Would you vote Trump/Rand in 2020 if we don't get Rand for POTUS?

[Swordsmyth]

We all want Rand for POTUS but if we don't get it and Trump offers him the VP slot would you want him to take it?

[nikcers]

We all want Rand for POTUS but if we don't get it and Trump offers him the VP slot would you want him to take it?
So Rand gets politically tied to the every disastrous decision that he wouldn't have any control over? Nope I would rather have Rand challenging the policy in the Senate. He wouldn't have any power as VP.

[Swordsmyth]

So Rand gets politically tied to the every disastrous decision that he wouldn't have any control over? Nope I would rather have Rand challenging the policy in the Senate. He wouldn't have any power as VP.

Aren't you going to vote "No" in the poll?

[nikcers]

Aren't you going to vote "No" in the poll?
Why debate fictitious ideas like this anyways? Are you really promoting the info wars narrative that Trump is Ron Paul on steroids instead of Bush on steroids?

[asurfaholic]

Next poll:

Our savior lord trump and the pope as VP. Vote your hearts out!

[Raginfridus]

Isn't that TheTexan's dream ticket?

[specsaregood]

I can't see Randal wanting to be a cuck's cuck. I think he'd rather stay the stud in the Senate.

[TheTexan]

Isn't that TheTexan's dream ticket?

I still have no idea why Trump didn't pick him in 2016. Mike Pence is embarrassingly poor and just isnt in the same league as Trump.

Neither is Rand but at least he's closer.

[EBounding]

Yeah, sure, I'd vote for them. It's complete fantasy and a bad idea for Rand, but the most important thing is that I voted.

[Madison320]

We all want Rand for POTUS but if we don't get it and Trump offers him the VP slot would you want him to take it?

I don't like Trump, I think he gets an F on the main issue and that's shrinking government. Partly due to the massive spending increases I think there's about a 90% chance that we get the long overdue economic crash/dollar crisis before 2020 paving the way for a far left democratic sweep.

That being said I'd vote for Trump/Rand just to have Rand as VP.

[Raginfridus]

Yeah, sure, I'd vote for them. It's complete fantasy and a bad idea for Rand, but the most important thing is that I voted.

Citizen of the month, ladies and gentlemen! :P

[shakey1]

RP as VP would render him impotent.

[PierzStyx]

VP: Where parties stuff politicians to make them pointless and still seduce support from their constituency.


Not that voting matters. Republicrats and Demoblicans. They're all the same.

[Influenza]

i want a roy moore michelle bachman ticket

[kahless]

IDK. We do not know how far down the rabbit hole Trump will go and whether there will be viable 3rd party opposition. Trump certainly seems to be heading in the direction of full retard GOP-E. The same people that fought so hard to keep him out of office, the man now has his head right up their ass.

[devil21]

Rand should primary Trump.

[dannno]

I don't like Trump, I think he gets an F on the main issue and that's shrinking government. Partly due to the massive spending increases I think there's about a 90% chance that we get the long overdue economic crash/dollar crisis before 2020 paving the way for a far left democratic sweep.

That being said I'd vote for Trump/Rand just to have Rand as VP.

Ya I think he might be more effective as Senator in the short-run, but the long-term prospects at becoming President after Trump are pretty tempting.

[acptulsa]

IDK. We do not know how far down the rabbit hole Trump will go and whether there will be viable 3rd party opposition. Trump certainly seems to be heading in the direction of full retard GOP-E. The same people that fought so hard to keep him out of office, the man now has his head right up their ass.

And how many times was the suggestion made to you that they're happy to play you by pretending to hate him, but if they really hated him they'd never, ever give him constant 24/7 publicity?

Not that it matters if you ever pull your own head out or not. They won't use the same tactic in 2020, so we can all stay wilfully ignorant of how we were played in 2016 and it won't matter. Trump is publicly cozying up to Rand Paul on a regular basis. So, in all likelihood, when either the hamster in this hamster wheel dies or they deliberately trash the economy, Trump will tell the world everything went to hell because he listened to Rand Paul too often. Of course, he never once took any advice from Rand and acted on it, but neither Trump nor the media will say that.

