# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Who will be on Rand's ticket for VP?

## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Not necessarily who you think it should be, but who will it be?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'm scared it will be Ted Cruz, or someone even worse.

I'm holding out hope for Amash, which is the best I can imagine.

----------


## eduardo89

I'd love for Cruz to be on the ticket, but it will end up being either Martinez or Walker IMO.

----------


## supermario21

Scott Walker is playing to be the #2. And his achievements in Wisconsin are worth something to me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I do have to admit, on the issues Cruz is solid on, he'd be an excellent attack dog for Rand.

On the unfortunate side, the establishment hacks would make sure Rand was assassinated within the 1st year.

Go with Amash...

----------


## eduardo89

Poll is absurd...Nutcase Jesse Ventura? Judge Napolitano? Gary Marijuana Johnson? Russ Feingold? A WWE wrestler? Bob Barr?

I thought this was supposed to be serious...

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

Glenn Jacobs is on there contingent on the case he unseats Lamar Alexander next year and becomes a U.S. Senator.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Poll is absurd...Nutcase Jesse Ventura? Judge Napolitano? Gary Marijuana Johnson? Russ Feingold? A WWE wrestler? Bob Barr?
> 
> I thought this was supposed to be serious...


I don't believe Ventura is a nutcase, although I get that most Americans do.  I respect Ventura a lot, although like Gary, he's too liberal for me to be crazy about him.

----------


## krugminator

Clearly, that list was well thought out. In the unlikely event that Judge Napolitano does not get the nomination over Rand, Barry Goldwater Jr. would be Rand's likely choice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Clearly, that list was well thought out. In *the unlikely event that Judge Napolitano does not get the nomination over Rand,* Barry Goldwater Jr. would be Rand's likely choice.


What the crap?

Its  1:44AM where I am, PLEASE tell me I'm just overtired.

Don't get me wrong, I like Judge Nap, and I like him far better than I like Rand, but this is purely fantasy land.

----------


## eduardo89

> What the crap?
> 
> Its  1:44AM where I am, PLEASE tell me I'm just overtired.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I like Judge Nap, and I like him far better than I like Rand, but this is purely fantasy land.


You seriously need to get your sarcasm meter fixed. First my avatar, now this....

----------


## ManOfSteel

> You seriously need to get your sarcasm meter fixed. First my avatar, now this....


It's very likely that FreedomFanatic is mildly autistic, or at least very high on the aspie scale. This would explain a lot.

----------


## eduardo89

> It's very likely that FreedomFanatic is mildly autistic, or at least very high on the aspie scale. This would explain a lot.


He has assburgers syndrome, I think.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> He has assburgers syndrome, I think.


An awful lot of libertarians do. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing - there are advantages to thinking more logically than most people. But failures of empathy and misunderstanding humor are some of the negative effects.

----------


## ManOfSteel

Making a third post so that I can link to something interesting I read.

----------


## ManOfSteel

Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians

----------


## green73

> He has assburgers syndrome, I think.


A definite ass burger. Hopefully he'll grow out of it.

----------


## fr33

Y'all are approaching a dangerous subject. Govt agents would like nothing more than to label libertarians as having a mental disorder or syndrome. Already we get marginalized by propaganda labeling us as kooks etc. The next step is to target our expression of rights and persecute us for daring to do such a thing.

----------


## eleganz

How many times are we going to poll RPF on this same question between now and 2016?  no...seriously...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> How many times are we going to poll RPF on this same question between now and 2016?  no...seriously...


17 more times exactly.  It's in the contract you implicitly signed when logging into the site.

----------


## BuddyRey

If I had my druthers, it would be Ventura, Johnson, or Napolitano...but I don't get the feeling that Rand would pick another libertarian to join him on the ticket, so it will probably be someone lame like Palin, Cruz, or Demint.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

For some reason, I don't see Russ Feingold being approved by the RNC....or Russ Feingold.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

I think it will end up being Rubio. It should be someone from a swing state.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Feingold and Wyden?  As ridiculous as the people here who were pushing the idea of Ron Paul picking Kucinich as his running mate.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

I think it'll be Ron Paul.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I think it will end up being Rubio. It should be someone from a swing state.


