Alex Jones wants Paul-Cruz 2016

[ObiRandKenobi]

says cruz is better in some ways but he trusts rand.


Alex Jones endorses Paul-Cruz 2016: “I trust Rand Paul”

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

h/t MP (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/08/24/alex-jones-endorses-paul-cruz-2016-i-trust-rand-paul/)

[Christian Liberty]

If Rand doesn't pick someone more libertarian than himself, there will be an attempt on his life.

It may make him more electable, but its not worth it.

Pick Amash or Massie and leave the results to God.

[RonZeplin]

Alex is hoping the President Paul can get him an invitation to the Bilderberg Convention.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Alex Jones wants Paul-Cruz 2016

http://web.mit.edu/cms/bcc/blogpics/mcsex1.gif

[TaftFan]

Many view Cruz as more radical than Rand Paul based on how they speak.

[Christian Liberty]

Many view Cruz as more radical than Rand Paul based on how they speak.

Cruz is probably more radically "right" on the pure left/right spectrum. But the establishment elites know better than to gauge based on that.

[compromise]

I think Alex is more aligned with Cruz than Rand on immigration reform.

[Christian Liberty]

I think Alex is more aligned with Cruz than Rand on immigration reform.

Where do they differ on that?

Immigration isn't really that big an issue anyway.

[Sola_Fide]

No thanks.

[Christian Liberty]

No thanks.

May be the best we can hope for.

Its likely Rand will pick someone even worse than Ted Cruz, actually.

Although, if Tom Cotton is on the ticket (Since apparently Kristol said something about him) I would not vote for the ticket. Heck, I wouldn't even vote for a Ron Paul/Tom Cotton ticket.

[compromise]

Where do they differ on that?

Immigration isn't really that big an issue anyway.
Rand was pushing his trust but verify amendment. Cruz never made a statement about whether he supported it or not (he just spoke out again the Gang of 8 stuff), but he did vote not to table Rand's legislation.

[FrankRep]

I'm on board. I like Paul-Cruz 2016.

[Christian Liberty]

Prefer Paul/Amash. Although I do prefer Paul/Cruz over Paul/full blown establishment candidate.

[FrankRep]

Prefer Paul/Amash. Although I do prefer Paul/Cruz over Paul/full blown establishment candidate.

The media is going to hammer Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada.

[Uriah]

I forgot about Tom Cotton.

[FrankRep]

I forgot about Tom Cotton.

Good. Keep on forgetting about him.


Name: Tom Cotton
Congress: Arkansas, District: 4, Republican
Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 70% (http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=C001095)

[Christian Liberty]

The media is going to hammer Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada.

Yep, which is honestly justifable IMO, based on the way I interpret the Constitution. But I know its iffy, and I also really don't care that much.


I forgot about Tom Cotton.

Apparently Kristol is trying to sell him. I'd most likely vote for Rand no matter who his VP was and trust God to protect him, unless it was Tom Cotton. Tom Cotton scares me that much.

That said, I don't believe Rand would ever pick Tom Cotton.

[TheTyke]

We need to get Amash in as speaker of the House if we're worried about the line of succession, not on the presidential ticket...

I am more concerned hearing Cruz's wife is CFR than working for Goldman-Sachs. I'm not ruling him out, but extreme caution is recommended. Besides, don't you usually prefer someone from a swing-state?

[Christian Liberty]

We need to get Amash in as speaker of the House if we're worried about the line of succession, not on the presidential ticket...

I am more concerned hearing Cruz's wife is CFR than working for Goldman-Sachs. I'm not ruling him out, but extreme caution is recommended. Besides, don't you usually prefer someone from a swing-state?

Anti Federalist.

He's in NH, isn't he? Swing state:p

[TheTyke]

Anti Federalist.

He's in NH, isn't he? Swing state:p

Haha! That's awesome :)

[FrankRep]

I am more concerned hearing Cruz's wife is CFR than working for Goldman-Sachs. I'm not ruling him out, but extreme caution is recommended. Besides, don't you usually prefer someone from a swing-state?

Ted Cruz: The Council on Foreign Relations is a "Pit of Vipers" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4


Heidi S. Cruz and her CFR connections:


Politico.com: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/A_pit_of_vipers_also_his_wife.html)


Well, Cruz should know: The candidate's wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year "term membership" program, an official at the organization confirmed.

UPDATE: A reader notes that in addition to her term membership at the CFR, Heidi Cruz served on the task force that wrote "Building a North American Community," a report (http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102) from CFR on relations between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

[Warlord]

Cruz's wife also wrote a passage in a book "thank you George W. Bush" (!) and of course worked in his White House.

[TheTyke]

Interesting Frank... the plot thickens. I just read the report, and it was dreadful. So is it direct knowledge of the dangers of the CFR, or is it pandering? Don't I recall that Reagan spoke against the CFR - prior to getting elected and filling his administration with them? No denying Cruz has been helpful so far, but...

[Dr.3D]

I'm more concerned that Cruz might be a wolf in sheep's clothing and will attempt to co-op Rand for President.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Does the nominee even get to pick his running mate? I'm sure TPTB in the RNC have a lot of influence.

Chances are, whoever Rand's running mate is, most folks here won't be happy.

[LibertyEagle]

May be the best we can hope for.

Its likely Rand will pick someone even worse than Ted Cruz, actually.

Although, if Tom Cotton is on the ticket (Since apparently Kristol said something about him) I would not vote for the ticket. Heck, I wouldn't even vote for a Ron Paul/Tom Cotton ticket.

And you are basing that on what, exactly?

[LibertyEagle]

UPDATE: A reader notes that in addition to her term membership at the CFR, Heidi Cruz served on the task force that wrote "Building a North American Community," a report from CFR on relations between the United States, Mexico and Canada.

HOLY CRAP if that is true. Not good at all!!!!!!!!!!

[TheTyke]

HOLY CRAP if that is true. Not good at all!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, she's listed in the article's credits on the CFR website - Frank linked to it above.

[jkob]

Cruz would be a fantastic running mate, he's brilliant and would destroy whoever he would face in a debate. Maybe he could help with the Hispanic vote too. I know some of you guys dislike Cruz but he'd be near the top of the list for me for VP.

[FrankRep]

HOLY CRAP if that is true. Not good at all!!!!!!!!!!

I posted this many times before. Keep up LibertyEagle. :-p

[eduardo89]

I'm on board. I like Paul-Cruz 2016.

Me too, it would be an amazing ticket.