And if that doesn't work, when a Democrat wins the media will tell Team Red that Paul and the libertarians screwed the pooch by dividing the party.


Ya I think he might be more effective as Senator in the short-run, but the long-term prospects at becoming President after Trump are pretty tempting.

Uh huh. And how are you and Swordsmyth going to turn this pipe dream into reality? By posting polls on internet forums? Because the last I checked, some clown named Pence was veep, and no sitting president has changed his running mate prior to running for reelection for about eighty years.

[Swordsmyth]

Why debate fictitious ideas like this anyways? Are you really promoting the info wars narrative that Trump is Ron Paul on steroids instead of Bush on steroids?

Because I have seen the idea mentioned and it isn't that far-fetched, I'm trying to make up my own mind and there is nothing wrong with holding the debate ahead of time.


Next poll:

Our savior lord trump and the pope as VP. Vote your hearts out!
Nope, I don't trust Trump and I hate the Pope.



I can't see Randal wanting to be a cuck's cuck. I think he'd rather stay the stud in the Senate.


RP as VP would render him impotent.


VP: Where parties stuff politicians to make them pointless and still seduce support from their constituency.


Not that voting matters. Republicrats and Demoblicans. They're all the same.
A factor I am aware of and that I implied in options 2 and 3.



i want a roy moore michelle bachman ticket
It would be better than Trump.


Rand should primary Trump.
I have said so before and will again but he may not and if he does he might not win, this poll is about what he should do if Trump is again the nominee and offers him the VP slot.


Ya I think he might be more effective as Senator in the short-run, but the long-term prospects at becoming President after Trump are pretty tempting.
That is the question to be considered, the VP is an essentially powerless position but it does give you a leg up when running for President.


Uh huh. And how are you and Swordsmyth going to turn this pipe dream into reality? By posting polls on internet forums? Because the last I checked, some clown named Pence was veep, and no sitting president has changed his running mate prior to running for reelection for about eighty years.
I'm can't and won't do anything to make it happen and I'm not sure if I want it to, but I think we should consider possibilities ahead of time so we aren't taken by surprise, I would hope that Rand has already considered the possibility and made up his mind.

[Swordsmyth]

If anyone who comes here has Rand's ear they can now inform him of his supporters' opinion on the subject. (though they might want to wait for a few more day until more people have voted)

[kahless]

And how many times was the suggestion made to you that they're happy to play you by pretending to hate him, but if they really hated him they'd never, ever give him constant 24/7 publicity?

Not that it matters if you ever pull your own head out or not. They won't use the same tactic in 2020, so we can all stay wilfully ignorant of how we were played in 2016 and it won't matter. Trump is publicly cozying up to Rand Paul on a regular basis. So, in all likelihood, when either the hamster in this hamster wheel dies or they deliberately trash the economy, Trump will tell the world everything went to hell because he listened to Rand Paul too often. Of course, he never once took any advice from Rand and acted on it, but neither Trump nor the media will say that.

And if that doesn't work, when a Democrat wins the media will tell Team Red that Paul and the libertarians screwed the pooch by dividing the party.

Uh huh. And how are you and Swordsmyth going to turn this pipe dream into reality? By posting polls on internet forums? Because the last I checked, some clown named Pence was veep, and no sitting president has changed his running mate prior to running for reelection for about eighty years.

Revisionist history, all of it. How many times did I say that it is a possibility but there are no other options other than to take the risk or vote for someone where we know exactly where she stands.

My posts on Trump were favorable or unfavorable on specific aspects of posted policy, such as the Trump-Sessions immigration plan. I am not going to oppose policy and hurl insults for policy I support simply because it is coming out of the Trump campaign, that was the #nevertrump tactic. A tactic you echoed in these forums as soon as it was released out of the Neocon think tanks. What does that say about you and your 43k posts?