Not sure about Rubio, but I am thinking either swing state or woman.  I also tend to think he would go with a Governor over a Senator.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

Ben Carson, a popular non-Libertarian candidate who is not a neocon, could help with minority outreach which we will desperately need.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I'm not going to participate in this poll just because (1) these polls are so overdone and (2) it's way too soon.  

That said, everyone had better be prepared to watch Rand pick someone with whom the establishment can be comfortable if he is to get the nomination at all.  There is no way they will allow 2 libertarian-leaning people to be on the same ticket.  I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think it will end up being Rubio. It should be someone from a swing state.


No possible way.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Ben Carson, a popular non-Libertarian candidate who is not a neocon, could help with minority outreach which we will desperately need.


Isn't he anti-2nd amendment?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Isn't he anti-2nd amendment?


Yes.  

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservat...-large-cities/

----------


## PatriotOne

> Isn't he anti-2nd amendment?





> Yes.  
> 
> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/conservat...-large-cities/


Labeling Carson as anti-2nd amendment would be an exaggeration.  Maybe he doesn't grasp the finer points of allowing any infringement on the 2nd amendment but I certainly wouldn't label him "anti".

_Asked by Beck for his thoughts on the Second Amendment, Carson gave the popular pro-gun argument: “There’s a reason for the Second Amendment; people do have the right to have weapons.”

But when asked whether people should be allowed to own “semi-automatic weapons,” the doctor replied: “It depends on where you live.”

“I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it,” Carson elaborated.

However, if you live “out in the country somewhere by yourself” and want to own a semi-automatic weapon, he added, “I’ve no problem with that.”_

----------


## PatriotOne

> I think it will end up being Rubio.


Not going to happen.  Rubio's popularity dropped like a rock strapped to a block of concrete since his immigration plan push.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Y'all are approaching a dangerous subject. Govt agents would like nothing more than to label libertarians as having a mental disorder or syndrome. Already we get marginalized by propaganda labeling us as kooks etc. The next step is to target our expression of rights and persecute us for daring to do such a thing.


Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that one ought not study libertarian psychology? That seems remarkably unwise. What do you have against self-knowledge?

----------


## V3n

It's going to be a woman.  Not Sarah Palin.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He has assburgers syndrome, I think.


It's called Asperger's Syndrome, eduardo.

----------


## compromise

> An awful lot of libertarians do. Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing - there are advantages to thinking more logically than most people. But failures of empathy and misunderstanding humor are some of the negative effects.


And that's one of the reasons that this movement is not as politically successful as it could be.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> It's called Asperger's Syndrome, eduardo.


He knows that. Calling it assburger's syndrome is a pretty common joke. The fact that you failed to catch this is a sign that you might be a bit of an aspie yourself.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> And that's one of the reasons that this movement is not as politically successful as it could be.


Correct. That's why I find reactions like fr33's to be so puzzling. How can you fix a problem without first identifying it?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's called Asperger's Syndrome, eduardo.


Thank you.




> He knows that. Calling it assburger's syndrome is a pretty common joke. The fact that you failed to catch this is a sign that you might be a bit of an aspie yourself.


Or it may just mean she doesn't have patience for mockery.




> He has assburgers syndrome, I think.


I do have Aspergers, yes.



> If I had my druthers, it would be Ventura, Johnson, or Napolitano...but I don't get the feeling that Rand would pick another libertarian to join him on the ticket, so it will probably be someone lame like Palin, Cruz, or Demint.


Napolitano would be the best.  But unfortunately, you're probably right.  How is Demint's foreign policy?  Or Palin's, for that matter?



> Feingold and Wyden?  As ridiculous as the people here who were pushing the idea of Ron Paul picking Kucinich as his running mate.


Well, Kucinich did say that he would pick Ron Paul.  Lew Rockwell said that Ron would have picked Kucinich, but I have no idea why he said that.  If Ron Paul did pick Kucinich, it would be the dumbest thing he had ever done in his life.