[puppetmaster]

THE JUDGE!

[eduardo89]

THE JUDGE!

No. The Judge on the ticket is a recipe for losing the election. I'm a huge fan of Judge Nap, but he is not electable at all.

[LibertyEagle]

Ted Cruz: The Council on Foreign Relations is a "Pit of Vipers" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4)

Heidi S. Cruz and her CFR connections:


Politico.com: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/A_pit_of_vipers_also_his_wife.html)


Well, Cruz should know: The candidate's wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year "term membership" program, an official at the organization confirmed.

UPDATE: A reader notes that in addition to her term membership at the CFR, Heidi Cruz served on the task force that wrote "Building a North American Community," a report (http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102) from CFR on relations between the United States, Mexico and Canada.



I'm on board. I like Paul-Cruz 2016.

You support a North American Union, do you Frank?

[eduardo89]

You support a North American Union, do you Frank?

I support free trade and close diplomatic relations between Canada, USA, and Mexico. I support a certain level of economic integration, such as removal of restrictions on the movement of capital and goods.

[LibertyEagle]

I support free trade and close diplomatic relations between Canada, USA, and Mexico. I support a certain level of economic integration, such as removal of restrictions on the movement of capital and goods.

Personally, I don't want the U.S. being in something akin to the European Union. Ron Paul is fervently against this too.

You do realize that Robert Pastor, who chaired that committee, admitted that the plan involved all 3 countries giving up their sovereignty.

I think you may want to research what has happened in the countries where unions have happened. They connect them by huge highways, if the countries are adjacent, they establish a kind of union parliamentary body, they entangle them economically and in the end, they replace their individual Constitutions. Congratulations, you have just lost your country and if you think you have little impact on the various levels of government we have now, get ready for a "union" ruling body, which is often not elected by the people.

[Christian Liberty]

And you are basing that on what, exactly?

An establishment VP or a hardcore social conservative is probably tactically smart. I could almost imagine him picking something like Santorum, to appeal to those demographics.

[LibertyEagle]

An establishment VP or a hardcore social conservative is probably tactically smart. I could almost imagine him picking something like Santorum, to appeal to those demographics.

No way. He would never do that.

[eduardo89]

Personally, I don't want the U.S. being in something akin to the European Union. Ron Paul is fervently against this too.

I hate what the EU has become. I am completely opposed to fiscal or political union and the ensuing transfer of sovereignty to Brussels that has happened.

I do, however, think that without some sort of economic pact, such as a customs union and common market zone, Europe cannot compete with the world's other economic superpowers such as the US and China.

Edit: wtf LE?! You neg rep me because I said I support the removal of trade barriers between Canada, US, and Mexico?

[eduardo89]

An establishment VP or a hardcore social conservative is probably tactically smart. I could almost imagine him picking something like Santorum, to appeal to those demographics.

Santorum is completely unelectable, not just in the general election but in a national GOP primary, as we saw in 2012. Santorum has less electability than Ron Paul.

[LibertyEagle]

I hate what the EU has become. I am completely opposed to fiscal or political union and the ensuing transfer of sovereignty to Brussels that has happened.

I do, however, think that without some sort of economic pact, such as a customs union and common market zone, Europe cannot compete with the world's other economic superpowers such as the US and China.
But, yet you are in support of a NA Union as discussed in Building a North American Community that the CFR put out?


Edit: wtf LE?! You neg rep me because I said I support the removal of trade barriers between Canada, US, and Mexico?

I neg repped you (and don't act like you have never neg repped me) because you were in support of the NA Union.

[69360]

I like the idea, but two southern white men won't win the election. Rand needs a minority and/or a woman.

[eduardo89]

But, yet you are in support of a NA Union as discussed in Building a North American Community that the CFR put out.

I neg repped you (and don't act like you have never neg repped me) because you were in support of the NA Union.

Where did I say I support the NA Union? I don't support political and fiscal unions between countries, read what I said about the EU. I support free trade, though, which is what I said. The removal on restrictions on the movement of capital and goods is what Ron Paul supports...

[Uriah]

Santorum is completely unelectable, not just in the general election but in a national GOP primary, as we saw in 2012. Santorum has less electability than Ron Paul.

I concur.

[Christian Liberty]

No way. He would never do that.

I hope you're right.


Santorum is completely unelectable, not just in the general election but in a national GOP primary, as we saw in 2012. Santorum has less electability than Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did get in second IIRC, so I tend to agree with you. I think an establishment/Romney/Christie type is more likely. As down as I've been on Cruz, I'd actually be somewhat happy to see him get picked, rather than someone even worse. Although I'd much rather someone like Amash. Not sure why Nap would be "unelectable" in the #2 slot but it wouldn't really help Rand and I don't think he would do that. I wish he'd pick someone like Amash mostly because I fear someone would try to assassinate him if it would lead to someone less libertarian getting into the White House.

[LibertyEagle]

Where did I say I support the NA Union? I don't support political and fiscal unions between countries, read what I said about the EU. I support free trade, though, which is what I said. The removal on restrictions on the movement of capital and goods is what Ron Paul supports...

The CFR's Building a North American Community is MUCH more than that, Eduardo. I want no entangling; including economically and no, Ron Paul does not support any sort of economic integration.

[eduardo89]

The CFR's Building a North American Community is MUCH more than that, Eduardo. I want no entangling; including economically and no, Ron Paul does not support any sort of economic integration.

Where did I say I support CFR's vision for a North American Community? All I said is I support economic integration between the USA, Mexico, and Canada in the form of abolishing restrictions on the free flow of capital and goods. Ron Paul certainly supports that.

[supermario21]

Walker, Martinez, or Kasich. Rand will need someone on the ticket that proves Rand wants to "govern." Walker is definitely the best of the 3, Kasich can swing Ohio, and Martinez is Hispanic. Also, governors are less likely to be ideologues on foreign policy.

[eduardo89]

Walker, Martinez, or Kasich. Rand will need someone on the ticket that proves Rand wants to "govern." Walker is definitely the best of the 3, Kasich can swing Ohio, and Martinez is Hispanic. Also, governors are less likely to be ideologues on foreign policy.

Kasich isn't very popular in Ohio these days. It will be Walker or Martinez, if I'd have to put my money on someone.

[LibertyEagle]

Where did I say I support CFR's vision for a North American Community? All I said is I support economic integration between the USA, Mexico, and Canada in the form of abolishing restrictions on the free flow of capital and goods. Ron Paul certainly supports that.

