Rand Paul: Electing Gollum should not be our objective

[garyallen59]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/electing-gollum-should-not-be-our-objective/10154006377868054


One candidate on this national stage wants you to give him power. He tells you he is rich, so he must be smart.

If you give him power he claims he will fix America, but there is another tradition in America. A tradition that believes that power corrupts, and that our goal should be not to gain power but to contain power or limit Presidential power. Our founding fathers feared centralization of power.

They wrote the constitution to restrain the accumulation of power by the government. Trump is ignorant of this tradition, or worse yet, he is overtly opposed to the limited government tradition.

This race should not be about who can grasp the ring. Electing Gollum should not be our objective. This race should be about which candidate will best protect you from an overbearing government.

I am the only one on this national stage who really doesn't want power or dominion over you. I want to set you free, I want to leave you alone, and I want a government so small you can barely see it.

Rand Paul

[kbs021]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/electing-gollum-should-not-be-our-objective/10154006377868054

Great stuff!

[wizardwatson]

Besides, everybody knows Rand is who this task was appointed to.

He has Frodo's hair.

[DJH73]

Rand and Ron remind me of that uncle or aunt who sees that you are doing wrong and keeps dropping hints to shape up, hoping that you will figure it out and change course.

[georgiaboy]

http://www.elginpk.com/worsley1213_2/anderson/mountdoom.gif

[SWATH]

Randalf 2016!

[Peace&Freedom]

One question---what if the story is not Lord of the Rings? What if it's Dante's Inferno, and you have to climb the Devil's legs to get out of hell (overbearing government)? Are we in the right story, and is it a epic fantasy, a horror movie, a tragedy or a comedy?

Given the overwhelming difficulties and institutional barriers Ron and Rand have had to encounter in three Presidential campaigns trying to win on their own, with no primaries won to date, could the only realistic path to the White House be through Rand becoming the running mate of Trump (AKA, climbing the Devil's legs)?

[randbot16]

One question---what if the story is not Lord of the Rings? What if it's Dante's Inferno, and you have to climb the Devil's legs to get out of hell (overbearing government)? Are we in the right story, and is it a epic fantasy, a horror movie, a tragedy or a comedy?

Given the overwhelming difficulties and institutional barriers Ron and Rand have had to encounter in three Presidential campaigns trying to win on their own, with no primaries won to date, could the only realistic path to the White House be through Rand becoming the running mate of Trump (AKA, climbing the Devil's legs)?

If one more person suggests that Rand be Trump's running mate I think I will lose my mind. First of all, a Trump presidency will have the lowest possible approval ratings of all time. Second, a Trump presidency won't happen, Trump is in this for Hillary. Third, Rand would accomplish far more in the Senate, for America and for his political career than he would being Trump's right hand man.

Of all the ideas, this one is the most ludicrous, and Rand has already shot it down definitively.

[CaptUSA]

Is this Rand capitalizing on the Hobbit comparisons?

[CPUd]

He's been mentioning hobbitses lately in his stump speeches. I think it is some kind of inside joke they have going in the Senate.

[moraha]

If one more person suggests that Rand be Trump's running mate I think I will lose my mind. First of all, a Trump presidency will have the lowest possible approval ratings of all time. Second, a Trump presidency won't happen, Trump is in this for Hillary. Third, Rand would accomplish far more in the Senate, for America and for his political career than he would being Trump's right hand man.

Of all the ideas, this one is the most ludicrous, and Rand has already shot it down definitively.

Seriously...I honestly think Rand wouldn't want to be ANYONE's VP...when he has his mind set on a certain issue, he seems to never want to budge. Unless someone has the exact policies as him, I highly doubt he'll want to be that person's VP.

[Peace&Freedom]

If one more person suggests that Rand be Trump's running mate I think I will lose my mind. First of all, a Trump presidency will have the lowest possible approval ratings of all time. Second, a Trump presidency won't happen, Trump is in this for Hillary. Third, Rand would accomplish far more in the Senate, for America and for his political career than he would being Trump's right hand man.

Of all the ideas, this one is the most ludicrous, and Rand has already shot it down definitively.

Whether or not Rand changes his mind, that doesn't rebut the point that it may be the most realistic scenario for a liberty candidate winning a major party nomination and election as President. To all appearances, Trump looks like he will be winning most of the early primaries and will be on his way to victory, while it looks like Rand will not be winning them.