If I had to do it again based on what we know now compared to the only other option being Hillary I would still vote for Trump just to keep far worse out of office.

[acptulsa]

Revisionist history, all of it. How many times did I say that it is a possibility but there are no other options other than to take the risk or vote for someone where we know exactly where she stands.

I never once saw you admit we might be right in saying they'd never give constant 24/7 publicity to someone who was anti-establishment. All I saw was you screeching that we were stupid for not noticing that the things they were saying about him were unkind.


My posts on Trump were favorable or unfavorable on specific aspects of posted policy, such as the Trump-Sessions immigration plan. I am not going to oppose policy and hurl insults for policy I support simply because it is coming out of the Trump campaign, that was the #nevertrump tactic. A tactic you echoed in these forums as soon as it was released out of the Neocon think tanks. What does that say about you and your 43k posts?

It says that I noticed it when Trump came out with a policy I hated for every policy he spouted that I liked. Which wouldn't have been so bad were he not flip-flopping contradictory policies about the same subject. He was on every side of every issue. I never echoed that, but I sure didn't waste my post count trying to cover the fact up like you did.


If I had to do it again based on what we know now compared to the only other option being Hillary I would still vote for Trump just to keep far worse out of office.

Keep implying that you didn't start using this site to campaign for Trump during the primaries, when there were still quite a few other options besides Hillary Clinton. Some of the johnny-come-latelies might just believe you.

[Ender]

And how many times was the suggestion made (to ALL) that they're happy to play you by pretending to hate him, but if they really hated him they'd never, ever give him constant 24/7 publicity?



^^THIS^^

I said this from the start. I deal with media in tons of PR & know exactly how they operate. If Trump had been a threat & hated by the establishment he would have been completely ignored.

Just. Like. Ron. Paul.

[kahless]

I never once saw you admit we might be right in saying they'd never give constant 24/7 publicity to someone who was anti-establishment. All I saw was you screeching that we were stupid for not noticing that the things they were saying about him were unkind.

says that I noticed it when Trump came out with a policy I hated for every policy he spouted that I liked. Which wouldn't have been so bad were he not flip-flopping contradictory policies about the same subject. He was on every side of every issue. I never echoed that, but I sure didn't waste my post count trying to cover the fact up like you did.


More revisionist crap. I never hurled insults or called people stupid for their opposition. Again, I was not going to trash policy I support no matter who it comes from but you still can't handle that because anything Drumpf just like in 2015. There are also posts here where I called out Trump on being contradictory but again the tactics of the opposition to Trump was to ignore that in an effort to silence and herd people accordingly. Again a tactic you tried but failed.



Keep implying that you didn't start using this site to campaign for Trump during the primaries, when there were still quite a few other options besides Hillary Clinton. Some of the johnny-come-latelies might just believe you.

My join date is 2007 long before the Trump campaign. Agreeing with some aspects of Trump policy did not mean I was campaigning for Trump over Rand. Disagreeing with how Rand ran his campaign against Trump which I believe caused him to lose does not mean that either.

Acptulsa
https://i.imgur.com/h5UD3X3.png

[acptulsa]

kahless, thank you for being honest enough to properly label your revisionist crap. Though proper use of punctuation would have entailed using a full colon, like this:


More revisionist crap:

Proper punctuation put aside, I sincerely hope doing all that spinning didn't make you dizzy.

[Influenza]

It would be better than Trump.


TALIBAN 2020

[Anti Federalist]

I'd vote for a Paul on the POTUS ticket, sure.

I'd much rather see him stay in the Senate however.

[nikcers]

More revisionist crap. I never hurled insults or called people stupid for their opposition. Again, I was not going to trash policy I support no matter who it comes from but you still can't handle that because anything Drumpf just like in 2015. There are also posts here where I called out Trump on being contradictory but again the tactics of the opposition to Trump was to ignore that in an effort to silence and herd people accordingly. Again a tactic you tried but failed.