Look at what you quoted when you responded with your wish for economic integration, Eduardo. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it sure sounded like it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425283-Alex-Jones-wants-Paul-Cruz-2016&p=5193185&viewfull=1#post5193185

[supermario21]

Kasich isn't very popular in Ohio these days. It will be Walker or Martinez, if I'd have to put my money on someone.

I don't like Kasich, but his Quinnipiac approval is 56 percent and he was up by 16 over his 2014 opponent. I like Walker much more (he's much more fiscally conservative).

[Tywysog Cymru]

I'm still hoping for Paul/Carson 2016.

[eduardo89]

Look at what you quoted when you responded with your wish for economic integration, Eduardo. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it sure sounded like it.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425283-Alex-Jones-wants-Paul-Cruz-2016&p=5193185&viewfull=1#post5193185

What is wrong with:

1) Free trade;
2) Close and friendly diplomatic relations;
3) Removing restrictions on the movement of capital and goods?

[eduardo89]

I don't like Kasich, but his Quinnipiac approval is 56 percent and he was up by 16 over his 2014 opponent. I like Walker much more (he's much more fiscally conservative).

In PPP's latest poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/08/ohioans-skeptical-about-kasich-2016-and-more.html)(yes, I realize they are democrat pollsters) Kasich does worse than Christie, Bush, Rand, and Paul Ryan in a head-to-head match with Clinton in Ohio.

[LibertyEagle]

What is wrong with:

1) Free trade;
2) Close and friendly diplomatic relations;
3) Removing restrictions on the movement of capital and goods?

Again, the CFR's Building a North American Community is much more than that. Have you read it?

But, let's take what you said and look at it. NAFTA is NOT free trade; is is managed trade and Ron Paul most certainly is against that.

You also mentioned some level of "economic integration". I don't call free trade, even if that was what we had and it is not, economic integration. Why would this be integrating anything? Sovereign nations can actually trade with each other without giving up one ounce of their sovereignty.

If when saying free travel, you are saying open borders, no Ron Paul does not agree with that. Most certainly not unless the welfare state was ended and that isn't going to be happening anytime soon.

[eduardo89]

Again, the CFR's Building a North American Community is much more than that. Have you read it?

Where did I support CFR's plan?


But, let's take what you said and look at it. NAFTA is NOT free trade; is is managed trade and Ron Paul most certainly is against that.

Where did I support NAFTA?


You also mentioned some level of "economic integration". I don't call free trade, even if that was what we had and it is not, economic integration. Why would this be integrating anything? Sovereign nations can actually trade with each other without giving up one ounce of their sovereignty.

Where did I say give up any sovereignty?

An agreement between 3 countries to remove restrictions on the flow of capital and goods, while not extending that same preferential treatment to the rest of the world certainly is a form of economic integration.


If when saying free travel, you are saying open borders, no Ron Paul does not agree with that. Most certainly not unless the welfare state was ended and that isn't going to be happening anytime soon.

Where do I say anything about free flow of labor or open immigration?

[LibertyEagle]

Eduardo, economic integration implies giving up some level of sovereignty. You must know that. It would likely include a regional trading authority that would sit above our own elected governments.

As far as how I got the idea that you supported the CFR's plan for a NA Union goes...
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?425283-Alex-Jones-wants-Paul-Cruz-2016&p=5193185&viewfull=1#post5193185

[eduardo89]

Eduardo, economic integration implies giving up some level of sovereignty. You must know that and would likely include a regional trading authority that would sit above our own elected governments.

No it does not. Economic integration does not have to involve the government at all. What you are against is fiscal, monetary, and regulatory integration.

Example of economic integration:
Mexico and USA remove all restrictions on trade in sugar between the two countries. A Mexican chocolate bar company stops buying sugar from Brazil and now buys sugar from American farmers. The Mexican chocolate bar industry and the US sugar industry are now more economically integrated. No sovereignty is lost in this case.

Example of fiscal integration:
Mexico and USA create commission which overseas both nations' federal budgets to make sure they comply with certain rules.

Example of monetary integration:
The Federal Reserve and Bank of Mexico cede monetary policy to a Bank of North America.

Example of regulatory integration:
Mexico and USA merge their respective departments of transportation which mandates uniform rules on crash safety regulations binding on both nations.

But please, answer this post:


What is wrong with:

1) Free trade;
2) Close and friendly diplomatic relations;
3) Removing restrictions on the movement of capital and goods?

Which is what I said in the post you neg repped. Also tell me where I supported CFR's plan or NAFTA.

[LibertyEagle]

OMG, Eduardo, how many times do I have to say it. Look at the initial post you quoted. It very much appeared like you were in support of at least part of what the CFR had advocated.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

[eduardo89]

OMG, Eduardo, how many times do I have to say it. Look at the initial post you quoted. It very much appeared like you were in support of at least part of what the CFR had advocated.

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

Where did I agree with the CFR? All I said is I support the removal of restrictions on the movement of capital and goods.

[ManOfSteel]

An establishment VP or a hardcore social conservative is probably tactically smart. I could almost imagine him picking something like Santorum, to appeal to those demographics.

I would bet every penny I have against Santorum getting picked as Rand's VP.

[Brett85]

If Rand doesn't pick someone more libertarian than himself, there will be an attempt on his life.

It may make him more electable, but its not worth it.

Pick Amash or Massie and leave the results to God.

He isn't going to pick Massie since Massie is from the same state. The only person Rand could realistically pick who would be more libertarian than him is Amash. I wouldn't complain about Rand picking Cruz as his VP pick. It would be a lot better than a Rubio, Christie, Walker, etc as VP.

[puppetmaster]

No. The Judge on the ticket is a recipe for losing the election. I'm a huge fan of Judge Nap, but he is not electable at all.

He is very electable and certantly knows how to sell himself. Why would you say he was not electable? I think he is much more likable across the isles than Cruz.

[Brett85]

He is very electable and certantly knows how to sell himself. Why would you say he was not electable? I think he is much more likable across the isles than Cruz.

He has positions that would never fly with Republican voters, like supporting completely open borders. It's better for Rand to pick more of a right-leaning libertarian like Amash, or a libertarian-leaning conservative like Cruz.

[eduardo89]

He is very electable and certantly knows how to sell himself. Why would you say he was not electable? I think he is much more likable across the isles than Cruz.

He's a truther, he supports open borders, he's basically an anarchist...