I've suggested an alternative scenario where if Trump is becoming the prospective nominee, Rand and the GOP leadership reach an agreement permitting Rand to run third party so as to defeat Trump in November, or get him to quit the race over seeing the Presidential victory blocked from him. In return, Rand gets the inside track in 2020, or made the substitute choice at this year's convention if Trump quits.

Farfetched? We'll see, but the current point remains, our candidates have not been succeeding doing things the straightforward way. The story of how we actually obtain victory may have to vary from the story we want to imagine we are in.

[CaptUSA]

To all appearances
Um, no. Only the appearances to which you must be paying attention. You can create your own reality, but I choose to live in the real world.

[jmdrake]

Whether or not Rand changes his mind, that doesn't rebut the point that it may be the most realistic scenario for a liberty candidate winning a major party nomination and election as President. To all appearances, Trump looks like he will be winning most of the early primaries and will be on his way to victory, while it looks like Rand will not be winning them.

There hasn't been a single primary yet. When Trump loses Iowa, and he will lose it, his air of inevitability will begin to deflate. Also Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Most independents can't stand Donald Trump. People are foolishly equating his appeal to republicans with appeal to everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. And tying Rand to the Trumpmobile would be a recipe for presidential obscurity. When's the last time you heard of someone who was the VP on a losing ticket actually going on to win the presidency in a subsequent year? The problem is that Rand would be tied to every horrid Donald Trump proposal out there just like Sarah Palin got tied to John McCain's support of the bailout.

No. The best thing for Rand to do would be to absolutely refuse to be Donald Trump's running mate or Ted Cruz' running mate or anyone else's running mate. Bad bad idea.

[jmdrake]

This calls for someone with better photshop (GIMP actually) skills.

http://i41.tinypic.com/21j4z1g.jpg

[randbot16]

Whether or not Rand changes his mind, that doesn't rebut the point that it may be the most realistic scenario for a liberty candidate winning a major party nomination and election as President. To all appearances, Trump looks like he will be winning most of the early primaries and will be on his way to victory, while it looks like Rand will not be winning them.

I've suggested an alternative scenario where if Trump is becoming the prospective nominee, Rand and the GOP leadership reach an agreement permitting Rand to run third party so as to defeat Trump in November, or get him to quit the race over seeing the Presidential victory blocked from him. In return, Rand gets the inside track in 2020, or made the substitute choice at this year's convention if Trump quits.

Farfetched? We'll see, but the current point remains, our candidates have not been succeeding doing things the straightforward way. The story of how we actually obtain victory may have to vary from the story we want to imagine we are in.

I think a pause in speculation is in order until the Iowa Caucuses, as I think Rand really has a shot at winning. Trump's campaign doesn't have a clue how to win Iowa Caucuses, Rand has a ground game years in the making. The balance of momentum could completely change going into NH if Rand wins Iowa.

What I can assure you of, is that Rand isn't even on the list of possible VPs for Trump if he gets the nomination (which he won't). You're buying the MSM narrative of this election (or lack thereof since there hasn't been a single vote cast) assuming Trump is poised to win it all.

[Peace&Freedom]

I think a pause in speculation is in order until the Iowa Caucuses, as I think Rand really has a shot at winning. Trump's campaign doesn't have a clue how to win Iowa Caucuses, Rand has a ground game years in the making. The balance of momentum could completely change going into NH if Rand wins Iowa.

What I can assure you of, is that Rand isn't even on the list of possible VPs for Trump if he gets the nomination (which he won't). You're buying the MSM narrative of this election (or lack thereof since there hasn't been a single vote cast) assuming Trump is poised to win it all.

In 2004 Dean had the best ground game of all Democrats running in IA, but still got slaughtered by Kerry. in 2012 Ron had the best ground game and the lead, but got beaten by a final week media-inflated surge for Santorum. Ground game is not everything. Trump being poised to win is NOT the narrative the MSM wants, as evidenced by plans to launch a third party candidacy in light of Trump's prospective victory. They probably would be planning the same if Rand was in the position Trump is in now:


George Will Warns Of Conservative Third Party Candidate If Trump Wins GOP Nomination
Jamie Weinstein
Senior Editor
10:20 PM 01/19/2016

George Will says conservatives will not go silently into the night if Donald Trump wins the Republican presidential nomination.