> Ben Carson, a popular non-Libertarian candidate who is not a neocon, could help with minority outreach which we will desperately need.


Where does Carson stand politically?



> Isn't he anti-2nd amendment?


Just being honest, I probably held a similar stance to him a year and a half ago.  Of course, I don't anymore.

I used to be uncomfortable with the idea of automatics in cities, until I woke up and realized who was really doing the killing...

----------


## Okaloosa

> I'd love for Cruz to be on the ticket, but it will end up being either Martinez or Walker IMO.


Susana Martinez Governor of New Mexico is the best option for the ticket.  Scott Walker governor of Wisconsin would be the second best choice.

Marco Rubio is up for re-election in Florida in 2016 and would compliment Rand on the ticket by appealling to South Florida where Romney bombed.  That makes Florida winnable.  

Susana Martinez is a Governor which helps the ticket by having executive experince and being a Washington D.C. outsider.  She has a high approval rating in New Mexico and could make that state winnable and possibly Nevada/Colorado.  Democrats are also working hard to make Texas a Blue state and Martinez being from El Paso would keep Texas in the win cloumn.  Also, she is the first ever hispanic female elected as Governor, this would help to combat the Democrats whole campaign that republicans are only rich white men.

Scott Walker would be good for similar reasons being a Governor in a swing state.  I see him possibly winning Wisconsin and helping in Ohio.

Either way the path to victory must include Florida, Ohio, Virginia and one or more swing state IA, NH, NV, NM, CO, or WI.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Or it may just mean she doesn't have patience for mockery.


It doesn't mean that, she has plenty of patience for mockery. See here.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Susana Martinez Governor of New Mexico is the best option for the ticket.  Scott Walker governor of Wisconsin would be the second best choice.
> 
> Marco Rubio is up for re-election in Florida in 2016 and would compliment Rand on the ticket by appealling to South Florida where Romney bombed.  That makes Florida winnable.  
> 
> Susana Martinez is a Governor which helps the ticket by having executive experince and being a Washington D.C. outsider.  She has a high approval rating in New Mexico and could make that state winnable and possibly Nevada/Colorado.  Democrats are also working hard to make Texas a Blue state and Martinez being from El Paso would keep Texas in the win cloumn.  Also, she is the first ever hispanic female elected as Governor, this would help to combat the Democrats whole campaign that she republicans are only rich white men.
> 
> Scott Walker would be good for similar reasons being a Governor in a swing state.  I see him possibly winning Wisconsin and helping in Ohio.
> 
> Either way the path to victory must include Florida, Ohio, Virginia and one or more swing state IA, NH, NV, NM, CO, or WI.


I agree that Susana Martinez is probably the best pick, but I strongly disagree that Walker would be the second best. I think once he runs in 2016 and starts staking out positions on national issues (especially on foreign policy and civil liberties) you'll see why.

----------


## fr33

> Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you suggesting that one ought not study libertarian psychology? That seems remarkably unwise. What do you have against self-knowledge?


I'm not against it. I just felt the need to point out that the govt would loving nothing more than to be able to label us as mentally deficient or a similar type of label.

----------


## compromise

I think Scott Walker wants to be VP, regardless of who the GOP nominee is. He'd be a good choice.

----------


## KEEF

I would love Justin Amash, but I have a feeling that he might pick an established RINO to appease.  My concern with that though is if TPTB pull a Kennedy on him then.  Hopefully he doesn't try to be too political about it and picks a pro liberty candidate.  Again, this is why we all need to be deligates, it will be our job to elect the VP at the convention (although we all know it will be fixed).

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

It will be either Cruz or Carson.  Rand needs a minority on the ticket to thwart the divisive, race-baiting campaign the dems will run.

----------


## compromise

> I agree that Susana Martinez is probably the best pick, but I strongly disagree that Walker would be the second best. I think once he runs in 2016 and starts staking out positions on national issues (especially on foreign policy and civil liberties) you'll see why.


I doubt he will run in 2016. There isn't much room for him in the polls - Rand, Rubio, Bush, Christie are the top tier at the moment.