My join date is 2007 long before the Trump campaign. Agreeing with some aspects of Trump policy did not mean I was campaigning for Trump over Rand. Disagreeing with how Rand ran his campaign against Trump which I believe caused him to lose does not mean that either.

Acptulsa
https://i.imgur.com/h5UD3X3.png

Says that guy that posted a thread entitled why not Trump as a second choice and advocated it because his immigration policies. You were schilling for Trump while Rand was still running. Instead of talking about getting more donations and supporting Rand you shit on his campaign with your fictitious immigration policy you created with strawman arguments.

[kahless]

Says that guy that posted a thread entitled why not Trump as a second choice and advocated it because his immigration policies. You were schilling for Trump while Rand was still running. Instead of talking about getting more donations and supporting Rand you shit on his campaign with your fictitious immigration policy you created with strawman arguments.

I never posted a thread like that or shilled for Trump. I posted saying Trump would be my second choice due to aspects of the very real Trump-Sessions immigration document in 2015. Rand could have done the same with his immigration plan but instead he took a left turn at the worst possible time in an anti-establishment cycle where immigration was a hot issue.

Maybe if there were more Rand supporters like me waving their arms telling Rand not to drive his campaign off a cliff by at the worst possible time ignoring immigration, economic issues and instead of focusing his time appealing to GOP-E and trying to curry favor from a small minority that will never vote for him he would have won the nomination.

But of course people like to live in bubbles and worship their candidate as infallible. You would rather wave Rand's car right off the cliff instead.

[nikcers]

I never posted a thread like that or shilled for Trump. I posted saying Trump would be my second choice due to aspects of the very real Trump-Sessions immigration document in 2015. Rand could have done the same with his immigration plan but instead he took a left turn at the worst possible time in an anti-establishment cycle where immigration was a hot issue.

Maybe if there were more Rand supporters like me waving their arms telling Rand not to drive his campaign off a cliff by at the worst possible time ignoring immigration, economic issues and instead of focusing his time appealing to GOP-E and trying to curry favor from a small minority that will never vote for him he would have won the nomination.

But of course people like to live in bubbles and worship their candidate as infallible. You would rather wave Rand's car right off the cliff instead.

Well I disagree, I think you are a liar, I think you schilled for Trump because you made people think that Rand's platform wasn't viable so it wasn't worth supporting him or giving him donations.

[enhanced_deficit]

Foreign policy is also important. Will need some more details as lately Trump seems to have become part of GOP-neocons/Javanka wing.

How will a VP Rand respond if GOP-Javanka wing domineered Trump to escalate foreign wars, interventions, spending abroad while spiking debt and budget deficits at home?


Alarm... US debt up, up, up... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519283-Alarm-US-debt-up-up-up&)Developing... Neocon Kissinger regularly calls Javanka to discuss Syria war planning?


http://video.newsserve.net/v/20170409/1704091538-Ivanka-May-Have-Convinced-Trump-To-Bomb-Syria.jpg


If GOP-neocons tried to push US further towards Syria war, GOP-conservatives should resist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519279-If-GOP-neocons-tried-to-push-US-further-towards-Syria-war-GOP-conservatives-should-resist&)

[acptulsa]

Rand did everything right that people around here were sure his father did wrong, primarily because they were convinced that was what was causing the media to ignore Ron. Then Trump did what Ron did, only stupidly and without substance, and the media covered every syllable of it, 24/7 on a hundred channels and sites. Which convinced people around here that Rand should act like an ass. So he played with a chain saw and everyone excoriated him for acting like an ass.

Yeah, whatever. The media played Republicans again, and Rand Paul has been taking the blame for it ever since. I, for one, am sick of hearing it. And now we have people trying to shove him into the most ineffectual office in all the land, even though no one has even offered him the position.

As for your actions, I bumped a few threads. People will judge for themselves. Edit: Hell, all they have to do is scroll up and down from here to see what a broken record you are.