The conservative columnist said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Tuesday that if the GOP nominates Trump, he and other conservatives will likely defect and support a conservative third party candidate.

“You would have to also figure that there would be movement to have a third party candidate because if the election is Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, this will be the first election since God knows when there was no real conservative candidate,” Will said. “And I don’t think those of us who started our political careers — and I cast my vote for Barry Goldwater, who valued that classic, creative defeat of his because he took the Republican Party and said, ‘henceforth it will be a conservative party.'”

“Those of us who feel that way are not about to sit idly and see the Republican Party — which was saved by William Howard Taft in 1912 for conservatism, that was reclaimed by Barry Goldwater in 1964 for conservatism — we’re not going to let it disappear in 2016.”

Other prominent conservatives have indicated they would not support Trump if he is the Republican nominee. Like Will, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol has also discussed the possibility of getting behind a conservative third party candidate if Trump wins the GOP nomination.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/19/george-will-warns-of-conservative-third-party-candidate-if-trump-wins-gop-nomination/#ixzz3xoGRXG4e

[RonPaulMall]

Whether or not Rand changes his mind, that doesn't rebut the point that it may be the most realistic scenario for a liberty candidate winning a major party nomination and election as President. To all appearances, Trump looks like he will be winning most of the early primaries and will be on his way to victory, while it looks like Rand will not be winning them.

Farfetched? We'll see, but the current point remains, our candidates have not been succeeding doing things the straightforward way. The story of how we actually obtain victory may have to vary from the story we want to imagine we are in.

There have been a grand total of three liberty runs for the nomination of the Republican Party. Two by a guy who doesn't even pretend to make an effort at electoral politicking and another by a guy who may have run the worst campaign in the history of politics. And based on that limited track record you are throwing in the towel?! Trump's performance this time around is proof positive that it is possible to take on the establishment and win.

Rand accepting a position as Trump's running mate would take him from a position in the Senate where he has enormous power to the utterly impotent and useless VP position. And for what? The hope that Trump might die? Not worth it. Rand needs to keep his Senate seat and let somebody else (hopefully someone with better political skills) run for the Presidency next time around.


As for Trump, I think Rand's analysis is totally off. If somebody like Rubio or Christie won, the GOP House and Senate would just blindly rubber stamp whatever they want done (including war with Russia and Iran and Amnesty for Illegals). With Trump in office, the tendency to defer to the Republican President on everything will not be nearly as strong. For the first time in nearly a half century you will see a Congress acting like it is an independent branch of the government rather than a vassal of the Executive.

[randbot16]

in 2012 Ron had the best ground game and the lead, but got beaten by a final week media-inflated surge for Santorum. Ground game is not everything.

Not true. First they said Romney won, then Santorum, then weeks (months?) later it was determined that Ron actually won. This was because Ron did not have enough chairs and Republican officials on his side in Iowa and the RNC / Media screwed him out of an outright victory. I feel like Rand has more overseers than Ron, and has the best shot to win Iowa. What I don't get is you being down on Rand's chances. We have to win this for him. He can't do it alone. We have to have his back for him to beat the establishment. Trump is establishment, don't delude yourself. A Trump/Rand ticket would be the death of the liberty movement, at least as far as presidential politics are concerned.

[Influenza]

This calls for someone with better photshop (GIMP actually) skills.

http://i41.tinypic.com/21j4z1g.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Blaziken130/rondalf_zpsr5sgemfg.png

here you go

[LibertyEagle]

Whether or not Rand changes his mind, that doesn't rebut the point that it may be the most realistic scenario for a liberty candidate winning a major party nomination and election as President. To all appearances, Trump looks like he will be winning most of the early primaries and will be on his way to victory, while it looks like Rand will not be winning them.

I've suggested an alternative scenario where if Trump is becoming the prospective nominee, Rand and the GOP leadership reach an agreement permitting Rand to run third party so as to defeat Trump in November, or get him to quit the race over seeing the Presidential victory blocked from him. In return, Rand gets the inside track in 2020, or made the substitute choice at this year's convention if Trump quits.

Farfetched? We'll see, but the current point remains, our candidates have not been succeeding doing things the straightforward way. The story of how we actually obtain victory may have to vary from the story we want to imagine we are in.

