Rand Paul to seek re-election to US Senate, presidential run pending

[Gage]

It's official! Rand Paul is running for re-election to the US Senate in 2016! He has received the endorsement of the entire Republican Kentucky delegation, including McConnell and Agriculture Commissioner James Comer.

Presidential announcement is still pending, and the decision will likely be announced in 4 to 6 months.

http://www.randpaul2016.com/2014/12/...to-u-s-senate/

[phill4paul]

Now this is how you post about Rand's big decision. I nominate this one as the "official thread", 5 star and plus rep it. Thanks Gage!

[philipped]

The REALLLLLLYYYYY big announcement is officially coming soon now....

[willwash]

Did you contemplate how starting this thread might negatively impact the candidate or the message? Please tell me you vetted this through the proper authorities first.

[staerker]

I never understood why he is seriously considering both. I don't see it working politically.

If he runs for both, people will say he is divided (which he is,) and not being serious about the process. If he drops out of one to continue the other, he will be called a flippant quitter, who again, is not serious about the process.

Who would want to donate to either campaign, knowing that he might drop either on a whim? Which one would you donate to?

[philipped]

If he keeps the Senate and doesn't go the White House I'll still be actively working to make the Republican Party more libertarian. It just makes it A LOT easier if Rand does by making my presence and his correlation to it an actual reality. But it's ok.

[cajuncocoa]

This is how it's done, Matt.

[Root]

Now this is how you post about Rand's big decision. I nominate this one as the "official thread", 5 star and plus rep it. Thanks Gage!

I did the same and thanks Gage.

[r3volution 3.0]

I never understood why he is seriously considering both. I don't see it working politically.

If he runs for both, people will say he is divided (which he is,) and not being serious about the process. If he drops out of one to continue the other, he will be called a flippant quitter, who again, is not serious about the process.

The people criticizing Rand for this are the same people who criticize him for Aqua Buddha or plagiarism or other petty nonsense, i.e. people who'd never vote for him anyway who are just looking for something to justify their bias against him. Screw them, they don't matter. Making sure that he keeps his Senate seat if he loses his bid for the Presidency is what matters.

[Krugminator2]

I never understood why he is seriously considering both. I don't see it working politically.

If he runs for both, people will say he is divided (which he is,) and not being serious about the process. If he drops out of one to continue the other, he will be called a flippant quitter, who again, is not serious about the process.

Who would want to donate to either campaign, knowing that he might drop either on a whim? Which one would you donate to?

Any person who runs for President is unlikely to win. He is being rational. Paul Ryan ran for VP and didn't give up his seat. Joe Biden ran for President and Senate reelection and then was on the VP ticket. The same was true for Joe Lieberman. And it doesn't logically make sense to oppose running for two offices at the same because it shows a lack of commitment and yet be perfectly fine with current office holders running for President. In both cases running for President takes away from focus on their current job.

[Nolan]

I'm still hoping that Rand would sit out of 2016 prez bid for several reasons. First being the economy is going into another recession cycle and the executive branch will be the scapegoat. I don't want Rand to be the scapegoat. I would much prefer Rand to stay in the senate as he's the only liberty-minded one there. Second, I don't think the country hasn't seen it clearly yet. Maybe it will take another financial breakdown of the economy for people to see the business cycles of boom and bust that the Austrian economists have been preaching.

What I prefer to see, as cynical as I have become, is that Hilary and Jeff Bush are the final nominees. Not that I prefer chaos from such result. But it will however, I think, make the American people become cynical like I am and see politics for what it is. Which is a bowl of vomits by politicians, sprinkled with salt and spice, then served to the American people.

[willwash]

I'm still hoping that Rand would sit out of 2016 prez bid for several reasons. First being the economy is going into another recession cycle and the executive branch will be the scapegoat. I don't want Rand to be the scapegoat. I would much prefer Rand to stay in the senate as he's the only liberty-mind one there. Second, I don't think the country hasn't seen it clearly yet. Maybe it will take another financial breakdown of the economy for people to see the business cycles of boom and bust that the Austrian economists have been preaching.

What I prefer to see, as cynical as I have become, is that Hilary and Jeff Bush are the final nominees. Not that I prefer chaos from such result. But it will however, I think, make the American people become cynical like I am and see politics for what it is. Which is a bowl of vomits by politicians, sprinkled with salt and spice, then served to the American people.

Don't worry, obummer has plenty of time left to screw things up more so Rand looks that much better by comparison

[evilfunnystuff]

There is no reason Rand can't keep up with his duties as Senator, and do both campaigns.

[evilfunnystuff]

I'm still hoping that Rand would sit out of 2016 prez bid for several reasons. First being the economy is going into another recession cycle and the executive branch will be the scapegoat. I don't want Rand to be the scapegoat.

It's never going to be "a good time"

[tangent4ronpaul]

The Vice President of the United States is, ex officio, President of the United States Senate, with the power to cast tie-breaking votes. However, while the Vice President has the right to act as presiding officer over the Senate, the rules of the Senate give the President of the Senate very little power (in contrast to the powerful office of Speaker of the House).

