That would be a stupid thing to do. No upside and with a slim chance Trump has a successful presidential term it would hurt him for future endeavors. Best to keep mouth shut.
"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
James Madison
"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
Μολὼν λάβε
Dum Spiro, Pugno
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito
LOLOriginally Posted by puppetmaster
100% guaranteed he has no Presidential term at all, and that it wouldn't be successful if he did.
I've mulled this over and over, and I cannot figure this out. Who could possibly be on such a list? Is he going to try to go for a Tom Coburn, Mitch Daniels type? Or something really surprising, like a Denzel Washington? And how would any of the people on his list pull from both camps plus independents and #neverTrumpers enough to defeat Trump and Hillary?
Nope, can't figure it out.
The bigger government gets, the smaller I wish it was.My new motto: More Love, Less Laws
Probably the most stupid idea imaginable. He needs to stay out the fray as much as possible like he has been doing.
His last tweet said Ben Sasse and Ken Cuccinelli. I don't think they are going for a win, just giving anti Hillary anti Trump people to vote for.
“I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul
Sen. Ben Sasse Launches Political Revolution on Twitter, Calling for 3rd Party Candidate
Anyone still think Rand should endorse Trump?AN OPEN LETTER TO MAJORITY AMERICA
TO: Those who think both leading presidential candidates are dishonest and have little chance of leading America forward:
(…or, stated more simply)
TO: The majority of America:
Note: If you are one of those rare souls who genuinely believe Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are honorable people – if they are the role models you want for your kids – then this letter is not for you. Instead, this letter is for the majority of Americans who wonder why the nation that put a man on the moon can’t find a healthy leader who can take us forward together.
I want to tell you about four unsolicited conversations from the Fremont Wal-Mart this morning:
**Retired union Democrat meat-packer:
“What the heck is wrong with that city where you work? Why can’t they give us a normal person? Is it really so hard?”
Me: “Actually, it is for them – because most people in DC buy the nonsense that DC is the center of the world. You and I, despite our party differences, both agree that Fremont is the center.”
Union Democrat (interrupting): “…Because this is where my grandkids are.”
**Young evangelical mom:
“I want to cry. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on almost every single thing – but I will vote for her before Trump. I could never tell my kids later that I voted for that man.”
**Middle-aged Republican male (more political than the other folks):
“It feels like the train-car to hell is accelerating. Why is DC more filled with weirdos and yet more powerful at the same time? How do we slow this down long enough to have a conversation about actually fixing our country?”
**Trump supporter (again, unsolicited):
“Please understand: I’m going to vote for him, but I don’t like him. And I don’t trust him – I mean, I’m not stupid. But how else can I send a signal to Washington?!”
________
I’ve ignored my phone most of today, but the voicemail is overflowing with party bosses and politicos telling me that “although Trump is terrible,” we “have to” support him, “because the only choice is Trump or Hillary.”
This open letter aims simply to ask “WHY is that the only choice?”
Melissa and I got the kids launched on homework, so I’ve been sitting out by the river, reflecting on the great gap between what folks in my town are talking about, and what folks in the DC bubble are talking about.
I trust the judgment of this farm town way more than I trust DC. And so I’d like to share a dozen-ish observations on these Wal-Mart and other conversations today:
1.
Washington isn’t fooling anyone -- Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire. They resort to character attacks as step one because they think voters are too dumb for a real debate. They very often prioritize the agendas of lobbyists (for whom many of them will eventually work) over the urgent needs of Main Street America. I signed up for the Party of Abraham Lincoln -- and I will work to reform and restore the GOP -- but let’s tell the plain truth that right now both parties lack vision.
2.
As a result, normal Americans don’t like either party. If you ask Americans if they identify as Democrat or Republican, almost half of the nation interrupts to say: “Neither.”
3.
Young people despise the two parties even more than the general electorate. And why shouldn’t they? The main thing that unites most Democrats is being anti-Republican; the main thing that unites most Republicans is being anti-Democrat. No one knows what either party is for -- but almost everyone knows neither party has any solutions for our problems. “Unproductive” doesn’t begin to summarize how messed up this is.
4.
Our problems are huge right now, but one of the most obvious is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage -- thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost. One of the bright spots with the rising generation, though, is that they really would like to rethink the often knee-jerk partisanship of their parents and grandparents. We should encourage this rethinking.