One problem. The establishment wants Rand to win even less than they do Trump.

[nikcers]

One problem. The establishment wants Rand to win even less than they do Trump.

Also, some of us want us want to make the establishment lose even more then they want Rand to win. Some of us can't decide whether or not Trump is bad.

Turkish court torn over whether Gollum's a good guy or a bad guy (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/01/rand-paul-compares-donald-trump-to-gollum)





Turkish man Bilgin Çiftçi worked in the nation's public health service until he was fired — for releasing pictures of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan alongside images of Gollum. Çiftçi is now being tried in Turkish court for insulting the president.

But here's the tricky part: The court needs more time to determine whether Çiftçi's images were actually offensive. As the Associated Press writes (http://news.yahoo.com/turkish-court-asks-gollum-good-bad-130036324.html), it has ruled that it needs "a committee of experts" to examine the character in order to resolve whether he's good or bad. Which, as any Lord of the Rings fan knows, is a fairly complicated question.

[randbot16]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Blaziken130/rondalf_zpsr5sgemfg.png

here you go

That's almost TOO good. Rand and Ron look shockingly not that different from Frodo and Gandolf.

[Peace&Freedom]

Not true. First they said Romney won, then Santorum, then weeks (months?) later it was determined that Ron actually won. This was because Ron did not have enough chairs and Republican officials on his side in Iowa and the RNC / Media screwed him out of an outright victory. I feel like Rand has more overseers than Ron, and has the best shot to win Iowa. What I don't get is you being down on Rand's chances. We have to win this for him. He can't do it alone. We have to have his back for him to beat the establishment. Trump is establishment, don't delude yourself. A Trump/Rand ticket would be the death of the liberty movement, at least as far as presidential politics are concerned.

Ron lost IA in the crucial campaign momentum or PR sense, in establishing to voters that he could win a popular vote. Instead, the media rolled on with "Romney wins Iowa" so the perception "Ron can't win" remained firmly in place. By the time Ron's 'delegate' win was reported it didn't matter---Mitt/Santorum got the mo, Ron got none, and thus no other wins. The same dynamic is in place this time, as without a high place finish in February, somewhere, Rand cannot establish himself as a plausible contender to win the contests going forward. We can hope for the best in IA, but it's looking bad, don't delude yourself.

Of course Trump is establishment. He's simply presented as a more anti-establishment candidate than Rand has, and has done the things an anti-establishment guy is supposed to do, that Rand chose not to do. Trump has acted as a useful foil for us, a bad guy beating up the other bad guys, that has kept Rand's primary chances alive in a race that would have otherwise have been dominated by Bush and/or the establishment machine.


There have been a grand total of three liberty runs for the nomination of the Republican Party. Two by a guy who doesn't even pretend to make an effort at electoral politicking and another by a guy who may have run the worst campaign in the history of politics. And based on that limited track record you are throwing in the towel?! Trump's performance this time around is proof positive that it is possible to take on the establishment and win.

I have brought up the "three straight liberty candidate defeats" points not in terms of ignoring that Ron did not run to win, and Rand did not run a good race, but in terms of the bottom line of primary wins. Ron didn't just not run to win the race, he didn't win a single primary. Rand seems to not just be running a bad race, it's looking like he won't win a single primary. They didn't just not win or get to the finish line, they didn't get anywhere. If you can't get to first base, it's a straightforward indication that you can't win the game.

Yes, Trump has clearly shown effective ways to take on the establishment, and even destroy the elite big donor grip on the primary machine, but Rand has shown no interest in taking that path, unless forced upon him (as with the establishment excluding him from the prime time debate). Not throwing in the towel, but just saying, if this is how the Pauls want to operate, then as much as we like their voting records, and after three tries, their campaign approach appears to not be the way to achieve a liberty victory at the national level.

[randbot16]

Of course Trump is establishment. He's simply presented as a more anti-establishment candidate than Rand has, and has done the things an anti-establishment is supposed to do, that Rand chose not to do. Trump has acted as a useful foil for us, a bad guy beating up the other bad guys, that has kept Rand's primary chances alive in a race that would have otherwise have been dominated by Bush and/or the establishment machine.