While vice presidents used to regularly preside over the Senate, modern vice presidents have done so only rarely, usually only when swearing in new senators, during joint sessions, announcing the result of a vote on a significant bill or confirmation, or when casting a tie-breaking vote. The Senate chooses a president pro tempore to preside in the vice president's absence. Modern presidents pro tempore, too, rarely preside over the Senate. In practice, the junior senators of the majority party typically preside in order to learn Senate procedure.

[r3volution 3.0]

Any person who runs for President is unlikely to win. He is being rational. Paul Ryan ran for VP and didn't give up his seat. Joe Biden ran for President and Senate reelection and then was on the VP ticket. The same was true for Joe Lieberman. And it doesn't logically make sense to oppose running for two offices at the same because it shows a lack of commitment and yet be perfectly fine with current office holders running for President. In both cases running for President takes away from focus on their current job.

Add John Kerry to the list. He ran for President and Senate re-election in 2004.

And then there have been even more Senators who retained their seats while running for President but weren't up for re-election: JFK, Goldwater, Dole, McCain, Obama.

Not to mention the losers who didn't get the nomination, there are tons of them in addition to Ryan, Lieberman, and Biden.

Point = it's hardly a rare phenomenon. Anyone attacking Rand for this is either 'tarded or has Rand derangement syndrome.

[GunnyFreedom]

Don't worry, obummer has plenty of time left to screw things up more so Rand looks that much better by comparison

I think even more than that, and this will sound a lot more statist than it's underlying reasoning, but, "Rand can fix the economy!"

What I mean, of course, that that Rand's brand of deregulation is likely to be the right one, particularly being advised by Austrians. A restoration of free market principles, and some level of reigning in of the Fed, maybe even restoring a savings-based economy rather than a debt-based economy; and then we are well on our way to unicorns and rainbows.

What I mean to say, ultimately, is that the economy is unnaturally depressed by Obama, who was directly enabled by Bush before him. The Doctor has the cure! (or at least, the closest thing to a 'cure' that Austrian School will come up with) which is liable to be heavy on the Laissez Faire. And in particular STOP doing most of the things we already are, and that cost too damn much.

If there is any "fix" to this economy, it's in the Austrian School, and if there is any Austrian Scholar to put near the heart of it's power, it's going to be Rand.

The bottom line is the only salvation for America's economy will be a gentle transition from a debt based economy to a saving based economy, whereupon "prosperity will become widely distributed" to make a loony liberal sounding noise. (and yet, true.) Our entire society is starved to the bone in debt.

---

If I were Emperor over America today, I would identify the problem of the Prosperity Gap as the direct result of our transition into a debt based economy. Therefore pronounceth I, "The entire nation will become a savings-based economy once again. In order to do this fairly to all, we will heat up the dollar for five years at a sharp rate, and provide assistance for all the people paying off every debt as the monetary base inflates, and then cool it off sharply for five years providing innovative savings plans for everyone as the monetary base deflates. Upon our return to mean in 10 years, we will have achieved the transition from debt to savings, and from thenceforth the American Economy will be prosperous for all!" Or something like that. Not accounting for the bizarre commodities markets such lunacy would create.

Of course, America does not have an Emperor, thank God, the President wouldn't have such power, and I wouldn't want the President to have such power even if he were me. PERHAPS from a 'governmenting' standpoint if I were President and I thought I had some whack-job radical solution that totally solved everything, I would probably go before the camera and explain it, and try to get the people to 'do it' without the government 'doing it.'

"Look America, we can clearly see there is an economic problem in our nation. After much study and deliberations, and supported by the best and also the most critical advice we could find in America, I have to conclude that our economic woes stem from our transition from a savings-based economy into a debt based economy. For a true, long lasting economic recovery America must become a savings based economy once again." and then work with all the stakeholders to voluntarily script something similar to the outline above.

but the problem is identified and a logical solution is identified. I don't properly see the transition driven by government either even if I CAN figure out how to do it without breaking the law, since the government profits from debt, they would probably shoot me first. Not that I would ever in any universe be a President. So education, and alternative currencies. Reset the mean to zero instantly.

Better, find a finer vellum than Fed Notes, and weave them with durable gold thread equal in weight to the face value. "There is 1/48 oz of gold in this piece of vellum" (~$25 today, but '48' was not picked randomly) dump 48 of those cloths into a smelter and pour out a straight ounce of gold. That would be a nice way to do it.

Private market solution,

So, presuming we had a ginormous enough investment to actually try and circulate private gold embedded vellum currency, pushing it out at spot to begin with to drive market saturation to the point of active circulation. "Everybody has these silly things, why not spend them?" Once accepted as tender, gold value shoots up tremendously, because now people actually want them. Increased demand, people dumping their dollars. Crisis comes and the rich hold on to their assets while the poor hold on to their goldens. Federal reserve withers away and their dollars turn to confetti.

To operate, sell off ounces of gold at $5000 that were bought at $2000, as demand for your currency pushes up the spot price for gold. Follow "First In/First Out" accounting practices and money will basically 'rain out of the sky' until the commodity price starts fibrillating and then stabilizes around the 'new normal' which accounts for 'general circulation.'

