06-05-2012, 03:53 PM
Rand would be the only viable one. I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who has never won an election as a Republican before, or someone who just defected to the LP after getting last place in 2012.

This, times a thousand.

Woods, Napolitano and Johnson? Seriously?

GeorgiaAvenger
06-05-2012, 04:11 PM
First off, anybody that says Judge Napolitano, Glen Bradley, or Tom Woods etc. is delusional even though I love those guys. They would get less support that Ron Paul.

Rand Paul is the obvious heir. I only question whether he can shake off the "Ron Paul's son" image because if he doesn't it may be hard to become the frontrunner. Also, keep in mind that Rand is 49. Most of these guys are waiting till their 60's to run, and so if it is possible for another liberty candidate to win, Rand can be the liaison in the Senate and get things done while he waits 8 years. Waiting would also give him a much better chance at dominating the primary, as by that time he would be a senior Senator and have the support of the previous administration. For this reason, all liberty candidates who consider a run need to meet and sort things like this out, and not get personal ambition in the way.

Gary Johnson will not be a viable candidate for President in the Republican party because of his views on immigration, abortion, and drugs. Otherwise, I expect he would do well. This is not to see he isn't a viable VP candidate, and I could see him doing well in that role. He would really bring the independent vote aboard and he has credibility as someone who has been successful and popular among non-Republicans.

Mike Lee is somebody I see as a genuine believer in liberty. He is young and intellectual, and I could see him doing well and I would definitely support him. One issue against him is that yet another Mormon would be running, and I don't know how some would take it. If Rand runs, he won't. If Rand wins, I want this man as his VP.

Justin Amash would be a certain yes; he is trustworthy. Two things going against him-he is very young and just a Congressman. I believe he needs to wait some time, and win election as a Senator or Governor.

Finally I would bring up Mark Sanford. He is a believer in liberty, but obviously his affair tore up his political career. However, perhaps time and the position the country is in could cast that to the side. As we saw this time, three wifer Trump was hugely popular and three wifer Gingrich had a strong chance to win and was the clear frontrunner at one point. Clinton has also maintained popularity, as has JFK.

pcosmar
06-05-2012, 04:13 PM
Too many Variables,, between now and halfway there.

ProIndividual
06-05-2012, 04:23 PM
I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who has never won an election as a Republican before, or someone who just defected to the LP after getting last place in 2012.

Well, why do you think Party affiliation matters? Why do you think experience as a politician matters?

I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who voted for sanctions against Iran, an act of war (even after adding a clause that basically said 'this act of war is in no way to be construed as an act of war'...Orwellian doublethink BS).

I'd rather have someone who never won office before who never stuck with BS false paradigm Party politics than a watered down libertarian. Rand has simply lost my support for President (for several things he's done and said, not just the sanctions...as if I needed more reasons). He's fine in the Senate until we end up with a better alternative, but his last name is not a free ride. But for President, you can count my vote out...but I'm sure you'll have no problem replacing it with a neocon vote. Neocons seem to like Rand mostly.

Just remember incrimentalism is how we got here to begin with, and support for it is not going to end any differently this time around. I don't want to vote for someone I can't trust from day one. Sophism is nearly as bad as nationalism and statism.

Judge Nap, Tom Woods, any of the Mises crowd is fine by me.

PatriotOne
06-05-2012, 04:44 PM
Rand is the only one who can inherit nearly 100% of Rons grassroots and our momentum. Anyone else would be several steps backwards. Paul is a recognized brand name now. I like Woods also but he can't compete with the Paul name recognition and I see no reason why we would even contemplate it. Rand's running in 2016. With our momentum and 4 yrs to prep and campaign for him, we have a really good shot to get him in office. 2016 is our year as long as we don't sit on our asses till 2015.

trey4sports
06-05-2012, 04:50 PM
amash?

TheTexan
06-05-2012, 04:50 PM
My vote is Tom Woods for the President of New Hampshire 2016

PatriotOne
06-05-2012, 04:53 PM
My vote is Tom Woods for the President of New Hampshire 2016

We should definately get Woods in a Senate or Congressman position should he desire it.

trey4sports
06-05-2012, 04:54 PM
woods is too fringe to even win a congressional seat. I love the dude but he is a philosopher, not a politician. He would not dumb himself down to the general public.

JK/SEA
06-05-2012, 04:57 PM
Obama came out of nowhere. Clinton too. Take a look around. Is Rand the only hope?...look, i like Rand, and if all goes well from now till then then it very well could be Rand i support. New blood is new blood and Rand being a Senator certainly helps his cred but he IS not Ron Paul. If we want another Ron Paul, we need someone with a clean slate, someone from out of nowhere who is not riding on Ron's coattails like Rand, someone like Bradley fits my slate. Veteran, no baggage, local experience, walks the walk, talks the talk, but i realize people are in a hurry and Rand could get there, but there is still some vetting to do with him. Lots of questions. Maybe they get answered in due time.

Meanwhile, i throw Glen Bradley's name out there...why not?

trey4sports
06-05-2012, 05:02 PM
Obama came out of nowhere. Clinton too. Take a look around. Is Rand the only hope?...look, i like Rand, and if all goes well from now till then then it very well could be Rand i support. New blood is new blood and Rand being a Senator certainly helps his cred but he IS not Ron Paul. If we want another Ron Paul, we need someone with a clean slate, someone from out of nowhere who is not riding on Ron's coattails like Rand, someone like Bradley fits my slate. Veteran, no baggage, local experience, walks the walk, talks the talk, but i realize people are in a hurry and Rand could get there, but there is still some vetting to do with him. Lots of questions. Maybe they get answered in due time.

Meanwhile, i throw Glen Bradley's name out there...why not?


yeah, as long as he is in Congress in time for the 2016 race.

Southerner
06-05-2012, 05:17 PM
If it wasn't for Senator Jim Demint and HIS superpac, there would be no Senator Rand Paul, nor many of the other new blood anti establishment types.

DeMint/Rand Paul 2016. If Mitt/xxxx loses in 2012, and there is a nation left after a 2nd 0bama term.

morely webb
06-05-2012, 05:27 PM
DeMint sure helped us in South Carolina.

Feeding the Abscess
06-05-2012, 05:28 PM
If it wasn't for Senator Jim Demint and HIS superpac, there would be no Senator Rand Paul, nor many of the other new blood anti establishment types.

DeMint/Rand Paul 2016. If Mitt/xxxx loses in 2012, and there is a nation left after a 2nd 0bama term.

DeMint is a failure. He said Romneycare should be taken nationally, voted for the energy program that brought us Solyndra, and:

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance285.html

If that's our horse, it's over.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-05-2012, 05:29 PM
DeMint gets better with age in terms of his positions and understanding of things. I would support his campaign, assuming no liberty candidates ran.

jbauer
06-05-2012, 05:31 PM
Might be the case but you're going to have a hard time convincing about 1/2 of the paul supporters to vot Demint.


If it wasn't for Senator Jim Demint and HIS superpac, there would be no Senator Rand Paul, nor many of the other new blood anti establishment types.

DeMint/Rand Paul 2016. If Mitt/xxxx loses in 2012, and there is a nation left after a 2nd 0bama term.

Agorism
06-05-2012, 05:34 PM
2016: If not Rand, then who?


..pretty much.

RonPaulFanInGA
06-05-2012, 05:45 PM
Well, why do you think Party affiliation matters?

Really? Because a Libertarian, Democrat or whatever won't win the GOP presidential nomination.


Why do you think experience as a politician matters?

Nobody takes non-politicians running for President seriously. Media won't let random people on the debate stage. In these past two cycles in which Ron Paul has run for President, the no-experience candidates like John Cox and Fred Karger have made Roemer look like a credible candidate.


I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who voted for sanctions against Iran, an act of war

Who that?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369263-Senator-Paul-Opposes-new-Iran-Sanctions

nyrgoal99
06-05-2012, 05:48 PM
Judge Napolitano, Tom Woods, OR RON PAUL!

No one really thought Ron would ever run for president again after 2008, but he did. If he is up to it in 4 more years, he would be the best choice.


That would be something is he ran again, highly unlikely.

If he declared the establishment would go nuts

muzzled dogg
06-05-2012, 05:50 PM
all done with federal politics, rand or otherwise

dillo
06-05-2012, 05:53 PM
Anyone from Louisiana? How is Jindel?

JK/SEA
06-05-2012, 05:59 PM
Ron should run again in 2016, only as a libertarian....i'd be down with that one...lol..

John F Kennedy III
06-05-2012, 06:05 PM
Anyone from Louisiana? How is Jindel?

Jindel is an establishment puppet.

Keith and stuff
06-05-2012, 06:08 PM
all done with federal politics, rand or otherwise

This post is the one I share the closest opinion with. There are 100s of pro-liberty people either currently elected or running for office in NH this year (such as myself :) )

While federal politics serve little purpose, it is somewhat useful. For example, since NH is the most pro-liberty state and is the most important state when it comes to presidential politics, it doesn't hurt to spend a few hours every now and then promoting presidential politics if someone really good runs (like Ron Paul) and I am already in NH. Plus, I feel bad for the people outside of NH so I am not upset that I helped Ron Paul in TN, MS, KY, VT and NV. It is nice to help the less fortunate from time to time, even if they are less fortunate because they want to be less fortunate.

Bastiat's The Law
06-05-2012, 09:51 PM
Rand will run and Rand will win in 2016 if Ron doesn't win this time. Rand delievers the message in a way that people eat up. We will own the GOP in 4 more years and the voters will argue for what Rand says, while forgetting they argued against it in 2012.
Rand is much better spoken than his father and knows how to play the game. Rand will be the favorite going into 2016. Ron I'm sure will be an advisor for Rand in his cabinet.