Can't tell you just how wrong you are on this. Trump is turning what would have been a legitimate primary into a joke, and given the media so much material for distraction, and is basically turning as much of the electorate off from the republican party as possible to ensure a Clinton victory. Trump has done more damage to Rand's chances than good. You can't compare Trump to Rand.

You can say absolutely anything you want when you don't care, and your goal is to destroy the image of what you claim to represent. He's controlled the debate to the point that you and I are even having this discussion. Its sad. He's a professional actor, an insider, and I can all but guarantee the end result is Hillary Clinton as president when the dust settles. The status quo will continue, and it will be because of "anti-establishment" Trump.

[nikcers]

Can't tell you just how wrong you are on this. Trump is turning what would have been a legitimate primary into a joke, and given the media so much material for distraction, and is basically turning as much of the electorate off from the republican party as possible to ensure a Clinton victory. Trump has done more damage to Rand's chances than good. You can't compare Trump to Rand.

You can say absolutely anything you want when you don't care, and your goal is to destroy the image of what you claim to represent. He's controlled the debate to the point that you and I are even having this discussion. Its sad. He's a professional actor, an insider, and I can all but guarantee the end result is Hillary Clinton as president when the dust settles. The status quo will continue, and it will be because of "anti-establishment" Trump.

Do you see Gollum as a villain? Can you see why kids love cinnamon toast crunch?

[Peace&Freedom]

There hasn't been a single primary yet. When Trump loses Iowa, and he will lose it, his air of inevitability will begin to deflate. Also Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Most independents can't stand Donald Trump. People are foolishly equating his appeal to republicans with appeal to everyone. Nothing could be further from the truth. And tying Rand to the Trumpmobile would be a recipe for presidential obscurity. When's the last time you heard of someone who was the VP on a losing ticket actually going on to win the presidency in a subsequent year? The problem is that Rand would be tied to every horrid Donald Trump proposal out there just like Sarah Palin got tied to John McCain's support of the bailout.

No. The best thing for Rand to do would be to absolutely refuse to be Donald Trump's running mate or Ted Cruz' running mate or anyone else's running mate. Bad bad idea.

The polls this month show Trump beating Hillary. And he seems to have driven both Clintons to silence on their "GOP war on women" rhetoric (though Trump appears to have stolen Rand's tactics on the issue). Trump beating Sanders is even easier--does anybody think a single swing state will go for a socialist? And if Rand was a sitting VP, he would still have his ability to attract independents to count on, in addition to the power of the incumbent White House behind him towards winning a future primary race.

The point of discussing the prospect of Rand as a VP, whatever the positives or negatives, is that by all indications our liberty candidate needs leverage from somewhere in order to succeed. Be it from being the VP, or running third party, or riding a major trend like the non-establishment mood of this cycle, etc, we have to use something. Using nothing, so far, gets us nowhere.



You can say absolutely anything you want when you don't care, and your goal is to destroy the image of what you claim to represent. He's controlled the debate to the point that you and I are even having this discussion. Its sad. He's a professional actor, an insider, and I can all but guarantee the end result is Hillary Clinton as president when the dust settles. The status quo will continue, and it will be because of "anti-establishment" Trump.

To repeat, we need leverage in order to win. I have been making this point since two years ago, before Trump was on the radar. I earlier proposed the fusion candidacy option to give Rand the positioning he needed, but he chose not to run third party. Rand could have also aggressively courted a reachable voting bloc like the social right, the way Cruz has, but he chose not to.

Rand could have exposed the role of covert ops in manipulating mass opinion and policy, in order to preemptively shut down the war hawks from false flagging us back into war-on-terror fear mode, but he chose not to (thus making his less-interventionism case seem irrelevant to most voters). See the pattern? No big voting blocs courted, no mainstream narratives confronted, equals no votes. Same goes for the outsider trend. Trump simply stumbled onto the anti-establishment wave that Rand should have rode, but didn't. It is that emerged voting bloc that is the issue of this race, not Trump, Cruz or Carson.

P.S.: "Not a single vote has been cast, so we can't summarily dismiss Rand's chances." Fine. But it's a bit inconsistent to go from that to saying "Trump has no chance to win against Hillary" when not a single vote has been cast.

[Joeinmo]

Besides, everybody knows Rand is who this task was appointed to.

He has Frodo's hair.

yep I'm pretty sure Gollum has the comb over like Trump