His foreign policy/civil liberties stances are a vacuum - he doesn't seem too interested in these issues. If he did run I'd expect him to be similar to Sarah Palin in 2009 or Rick Perry in 2012, far worse than Ron Paul, but better in many ways than Santorum. He didn't explicitly agree with Christie when Christie bashed libertarians, Walker actually spoke quite positively of libertarian influence within the party when he spoke immediately prior to Christie. He's also said he's a "libertarian-leaning governor" in the past.

Martinez did not attempt to prevent Obamacare in her state, so I don't really have a high opinion of her. I'd be alright with her if she was chosen, but she's not great.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It will be either Cruz or Carson.  Rand needs a minority on the ticket to thwart the divisive, race-baiting campaign the dems will run.


Much as I don't like Ted Cruz, the more I think about it, the more I realize that that might be a smart choice.  That said, Rand will have to be VERY careful with his security if he picks anyone less libertarian than himself.  The Kennedy comparison seems quite apt, but likely even worse as Rand is way more libertarian than Kennedy was.

----------


## Matt McGuire

Walker is a good, smart choice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I doubt he will run in 2016. There isn't much room for him in the polls - Rand, Rubio, Bush, Christie are the top tier at the moment.
> 
> His foreign policy/civil liberties stances are a vacuum - he doesn't seem too interested in these issues. If he did run I'd expect him to be similar to Sarah Palin in 2009 or Rick Perry in 2012, far worse than Ron Paul, but better in many ways than Santorum. He didn't explicitly agree with Christie when Christie bashed libertarians, Walker actually spoke quite positively of libertarian influence within the party when he spoke immediately prior to Christie. He's also said he's a "libertarian-leaning governor" in the past.
> 
> Martinez did not attempt to prevent Obamacare in her state, so I don't really have a high opinion of her. I'd be alright with her if she was chosen, but she's not great.


I think Mitt Romney was "Better" than Santorum, its pretty hard to be worse than him actually.

I remember looking at Perry's record awhile ago, I remember him being really good on  the issues where he was good, but also very, very bad on foreign policy.  I remember his Israel rhetoric like being really bad.  I can tolerate a certain amount of kissing up to Israel but I remember Perry seriously crossing the line there.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

Walker already basically agreed with Christie in that same conference about the "dangerous" libertarian ideals.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Walker is a good, smart choice.


I'm leaning that way too.  Lots of positives there.

----------


## compromise

> Walker already basically agreed with Christie in that same conference about the "dangerous" libertarian ideals.


Watch it again. Walker is very pro libertarian influence in the GOP before Christie starts talking. He only starts talking about balancing national security concerns after Christie made his statement in order not to appear weak. Walker is an opportunist and he can slide into Rand's mold if Rand wishes for him to do so.

----------


## Lucille

> Scott Walker is playing to be the #2. And his achievements in Wisconsin are worth something to me.





> Walker is reportedly putting together a campaign book and hes having Marc Thiessen write it. I suppose its possible that Walker could choose to work with Thiessen without knowing about or agreeing with the latters extremely hawkish views on national security, but it seems unlikely. Put another way, if you were a politician interested positioning yourself somewhere in between Paul and Christie on national security issues, would you select an ardent defender of Bush-era torture methods as your ghostwriter? No, you wouldnt.


Telling that his fight against public employee unions did not include cops and firemen.

Scott Walker may have wasted political capital by sparing Wisconsins police and fire fighters
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/22/wa...#ixzz2coMMI4qh

Walker open to limiting police, fire unions, 2 years after excluding them from restrictions
http://www.startribune.com/local/217574551.html



> MADISON, Wis.  Gov. Scott Walker said he is open to limiting collective bargaining rights for police and firefighters, who were excluded from the restrictions placed on nearly all other public employees two years ago.
> 
> Walker made the comments at a Monday speech to the Governmental Research Association. But his spokesman on Tuesday quickly backed away from them, saying Walker had no intention of pursuing such a proposal.
> 
> Police and firefighters were not included in the 2011 law that barred other public sector unions from collectively bargaining over anything other than base wage increases no greater than inflation. The law also forced those public workers, including teachers, to pay more for health care and contribute more to their pensions.
> 
> Walker has said in the past, and again on Monday, that he did not include police and firefighters in the proposal over concerns about being able to *protect the public* if officers went on strike or took other job actions.