Bastiat's The Law
06-05-2012, 09:54 PM
This is why I'm quietly rooting for Obama this time around even though I'll never vote for him. I want Rand to have a shot in 2016. The problem is, I forsee a schism within the GOP around that time. On one side, it will be people like us and Rand, and on the other side it will be the pro-war types like Neocon Marco Rubio and Neocon Allen West. The GOP will have to make a huge decision as to which way they want to go. And right now, when I talk to most mainstream conservative GOP voters, I don't like our prospects. They LOVE the tough guy war-mongering rhetoric from Rubio and West. Love it. That scares me.
Strategically an Obama victory would be great for everyone in the Liberty movement. Rubio and West can't hold a candle to Rand intellectually. He would destroy them both.

Bastiat's The Law
06-05-2012, 10:00 PM
Rand is the only one who can inherit nearly 100% of Rons grassroots and our momentum. Anyone else would be several steps backwards. Paul is a recognized brand name now. I like Woods also but he can't compete with the Paul name recognition and I see no reason why we would even contemplate it. Rand's running in 2016. With our momentum and 4 yrs to prep and campaign for him, we have a really good shot to get him in office. 2016 is our year as long as we don't sit on our asses till 2015.
I think the grassroots should start planning Rand's run come this November. Has Gov. Sandford repaired himself enough to be a VP choice?

GeorgiaAvenger
06-05-2012, 10:12 PM
I think the grassroots should start planning Rand's run come this November. Has Gov. Sandford repaired himself enough to be a VP choice?

All he has done is stay out of the spotlight, and make a few Fox appearances.

One thing is for sure, we need a VP we can trust and he would be one of the very few.

He voted for Ron, and stood by him in Congress. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=11897

http://www.dailypaul.com/206423/mark-sanford-supports-ron-paul

Here is a great article by the American Conservative: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/plain-right/

Key snippets:

Sanford's conservative credentials compare favorably to anyone else mentioned as a 2012 presidential contender. He calls the public-education system "a Soviet-style monopoly." He promoted school choice through tax rebates to avoid the appearance of government control. He passed a "Castle doctrine" bill that was supported by the NRA. He favors a law-and-order approach to immigration, but opposed REAL ID on civil liberties grounds. Though he avoids showy displays of piety, he is reliably pro-life.

But the governor edges closer to pure libertarianism at times. He rolls his eyes at the Columbia sheriff's department's zeal in investigating Michael Phelps's recreational pot use. And he criticizes Alan Greenspan's management of the "opaque" Federal Reserve. "If you take human nature out of a Fed, it might work," he explains. "But you can't. You can have these wise men. But who wants to turn off the spigot at a party that's rolling?"
......

He also deviates from the Republican line on foreign policy. In Congress, he opposed Clinton's intervention in Kosovo. And he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the 1998 resolution to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States. He says that it was a "protest vote" in which he tried to reassert the legislature's war-declaring powers. When asked about the invasion of Iraq, he extends his critique beyond the constitutional niceties. "I don't believe in preemptive war," he says flatly. "For us to hold the moral high ground in the world, our default position must be defensive."


Further, he whacked Lindsey Graham over libertarianism: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=18432

BuddyRey
06-05-2012, 10:28 PM
woods is too fringe to even win a congressional seat. I love the dude but he is a philosopher, not a politician.

This sounds very familiar....didn't the media say something very near to that about...Ron Paul?

Yes, Woods is a philosopher and not a politician. That, more than any single attribute, is why I think he is far better suited to be the public face of this movement than any mere politician out there.

Politicians can only change the way people behave. Philosophers change how people think.

Anti Federalist
06-05-2012, 10:53 PM
all done with federal politics, rand or otherwise

+rep.

Zee
06-05-2012, 11:04 PM
Of all the names mentioned in this thread, I dont see an equal alternative to Ron Paul being an option for a very long time.
Regardless of political ideology, its a shame that Americans are passing up the opportunity to have (what the media hasnt even denied) an unbought and honest president,,, who obviously knows his shit.

PatriotOne
06-05-2012, 11:07 PM
I think the grassroots should start planning Rand's run come this November. Has Gov. Sandford repaired himself enough to be a VP choice?

I give at least 30 minutes of thought a day strategizing Rands 2016 run already :p. I'm ready to go live in August unless a hail mary pass is successful in Tampa. Unfortunately, Sanford is damaged goods and only establishment's damaged goods gets a pass in the media or hired by the media ;).

Keith and stuff
06-05-2012, 11:10 PM
+rep.

Nice, I also gave him +rep for that. NH rocks!

cindy25
06-05-2012, 11:22 PM
too early to say; depends on how Rand behaves in the senate (behave is intentional, the neo-con votes must be minimal); and Rand would have to be all in, meaning no senate race.

DerailingDaTrain
06-05-2012, 11:30 PM
I don't think there's any chance of the Judge running.

Gumba of Liberty
06-05-2012, 11:34 PM
The emphasis placed on the Presidential Elections is understandable, given the influence of the corporate media on the average voter, but it should not be the major focus of the liberty movement (Listen to me tell the "liberty" movment what to do :D). I think the whole idea of waiting another four years for some "leader", in a suit, to come save us is unrealistic, naive, and juvenile. The important thing is that our focus transfer from the dying central government to state and local governments. When the iceberg hits, there's a point when you have to shift from trying to seal the hole to getting people on the life boats. I think 2012 is that game-changing year. Post-2012, the liberty movement needs to co-op state and local governments (or go down with this big, bad ship). It is best to let one group of sociopaths go to war with another because if the states are allowed, by us, to comply with the Feds plans it will make Obama's Presidency look like a picnic. Remember how the Feds operate:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk

cindy25
06-06-2012, 12:24 AM
if Romney wins then Rand should run for governor of KY; no risk of the senate seat and as governor he would be better in position for 2020, it seems the base would agree with Rand on domestic issues.

Bastiat's The Law
06-06-2012, 12:43 AM
This sounds very familiar....didn't the media say something very near to that about...Ron Paul?

Yes, Woods is a philosopher and not a politician. That, more than any single attribute, is why I think he is far better suited to be the public face of this movement than any mere politician out there.

Politicians can only change the way people behave. Philosophers change how people think.
Woods isn't a philosopher, he's an educator and historian. That is his role and he loves being in that role. He could be good in an advisor capacity.

Bastiat's The Law
06-06-2012, 12:53 AM
too early to say; depends on how Rand behaves in the senate (behave is intentional, the neo-con votes must be minimal); and Rand would have to be all in, meaning no senate race.
We need our people in place so we can retain Rand's Senate seat if he runs for President. We could run Massie to replace Rand in Senate and we need someone to step up and replace Massie's very valuable and secure House seat in the 4th district.

Bastiat's The Law
06-06-2012, 12:57 AM
I don't think there's any chance of the Judge running.
I agree. Think about this. Napolitano walked away from a life tenured judgeship because he was bored and wanted to explore other avenues. He enjoys his job in the media and educating people through that forum. The only government position I think he'd even consider doing would be Attorney General.

BenIsForRon
06-06-2012, 01:50 AM
Thinking outside the box: David Walker, Glenn Greenwald, Johnathan Turley, Bruce Fein.

Is BJ Lawson 35 yet? He would actually be a kickass candidate. Look at how Herman Cain shot up in the polls without government experience.

JasonM
06-06-2012, 02:05 AM
You guys act like you are going to sit on your thumbs until 2016 rolls around. The likelihood of us winning a presidential election is slim. We have to get liberty-minded people in state government all over the country and in the U.S. Congress. Those are very doable. If we want to make our odds better for a 2016 presidential run, then the more we have gotten elected to leadership positions in the GOP, the easier it is going to be. If we just do nothing until 2016, expect the same results.


^

THIS!!

Dogsoldier
06-06-2012, 02:23 AM
Which won't do anybody any good. That's where the establishment wants you.

So I guess I should vote for Romney huh.

A line must be drawn here!This far,NO FURTHER!

No more voting for "the lesser of 2 evils".

If you agree with this then the only choice is libertarian.Ron Pauls beliefs are libertarian.

Trust me if the libertarians start getting 30,40,50% of the vote then the Republican party will come to us.That is the whole purpose of voting.If you want to change things then you must change the way you vote.

JasonM
06-06-2012, 05:43 AM
So I guess I should vote for Romney huh.

A line must be drawn here!This far,NO FURTHER!

No more voting for "the lesser of 2 evils".

If you agree with this then the only choice is libertarian.Ron Pauls beliefs are libertarian.

Trust me if the libertarians start getting 30,40,50% of the vote then the Republican party will come to us.That is the whole purpose of voting.If you want to change things then you must change the way you vote.

Well as long as they just vote I suppose it's ok. It's when they start assuming leadership problems that they'll become a problem in this scenario if they aren't the "right Republicans". :)

kahless
06-06-2012, 08:28 AM
Pending more research on my part I am reconsidering my support for Rand due to his plan to raise the SS age.

LawnWake
06-06-2012, 08:35 AM
Judge Napolitano. He would flat out eviscerate anybody any day in a debate.

He's a great public speaker and has great knowledge on freedom and he's mad likable, fuck, don't you just wanna hug the guy? But he's a pretty poor debater.

Anyone can sound smart and indestructable in a speech (and he IS smart) and it's his job on Fox to share his opinion, that he states very well, but when he debated Jon Stewart he was pretty weak.

jbauer
06-06-2012, 08:56 AM
On what grounds? You like him because he wants to raise it or dislike him because he wants to raise it?

SS, Medicare/aid is unsustainable in its current form. Ignoring this is no better than the special interest groups that get in a tissy about loosing funding. I support going to a life expectancy table for SS & Medicare. Say 15-20 years before expected date of death. That way it doesn't have to be F'ed with again.

If we don't make significant changes to how we spend and how we tax all this is a moot point because the ship is headed to the bottom.


Pending more research on my part I am reconsidering my support for Rand due to his plan to raise the SS age.

kahless
06-06-2012, 09:46 AM
On what grounds? You like him because he wants to raise it or dislike him because he wants to raise it?

SS, Medicare/aid is unsustainable in its current form. Ignoring this is no better than the special interest groups that get in a tissy about loosing funding. I support going to a life expectancy table for SS & Medicare. Say 15-20 years before expected date of death. That way it doesn't have to be F'ed with again.