5.
These two national political parties are enough of a mess that I believe they will come apart. It might not happen fully in 2016 – and I’ll continue fighting to revive the GOP with ideas -- but when people’s needs aren’t being met, they ultimately find other solutions.
6.
In the history of polling, we’ve basically never had a candidate viewed negatively by half of the electorate. This year, we have two. In fact, we now have the two most unpopular candidates ever – Hillary by a little, and Trump by miles (including now 3 out of 4 women – who vote more and influence more votes than men). There are dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two “leaders.”
7.
With Clinton and Trump, the fix is in. Heads, they win; tails, you lose. Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.
8.
Remember: our Founders didn’t want entrenched political parties. So why should we accept this terrible choice?
9.
So...let’s have a thought experiment for a few weeks: Why shouldn’t America draft an honest leader who will focus on 70% solutions for the next four years? You know...an adult?
(Two notes for reporters:
**Such a leader should be able to campaign 24/7 for the next six months. Therefore he/she likely can’t be an engaged parent with little kids.
**Although I’m one of the most conservative members of the Senate, I'm not interested in an ideological purity test, because even a genuine consensus candidate would almost certainly be more conservative than either of the two dishonest liberals now leading the two national parties.)
10.
Imagine if we had a candidate:
...who hadn’t spent his/her life in politics either buying politicians or being bought
…who didn’t want to stitch together a coalition based on anger but wanted to take a whole nation forward
…who pledged to serve for only one term, as a care-taker problem-solver for this messy moment
…who knew that Washington isn’t competent to micromanage the lives of free people, but instead wanted to SERVE by focusing on 3 or 4 big national problems,
such as:
A. A national security strategy for the age of cyber and jihad;
B. Honest budgeting/entitlement reform so that we stop stealing from future generations;
C. Empowering states and local governments to improve K-12 education, and letting Washington figure out how to update federal programs to adjust to now needing lifelong learners in an age where folks are obviously not going to work at a single job for a lifetime anymore; and
D. Retiring career politicians by ending all the incumbency protections, special rules, and revolving door opportunities for folks who should be public “servants,” not masters.
This really shouldn’t be that hard.
The oath I took is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. In brief, that means I’m for limited government.
And there is no reason to believe that either of these two national frontrunners believe in limiting anything about DC’s power.
I believe that most Americans can still be for limited government again -- if they were given a winsome candidate who wanted Washington to focus on a small number of really important, urgent things -- in a way that tried to bring people together instead of driving us apart.
I think there is room – an appetite – for such a candidate.
What am I missing?
More importantly, what are the people at the Fremont Wal-Mart missing?
Because I don’t think they are wrong. They deserve better. They deserve a Congress that tackles the biggest policy problems facing the nation. And they deserve a president who knows that his or her job is not to “reign,” but to serve as commander-in-chief and to “faithfully execute” the laws – not to claim imperial powers to rewrite them with his pen and phone.
The sun is mostly set on the Platte River -- and the kids need baths. So g’night.
Ben
#WeCanDoBetter
#GiveUsMoreChoices
....train's a leavin, he needs to get on this ASAP.
Like tomorrow.
In other words, despite the fact that the optics of the move strategically would make Rand look bad in half a dozen ways, the only thing that matters is scoring ideological points. This, in a nutshell, is the myopic, one dimensional thinking that has limited our progress.
Last edited by Peace&Freedom; 05-05-2016 at 06:45 AM.
-----Peace & Freedom, John Clifton-----
Blog: https://electclifton.wordpress.com/2...back-backlash/
You mean the #VoteEstablishment movement. Stupid. If anything, Rand and Donald to meet and have these conversations..
R∃VO˩UTION
Rand Paul should talk about what he's for: liberty, not who he's against.
With respect to Trump, Rand should say he's looking forward to working with President Trump as a U.S. Senator in restoring free enterprise to the U.S.
The last thing Rand should do is lose his mind with the rest of the Republican establishment. There will be room to work with Trump in certain areas.
Last edited by James Otis, Jr.; 05-05-2016 at 12:14 PM.
#NeverTrump would mean #OkayWithHillary
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
No. #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary are pretty much the same thing.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
So...do either of these groups have a solution? Or just whining? Trump won the nomination. Joining #NeverTrump just shows you wish "cheat to win" to be the new election process. I would be in the #NeverHillary camp, and vote for Trump. Just to keep her demon claws off the presidency.