[Carlybee]

Could not support any ticket with Cruz on it. I somehow doubt that would happen though. I honestly don't like discussing things like this so early..I think it might be a jinx.

[Brett85]

Could not support any ticket with Cruz on it. I somehow doubt that would happen though. I honestly don't like discussing things like this so early..I think it might be a jinx.

Do you realize that 99% of Rand's other possible VP picks would be worse than Cruz? The only one that would be better on the issues would be Amash.

[FrankRep]

Ted Cruz: The Council on Foreign Relations is a "Pit of Vipers" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfAHy_UrqH4


Heidi S. Cruz and her CFR connections:


Politico.com: (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1011/A_pit_of_vipers_also_his_wife.html)


Well, Cruz should know: The candidate's wife, Heidi S. Cruz, was an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations until this June. She was a member until June on a 5-year "term membership" program, an official at the organization confirmed.

UPDATE: A reader notes that in addition to her term membership at the CFR, Heidi Cruz served on the task force that wrote "Building a North American Community," a report (http://www.cfr.org/canada/building-north-american-community/p8102) from CFR on relations between the United States, Mexico and Canada.


I'm on board. I like Paul-Cruz 2016.

You support a North American Union, do you Frank?

Heidi Cruz was a 5-year term CFR Task Force member analyzing the economic side of the CFR's "North American Community," which is indeed troubling, however, I doubt she's one of those scheming Globalist "World Government" CFR types. She's no longer a CFR Task force member because her 5-year term is now over.

I think it's wrong to punish Ted Cruz because of the actions of his wife and plus Ted Cruz has already called out the CFR as a "pit of vipers."

I'm having a hard time figuring out Ted Cruz' position on "Free Trade" and NAFTA. That could be his downfall perhaps.

[Brett85]

I'm having a hard time figuring out Ted Cruz' position on "Free Trade" and NAFTA. That could be his downfall perhaps.

I would imagine that he doesn't view it as being actual free trade or what we ultimately want our trade policy to be, but just thinks that it's a step in the right direction since it lowers or eliminates certain tariffs.

[Christian Liberty]

He isn't going to pick Massie since Massie is from the same state. The only person Rand could realistically pick who would be more libertarian than him is Amash. I wouldn't complain about Rand picking Cruz as his VP pick. It would be a lot better than a Rubio, Christie, Walker, etc as VP.

I forgot he couldn't pick Massie for that reason. I'd like to see a Paul/Amash ticket. Amash is Palestinian as well, isn't he? That could help him with Muslims in the general.

Regarding Cruz, I'd still vote for a Paul/Cruz ticket as long as Rand was on top, but I wouldn't be thrilled with it either.


He's a truther, he supports open borders, he's basically an anarchist...

I can live with that:p


Could not support any ticket with Cruz on it. I somehow doubt that would happen though. I honestly don't like discussing things like this so early..I think it might be a jinx.

I don't really like Cruz, but I could still support Rand Paul if Cruz was the VP. I'd just hope Rand kept his security around him at all times, and tight...


Do you realize that 99% of Rand's other possible VP picks would be worse than Cruz? The only one that would be better on the issues would be Amash.

Well, there are a lot of possible VP picks that would be better than Ted Cruz that he "could" pick. There's Ron Paul, there's virtually anyone on this forum who's over 35, there's Judge Napolitano, there's Lew Rockwell, Walter Block, I could go on all day with names...

But Amash is the only one that is even remotely realistic.


I would imagine that he doesn't view it as being actual free trade or what we ultimately want our trade policy to be, but just thinks that it's a step in the right direction since it lowers or eliminates certain tariffs.

How do you know that? Ted Cruz is definitely not an across the board liberty candidate, why do you assume he has to be on this?

[Brett85]

How do you know that? Ted Cruz is definitely not an across the board liberty candidate, why do you assume he has to be on this?

I don't know. I just disagree with Frank and a few others who basically say that anyone who supports the kind of free trade agreements passed by Congress don't support "actual free trade." I don't think that's true. I think you can believe that the ultimate ideal of free trade is to have trade between countries with no tariffs on imports and exports and no government regulation, but still think that government managed trade with lower or no tariffs is still better than the status quo. I don't know for sure if that's Cruz's position, however.

[FrankRep]

I don't know. I just disagree with Frank and a few others who basically say that anyone who supports the kind of free trade agreements passed by Congress don't support "actual free trade." I don't think that's true. I think you can believe that the ultimate ideal of free trade is to have trade between countries with no tariffs on imports and exports and no government regulation, but still think that government managed trade with lower or no tariffs is still better than the status quo. I don't know for sure if that's Cruz's position, however.

Ron Paul is the one who called NAFTA "government-managed" trade and not "free trade" so you really can't blame us for siding with Ron Paul.


Ron Paul: Oppose Free Trade Agreements like NAFTA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLRuMHAK_w)


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

[Brett85]

Ron Paul is the one who called NAFTA "government-managed" trade and not "free trade" so you really can't blame us for siding with Ron Paul.

I wouldn't call NAFTA and similar trade agreements "free trade" either. I don't think anyone here would call a 1,500 page bill of rules and regulations "free trade." At the same time, the issue isn't whether those types of trade agreements are actual "free trade" or not, but whether those types of trade agreements represent an improvement over the status quo or not.

[FrankRep]

I wouldn't call NAFTA and similar trade agreements "free trade" either. I don't think anyone here would call a 1,500 page bill of rules and regulations "free trade." At the same time, the issue isn't whether those types of trade agreements are actual "free trade" or not, but whether those types of trade agreements represent an improvement over the status quo or not.

Henry Kissinger would call NAFTA an "improvement," in fact, he thinks that "free trade" agreements like NAFTA will lay the foundation for global government. He is indeed correct, especially when looking at the European Union as the model for the U.S. and other countries.



NAFTA -- it will represent the most creative step towards a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the cold war. The revolution sweeping the Western hemisphere points to an international order based on cooperation. It is this revolution that is at stake in the ratification of NAFTA. What congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement, but the Architecture of a new international system.
- Henry Kissinger, Los Angeles Times, 1993

[LibertyEagle]

I don't know. I just disagree with Frank and a few others who basically say that anyone who supports the kind of free trade agreements passed by Congress don't support "actual free trade." I don't think that's true. I think you can believe that the ultimate ideal of free trade is to have trade between countries with no tariffs on imports and exports and no government regulation, but still think that government managed trade with lower or no tariffs is still better than the status quo. I don't know for sure if that's Cruz's position, however.