If we don't make significant changes to how we spend and how we tax all this is a moot point because the ship is headed to the bottom.

Do you really think it is a winning strategy to go after that program rather than cut military spending, corporate welfare and the rest of the federal government?

I am all for reform, means testing, letting young people opt out and increasing funding until there is a long term transition to privatization plan. But screwing the average Joe that has been paying in all his or her life while Corporate America and the needless empire still gets theirs is bullshit.

The priority should be eliminate corporate welfare to the military offense contractors, eliminate the dam empire, keep our military in a defensive role rather than offensive, end foreign aid, gut the federal government, means test SS, reform it and fund it.

Even if you believe raising the age is the right thing to do, Rand cannot win a general election with that record. I agree that things will get worse with the value of our dollar decreasing because of the spending. But I can guarantee you our money will continue to go to bailout corporate America, Wall street, nation building and defending Germany, Korea which is ridiculous. Meanwhile we get screwed out of SS.

Joshua2585
06-06-2012, 10:26 AM
Justin Amash?

brandon
06-06-2012, 10:34 AM
Justin Amash?

Not old enough, and even if he was - he's not experienced enough.

jbauer
06-06-2012, 10:50 AM
A winning strategy is to tell it like it is. All of it is unsastainable. Military, corporate america, welfare, ss, medicare. Why not own the problems we have admit we have a problem and do whats best to fix it. You are correct that you probably can't run on platform of screw the average joe, but you probably can run on platform of reforming the entire system so that it actually works and is solvent.

Without talking about SS you might as well just toss the rest. You're never going to fix the root of the problem without talking about entitlements.


Do you really think it is a winning strategy to go after that program rather than cut military spending, corporate welfare and the rest of the federal government?

I am all for reform, means testing, letting young people opt out and increasing funding until there is a long term transition to privatization plan. But screwing the average Joe that has been paying in all his or her life while Corporate America and the needless empire still gets theirs is bullshit.

The priority should be eliminate corporate welfare to the military offense contractors, eliminate the dam empire, keep our military in a defensive role rather than offensive, end foreign aid, gut the federal government, means test SS, reform it and fund it.

Even if you believe raising the age is the right thing to do, Rand cannot win a general election with that record. I agree that things will get worse with the value of our dollar decreasing because of the spending. But I can guarantee you our money will continue to go to bailout corporate America, Wall street, nation building and defending Germany, Korea which is ridiculous. Meanwhile we get screwed out of SS.

Joshua2585
06-06-2012, 12:05 PM
Not old enough, and even if he was - he's not experienced enough.

Yea, after I posted I thought about the age... and you don't need experience to be elected to the highest office in the land. see: Obama

CaptainAmerica
06-06-2012, 12:50 PM
Andrew Napolitano

realtonygoodwin
06-06-2012, 12:59 PM
A 9/11 truther won't be the GOP nominee.

Rand is the only viable one that I see on the horizon.

Keith and stuff
06-06-2012, 01:05 PM
Yea, after I posted I thought about the age... and you don't need experience to be elected to the highest office in the land. see: Obama

Obama had some experience. He was elected in 1996 to the IL Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate_career_of_Barack_Obama

However, Romney has never little experience in politics so he makes your point.

gerryb
06-06-2012, 01:49 PM
You guys act like you are going to sit on your thumbs until 2016 rolls around. The likelihood of us winning a presidential election is slim. We have to get liberty-minded people in state government all over the country and in the U.S. Congress. Those are very doable. If we want to make our odds better for a 2016 presidential run, then the more we have gotten elected to leadership positions in the GOP, the easier it is going to be. If we just do nothing until 2016, expect the same results.

QFT

It amazes me at how many people think we can win a presidency, when we don't even have the capability to take half the dog-catcher elections.

Learn to win. Win Small. Win Bigger.

www.leadershipinstitute.org www.americanmajority.org

John F Kennedy III
06-06-2012, 01:58 PM
So I guess I should vote for Romney huh.

A line must be drawn here!This far,NO FURTHER!

No more voting for "the lesser of 2 evils".

If you agree with this then the only choice is libertarian.Ron Pauls beliefs are libertarian.

Trust me if the libertarians start getting 30,40,50% of the vote then the Republican party will come to us.That is the whole purpose of voting.If you want to change things then you must change the way you vote.

Ron Paul, and we, are working on taking over the Republican party. If you want to work against Ron's efforts and ours, that's your choice. Third parties don't matter. Trust me, LP will NEVER get 30-50% of the vote.

Tudo
06-06-2012, 02:23 PM
Let's see if there's a viable libertarian candidate. Jake Hornberger maybe?

Definitely not the libertarian couldabeen gary johnson who other than bob barr is the least libertarian candidate in a while. A phoney.

Tudo
06-06-2012, 02:23 PM
Ron Paul, and we, are working on taking over the Republican party. If you want to work against Ron's efforts and ours, that's your choice. Third parties don't matter. Trust me, LP will NEVER get 30-50% of the vote.

Neither will our movement within the republican party. If this election didn't convince you nothing will.

Further, "majority" doesn't mean a damn thing. We already won many of these states. Last time I looked they didn't report that.

Sorry this one either goes 1776 or just keep rattling your chains! ( when you are allowed to do so of course)

gerryb
06-06-2012, 02:37 PM
Neither will our movement within the republican party. If this election didn't convince you nothing will.

Further, "majority" doesn't mean a damn thing. We already won many of these states. Last time I looked they didn't report that.

You are being quite contradictory. Which is it?

Tudo
06-06-2012, 03:15 PM
You are being quite contradictory. Which is it?

How so?

gerryb
06-06-2012, 03:54 PM
How so?

First you say we can't win within the Republican Party.

Then you say we won in many states. Which is it?

Lothario
06-06-2012, 04:02 PM
http://votenobody.org/nobodylogo.gif

^^ Except this should be for 2016. No more playing the politics game after Ron Paul. There's so much we could do in the next four years to free so many people, and none of it involves electing representatives. If only we could stop pretending like those guys in suits have legitimate authority to rule us...

John F Kennedy III
06-06-2012, 04:07 PM
Neither will our movement within the republican party. If this election didn't convince you nothing will.

Further, "majority" doesn't mean a damn thing. We already won many of these states. Last time I looked they didn't report that.

Sorry this one either goes 1776 or just keep rattling your chains! ( when you are allowed to do so of course)

I think you're right. If we don't pull a 1776 2.0 we will fall into complete enslavement. However, I fully support taking over the GOP. There's so many ifs and roadblocks in this equation. But it's the best route if we are going to use politics to gain our freedom.

ProIndividual
06-06-2012, 04:40 PM
LOL@ anyone liking DeMint for President. You guys, he's a sociopathic habitual liar like most others up there! His opinion changes reflect the political winds he licks his finger to guage!

I cannot believe I'm hearing support for that guy from ya'll! Is this movement already THAT over? Holy shit.

ProIndividual
06-06-2012, 05:28 PM
Well, why do you think Party affiliation matters?

1. Really? Because a Libertarian, Democrat or whatever won't win the GOP presidential nomination.


Why do you think experience as a politician matters?

2. Nobody takes non-politicians running for President seriously. Media won't let random people on the debate stage. In these past two cycles in which Ron Paul has run for President, the no-experience candidates like John Cox and Fred Karger have made Roemer look like a credible candidate.


I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who voted for sanctions against Iran, an act of war

3. Who that?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?369263-Senator-Paul-Opposes-new-Iran-Sanctions

1. Why did we run Ron Paul again then? Since he once left the Republican Party and ran Libertarian? Oh yeah, because Party affiliation and Party loyalty are BS, that's why. We're about principles over Party, not the opposite.

2. Nobody took Cain seriously? Last I checked he was ahead in the polls nationally for a while before his extra-marital affairs came to light...something Paul never got in the polls. Oops, there went that argument. The less experience people have in government the better they are for the job. We want less experience in corruption, selling out, and hanging with sociopaths, not more. (BTW, I hate Cain..just saying, it defeats your argument.)

3. Who that? Who that!?! Rand Paul, that's who!!! You don't even know who you';re voting for!!!!! JFC. Is this just about his dad to you, or what? What are we, Dems supporting Kennedy's now?!? Get informed, pay attention, hold these guys accountable, or it's OVER before it began! He added an Amendment to that Bill that basically said 'this act of war is no way to be construed as an act of war'...oh that Orwellian doublethink is MUCH better (/sarcasm). That's what your link calls "blocking the Bill"...lol. I said that in the last post that you quoted too...might want to stop making excuses for him and being a sophist like him now.

Tudo
06-06-2012, 06:12 PM
First you say we can't win within the Republican Party.

Then you say we won in many states. Which is it?

Never mind, you're right, it's contradictory

Tudo
06-06-2012, 06:38 PM
I think you're right. If we don't pull a 1776 2.0 we will fall into complete enslavement. However, I fully support taking over the GOP. There's so many ifs and roadblocks in this equation. But it's the best route if we are going to use politics to gain our freedom.

Well, I don't see any possibility of that happening especially considering the fundamentals such as the fact that republicans have never been about smaller Constitutional government in the first place, when in fact the very first gop president was responssible for the destruction of the Constitution and the murder of over 600,000 Americans just to keep that power centralized in washington which in fact is what made it possible for them to construck this giant monstrosity of government we have today. Not quite the freedom lover types.

Now we have fellow "paulians" who are talking about making "citizens arrests" ( maybe they'll like us more if we become police in Tampa. Soon those same folks might justify supporting "just this once" some slimebag republican who 'really sounds good") Incredible if you really stop and think about it. Maybe they'll like us alright.

There is a lowlife ( g s initials) at the kitco forums who I have avoided responding to for a long time because on ONE point he/she's right and that is we're NOT REPUBLICANS! An obvious mental midget this moron will respond to almost every thread about Dr Paul and of course it's off the charts ignorant "except for that one point".