[enhanced_deficit]

Few related comments on this issue.

Rand has made pretty good progress politically in strategic sense, immediate win of WH IMO is not a good measure of success. If Rand really wanted to become POTUS, he would have to go to after Obama as Trump did ( for some reason Rand decided to go after Trump instead during primaries, that was a big political tactical mistake for any GOP candidate in 2016 to attack the most vocal critic of GOP's "enemy #1").

Candidate Trump benefited to an extent from Ron Paul's movement, he incorporated some of the same messages as used by RP that would be "shocking" by traditional GOP standards. To give credit where due, Trump was a very effective communicator during 2016 campaign, identified what GOP base was hungry for and packaged his massage in a sort of one man show for maximum political benefit. That was an extraordinarily effective campaign he ran.

[acptulsa]

Few related comments on this issue.

Rand has made pretty good progress politically in strategic sense, immediate win of WH IMO is not a good measure of success. If Rand really wanted to become POTUS, he would have to go to after Obama as Trump did ( for some readon Rand decided to go after Trump during primaries, that was a big political tactical mistake for any GOP candidate in 2016 to attack the most vocal critic of GOP's "enemy #1").

Trump attacked everybody. He attacked other Republicans, the press, everyone under the sun but veterans and Israel.


Trump benefited to an extent from Ron Paul's movement, he incorporated some of the same messages as used by RP that would be "shocking" by traditional GOP standards. To give credit where due, Trump was a very good communicator during 2016 campaign, identified what GOP base was hungry for and pacakaged his massage for maximum political benefit. That was an extraordinarily effective campaign he ran.

The only thing extraordinary about it was the amount of free publicity he got. And that was 24/7 for about 365 days straight.

[kahless]

Few related comments on this issue.

Rand has made pretty good progress politically in strategic sense, immediate win of WH IMO is not a good measure of success. If Rand really wanted to become POTUS, he would have to go to after Obama as Trump did ( for some reason Rand decided to go after Trump instead during primaries, that was a big political tactical mistake for any GOP candidate in 2016 to attack the most vocal critic of GOP's "enemy #1").

Candidate Trump benefited to an extent from Ron Paul's movement, he incorporated some of the same messages as used by RP that would be "shocking" by traditional GOP standards. To give credit where due, Trump was a very good communicator during 2016 campaign, identified what GOP base was hungry for and pacakaged his massage for maximum political benefit. That was an extraordinarily effective campaign he ran.

Spot on. I believe most rational Paul supporters recognize this as well as people that do not support Rand or Trump. One thing you still hear allot is that attacking Trump head on was a disaster for any GOP candidate. None had the personality to pull it off. Rand as well as others should have just stuck to promoting themselves and attacking the Democrats. The perception was that by attacking Trump it made them guardians of the establishment in an anti-establishment cycle.

But to the Rand is infallible crowd here, you are now officially a Trump shill for stating the obvious.

[kahless]

Trump attacked everybody. He attacked other Republicans, the press, everyone under the sun but veterans and Israel.

The only thing extraordinary about it was the amount of free publicity he got. And that was 24/7 for about 365 days straight.

Attacking the establishment works, who would have thought that. Oh yeah, Ron Paul did in 2008. But Ron Paul less so in 2012 and Rand Paul even less in 2016.

Look at the rate of success for each of those campaigns.

[enhanced_deficit]

Now I see myself becoming a Trump critic actually : - ) Will have to see how his future policies and governance leadership unfolds, winning election is often the easy part.

I had actually stated pretty much same thoughts by starting a discussion thread in Rand Paul forum section when I first saw Rand go after Trump in a debate.

[nikcers]

Attacking the establishment works, who would have thought that. Oh yeah, Ron Paul did in 2008. But Ron Paul less so in 2012 and Rand Paul even less in 2016.

Look at the rate of success for each of those campaigns.

That's not what you said during the primary you said it was his platform, the coalition that he was building so he could have a definitive win the general, something the establishment couldn't hack.