Do you agree with having a world trading body that sits above our own Congress? That is what the World Trading Organization is.

[LibertyEagle]

Heidi Cruz was a 5-year term CFR Task Force member analyzing the economic side of the CFR's "North American Community," which is indeed troubling, however, I doubt she's one of those scheming Globalist "World Government" CFR types. She's no longer a CFR Task force member because her 5-year term is now over.

I think it's wrong to punish Ted Cruz because of the actions of his wife and plus Ted Cruz has already called out the CFR as a "pit of vipers."

I'm having a hard time figuring out Ted Cruz' position on "Free Trade" and NAFTA. That could be his downfall perhaps.

That, and his close affiliation with the Bush family.

[Carlybee]

Do you realize that 99% of Rand's other possible VP picks would be worse than Cruz? The only one that would be better on the issues would be Amash.

I think Cruz will run against him in the primary. I think he will have a lot of big money backing him. I dont think he wants to be anyones VP.

[puppetmaster]

He's a truther, he supports open borders, he's basically an anarch...

No he is a constitutionalist. Not an anarchist.

Funny when wanting to know the truth or speaking the truth becomes a stigma on this board especially from so called conservatives.

[jtstellar]

have had back and forth with some of jones' listeners before

however i have always had some positive thoughts on jones and his character.. and really liked his outburst on piers morgan. it sort of set an emotional tone others were able to carry forward with additional intellectual adornments. he was also a great defender of rand against doubters from very early on

[compromise]

I support the Korea, Colombia & Panama free trade agreements for the same reason Rand and Amash do - they are better for American businesses than what existed prior to them.

I don't agree with NAFTA, but I do think a less restrictive free trade agreement would be viable. It's a slippery slope argument to say that large free trade agreements always lead to political union.

The EU formed after the Second World War prevent future wars by creating a common coal and steel market so nations would not have the resources to wage war. Later on, political union and federalism was also brought in, under the guise that it would also help prevent war as technology advanced beyond coal and steel. Then they started making the argument that in order to compete against the other superpowers and emerging superpowers, small European countries had to unite. Similar story with the African Union after the large conflicts there. North America has not had such large scale conflicts in recent history, so it would be extremely hard to argue for political union and the US is already in itself a world superpower and a huge country both in geography and population, so arguing that the US needs to in order to take on China/Russia is generally regarded as a moot point. Canada is a close ally and even Mexico has a fairly good relationship at the moment.

[compromise]

I don't think Judge Nap is an anarchist. He supports a lot of mainstream liberty leaning Repubs that an anarchist definitely would not.

Actually, now I think of it, Walter Block and Murray Rothbard were quite politically pragmatic compared to many people on here. I suspect some on here are more agorist.

[Brett85]

Do you agree with having a world trading body that sits above our own Congress? That is what the World Trading Organization is.

No. I wish we could just have unrestricted free trade with other countries with no tax on imports or exports. But like compromise said above, Rand and Amash voted for the Korea and Panama trade agreements on the basis that these agreements were an improvement over what we had before, not that they were perfect. From what I've read, the multilateral trade agreements like NAFTA and TPP are worse than the bilateral agreements, and I imagine that Rand will probably vote against TPP, but I'm not sure.

[ManOfSteel]

I don't think Judge Nap is an anarchist. He supports a lot of mainstream liberty leaning Repubs that an anarchist definitely would not.

I'm an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist and support a lot of mainstream liberty-leaning Republicans.


Actually, now I think of it, Walter Block and Murray Rothbard were quite politically pragmatic compared to many people on here. I suspect some on here are more agorist.

I'm not sure "agorist" is the word I'd use. =P

[Brett85]

I'm an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist and support a lot of mainstream liberty-leaning Republicans.

Really? You sound basically like a rank and file Republican with most of your posts.

[FrankRep]

I wouldn't call NAFTA and similar trade agreements "free trade" either. I don't think anyone here would call a 1,500 page bill of rules and regulations "free trade." At the same time, the issue isn't whether those types of trade agreements are actual "free trade" or not, but whether those types of trade agreements represent an improvement over the status quo or not.

Here's an explosive statement from Ron Paul about NAFTA and other "Free Trade" agreements:


CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system."
- Ron Paul


SOURCE:

More Government, Less Free Trade (http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/06/ron-paul/more-government-less-free-trade/)


Ron Paul | LewRockwell.com
June 7, 2005


CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty. When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you firsthand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union. Hundreds of tax bills languish in the House Ways and Means committee, while the one bill drafted strictly to satisfy the WTO was brought to the floor and passed with great urgency last year.

The tax bill in question is just the tip of the iceberg. The quasi-judicial regime created under CAFTA will have the same power to coerce our cowardly legislature into changing American laws in the future. Labor and environmental rules are inherently associated with trade laws, and we can be sure that CAFTA will provide yet another avenue for globalists to impose the Kyoto Accord and similar agreements on the American people. CAFTA also imposes the International Labor Organization’s manifesto, which could have been written by Karl Marx, on American business. I encourage every conservative and libertarian who supports CAFTA to read the ILO declaration and consider whether they still believe the treaty will make America more free.

CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body. It is incompatible with our Constitution and national sovereignty, and we don’t need it to benefit from international trade.

[ManOfSteel]

Really? You sound basically like a rank and file Republican with most of your posts.

Yes, really. I agree with David Friedman more often than I do any other figure with whom I'm familiar. Second place is probably a tie between Richard Epstein and Milton Friedman. What have I said that makes you think I sound like a rank and file Republican?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Funny when wanting to know the truth or speaking the truth becomes a stigma on this board especially from so called conservatives.

"Wanting to know the truth" is not the same thing as making up fantastical stories about what happened and trying to shove them down others' throats as the gospel truth.

[TaftFan]

"Wanting to know the truth" is not the same thing as making up fantastical stories about what happened and trying to shove them down others' throats as the gospel truth.

I think its funny how so many people stumbled upon the truthers, and automatically assumed they were truthful because of their name. LOL

[FrankRep]

I think its funny how so many people stumbled upon the truthers, and automatically assumed they were truthful because of their name. LOL

Just like the Patriot Act. :p

[Brett85]

Yes, really. I agree with David Friedman more often than I do any other figure with whom I'm familiar. Second place is probably a tie between Richard Epstein and Milton Friedman. What have I said that makes you think I sound like a rank and file Republican?

Saying that Chris Christie is a conservative, for one thing. Also, weren't you arguing for a fairly interventionist, hawkish policy towards Iran in another thread?

Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

[Southron]

Where do they differ on that?

Immigration isn't really that big an issue anyway.

Immigration is big enough for many conservatives to throw Rubio under the bus after he supported the Gang of 8 bill.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Immigration is big enough for many conservatives to throw Rubio under the bus after he supported the Gang of 8 bill.

it's not really the immigration part that bugs me.

first of all he lied about it. second of all he claimed he opposed large obamacare-type bills. third of all when you point out its flaws he lies about it.

so it's just like how can you trust the guy? what a creep.

[ObiRandKenobi]

I would bet every penny I have against Santorum getting picked as Rand's VP.

remember santorum's mean handshake?

[ManOfSteel]

Saying that Chris Christie is a conservative, for one thing.

I stand by that. I think calling him a conservative is more accurate than calling him a progressive. He's certainly more moderate/further to the left than most members of the Republican base, but he's more conservative than any prominent member of the Democratic party that I can name.


Also, weren't you arguing for a fairly interventionist, hawkish policy towards Iran in another thread?

Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else.

Doesn't sound like me, though I may have been playing devil's advocate; I do that a lot. I support a non-interventionist foreign policy, but I don't pretend to be absolutely 100% certain that this is the correct thing to do. Foreign policy, like virtually all other political issues, is so insanely complicated that I don't believe anyone can know for sure what the best decision to make is in almost any situation. In general, I am dismayed and disappointed by the tendency people have to treat politics like religion and often strive to poke holes in their ideology, regardless of what it is (even if they agree with me, it is almost always the case that their reasons for doing so are flawed).

[ManOfSteel]

remember santorum's mean handshake?

Yeah, how is there not a gif of that somewhere on the internet? That was such a gif-worthy moment.

[LibertyEagle]

I stand by that. I think calling him a conservative is more accurate than calling him a progressive. He's certainly more moderate/further to the left than most members of the Republican base, but he's more conservative than any prominent member of the Democratic party that I can name.

Bull. He's a big 'ol big government leftist. He's not conservative at all.

[ManOfSteel]

Bull. He's a big 'ol big government leftist. He's not conservative at all.

You think he and everyone to the left of him should be in the Democratic Party, then?

[LibertyEagle]

You think he and everyone to the left of him should be in the Democratic Party, then?

Not the point. You called him a conservative and he isn't. He reminds me of a Rockefeller-Republican, actually, which are much more aligned with leftists in the Democratic Party than they are Paleoconservatives.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Immigration is big enough for many conservatives to throw Rubio under the bus after he supported the Gang of 8 bill.

But not big enough for the GOP to avoid nominating McCain and Romney.

McCain was and is the GOP's #1 amnesty pimp, for crying out loud.

[ManOfSteel]

Not the point. You called him a conservative and he isn't. He reminds me of a Rockefeller-Republican, actually

I agree with the bolded text, I said that I thought he was a Rockefeller Republican too. I view the conservative label as being much broader than you do, apparently. I think it encompasses most people on the political right who reliably vote for and support Republicans. Something like 30-40% of Americans self-identify as conservative.


which are much more aligned with leftists in the Democratic Party than they are Paleoconservatives.

(1) Paleoconservatives are a small minority of all conservatives and so cannot reasonably be the standard-bearers for the "conservative" label generally.

(2) Ignoring (1), if you think Rockefeller Republicans are more aligned with Democrats than Paleoconservatives, then DO you think they belong in the Democratic Party? I realize this question is "not the point" or whatever, but I'm still curious.

[ManOfSteel]

But not big enough for the GOP to avoid nominating McCain and Romney.

McCain was and is the GOP's #1 amnesty pimp, for crying out loud.

Romney wasn't, though. He was the most anti-immigration candidate the GOP has seen in awhile.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Romney wasn't, though. He was the most anti-immigration candidate the GOP has seen in awhile.

i don't think conservatives believed him though. can't imagine a Free Republic, anti-immigration guy voting for mitt romney because of his position to illegal immigration.

the problem is a lot of democrats and minorities did believe him.

[thoughtomator]

Paul-Cruz would pretty much guarantee at least an assassination attempt on Paul. I don't think Rand is stupid enough to do that. Not quite as bad as having Hillary as your VP (Obama probably saved his life by not picking her), but still it's an invitation I don't want to see.

Look at what Obama did. Anyone kills him, the guy replacing him is every bit as nasty - so killing him wouldn't solve any problems for someone pursuing an agenda. It's life insurance.

Contrast to Reagan, who had the sinister Bush as his running mate. Bush was not at all similar to Reagan and there was much to be gained in some sectors by giving Hinckley the go.

A VP pick needs to be life insurance. It needs to be a person who is even worse for anyone who would want to kill you, than you are yourself. Right now I favor Judge Andrew Napolitano as Paul's VP. Napolitano has national name recognition and broad respect in the media and among the public, and should circumstances arise that made him President, he would not be better for the kinds of people who program assassins than Paul would be.

[ManOfSteel]

i don't think conservatives believed him though. can't imagine a Free Republic, anti-immigration guy voting for mitt romney because of his position to illegal immigration.

the problem is a lot of democrats and minorities did believe him.

I think conservatives for the most part did believe him. I don't claim that tons of people consciously voted for him because of his position on illegal immigration, but I'm very confident that if he had taken the opposite position (open borders) he would not have won the nomination. So on the margin it must have mattered.

[enhanced_deficit]

No way I would support a Syria invading greazed neocon tool Raphael Ted Cruz on the ticket.
Thought Alex Jones was not neocons planted "controlled opposition"... if posts here would love to debate this with him.

[jtstellar]

Paul-Cruz would pretty much guarantee at least an assassination attempt on Paul. I don't think Rand is stupid enough to do that. Not quite as bad as having Hillary as your VP (Obama probably saved his life by not picking her), but still it's an invitation I don't want to see.

Look at what Obama did. Anyone kills him, the guy replacing him is every bit as nasty - so killing him wouldn't solve any problems for someone pursuing an agenda. It's life insurance.

Contrast to Reagan, who had the sinister Bush as his running mate. Bush was not at all similar to Reagan and there was much to be gained in some sectors by giving Hinckley the go.