To give you an analogy you think we're going to move in on the gambino's territory and control "the family" by honorable and legal ways. While in a perfect world and a free society ( you woudn't need to even think about that if it was a free society) But we're not freaking mobsters number one and guess what? They ain't givin up territory even if they have to kill us all. Now whether that's by way of keeping all the parents worried about their dumbass kid who signed up for this shit or suddenly the "don't support the war but support the murderers" syndrome which has obviously not been the best route and in fact I would say the very act of doing so ENABLED it to continue and expand. They have this place so bamboozled there are people out there who think it's HONORABLE and are "defending" us when in fact the opposite is true, or if it's slow poisoning us with the crap in the food store, or preventing us from some other alternative forms of healthcare, makes little difference. It's become a movie and we're the ants they are stepping on.

No Mr Kennedy, I do not think that is even in the world of possibility and frankly it makes me admire Dr Paul even more as he's been able to do what no other libertarian has done before and that's get the message out to millions. Even Harry Browne who was the only 3rd party candidate in American history to achieve getting on the ballot in all 50 states couldn't do what Dr Paul has already done. But surely if this election has taught us anything it has ( confirmed to many of us, taught many more ) shown us how rotten to the core this place is and I'm sorry but in 6,000 years of human history, Freedom has only been one one time, it didn't come by posting signs on street corners and it didn't come by way of playing nice nice with the enemy and it lasted for about 100 years and then started a very slow decline with the means to accelerate that decline put in place in 1913 and surely this country has become intelectually, spiritually, morally and financially bankrupt.

It's going to take a fight and I'm convinced that the more people take it, the more we're all going to have to take in the future as they know there's nothing to stop them. They sure as shit haven't obeyed the Constitution, we the people are merely a source of revenue or when younger, canon fodder and paid killers.

Sorry for the long one but I'm as many of us are having some wild swings of my own, watching what happened in louisiand sickened me.......and I've lived full time in a communist country, a monarchy and here and you know what? There ain't that much difference anymore ( which could be another conversation ). Not like it used to be that's for sure and I mean in my lifetime. It's accelerating faster and faster.

noneedtoaggress
06-06-2012, 06:42 PM
Judge Napolitano, Tom Woods, OR RON PAUL!

No one really thought Ron would ever run for president again after 2008, but he did. If he is up to it in 4 more years, he would be the best choice.

Judge Nap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tEeO-qTYo

Tom Woods:
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8351/tomwoodsanarchist.png

July
06-06-2012, 07:26 PM
I'm behind Rand, and he would be my choice. I think he is the most viable option, since he appears to be already laying early groundwork and building support, so if he decides to do it, he will be in a better position going forward. I'm conflicted about it though (his senate seat, etc). But the best way to help any future candidate is keep doing exactly what we are doing right now, which is focusing on the smaller and local races that we can win....and defending the seats we already have won.

Dogsoldier
06-06-2012, 07:34 PM
Hey I support the Ron Paul Republicans.

I'm just saying right now the libertarian party has most of them.

I won't vote for a Republican just because they are in the Republican party is all I'm saying.

No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils is what I'm saying.NO MORE!!!

Bastiat's The Law
06-06-2012, 07:39 PM
He's a great public speaker and has great knowledge on freedom and he's mad likable, fuck, don't you just wanna hug the guy? But he's a pretty poor debater.

Anyone can sound smart and indestructable in a speech (and he IS smart) and it's his job on Fox to share his opinion, that he states very well, but when he debated Jon Stewart he was pretty weak.
He was shockingly weak. Christ, I think I could've gave Stewart a better debate and more food for thought on the subjects they discussed.

Bastiat's The Law
06-06-2012, 07:41 PM
Justin Amash?
Zero name recognition. Zero political clout. Still very green experience-wise. We can hardly fund his House race, let alone a Presidential race. Remember, we need to raise tens of millions of dollars just to compete. Ron raised about 35 million and we were still perpetually underfunded at critical junctures of the campaign.

Shane Harris
06-06-2012, 08:08 PM
Rand Paul, then Tom Davis (who needs to unseat Graham first though)

Bastiat's The Law
06-06-2012, 08:11 PM
I'm behind Rand, and he would be my choice. I think he is the most viable option, since he appears to be already laying early groundwork and building support, so if he decides to do it, he will be in a better position going forward. I'm conflicted about it though (his senate seat, etc). But the best way to help any future candidate is keep doing exactly what we are doing right now, which is focusing on the smaller and local races that we can win....and defending the seats we already have won.
We can run Massie for Rand's Senate seat.

Aratus
06-06-2012, 08:29 PM
^this is the idea!^

Krugerrand
06-06-2012, 08:41 PM
If I may re-post my 10/2009 post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?213062-John-Mackey-for-President-2012
I won't put it in quotes to make it easier for those interested in replying to do so.

= = = = = = = = = =

I was motivated to start this thread by a recent thread on potential 2012 candidates. While I want to encourage continued discussion of the pool of candidates there (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=212987), I'd like to use this thread to pitch drafting John Mackey to run for president in 2012 and focus solely on that.

The GOP has been hurt by the neocons - the wars have confused what had been a unified opposition to being the world's policeman, government expansion became the reality over smaller government. TARP 1.

Most existing politicians now have stained hands from the past. Many were wrong in supporting the war or supporting things like NCLB or prescription drugs for seniors - and it leaves those who were right wondering if a recent conversion is a matter of political convenience. Others were right on the above ... but many otherwise reliable conservative voters are still blinded by the neocon punchlines.

Many of our reliable candidates bring their credentials from outside of politics - Rand Paul and Peter Schiff come to mind. We don't have time to get another 'Ron Paul' credentialed with political experience by the 2012 election. We need to find somebody outside of politics.

http://i.cnn.net/money/galleries/2007/biz2/0705/gallery.contrarians.biz2/images/john_mackey.jpg
John Mackey is a nationally recognized successful businessman.


John Mackey wrote a letter in 2006 to all of his staff announcing that he would reduce his own salary to $1 a year, donate his stock portfolio to charity and set up a $100,000 emergency fund for staff facing personal problems. [....] "I am now 53 years old and I have reached a place in my life where I no longer want to work for money, but simply for the joy of the work itself and to better answer the call to service that I feel so clearly in my own heart."

John Mackey has said that he used to be a "democratic socialist" in college, but when he began a business and barely made money while being accused by workers of not paying them enough and customers of charging too high prices, he began to take a more capitalistic worldview and discovered the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Friedman. [... and] is an admirer of author Ayn Rand.


^^^swiped from wikipedia :o
While the Democrats have been attacking the GOP for not having a health carae plan, John Mackey put one out in August: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html)


Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs).
 Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits.
 Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines.
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover
Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.
 Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost.
Enact Medicare reform.
Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.


I think I'm onto something here. Tell me why I'm wrong or what we need to do to make it happen.

John F Kennedy III
06-06-2012, 08:56 PM
Hey I support the Ron Paul Republicans.

I'm just saying right now the libertarian party has most of them.

I won't vote for a Republican just because they are in the Republican party is all I'm saying.

No more voting for the lesser of 2 evils is what I'm saying.NO MORE!!!

Oh of course not. I'd never try to get someone to do that. Lol nobody here is going to vote for Romney just because he's a republican.

John F Kennedy III
06-06-2012, 09:00 PM
Tell me more about Tom Davis. I don't think I've heard of him.

Krugerrand
06-06-2012, 09:01 PM
Of course, I should point out that we should simply let Ron Paul run for re-election in 2016 if he so chooses.

row333au
06-06-2012, 09:24 PM
Ok going to jump on the weird and food for thought kinda thing.... tooo dooo duuuuu dooo, tuuuu doooo tooo nananan

On Sept. 22 2011 Rand took an Air Force One ride with Obama (he was pressured to create a bill to fund his ailing Kentucky state government fund from Pres. B O).... after that long ride, he suddenly left the living arrangement with his father Ron Paul (in making him pure to Ron Paul's movement) and what people (even those close to him) observed that he became more and more compromising with his views and his establishment leaning while maintaining the grassroot as his political base in reference to his libertarian and father's legacy..... Rand is closely becoming more kinda like a mainstream politician after that.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/odd-air-force-one-couple-obama-rand-paul/1#.T8ayaVKulkM


This kind of scenario have happened before in Air force One.... Note: Dennis Kucinich's oddness after the plane ride with his sudden dramatic 180 degree turn of his views in favor of Pres. B O ......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589590,00.html




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nucsSUTpnY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOARWX3OjFc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVGt-JC8a-A

As for other options....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVxAwWFR0k&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJHBhdxoMW8

Pauls' Revere
06-06-2012, 11:06 PM
Gary Johnson

^^this^^

GARY JOHNSON

progressiveforpaul
06-06-2012, 11:53 PM
Rand as VP and Marcy Kaptur as president. There is a winning combination. Along with some good ideas like this: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/02/11-coalition-agreements-to-woo-way-more.html

July
06-07-2012, 10:07 AM
Rand Paul, then Tom Davis (who needs to unseat Graham first though)

First things first, Davis has filed for his second (4 year) term, which is up for election in Nov. for SC district 42. It doesn't seem anyone has filed to challenge him. Graham's term is up in 2014. DeMint in 2016. If not Graham, Davis could run to replace DeMint in 2016, if DeMint does not seek reelection...which he has been hinting that he won't. In any case, I hope to see Davis run for Senate.

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 10:51 AM
Of course, I should point out that we should simply let Ron Paul run for re-election in 2016 if he so chooses.
He'll be over 80. We need someone that's a great campaigner, someone willing to visit all 99 counties in Iowa as Santorum did. If Ron was 50 or 60 absolutely, but he isn't. It' time to pass the torch.

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 10:58 AM
First things first, Davis has filed for his second (4 year) term, which is up for election in Nov. for SC district 42. It doesn't seem anyone has filed to challenge him. Graham's term is up in 2014. DeMint in 2016. If not Graham, Davis could run to replace DeMint in 2016, if DeMint does not seek reelection...which he has been hinting that he won't. In any case, I hope to see Davis run for Senate.
I'm on board this idea. Davis should climb the ladder in South Carolina, replacing Graham or Demint would be great!