[kahless]

Well I disagree, I think you are a liar, I think you schilled for Trump because you made people think that Rand's platform wasn't viable so it wasn't worth supporting him or giving him donations.

Hogwash and anyone doing so would have gotten banned here pretty quickly.

By the time August 2015 came around his campaign was no longer viable. One could say it really ended with the dropping his own tax plans for the chain saw moment in promotion of the Heritage Foundation tax plan. The VAT his father warned against in previous years.

Avoiding all issues other than civil liberties at that point obviously appeared to the media and the people as an educational campaign and not a winning strategy to win the Republican primary.

You want to call people liars while you live in ignorance then have at it.


That's not what you said during the primary you said it was his platform, the coalition that he was building so he could have a definitive win the general, something the establishment couldn't hack.

I said allot of things. This is a discussion forum or did you forget.

[nikcers]

Hogwash and anyone doing so would have gotten banned here pretty quickly.

By the time August 2015 came around his campaign was no longer viable. One could say it really ended with the dropping his own tax plans for the chain saw moment in promotion of the Heritage Foundation tax plan. The VAT his father warned against in previous years.

Avoiding all issues other than civil liberties at that point obviously appeared to the media and the people as an educational campaign and not a winning strategy to win the Republican primary.

You want to call people liars while you live in ignorance then have at it.

You were shitting on his platform way before his candidacy was over and I called you out on it then.

[nikcers]

Kahless's face>:( when he realizes I joined the forum to dispute his shitty arguments against Rand's platform.

[jllundqu]

Ya I think he might be more effective as Senator in the short-run, but the long-term prospects at becoming President after Trump are pretty tempting.

That's the most sense I've read in this whole thread.

[kahless]

Kahless's face>:( when he realizes I joined the forum to dispute his shitty arguments against Rand's platform.

History has since proven the many observations I made of what should and could have been done differently were correct. I cannot take all the credit since many others here have said the same things.


You were shitting on his platform way before his candidacy was over and I called you out on it then.

More like you do not have the intellectual capacity to determine what is a nuanced discussion on policy and shitting on his platform.

[nikcers]

History has since proven the many observations I made of what should and could have been done differently were correct. I cannot take all the credit since many others here have said the same things.



More like you do not have the intellectual capacity to determine what is a nuanced discussion on policy and $#@!ting on his platform.

No you made the argument that his platform was untenable, not just unelectable, that he was a cuck that was trying to destroy the country. You made the argument that he has to change his platform so that he can win the general election. When Rand was trying to build a coalition so that he could beat the establishment.

You see when you aren't part of the establishment if it is a close election they cheat the election. Rand needed a win that was indisputable by the establishment, even when Clinton's emails got hacked and their plan got leaked out you defended your actions by calling me a liar.

The John Podesta emails said that the plan was to create a pied piper candidate, force the Republicans to adopt a platform that could not win in the general election. Rand spent the entire year saying that Trump would be the worst. When the general election came around he had to endorse the nominee or get blamed on a Clinton win.

[kahless]

No you made the argument that his platform was untenable, not just unelectable, that he was a cuck that was trying to destroy the country.

Wow, that is such a blatant lie.



You made the argument that he has to change his platform so that he can win the general election. When Rand was trying to build a coalition so that he could beat the establishment.

Not even close. I believed he should focus on winning the Republican primary and NOT change his platform to appeal to a far left minority that will never vote for him in the first place. I thought he should stick to his earlier winning platform rather than adjust to please the establishment in an anti-establishment cycle.



You see when you aren't part of the establishment if it is a close election they cheat the election.


The people do not give a damn about that. They wanted an anti-establishment candidate and the average folks outside of here obviously did not see that in Rand. Some of that Rand brought it on himself in adjusting to please the establishment in 2015.



Rand needed a win that was indisputable by the establishment, even when Clinton's emails got hacked and their plan got leaked out you defended your actions by calling me a liar.