Too bad that's not in their job description!

----------


## Smitty

It's probably going to be whoever gave him the Yarmulke to wear at the wailing wall,..

Joe Lieberman, perhaps?

----------


## eduardo89

> It's called Asperger's Syndrome, eduardo.


Sorry, I wasn't sure how to spell it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He knows that. Calling it assburger's syndrome is a pretty common joke. The fact that you failed to catch this is a sign that you might be a bit of an aspie yourself.


I know all about the joke.  It's rude.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Sorry, I wasn't sure how to spell it.


Of course.   You're nothing if not a smooth talker, eduardo.

----------


## Uriah

10 of your options are politically impossible. I choose none of the above.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> 10 of your options are politically impossible. I choose none of the above.


Just ten?

Rand Paul is not going to pick someone who was/is with another party, especially not a progressive.  Not sure the RNC delegates would even confirm such a thing.  So cross off Barr, Johnson, Feingold and Wyden.
Rand Paul is not going to pick someone who's never won anything.  Cross off Napolitano and Jacobs.
Rand Paul is not going to pick his 80-year-old father (the idea of a ticket with two people who are closely related would go over like a lead balloon.)
Rand Paul is not going to pick Mark 'Argentina' Sanford.
Freshmen legislators such as Lee and Amash seem really unlikely.
Sarah Palin?  Come on.  Learn from past mistakes.  McCain wishes he had this pick back.
A 9/11 Truther (Ventura)?  Why go through the effort to win the nomination and just throw it away?

Walker is the only decent pick on this list.

----------


## TaftFan

> Clearly, that list was well thought out. In the unlikely event that Judge Napolitano does not get the nomination over Rand, Barry Goldwater Jr. would be Rand's likely choice.


It was not thought out well in the least.

If you think Barry Goldwater Jr. would be Rand's choice, you are delusional.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just ten?
> 
> •Rand Paul is not going to pick someone who was/is with another party, especially not a progressive.  Not sure the RNC delegates would even confirm such a thing.  So cross off Barr, Johnson, Feingold and Wyden.
> •Rand Paul is not going to pick someone who's never won anything.  Cross off Napolitano and Jacobs.
> •Rand Paul is not going to pick his 80-year-old father (the idea of a ticket with two people who are closely related would go over like a lead balloon.)
> •Rand Paul is not going to pick Mark 'Argentina' Sanford.
> •Freshmen legislators such as Lee and Amash seem really unlikely.
> •Sarah Palin?  Come on.  Learn from past mistakes.  McCain wishes he had this pick back.
> •A 9/11 Truther (Ventura)?  Why go through the effort to win the nomination and just throw it away?
> ...



No thanks.

----------


## 69360

None of the above. The only winning VP choice for the GOP will be a minority woman. Susannna Martinez is looking good for the job.

----------


## RickyJ

I think Sarah Palin is a good possibility. McCain was holding her back in 2008 from saying what she wanted to say, Rand won't hold her back. I know she isn't the ideal choice, but when you are trying to win a popularity contest, it helps to  have someone that is popular on your side, and Sarah is very popular with many conservatives.

----------


## RickyJ

> Sarah Palin? Come on. Learn from past mistakes. McCain wishes he had this pick back.


Picking Sarah Palin was not a mistake for McCain, it was the only thing he did right in that campaign.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I'd love for Cruz to be on the ticket,





> I think it will end up being Rubio. It should be someone from a swing state.





> Marco Rubio is up for re-election in Florida in 2016 and would compliment Rand on the ticket by appealling to South Florida where Romney bombed.  That makes Florida winnable.





> It will be either Cruz or Carson.  Rand needs a minority on the ticket to thwart the divisive, race-baiting campaign the dems will run.





> Much as I don't like Ted Cruz, the more I think about it, the more I realize that that might be a smart choice.


I didn't include any ineligible Canadian or Cuban candidates.  I'd like to think Rand has more respect for the Constitution than that.