Aratus
06-07-2012, 11:28 AM
^this^ demint as veep or being tapped by mitt's cabinet search is being openly taked about at mittromneycentral as well as WHEN rather than if scott walkerbecomes a nationwide household name. if lindsey or jim are pulled into mitt's hypotheical administration, and he is getting very good poll numbers over barack obama out of michigan and other border or battleground or swingstates, LETS GET OUR PEOPLE INTO THOSE POSITIONs WHEN GOP PARTY REGULARs GET TAPPED FOR THEIR ABILITIES. THIS INCLUDES GOVERNOR HALEY OF SOUTH CAROLINA TOO! lets keep an eye on what the landscape does in november as well as the "what if" of 2016!!!!!!!! when we have an openning or create one, exploit it by getting our people places! our own "Gunny" is our "secret weapon" in north carolina!!!! many of us need to get off of our bloody bloomin arses and get into "can do" mode!

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 11:34 AM
^this^ demint as veep or being tapped by mitt's cabinet search is being openly taked about at mittromneycentral as well as WHEN rather than if scott walkerbecomes a nationwide household name. if lindsey or jim are pulled into mitt's hypotheical administration, and he is getting very good poll numbers over barack obama out of michigan and other border or battleground or swingstates, LETS GET OUR PEOPLE INTO THOSE POSITIONs WHEN GOP PARTY REGULARs GET TAPPED FOR THEIR ABILITIES. THIS INCLUDES GOVERNOR HALEY OF SOUTH CAROLINA TOO! lets keep an eye on what the landscape does in november as well as the "what if" of 2016!!!!!!!! when we have an openning or create one, exploit it by getting our people places! our own "Gunny" is our "secret weapon" in north carolina!!!! many of us need to get off of our bloody bloomin arses and get into "can do" mode!
Yup, we definitely need to be prepared. I happen to think an Obama victory would be more beneficial to the liberty movement than a Romney victory.

July
06-07-2012, 12:37 PM
Well in my opinion we do not necessarily need to win the presidency ultimately to accomplish a lot--it would be good if we did. But that is still a top down approach, and there is another direction for power to flow. What we have is a very weak congress, with an executive branch that has become too powerful, and seems to now defer to the UN instead of congress on matters of foriegn policy, etc. Congress refuses to assert itself and claim its Constitutional powers. But what if congress could be built up, it could push back and demand the authority that has been usurped (in theory).

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 12:44 PM
Well in my opinion we do not necessarily need to win the presidency ultimately to accomplish a lot--it would be good if we did. But that is still a top down approach, and there is another direction for power to flow. What we have is a very weak congress, with an executive branch that has become too powerful, and seems to now defer to the UN instead of congress on matters of foriegn policy, etc. Congress refuses to assert itself and claim its Constitutional powers. But what if congress could be built up, it could push back and demand the authority that has been usurped (in theory).
I totally agree. Winning the Presidency is like a hail mary pass, it's still worth doing in certain circumstances. With Rand Paul, do I dare say we would be considered a front-runner? I think we might be #1 right out of the gate.

That being said, I'd love if we focused on some winnable House/Senate seats and further down the line at some state elections. We got a great candidate in Massie for the cost of 700k, he could theoretically hold onto that seat for as long as he desired. I wish we used our considerable fund raising ability more prudently.

Aratus
06-07-2012, 12:57 PM
NC's glen bradley may have a comeback election that lets him go places.
we have talented people who are honest and focused. this is our future.

July
06-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Oh yeah I think it is still worth it too, especially in terms of motivating new people and building a base. Look at how much ground we have covered with Ron's campaign. People who have never been involved in politics before don't tend to get excited over local/state races. And even many RP supporters don't, but if we manage to get a percentage each time that goes on to get more involved, that is important. I think Rand could build on what we have accomplished, absolutely. Rand is busting his a** working hard to build up a coalition and encourage people to run.


That being said, I'd love if we focused on some winnable House/Senate seats and further down the line at some state elections. We got a great candidate in Massie for the cost of 700k, he could theoretically hold onto that seat for as long as he desired. I wish we used our considerable fund raising ability more prudently.

I think it is a matter of better coordination and getting the word out. Massie benefited from having good name recognition with Ron Paul supporters, who knew to watch for him and his fundraising events.

John F Kennedy III
06-07-2012, 01:31 PM
We need to get as many Ron Paul supporters/Liberty Movement members as we can to run for local/state office in 2014 as we can. And if they don't want to run we need to get them to at least volunteer time promoting someone who is running. With enough people helping out we can make huge gains in 2014. The worst thing we could do is sit around and wait for 2016 and only focus on the presidency.

Krugerrand
06-07-2012, 01:35 PM
He'll be over 80. We need someone that's a great campaigner, someone willing to visit all 99 counties in Iowa as Santorum did. If Ron was 50 or 60 absolutely, but he isn't. It' time to pass the torch.

Notice, I said let Ron run for re-election if he so chooses. I suspect after 4 years as president, he won't have to do too much campaigning to win re-election.

Aratus
06-07-2012, 01:37 PM
Of course, I should point out that we should simply let Ron Paul run for re-election in 2016 if he so chooses.

lets assume mitt wins this fall, that tampa has 900 GOP delegates voting for gold standard and audit and/or end the fed planking, that more states opt

for caucuses or paper and electronic primary ballots, and also that in 2016 rand decides to remain in th e senate but that justin amash and john dennis

must wait to potus run, as president romney has GOP party loyalty keeping the number of hopefuls in iowa or n.h way down, would dr. ron paul run so as

to debate president mitt grandly on his less flipflop inclined record as almost a national progress report even if ron ceases to moneybomb by april or may

and then a call for party unity after perhaps the kentucky derby? could a less vigorous 2016 run bring home to the nation what the GOP has yet to really do?

Aratus
06-07-2012, 01:39 PM
ECONOMICS 101 = a 2016 Ron Paul "educational" potus run?

Krugerrand
06-07-2012, 01:42 PM
lets assume mitt wins this fall, that tampa has 900 GOP delegates voting for gold standard and audit and/or end the fed planking, that more states opt

for caucuses or paper and electronic primary ballots, and also that in 2016 rand decides to remain in th e senate but that justin amash and john dennis

must wait to potus run, as president romney has GOP party loyalty keeping the number of hopefuls in iowa or n.h way down, would dr. ron paul run so as

to debate president mitt grandly on his less flipflop inclined record as almost a national progress report even if ron ceases to moneybomb by april or may

and then a call for party unity after perhaps the kentucky derby? could a less vigorous 2016 run bring home to the nation what the GOP has yet to really do?

I guess I just hate to make that assumption ... even if the writing is clearly on the wall. One never knows what may happen between now and Tampa. Perhaps some Romney scandal could break - Mittens eats Kittens or something like that - something so horrendous that the GOP would never give him the nomination.

NoOneButPaul
06-07-2012, 01:47 PM
There could be a liberty figure that rises after 2012 but before 2016 (think 2014 elections) that could be a game changer.

We're still growing by leaps and bounds so there's got to be some gems that come from it.

Aratus
06-07-2012, 02:21 PM
scott walker's surprise smucking win has him well thought of by MRC mittster people
as often as rep. paul ryan or governor christie when thinking about the veep choises
and things may be down to 2 or at the most 5 people, and sen. rand may be top 3,
but the kicker is, one of the criteria is the idea that mitt + veep could hand the gop
1600 penn ave for the next 16 years if all goes well. they think BHO is not going good.

GeorgiaAvenger
06-07-2012, 02:32 PM
First things first, Davis has filed for his second (4 year) term, which is up for election in Nov. for SC district 42. It doesn't seem anyone has filed to challenge him. Graham's term is up in 2014. DeMint in 2016. If not Graham, Davis could run to replace DeMint in 2016, if DeMint does not seek reelection...which he has been hinting that he won't. In any case, I hope to see Davis run for Senate.

DeMint has self imposed term limits. He is gone in 2016.

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 02:35 PM
Oh yeah I think it is still worth it too, especially in terms of motivating new people and building a base. Look at how much ground we have covered with Ron's campaign. People who have never been involved in politics before don't tend to get excited over local/state races. And even many RP supporters don't, but if we manage to get a percentage each time that goes on to get more involved, that is important. I think Rand could build on what we have accomplished, absolutely. Rand is busting his a** working hard to build up a coalition and encourage people to run.



I think it is a matter of better coordination and getting the word out. Massie benefited from having good name recognition with Ron Paul supporters, who knew to watch for him and his fundraising events.
Rand is ten fold a better communicator than Ron is, he can really sell our ideals to the average voter. Ron is the professor, the intellectual, I love this about him, but at the same time you need a 130 IQ and be well-read in history to truly "get" him right off the bat. For most people its a long process for them to come to support Ron, which takes months, even years, to educate themselves in numerous policy and historical areas and then conclude that Ron Paul was right all along. It's a multi-tiered process. Rand on the other hand, can have an audience eating out of his hand within 10 mins.

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 02:43 PM
There could be a liberty figure that rises after 2012 but before 2016 (think 2014 elections) that could be a game changer.

We're still growing by leaps and bounds so there's got to be some gems that come from it.
Probably for House or maybe even Senate seats. But for President we need someone with name recognition, a support base, and that can raise $50 million dollars.

Aratus
06-07-2012, 02:45 PM
DeMint has self imposed term limits. He is gone in 2016.

assuming "if..." at tampa we know demint as romney's veep and a fall win opens up his seat for jack hunter.

Aratus
06-07-2012, 02:47 PM
i'm hoping dr. ron paul ends up with 800 to 1200 delegates at tampa but think we
should look at each binary decision tree scenario and what we can do if we all act

helmuth_hubener
06-07-2012, 03:09 PM
Rand is the best choice. I trust that Rand is a libertarian. He was all through his years prior to becoming a Senator. I believe he still is, and that he is playing a deep undercover game to appear "mainstream." Now maybe we'll all get burned and it will turn out he really is mainstream. But I don't think so. I trust Rand.