The John Podesta emails said that the plan was to create a pied piper candidate, force the Republicans to adopt a platform that could not win in the general election. ....When the general election came around he had to endorse the nominee or get blamed on a Clinton win.

Link? Maybe someone else since I have no idea what you are talking about here.



Rand spent the entire year saying that Trump would be the worst.


Like I said above for all GOP candidates it was a mistake for them to attack a master troll like Trump rather than promote their own policies and attack the opposition.

[oyarde]

I voted .

[Anti Globalist]

I'd rather have Rand keep his senate seat.

[r3volution 3.0]

I would never vote for any ticket with Trump on it, period.

If Rand joined a Trump ticket (which he never would), that would be a reason to stop supporting Rand.

[RonZeplin]

Because the last I checked, some clown named Pence was veep, and no sitting president has changed his running mate prior to running for reelection for about eighty years.

In 1976 Jerry Ford dumped Nelson Rockefeller in favor of Bob Dole as his VP running mate. Jimmiah Carter won. Of course Jerry Ford was never elected at all...

[Mach]

I would never vote for any ticket with Trump on it, period.

If Rand joined a Trump ticket (which he never would), that would be a reason to stop supporting Rand.

So what you're saying is, you're very easily controlled?

[nikcers]

So what you're saying is, you're very easily controlled?
Self control is rare these days.

[TheTexan]

I would never vote for any ticket with Trump on it, period.

If Rand joined a Trump ticket (which he never would), that would be a reason to stop supporting Rand.

Not even a Rand/Trump ticket?

Of course, Trump would never stoop so low, but still.

[TheCount]

No

[specsaregood]

Because the last I checked, some clown named Pence was veep, and no sitting president has changed his running mate prior to running for reelection for about eighty years.

Wait until Trump discovers that Pence had a hand in all the russiagate and dossier nonsense.

[parocks]

Is "I'll vote for Trump" an answer? Because that's probably what it'll be, probably will be Trump/Pence.

[Zippyjuan]

https://radio.foxnews.com/2015/07/15/dr-ron-paul-donald-trump-is-a-dangerous-person/

(Ron Paul, not Rand)


COLMES: Is Donald Trump good or bad for the Republican Party?

DR. PAUL: Well, I don't even care whether he's good or bad for the Republican Party, I don't have much interest in that per se, but I think he's is a dangerous person. And a lot of people find him sort of funny, and love him, even Libertarian types.

COLMES: Why is he dangerous?

DR. PAUL: They like him because he's so disruptive to the party system, and I enjoy that too. But I think he's a man that if conditions deteriorate, which they can, see I work on the assumption that the world is no more stable than Greece, and if those conditions come, people want to be told what to do. "And I know what the answer is, and I'll do this, and I am the man to this." And he comes across this very well, and people listen to him, and I believe he may be raising white horses someplace and he's going to ride in. Because he is almost the opposite of a Libertarian, because it's not like "I want to give you your freedom and your liberty to run your life as you choose. Your civil liberties are absolutely yours, you can't hurt anybody, it's your own money you can spend it any way you want." But he sounds like the person, "I know the answers and I'm going to do this and I've done this, I've done this, this and this."

COLMES: An authoritarian?

DR. PAUL: He's an authoritarian and that's the way he claims he made all his money. So I see that as dangerous.

[Swordsmyth]

Is "I'll vote for Trump" an answer? Because that's probably what it'll be, probably will be Trump/Pence.

That is an answer to a different question, this is a poll about what you would do if Trump offered Rand the VP slot.

[undergroundrr]

I don't vote for more war and bigger government. So no.

But I would vote for a Rand/trump ticket.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not even a Rand/Trump ticket?

No, not that either.

[acptulsa]

Not even a Rand/Trump ticket?

I like Dr. Paul. I've had enough of seeing people try to kill him.

[specsaregood]

I like Dr. Paul. I've had enough of seeing people try to kill him.

And the reverse is why you would never see a Trump/Rand ticket.