A VP pick needs to be life insurance. It needs to be a person who is even worse for anyone who would want to kill you, than you are yourself. Right now I favor Judge Andrew Napolitano as Paul's VP. Napolitano has national name recognition and broad respect in the media and among the public, and should circumstances arise that made him President, he would not be better for the kinds of people who program assassins than Paul would be.

interesting take

[Peace&Freedom]

A VP pick needs to be life insurance. It needs to be a person who is even worse for anyone who would want to kill you, than you are yourself. Right now I favor Judge Andrew Napolitano as Paul's VP. Napolitano has national name recognition and broad respect in the media and among the public, and should circumstances arise that made him President, he would not be better for the kinds of people who program assassins than Paul would be.

We also should push for Napolitano as VP in order to queue him up to be the liberty Republican contender for 2020, should Rand (or whatever liberty candidate) fail in 2016. If Rand doesn't pick him, but he becomes the LP candidate in 2016 as some claim, he still should get enough notoriety to contend in the GOP primaries in '20.

[Anti-Neocon]

Stop arguing over what a "conservative" is. Nobody will ever agree on a definition and so many different political sects fight over the right to use the term to describe their own politics because they know a high percentage of the population identify as such.

Even in mainstream American politics, what constitutes being severely conservative has drastically changed over the years.

[ObiRandKenobi]

what constitutes being severely conservative has drastically changed over the years.

Fantastic.

[Brett85]

No way I would support a Syria invading greazed neocon tool Raphael Ted Cruz on the ticket.
Thought Alex Jones was not neocons planted "controlled opposition"... if posts here would love to debate this with him.

The only other realistic VP pick for Rand who is better on the issues than Cruz is Amash. Cruz would be better than a lot of Rand's other potential VP picks, in my opinion.

[TaftFan]

I will point out some disadvantages of picking Cruz.

1-He is a lawyer and looks and sounds like the sterotype portrays.
2-He is viewed as combative and extreme.
3-2/3 of our best Senators would be gone if this was the ticket.
4-Citizenship confusion.
5-Inexperience in politics.

[FrankRep]

I will point out some disadvantages of picking Cruz.

1-He is a lawyer and looks and sounds like the sterotype portrays.
2-He is viewed as combative and extreme.
3-2/3 of our best Senators would be gone if this was the ticket.

4.) He was born in Canada. The media will hammer him on that.

[Brett85]

I will point out some disadvantages of picking Cruz.

1-He is a lawyer and looks and sounds like the sterotype portrays.
2-He is viewed as combative and extreme.
3-2/3 of our best Senators would be gone if this was the ticket.
4-Citizenship confusion.
5-Inexperience in politics.

Then in my opinion, Amash would be the best VP pick for Rand. I just don't think that Rand could pick some ordinary, establishment Republican for VP. I think he would have to pick someone who is similar to him ideologically, because it wouldn't work for the Pres. nominee and the VP nominee to have different positions on the issues and different messages. There's also the danger that Rand could be assassinated, and then you could end up with an establishment, big government Republican as President. That's why I think Rand's VP pick needs to be at least as libertarian as him, and the only realistic VP pick who would be at least as libertarian as Rand is Amash. I also think that Amash has a lot of other things going for him.

1) He's young and would help Rand with the youth vote.
2) He's from the swing state of Michigan.
3) He is a minority-non white and could possibly help with the minority vote.
4) He would be a fresh face and would add excitement to the race.
5) He's good looking, and would be liked by young women, and he would likely become a pop culture icon. (As sad as it is, people actually care about superficial things like that)

[TaftFan]

On assassination, there is also the possibility the Prez and VP could be targeted whenever they are together.

[Brett85]

On assassination, there is also the possibility the Prez and VP could be targeted whenever they are together.

Which would make it important to at least get a decent speaker of the house, like Jim Jordan.

[mosquitobite]

Paul-Cruz would pretty much guarantee at least an assassination attempt on Paul. I don't think Rand is stupid enough to do that. Not quite as bad as having Hillary as your VP (Obama probably saved his life by not picking her), but still it's an invitation I don't want to see.

Look at what Obama did. Anyone kills him, the guy replacing him is every bit as nasty - so killing him wouldn't solve any problems for someone pursuing an agenda. It's life insurance.

Contrast to Reagan, who had the sinister Bush as his running mate. Bush was not at all similar to Reagan and there was much to be gained in some sectors by giving Hinckley the go.

A VP pick needs to be life insurance. It needs to be a person who is even worse for anyone who would want to kill you, than you are yourself. Right now I favor Judge Andrew Napolitano as Paul's VP. Napolitano has national name recognition and broad respect in the media and among the public, and should circumstances arise that made him President, he would not be better for the kinds of people who program assassins than Paul would be.

For many, that would mean Palin ;)

[ObiRandKenobi]

lolsssss

Heartache: Ted Cruz won't rule out being on a ticket with Chris Christie... (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/08/25/heartache-ted-cruz-wont-rule-out-being-on-a-ticket-with-chris-christie/)

[Brett85]

lolsssss

Heartache: Ted Cruz won't rule out being on a ticket with Chris Christie... (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/08/25/heartache-ted-cruz-wont-rule-out-being-on-a-ticket-with-chris-christie/)

Would Rand Paul rule out being on a ticket with Chris Christie?

[FrankRep]

Would Rand Paul rule out being on a ticket with Chris Christie?

Chris Christie won't even have a beer with Rand Paul so I'm guessing being on the same ticket is ruled out as well.

[eduardo89]

Would Rand Paul rule out being on a ticket with Chris Christie?

Probably not and he's said he would support the 2016 nominee, even if it is Christie.

[eduardo89]

No he is a constitutionalist. Not an anarchist.

Funny when wanting to know the truth or speaking the truth becomes a stigma on this board especially from so called conservatives.

I like Napolitano and highly respect him, I'm just pointing out that he's, sadly, unelectable.

And he's much more radical in his views than being merely a constitutionalist. He believes that all taxation is theft and immoral, he is much closer to being an anarchist than a constitutionalist.

[LibertyEagle]

Stop arguing over what a "conservative" is. Nobody will ever agree on a definition and so many different political sects fight over the right to use the term to describe their own politics because they know a high percentage of the population identify as such.

Even in mainstream American politics, what constitutes being severely conservative has drastically changed over the years.

The same thing could be said about the definition of a libertarian.

[ObiRandKenobi]

The same thing could be said about the definition of a libertarian.

"it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is"

[Community Disorganizer]

Well I am unsure what to think of the Cruzer. I mean, he literally sprang out of nowhere. Just when the impeachment talk was heating up. Could it be a ruse set up by the left to divert Americas attention and ease the "birther" pressure off of the muslim?