Vanilluxe
06-07-2012, 03:11 PM
This thread seems like its dividing us and is counterproductive, lets wait and see what happens before each of us runs a dozen liberty candidates in 2016 or 2028 and so on.

July
06-07-2012, 05:52 PM
Rand is ten fold a better communicator than Ron is, he can really sell our ideals to the average voter. Ron is the professor, the intellectual, I love this about him, but at the same time you need a 130 IQ and be well-read in history to truly "get" him right off the bat.

Oh! You didn't hear about the study!? That Rand is the dumbest Senator ever because he gives speeches at an 8th grade reading level without complex syntax and vocabulary. :rolleyes: No, I agree. What Rand does is a lot tougher than it looks. Agreed, I also love that Ron has chosen not to try and alter his communication style, no matter how many people were wishing he would at times during the debates. Ron managed to reach a lot of intellectuals and free thinking types...who maybe just needed a little coaxing, or rather a good slap of reality across the face. But these are the sort of people most likely to go the extra mile, to pick up a book, get involved, teach others, start leading, etc.

Bastiat's The Law
06-07-2012, 09:59 PM
Oh! You didn't hear about the study!? That Rand is the dumbest Senator ever because he gives speeches at an 8th grade reading level without complex syntax and vocabulary. :rolleyes: No, I agree. What Rand does is a lot tougher than it looks. Agreed, I also love that Ron has chosen not to try and alter his communication style, no matter how many people were wishing he would at times during the debates. Ron managed to reach a lot of intellectuals and free thinking types...who maybe just needed a little coaxing, or rather a good slap of reality across the face. But these are the sort of people most likely to go the extra mile, to pick up a book, get involved, teach others, start leading, etc.
Nope, never seen that study. You could be the most learned person on earth, but if fumble at communicating your ideas, what is really worth? I've had many professors like this, had a supreme command of history or their specialization, but they were absolutely horrible teachers and educators. They lost their audience. Also had a professor that was an amazing communicator and made learning rather dry history so exciting and fun that dozens of students hovered in the classroom discussing things with him and other students well past the time class ended. And these weren't history majors, these were students that absolutely hated history up until his class.

doctor jones
06-07-2012, 10:01 PM
Rand Paul 2016

Original_Intent
06-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Gary Johnson]

as Fred Thompson would say "that dog won't hunt."

doctor jones
06-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Rand is the best choice. I trust that Rand is a libertarian. He was all through his years prior to becoming a Senator. I believe he still is, and that he is playing a deep undercover game to appear "mainstream." Now maybe we'll all get burned and it will turn out he really is mainstream. But I don't think so. I trust Rand.

+1

Rand is the man... to the haters I say: Look at his voting record

seawolf
06-07-2012, 10:14 PM
After his Benedict Arnold endorsement of Mitt Romney tonight are any of you seriously still supporting Rand Paul for dogcatcher much less President. Please....

Go over to the Daily Paul and read the thread...the fastest down voted thread in the history of the Daily Paul now approaching 250 votes.

Rand Paul is now dead in the Liberty Movement. He is our Liberty Judas.

Aratus
06-07-2012, 10:26 PM
rand paul 2016 + rand paul 2020
and if he goes for the senate in '16
rand paul 2020 + rand paul 2024

Tod
06-07-2012, 10:33 PM
+1

Rand is the man... to the haters I say: Look at his voting record

I'm not sure he is the man, but you are right, his voting record is pretty darn good.

I think Rand could use some good old competition to help keep him honest, especially after tonight's backstabbing. He strikes me as too much of a "pragmatist" if that is really the right word, and while that quality may earn him some votes, it will also put off a lot of people and in my opinion may be his downfall in the fashion of McCain or Romney.

wrestlingwes_8
06-07-2012, 10:40 PM
+1

Rand is the man... to the haters I say: Look at his voting record

Look at who he endorsed!

This is what all you losers, who thought Rand was the future of the liberty movement, look like right now..

http://thekcmothership.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eat-crow.jpg

John F Kennedy III
06-07-2012, 10:43 PM
After his Benedict Arnold endorsement of Mitt Romney tonight are any of you seriously still supporting Rand Paul for dogcatcher much less President. Please....

Go over to the Daily Paul and read the thread...the fastest down voted thread in the history of the Daily Paul now approaching 250 votes.

Rand Paul is now dead in the Liberty Movement. He is our Liberty Judas.

Rand still has my vote.

John F Kennedy III
06-07-2012, 10:44 PM
Look at who he endorsed!

This is what all you losers, who thought Rand was the future of the liberty movement, look like right now..

http://thekcmothership.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/eat-crow.jpg

He still has my vote. Thanks for calling me a loser, asshole ;)

Tod
06-07-2012, 10:59 PM
I just got a C4L e-mail from Rand titled "Backed into a corner" that included the statement,

“When you're backed into a corner, all you can do is FIGHT your way out.”

I sent a reply (via their web page; can't just reply to the e-mail 'cause it will bounce:

Senator Paul,

You wrote: “When you're backed into a corner, all you can do is FIGHT your way out.”

We now know that there was, in your mind, another option: Become a turncoat and support the opposition.

VERY disappointing.

my name

Aratus
06-07-2012, 11:03 PM
people, this has been made clear... even though barack obama is an honorable man, sincere and a patriot, rand paul is campaigning for mitt romney.

Lishy
06-07-2012, 11:42 PM
I want Judge Napolitano! The fact Ron Paul has personally said he was considering him as a potential VP before anyone else, proves how much of a success Napolitano could be! :D

RonPaulRevolution!
06-07-2012, 11:48 PM
Rand Paul is doing what's best for the future of the movement. This is something he has to do in order to stay relevant in the party. Rand didn't all the sudden become a sell out or throw away his life time views on liberty and freedom. You have to know Ron Paul raised his kids smarter and better than that. When you can't beat em the right way, trick them and beat them their way.

The only difference between Ron and Rand is Rand is playing the game by their rules because its the best chance we have to win.

How do you think Ron Paul feels about this endorsement? You think he is upset with Rand or supports him on his decision? If Ron supports him and we trust Ron then we should too. That doesn’t mean we have to support Romney.

I am objective enough to know what Rand is doing. It has been documented that Ron and his insiders have groomed Rand for this role for a long time. Rand is our insider and sometimes he has to do things that don't look that great. Look at him during this interview, you can tell it’s painful.

Rand is outsmarting the establishment. He was groomed by Ron Paul for this. I support Rand 100% on this because I trust Ron Paul. To say that you don't trust Rand is to say that you don't trust Ron.

Feeding the Abscess
06-07-2012, 11:51 PM
Rand Paul is doing what's best for the future of the movement. This is something he has to do in order to stay relevant in the party. Rand didn't all the sudden become a sell out or throw away his life time views on liberty and freedom. You have to know Ron Paul raised his kids smarter and better than that. When you can't beat em the right way, trick them and beat them their way.

The only difference between Ron and Rand is Rand is playing the game by their rules because its the best chance we have to win.

How do you think Ron Paul feels about this endorsement? You think he is upset with Rand or supports him on his decision? If Ron supports him and we trust Ron then we should too. That doesn’t mean we have to support Romney.

I am objective enough to know what Rand is doing. It has been documented that Ron and his insiders have groomed Rand for this role for a long time. Rand is our insider and sometimes he has to do things that don't look that great. Look at him during this interview, you can tell it’s painful.

Rand is outsmarting the establishment. He was groomed by Ron Paul for this. I support Rand 100% on this because I trust Ron Paul. To say that you don't trust Rand is to say that you don't trust Ron.

Let us know how the Goldwater movement ended up.

Thanks.

PreDeadMan
06-07-2012, 11:56 PM
Nobody 2016...... how about getting behind a mock candidate like Vermin Supreme this system is a joke and is doomed to collapse....

dillo
06-08-2012, 12:08 AM
Damn, looks like the Pauls cut a deal

John F Kennedy III
06-08-2012, 12:14 AM
Rand Paul is doing what's best for the future of the movement. This is something he has to do in order to stay relevant in the party. Rand didn't all the sudden become a sell out or throw away his life time views on liberty and freedom. You have to know Ron Paul raised his kids smarter and better than that. When you can't beat em the right way, trick them and beat them their way.

The only difference between Ron and Rand is Rand is playing the game by their rules because its the best chance we have to win.

How do you think Ron Paul feels about this endorsement? You think he is upset with Rand or supports him on his decision? If Ron supports him and we trust Ron then we should too. That doesn’t mean we have to support Romney.

I am objective enough to know what Rand is doing. It has been documented that Ron and his insiders have groomed Rand for this role for a long time. Rand is our insider and sometimes he has to do things that don't look that great. Look at him during this interview, you can tell it’s painful.

Rand is outsmarting the establishment. He was groomed by Ron Paul for this. I support Rand 100% on this because I trust Ron Paul. To say that you don't trust Rand is to say that you don't trust Ron.

Thank you. +rep for truth

John F Kennedy III
06-08-2012, 12:14 AM
Rand Paul is doing what's best for the future of the movement. This is something he has to do in order to stay relevant in the party. Rand didn't all the sudden become a sell out or throw away his life time views on liberty and freedom. You have to know Ron Paul raised his kids smarter and better than that. When you can't beat em the right way, trick them and beat them their way.

The only difference between Ron and Rand is Rand is playing the game by their rules because its the best chance we have to win.

How do you think Ron Paul feels about this endorsement? You think he is upset with Rand or supports him on his decision? If Ron supports him and we trust Ron then we should too. That doesn’t mean we have to support Romney.

I am objective enough to know what Rand is doing. It has been documented that Ron and his insiders have groomed Rand for this role for a long time. Rand is our insider and sometimes he has to do things that don't look that great. Look at him during this interview, you can tell it’s painful.