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
What the hell are you talking about?! They're both authoritarians. Who said anything about endorsing "cheat to win"?!
Seriously, I think you Trumpsters are wallowing in your own fantasies. The only difference between Trump and Hillary is how fast they will be able to accumulate power in the hands of government.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
Rand is a coalition-builder. If I were to predict, from here on out, he'll keep it about the issues and not about the person.
RPF trumpies like to imagine that trump is going to have a 180 degree turn from his liberal foundation and toward libertarian policies. And that these liberty-minded voters who helped usher trump into office will somehow have a voice in refining his policy direction. No way, they're cannon fodder. But a Rand Paul at the top of his game in the senate could have that kind of impact. Or he could form a bulwark against stupid policies in the same way he's challenged droning and executive appointments in the previous session.
As much as I despise the idea of a trump presidency, I don't think it would be useful or liberty promoting for Rand to throw out the oath or even to snark at trump for the next 6 months. But he should absolutely maintain an authoritative voice and guide the discourse. He'll probably have to come out with a tangible endorsement for trump eventually, which doesn't bother me at all.
And thus you see that "traditional conservatives" are still nationalists who support violating the Constitution (which only gives Congress the power to determine how one becomes a citizen and NOT to limit immigration in any manner) in order to support anti-free market nativism that violates basic human liberties.
What Rand said just over a month ago: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news...inee/82508578/
Paul, during a visit to Northern Kentucky Friday morning, said he will support whoever is the Republican nominee, even if it's Donald Trump. He said it's better than supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Paul criticized Clinton's comments she made while campaigning in Ohio that she will "put a lot of coal companies and coal miners out of business." Those words will likely reverberate around the state in the next few months and could hurt Clinton.
"I think we never get the candidate we exactly want unless you're the candidate," Paul said. "Think about it from this perspective. I'm from Kentucky, and Hillary Clinton recently said she would put coal miners out of business, and she would put coal companies out of business."
Paul ended the press conference after that and didn't take follow-up questions.
He said he won't endorse anyone in the Republican Primary. Paul, who dropped out of the GOP presidential race in February after a disappointing showing in the Iowa caucuses, is running for re-election this year to the U.S. Senate.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 05-05-2016 at 01:45 PM.
Not even. They'll do it just as equally fast.
Rand will never do this in a million years.
Why? Because he is a smart politician, and he knows that anything less than full support for Trump would be political suicide.
No, exactly the opposite.
The reason to do this is that it makes sense strategically.
The optics will be great, winning Rand a major seat at the budding anti-Trump conservative/libertarian faction of the GOP.
...that it's also the principled thing to do is just icing on the cake.
The only people who won't like it are Trumpsters like yourself, who are a lost cause at this point anyway.
One conservative US Senator (Ben Sasse) already did this.
There will be others, including Cruz I would guess, and including Rand I would hope.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-05-2016 at 02:10 PM.
Correct thread this time:
That's about as bad a strategic move as it gets.
NeoReactionary. American High Tory.
The counter-revolution will not be televised.
I do not think it is good to burn bridges when someone has as bright a future ahead of him as Rand has.
#NashvilleStrong
“I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi
Why?
Lol. I'm not a Trumpster. I will not be voting for Trump. I will be hoping that between the two monsters, he beats Hillary. I can actually research and predict exactly what Hillary will do, who she will kill.
You should probably stop putting words in people's mouths.
The Voluntary Exchange Podcast
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain"
"I want to be President, not because I want to run your lives. I don't want to run the economy, and I don't want to run the world. I want to be President to restore liberty."
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"
"My name is George. I'm unemployed and live with my parents."
Paul Ryan: I Cannot Support Donald Trump Right Now
In a move without precedent in recent political history, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday said he is not ready to support Donald Trump, his party's presumptive presidential nominee.
Trump is more conservative than Romney and McConnell, but Rand endorsed those two. I see no reason why he should distance himself.
LOL
What a brilliant retort. You have totally persuaded me.
No one, not even the MSM, considered that Trump is a conservative. Also, the fact that you consider McConnell a conservative instead of "gone-by-the-wind" politicians display your nativity in politics.
I never said Trump is a conservative.
Huh? When did I label McConnell a conservative?
Nope, you used it in your argument?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us