[FrankRep]

Well I am unsure what to think of the Cruzer. I mean, he literally sprang out of nowhere. Just when the impeachment talk was heating up. Could it be a ruse set up by the left to divert Americas attention and ease the "birther" pressure off of the muslim?


http://strangeherring.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/picard_facepalm.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Well I am unsure what to think of the Cruzer. I mean, he literally sprang out of nowhere. Just when the impeachment talk was heating up. Could it be a ruse set up by the left to divert Americas attention and ease the "birther" pressure off of the muslim?

What??? ROFL

[fr33]

I would vote for a Paul Cruz ticket but I would not vote for a Cruz ____ ticket.

[enhanced_deficit]

I will point out some disadvantages of picking Cruz.

1-He is a lawyer and looks and sounds like the sterotype portrays.
2-He is viewed as combative and extreme.
3-2/3 of our best Senators would be gone if this was the ticket.
4-Citizenship confusion.
5-Inexperience in politics.

He doesn't seem too combative or extreme based on vids I have seen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9u1sLQRZuQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9u1sLQRZuQ

In contrast, this is example of combative:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs-Sn7V1zg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs-Sn7V1zg

[Virgil]

http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruzs-father-i-dont-see-him-running-for-president/article/2534686

Take it for what you will.

-Virgil

[whoisjohngalt]

Rand/Cruz has been in the works for awhile. This is the ticket.

[KingNothing]

If Rand doesn't pick someone more libertarian than himself, there will be an attempt on his life.



lol

[Christian Liberty]

lol

I'm not kidding, I have no doubt the establishment and the banksters will stoop that low.

[Christian Liberty]

Immigration is big enough for many conservatives to throw Rubio under the bus after he supported the Gang of 8 bill.

That's true, but its not a huge issue for me. My problem with Rubio is foreign policy predominately, not so much immigration.

Paul-Cruz would pretty much guarantee at least an assassination attempt on Paul. I don't think Rand is stupid enough to do that. Not quite as bad as having Hillary as your VP (Obama probably saved his life by not picking her), but still it's an invitation I don't want to see.

Look at what Obama did. Anyone kills him, the guy replacing him is every bit as nasty - so killing him wouldn't solve any problems for someone pursuing an agenda. It's life insurance.

Contrast to Reagan, who had the sinister Bush as his running mate. Bush was not at all similar to Reagan and there was much to be gained in some sectors by giving Hinckley the go.

A VP pick needs to be life insurance. It needs to be a person who is even worse for anyone who would want to kill you, than you are yourself. Right now I favor Judge Andrew Napolitano as Paul's VP. Napolitano has national name recognition and broad respect in the media and among the public, and should circumstances arise that made him President, he would not be better for the kinds of people who program assassins than Paul would be.

You've got it, although Napolitano would probably be too radical for the average American to stomach. VP Amash at least might get through.


We also should push for Napolitano as VP in order to queue him up to be the liberty Republican contender for 2020, should Rand (or whatever liberty candidate) fail in 2016. If Rand doesn't pick him, but he becomes the LP candidate in 2016 as some claim, he still should get enough notoriety to contend in the GOP primaries in '20.

Again, I don't think he's electable.


The only other realistic VP pick for Rand who is better on the issues than Cruz is Amash. Cruz would be better than a lot of Rand's other potential VP picks, in my opinion.

I agree with picking Amash.


Then in my opinion, Amash would be the best VP pick for Rand. I just don't think that Rand could pick some ordinary, establishment Republican for VP. I think he would have to pick someone who is similar to him ideologically, because it wouldn't work for the Pres. nominee and the VP nominee to have different positions on the issues and different messages. There's also the danger that Rand could be assassinated, and then you could end up with an establishment, big government Republican as President. That's why I think Rand's VP pick needs to be at least as libertarian as him, and the only realistic VP pick who would be at least as libertarian as Rand is Amash. I also think that Amash has a lot of other things going for him.

1) He's young and would help Rand with the youth vote.
2) He's from the swing state of Michigan.
3) He is a minority-non white and could possibly help with the minority vote.
4) He would be a fresh face and would add excitement to the race.
5) He's good looking, and would be liked by young women, and he would likely become a pop culture icon. (As sad as it is, people actually care about superficial things like that)

Agree.


On assassination, there is also the possibility the Prez and VP could be targeted whenever they are together.

True, but that's less likely.


Would Rand Paul rule out being on a ticket with Chris Christie?

I doubt it, but I wouldn't vote for the ticket if Christie was on top.


Probably not and he's said he would support the 2016 nominee, even if it is Christie.

Of course he does. He has to. We don't.

[FrankRep]

If Rand doesn't pick someone more libertarian than himself, there will be an attempt on his life.

I'm not kidding, I have no doubt the establishment and the banksters will stoop that low.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up.gif

[ManOfSteel]

I'm not kidding, I have no doubt the establishment and the banksters will stoop that low.

No doubt whatsoever? Would you be willing to bet your entire net worth plus $250,000 of debt against a penny that if Rand wins the presidency with a less-libertarian VP there will be an assassination attempt before his term is up?

[compromise]

No doubt whatsoever? Would you be willing to bet your entire net worth plus $250,000 of debt against a penny that if Rand wins the presidency with a less-libertarian VP there will be an assassination attempt before his term is up?

Wait, he has any net worth?

[eduardo89]

Wait, he has any net worth?

His parents' basement is prime real estate to the majority of the libertarian community.

[Christian Liberty]

No doubt whatsoever? Would you be willing to bet your entire net worth plus $250,000 of debt against a penny that if Rand wins the presidency with a less-libertarian VP there will be an assassination attempt before his term is up?

I'd sooner bet all my net worth plus 250,000 dollars of debt that Rand Paul is not going to be the next President, but no, I wouldn't make that bet. Of course not.

When I say "I don't doubt it" I don't mean "Absolutely certain."

Stop nitpicking every single thing I say.


Wait, he has any net worth?

When all is said and done, a few thousand in college money.

[Christian Liberty]

His parents' basement is prime real estate to the majority of the libertarian community.

LOL!

I'm currently on the second floor, and this house isn't my parents house:p

[ManOfSteel]

I'd sooner bet all my net worth plus 250,000 dollars of debt that Rand Paul is not going to be the next President, but no, I wouldn't make that bet. Of course not.

When I say "I don't doubt it" I don't mean "Absolutely certain."

Stop nitpicking every single thing I say.

Quit saying things you don't mean, and I won't have to.