Rand is outsmarting the establishment. He was groomed by Ron Paul for this. I support Rand 100% on this because I trust Ron Paul. To say that you don't trust Rand is to say that you don't trust Ron.

Thank you. +rep for truth

Karsten
06-08-2012, 12:22 AM
Damn, looks like the Pauls cut a deal

The definition of a deal is that both parties receive something, not just Romney! Well I better see some benefit from the deal. If it's a VP slot, then OK, I'll be happy. If it's fed chairman, treasury, or something like that, I won't be too dissapointed. But if the Pauls just endorse Romney and we don't see ANY benefits from it, that's not a "deal," and after practically dedicating my life for the past 5 years to this, I'm out the door, good morning good afternoon and goodnight.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2012, 12:25 AM
I reckon I'm-a gonna sit out the elections after this year till JFK3 runs. I'll lie, cheat, and steal to get him into office...I want my cabinet position! :D

John F Kennedy III
06-08-2012, 12:26 AM
I don't think any deal was made. But we shall see.

John F Kennedy III
06-08-2012, 12:27 AM
I reckon I'm-a gonna sit out the elections after this year till JFK3 runs. I'll lie, cheat, and steal to get him into office...I want my cabinet position! :D

Lmao. You do what is asked of you and you'll get it ;)

dillo
06-08-2012, 12:29 AM
The definition of a deal is that both parties receive something, not just Romney! Well I better see some benefit from the deal. If it's a VP slot, then OK, I'll be happy. If it's fed chairman, treasury, or something like that, I won't be too dissapointed. But if the Pauls just endorse Romney and we don't see ANY benefits from it, that's not a "deal," and after practically dedicating my life for the past 5 years to this, I'm out the door, good morning good afternoon and goodnight.

I dont think it has to be like that. I have really only been part of this liberty community for a year or so. Oddly enough it was when I was researching water fluoridation. Since I have came here I have transformed from a Lincoln loving, Pro Iraq war, Pro drug war, Pro Patriot act person to the complete opposite. Even if Ron Paul doesn't get anything and endorses Romney to save face, or more so to save his sons political career; My current enlightenment will still be there. This is a progress, and as much as I want Ron to be the POTUS, I understand that it takes time. If people like me can be transformed, then we can restore this country to the great bastion of liberty it once was. It just takes time.

Never give up on the message of Liberty my friend, its message will never die.

MaxPower
06-08-2012, 03:21 AM
The definition of a deal is that both parties receive something, not just Romney! Well I better see some benefit from the deal. If it's a VP slot, then OK, I'll be happy. If it's fed chairman, treasury, or something like that, I won't be too dissapointed. But if the Pauls just endorse Romney and we don't see ANY benefits from it, that's not a "deal," and after practically dedicating my life for the past 5 years to this, I'm out the door, good morning good afternoon and goodnight.
Let us not unduly lump "the Pauls" together like collectivists; to my knowledge, Ron Paul has not endorsed Romney, and I surely hope no such endorsement is forthcoming, lest my image of the man be severely damaged. As for Rand, I knew he was a compromiser and a gamesman, but I hadn't imagined he would go so far as to actually "officially" endorse and campaign on behalf of Mitt Romney. I will have to reconsider the matter of his eligibility for my support in the 2016 race.

QuickZ06
06-08-2012, 04:32 AM
I don't think any deal was made. But we shall see.

Rand VP

Ron Treasury

Just a thought, I am still trying to wrap my head around all this.

Bastiat's The Law
06-08-2012, 05:47 AM
After his Benedict Arnold endorsement of Mitt Romney tonight are any of you seriously still supporting Rand Paul for dogcatcher much less President. Please....

Go over to the Daily Paul and read the thread...the fastest down voted thread in the history of the Daily Paul now approaching 250 votes.

Rand Paul is now dead in the Liberty Movement. He is our Liberty Judas.
Honestly do you guys even read what the Paul's write or hear in their interviews? Rand has said for the last 14 months that he would support whomever the Republican nominee is. This isn't exactly news to anyone who was paying attention. Ron conceded the race with the last campaign email they sent out. It's not in the cards for us this go around. Time to plan ahead to 2016.

Bastiat's The Law
06-08-2012, 05:52 AM
Rand VP

Ron Treasury

Just a thought, I am still trying to wrap my head around all this.
Ron doesn't want that job. If we could get Jim Grant in there it would be a good deal for us.

LibertyEagle
06-08-2012, 06:02 AM
Honestly do you guys even read what the Paul's write or hear in their interviews? Rand has said for the last 14 months that he would support whomever the Republican nominee is. This isn't exactly news to anyone who was paying attention. Ron conceded the race with the last campaign email they sent out. It's not in the cards for us this go around. Time to plan ahead to 2016.

There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

Bastiat's The Law
06-08-2012, 07:10 AM
There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.
Good point! Let's focus on winnable races yet to be decided. Let's see some more Thomas Massies spring up up and bankroll them to victory!

July
06-08-2012, 08:41 AM
Nope, never seen that study. You could be the most learned person on earth, but if fumble at communicating your ideas, what is really worth?

Oh, well, there was a recent MSM hit piece on Rand circulating over the past few weeks, claiming that Tea Party politicians were dumbing down the system, and Rand ranked as one of the worst offenders in the supposed "study". They actually ran a study that calculated speeches on syntax complexity. Rand's speech is often simple, but clever. But there's no accounting for such things for those who think everything can be quantified and calculated...or who have a specific agenda to push. That's the same story with a lot of politicized junk science these days.

July
06-08-2012, 08:47 AM
I think Rand could use some good old competition to help keep him honest, especially after tonight's backstabbing. He strikes me as too much of a "pragmatist" if that is really the right word, and while that quality may earn him some votes, it will also put off a lot of people and in my opinion may be his downfall in the fashion of McCain or Romney.

Yes, yes, that's the idea. That's why we can't win with just pragmatists alone, nor with just absolutists. Not one or the other. Both. At the same time.

John F Kennedy III
06-08-2012, 12:12 PM
There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

If we don't listen to LE on this we might as well not even show up in 2016. Seriously.

Aratus
06-08-2012, 02:44 PM
LE + our JFK3 = common sense

phill4paul
06-08-2012, 02:46 PM
There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

^^^This. Funds and grassroots activism go much further on a local scale.

Joey Fuller
06-08-2012, 02:49 PM
NOT Rand Paul.
I think his section should be deleted from this forum.
Rand Paul is not the future of our movement.
I am disgusted by his endorsement of Mittens and hope the Ron Paul Revolution doesn't get behind Rand Paul.
sheesh.. what a day.

John F Kennedy III
06-08-2012, 03:11 PM
NOT Rand Paul.
I think his section should be deleted from this forum.
Rand Paul is not the future of our movement.
I am disgusted by his endorsement of Mittens and hope the Ron Paul Revolution doesn't get behind Rand Paul.
sheesh.. what a day.

If Rand isn't the future of our movement then our movement doesn't have a future.

QuickZ06
06-09-2012, 04:05 AM
Replies like these are already getting old......


If Romney is the same as Obama than why is Rand Paul supporting Romney? You're an idiot! I'm sure even RP wouldn't want you to waste your vote and right in his name. You are as stupid as a college brainwashed closeminded communist liberal wasteoide.

John F Kennedy III
06-09-2012, 04:12 AM
Replies like these are already getting old......

Yes they are.

helmuth_hubener
06-09-2012, 03:21 PM
I still trust Rand. Sorry! I understand everyone who doesn't, though. It's a risky business, playing the political game. Power corrupts. Could it corrupt even one like Rand Paul, or perhaps could it have already? Yes. Did it? I think no. Your guess may differ.

The endorsement of Romney was not a surprise betrayal. He has been saying since at least January he would support the nominee. When he interviewed about his press release smashing Gingrich, he told the TV he would support Romney if he was the nominee, and in fact that he preferred Romney to be the nominee rather than Gingrich or anyone else, since the others would be seen as "Tea Party" candidates, and thus their nomination would destroy the Tea Party (as Rand wants it to be), whereas everyone knows Romney is just a phony moderate.

Origanalist
06-09-2012, 03:32 PM
There are a lot of elections before 2016. State, local, and U.S. Congressional races are where it's at. We need to get liberty folks in at all levels. We must not stake it all on winning the presidency.

Absolutely.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-15-2013, 06:23 PM
In my opinion our only shot at winning the White House in 2016 is uniting behind one candidate. In my opinion it should be Rand Paul. But not everyone here likes him. So let's discuss who else we could potential get behind. State the persons name and make your case. Some of you may want to debate the point of not being able to win unless we unite behind one candidate. You can do that too, but please also name someone.

Keep it civil.

-JFKIII

Sheesh, what a Rand-slurper.

erowe1
05-15-2013, 06:26 PM
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of drafting Raimondo to run against Rand in the primaries.

Sola_Fide
05-15-2013, 06:38 PM
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of drafting Raimondo to run against Rand in the primaries.

I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

Christian Liberty
05-15-2013, 06:43 PM
Is this to make Rand lose or to help him?

I don't know what the strategy is there, but if someone better than Rand Paul ran against him, even someone with little chance, I'd be tempted to vote for that person.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-15-2013, 06:45 PM
I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

Wait, you're talking about the KY Senate primary? What's that supposed to accomplish, especially after Rand Paul beats Raimondo (or whatever fringe candidate that meets your litmus test) 88%-12%?

LibertyEagle
05-15-2013, 06:45 PM
I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

Are you f'in crazy?

trey4sports
05-15-2013, 06:59 PM
raimondo would be railroaded. WOuldn't break double digits.

sailingaway
05-15-2013, 07:03 PM
Sheesh, what a Rand-slurper.

you complain about the sniping but you bump a nearly year old thread to start it up again.

erowe1
05-15-2013, 07:04 PM
raimondo would be railroaded. WOuldn't break double digits.

We wouldn't want him to break double digits.

If he broke 5% I'd start getting concerned. The point would be to provide a libertarian foil to Rand.

Getting him just enough support to be in a debate or two and attacking Rand would be ideal.