OK, so anybody know how to do that that's not a billion dollar startup?

I may be digressing a little. lol Oh yeah, "Rand can fix the economy!"

So the economy is bad, and it's about to get worse. It's already been 'worse' for 7 years now. If anything, historically, has 'fixed' an American economy, it has been a President jumping in, an smashing apart all the nonsense the bureaucrats have installed to try and control it. Rand is the only guy likely to do that, that is the only thing that will fix the economy, and if he doesn't then well "nothing really happened, the economy still sucks everyone." Not really that many negatives left there anymore. After Obama blaming Bush for 8 years, Rand's failure to blame anybody will be 'refreshing' and the country could probably fall off a cliff without people protesting too much. That's Obama's fault, but that's the reality of it.

So Yes, I have used that argument before, in 2008, that the economy was about to tank and it would be blamed on the next President, therefore I was worried about Ron Paul. This case is totally different though, because the economy already sucks. except for a total catastrophic economic failure that will appear to everyone like a 'strike from zeus' (and probably considered bad form to lay too much blame, ie 9/11) any worsening of the economy will feel like 'a thicker patch of molasses' so the blame for a degrading economy is way less of a significant factor today than it was in 2008.

* Unless 2015-2016 is enigmatically ridiculously prosperous, and then a later calamity would be blamed on the 2016 President.

[Crashland]

The people criticizing Rand for this are the same people who criticize him for Aqua Buddha or plagiarism or other petty nonsense, i.e. people who'd never vote for him anyway who are just looking for something to justify their bias against him. Screw them, they don't matter. Making sure that he keeps his Senate seat if he loses his bid for the Presidency is what matters.

Not necessarily. I am critical of this move too, and I am definitely voting for Rand. Hedging your bets is not particularly impressive, but I can understand why he's doing it. But no matter what happens, IMO it would be really dumb to forfeit Kentucky's primary delegates or electoral votes in the general. I trust Rand has a good plan to ensure that doesn't happen

[Brian4Liberty]

Go Rand!

[anaconda]

I have not seen a quote by any staffer or Rand that says he is running for reelection of his U.S. Senate seat. I cannot seem to find the "press release" in it's entirety. All Rand said, as far as I can tell, is "I stand with Kentucky in this fight, and I hope to continue together in the task of repairing and revitalizing our great nation.” That's hardly an announcement to run for his Senate seat. And this: "He's made the decision to run for reelection. Any decision beyond that will come in the spring," said Paul spokesman Dan Bayens." If he's elected President is that technically a "reelection?" There's something peculiar about this. Did Rand intentionally avoid using the word "Senate?"

[r3volution 3.0]

Not necessarily. I am critical of this move too, and I am definitely voting for Rand. Hedging your bets is not particularly impressive, but I can understand why he's doing it. But no matter what happens, IMO it would be really dumb to forfeit Kentucky's primary delegates or electoral votes in the general. I trust Rand has a good plan to ensure that doesn't happen

Sure, a reasonable person could criticize Paul for this, but I was complaining about the people latching onto this who really don't care about the issue, already hate Rand, and are just looking for something to throw at him. Obviously you don't fall in that category.

[staerker]

Sure, a reasonable person could criticize Paul for this, but I was complaining about the people latching onto this who really don't care about the issue, already hate Rand, and are just looking for something to throw at him. Obviously you don't fall in that category.

But isn't it important to cater to low information voters?

[anaconda]

But isn't it important to cater to low information voters?

It's the largest demographic. It's very important. Too much nuance also gives the media enormous leeway to misrepresent.

[Nolan]

It's never going to be "a good time"

Doing politics isn't some self-worth goal to try and achieve. You're not impressing anyone by running blind into politics saying "it's never a good time". If people here are desperate for a Rand win of the presidency at any cost, then you're all not only bad at politics, but proving yourselves to be desperate pathetic children crying out for a leader. So much for libertarianism.

[evilfunnystuff]

Doing politics isn't some self-worth goal to try and achieve. You're not impressing anyone by running blind into politics saying "it's never a good time". If people here are desperate for a Rand win of the presidency at any cost, then you're all not only bad at politics, but proving yourselves to be desperate pathetic children crying out for a leader. So much for libertarianism.

lol, so when is the economy gonna be super awesome, so we can field a candidate then?

[GunnyFreedom]

Doing politics isn't some self-worth goal to try and achieve. You're not impressing anyone by running blind into politics saying "it's never a good time". If people here are desperate for a Rand win of the presidency at any cost, then you're all not only bad at politics, but proving yourselves to be desperate pathetic children crying out for a leader. So much for libertarianism.

No, you misunderstand. It is literally, never, a good time. If it is going to be done at all, then it has to be done at a bad time.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I never understood why he is seriously considering both. I don't see it working politically.

If he runs for both, people will say he is divided (which he is,) and not being serious about the process. If he drops out of one to continue the other, he will be called a flippant quitter, who again, is not serious about the process.

Who would want to donate to either campaign, knowing that he might drop either on a whim? Which one would you donate to?

Rand could win reelection in Kentucky sitting on the potty.