BlackTerrel
05-15-2013, 07:09 PM
raimondo would be railroaded. WOuldn't break double digits.

If 1% of Americans have heard of Raimondo I'll shit a golden brick.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-15-2013, 07:13 PM
you complain about the sniping but you bump a nearly year old thread to start it up again.

This thread is actually somewhat about Rand Paul though, in case you missed the thread title.

jclay2
05-15-2013, 07:16 PM
I really don't care as this political process has a 99.999% chance of failure. The only way any liberty candidate is getting through is by divine providence.

Christian Liberty
05-15-2013, 07:27 PM
We wouldn't want him to break double digits.

If he broke 5% I'd start getting concerned. The point would be to provide a libertarian foil to Rand.

Getting him just enough support to be in a debate or two and attacking Rand would be ideal.

Yeah, that would be the idea...

The thing is I'd be tempted to support Raimondo...

sailingaway
05-15-2013, 07:36 PM
This thread is actually somewhat about Rand Paul though, in case you missed the thread title.

So what? You bumped a thread arguing alternative candidates, yet you were just on another complaining about people suggesting they didn't like everything about Rand. That is stirring and you know it.

sailingaway
05-15-2013, 07:36 PM
I really don't care as this political process has a 99.999% chance of failure. The only way any liberty candidate is getting through is by divine providence.

That's why I prefer an approach that at least gets the message out there, so what you are making popular is the right message.

supermario21
05-15-2013, 08:09 PM
LOL, a gay libertarian who may be even more pure than Ron in Kentucky....that's a winning strategy.

Brett85
05-15-2013, 08:12 PM
Man, John F Kennedy III was a hardcore Rand supporter about a year ago.

John F Kennedy III
05-15-2013, 08:43 PM
I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.

This. I'd love for there to be a non-interventionist candidate. They would have my vote over Rand or any of the other possible candidates I can think of.

bolil
05-15-2013, 08:51 PM
NOBRoP. If he doesn't run, I don't vote. I'll not validate anyone else's right to rule.

John F Kennedy III
05-15-2013, 08:52 PM
Is this to make Rand lose or to help him?

I don't know what the strategy is there, but if someone better than Rand Paul ran against him, even someone with little chance, I'd be tempted to vote for that person.

This thread was made a year ago before Rand even endorsed Romney (I believe by a few days)

It wasn't meant to help or hurt, simply was meant to look for other possible candidates and hopefully decide who we can convince everyone to get behind since our movement is too small to divide between more than one.

John F Kennedy III
05-15-2013, 08:54 PM
Are you f'in crazy?

Why is that your reaction to Sola wanting a non-interventionist candidate?

RonPaulFanInGA
05-15-2013, 08:58 PM
I wish we could get the purest form of Libertarian there to run against Rand Paul in the presidential primary in 2016, just to settle this once and for all. When Captain Pure, whoever that is (won't be Ron Paul, isn't Gary Johnson, so...?) faceplants, raises little money, and drops out in the December before the Iowa Caucus (the Gary Johnson Strategy), maybe we can stop pretending Rand Paul's tactics were the wrong ones, politically.

LibertyEagle
05-15-2013, 09:02 PM
Why is that your reaction to Sola wanting a non-interventionist candidate?

He was suggesting that Rand Paul be primaried. If you cannot figure out why that is dumber than dirt, then you are too far gone.

Brett85
05-15-2013, 09:04 PM
Let me put it this way. To want to primary Rand Paul is so idiotic, that was the nicest thing I could think of to say.

Why is that? Primarying Rand would make Rand look more moderate and would probably help him in a general election.

LibertyEagle
05-15-2013, 09:12 PM
Wait, you're talking about the KY Senate primary? What's that supposed to accomplish, especially after Rand Paul beats Raimondo (or whatever fringe candidate that meets your litmus test) 88%-12%?

You're being too kind. More like 99% to 1% (and that is due to rounding up).

LibertyEagle
05-15-2013, 09:12 PM
Why is that? Primarying Rand would make Rand look more moderate and would probably help him in a general election.

Did someone steal your account TC?

erowe1
05-15-2013, 09:33 PM
Why is that? Primarying Rand would make Rand look more moderate and would probably help him in a general election.

It wouldn't just help him in the general. It would help him in the primaries too. It would help shift the Overton window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window).

John F Kennedy III
05-15-2013, 09:37 PM
He was suggesting that Rand Paul be primaried. If you cannot figure out why that is dumber than dirt, then you are too far gone.

Lol alritey then.

phill4paul
05-15-2013, 09:40 PM
Whoever dances naked while smoking dope. That's a libertarian litmus from what I hear.

Dogsoldier
05-15-2013, 09:52 PM
I don't always vote...but when I do...It will be for liberty...

If Rand distances him self too far from his dad he will not have a chance. So far he is still up in the air with me. Keep up the neocon parade and I will be voting libertarian everytime.

FrankRep
05-15-2013, 10:12 PM
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of drafting Raimondo to run against Rand in the primaries.

I agree. Someone who is a strict non-interventionist must primary Rand.
So the "liberty movement" is officially destroying itself. That was short lived.

TaftFan
05-15-2013, 10:15 PM
Raimondo will get into about as many debates as Buddy Roemer.

bolil
05-15-2013, 10:17 PM
I would like to see Osan involved in any debate.

erowe1
05-15-2013, 10:19 PM
Raimondo will get into about as many debates as Buddy Roemer.

I think he could get as much support as GJ had and get into as many debates. Lesser candidates have made the stage before too. IIRC, Morry Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morry_Taylor) was in a Republican primary debate one year.

Plus, if Rand's smart, he'll be active behind the scenes trying to help make sure Raimondo was on the stage.

Anti Federalist
05-15-2013, 10:28 PM
Whoever dances naked while smoking dope. That's a libertarian litmus from what I hear.

In the moonlight.

While chanting for healing.

RonPaulFanInGA
05-15-2013, 10:37 PM
I think he could get as much support as GJ had and get into as many debates.

Probably, but Gary Johnson had the credibility of being a two-term Governor, elected both times as a Republican, and even then wasn't allowed in many debates in 2011.

Raimondo, on the other hand, is some random dude with 3,800 Twitter followers.

cindy25
05-15-2013, 10:47 PM
Rand is probably the best last hope, but others are possible if Rand (for any reason) does not run. No one can predict family or health problems.

those alternatives could be Justin Amash (esp if he wins a senate seat), Raul Labrador (again if he wins gov/sen)

those alternatives also would be fron runners for Rand's VP choice

2016 is Rand's only chance (and also the only chance of Jeb, Huck, Rubio) until 2032, by which time they will all be too old

erowe1
05-15-2013, 10:55 PM
Probably, but Gary Johnson had the credibility of being a two-term Governor, elected both times as a Republican, and even then wasn't allowed in many debates in 2011.

Raimondo, on the other hand, is some random dude with 3,800 Twitter followers.

Raimondo doesn't have the GOP cred that GJ does. But he was the party's nominee to run against Pelosi one year. He'd also be more exciting than GJ. And again, part of the plan would be for Rand supporters to get behind having Raimondo in the debates.

bolil
05-15-2013, 10:56 PM
Suddenly the derided establishment comes cyberhome.

Bummer.

John F Kennedy III
05-15-2013, 11:15 PM
Rand is probably the best last hope, but others are possible if Rand (for any reason) does not run. No one can predict family or health problems.

those alternatives could be Justin Amash (esp if he wins a senate seat), Raul Labrador (again if he wins gov/sen)

those alternatives also would be fron runners for Rand's VP choice

2016 is Rand's only chance (and also the only chance of Jeb, Huck, Rubio) until 2032, by which time they will all be too old



What happened to 2020-2028?

Carlybee
05-15-2013, 11:40 PM
Rand is probably the only "somewhat" liberty candidate that would have a chance but the way the GOP works is by pecking order and they will get behind whomever's next in line. Much as I would prefer Judge Napolitano, he would never be nominated. They would do exactly to him what they did to Ron Paul. Has everyone forgotten the caucuses and conventions? The GOP does what it wants and they will never get behind anyone who is a non-interventionist or too pro-liberty.

Bastiat's The Law
05-16-2013, 01:04 AM
Dumbest idea since the Ghoul skipped the early primaries trying to win Florida.

Brian4Liberty
05-16-2013, 01:12 AM
http://www.libertyamendment.com/origin.html

jtstellar
05-16-2013, 01:51 AM
if you look at what's been happening past couple days.. benghazi, irs, ap, there's a LOT of stuff you can stir without going through rand paul.. the only thing i object is leaving everything up to one person then complain about it.

should some more viable candidate come about, who campaigns on reform faster than rand's platform--i have no doubt rand will arrive at a place essentially close to ron's, but his rhetoric is for a more gradual approach on the more controversial issues--i have no problem supporting an alternative, if that alternative has higher poll support than rand while running on a faster paced reform platform.

but that will come naturally. no, allow me to correct that: it will come because many many people, grassroots, whistle blowers, activists bring about a fundamental change in the country's attitude. the rise of viability threshold in candidates-- higher of which means the more radically-toned candidates we can put up and have a realistic chance-- will come about because of changes in public sentiment, general awareness of a constitutional republic etc, not because everybody whines hard enough behind another so-called political leader. go do something useful. i am.

enriquegill012
01-16-2016, 03:55 AM
Rand would be the only viable one. I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who has never won an election as a Republican before, or someone who just defected to the LP after getting last place in 2012.

brandon
01-16-2016, 08:49 AM
Rand would be the only viable one. I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who has never won an election as a Republican before, or someone who just defected to the LP after getting last place in 2012.

This is strange lol

idiom
01-21-2016, 04:03 AM
http://www.talkbass.com/attachments/zombie-thread-png.222779/
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/eb/eb0fc4b87fea9dbd1fb06a836f354bde73d0259a0a298893c1 bffb15efb70cbc.jpg
http://skyrimforums.org/sf/useralbums/1258/standalone?access_hash=8d0b171e3f