----------


## 69360

> I didn't include any ineligible Canadian or Cuban candidates.  I'd like to think Rand has more respect for the Constitution than that.


Well you think wrong. Rand has already made a statement about Cruz, Rand is not a birther.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Walker is the only decent pick on this list.


Walker is a horrible pick, of course.  He is a member of the Bush clan and an invitation for an assassination attempt.  But he is a choice in the poll under the assumption that he might be forced on the ticket by Rockefeller, Kissinger et alia -- much as Poppy Bush was forced on an unwilling Reagan.

----------


## TaftFan

> Walker is a horrible pick, of course.  He is a member of the Bush clan and an invitation for an assassination attempt.  But he is a choice in the poll under the assumption that he might be forced on the ticket by Rockefeller, Kissinger et alia -- much as Poppy Bush was forced on an unwilling Reagan.


Not really a fan of Walker, but he isn't part of the Bush clan in my view. He didn't even finish college.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

He's a second cousin of G Walker Bush and carries the same name as them.  That counts in my book.

----------


## willwash

> You seriously need to get your sarcasm meter fixed. First my avatar, now this....


Lol.  I thought you were a rabidly militant Zionist for like 6 months.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I'm not against it. I just felt the need to point out that the govt would loving nothing more than to be able to label us as mentally deficient or a similar type of label.


We're not mentally deficient though, libertarians are on average smarter and more logical than liberals and conservatives, and the research I linked to backs this up.

----------


## TaftFan

> He's a second cousin of G Walker Bush and carries the same name as them.  That counts in my book.


Didn't find a credible source for that.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I think Scott Walker wants to be VP, regardless of who the GOP nominee is. He'd be a good choice.


I usually like your posts compromise, but I strongly disagree with this. Why do you think he'd be a good choice for VP? In what way(s) is he better than Susana Martinez, for example?

----------


## ManOfSteel

> It will be either Cruz or Carson.  Rand needs a minority on the ticket to thwart the divisive, race-baiting campaign the dems will run.


I wish intrade was still up so that I could bet huge amounts of money against either of these people being picked for VP if Rand wins the nomination. It's true that a minority would help, but these aren't the minorities you're looking for.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I doubt he will run in 2016. There isn't much room for him in the polls - Rand, Rubio, Bush, Christie are the top tier at the moment.


I'm not saying he's a shoo-in to run, but if I had to bet I'd say he probably will. We'll have to wait and see.




> His foreign policy/civil liberties stances are a vacuum - he doesn't seem too interested in these issues. If he did run I'd expect him to be similar to Sarah Palin in 2009 or Rick Perry in 2012, far worse than Ron Paul, but better in many ways than Santorum. He didn't explicitly agree with Christie when Christie bashed libertarians, Walker actually spoke quite positively of libertarian influence within the party when he spoke immediately prior to Christie. He's also said he's a "libertarian-leaning governor" in the past.



Video: Sure sounds like Scott Walker sides with Chris Christie over Rand Paul on national security

I don't really have a whole lot to add to this piece. Walker may opportunistically try and appear to be sympathetic to doves/civil libertarians in an effort to appeal to the rising tide of (R) voters who resonate with the Pauls on these issues, but in his heart I'm pretty sure Walker is a straight establishment neocon/hawk. If elected President I believe he'd govern to the right of Obama on these issues.




> Martinez did not attempt to prevent Obamacare in her state, so I don't really have a high opinion of her. I'd be alright with her if she was chosen, but she's not great.


Frankly, ignoring the politics of it and judging the decision purely from a policy standpoint, I don't believe governors ought to try and prevent Obamacare from being implemented in their states. So not only do I not hold this against her, I actually think it was a smart move. The best way to take down Obamacare is at the federal level - states and governors are pretty much handcuffed, because if they don't set up the exchanges and accept the Medicaid expansion, they're basically turning down free money for their constituents.

I'm not saying she's great, either, but being both Hispanic and female is a huge plus.

Also, not sure I've heard anyone bring this up before, but I really don't think Rand should pick someone taller/more alpha than him as a VP. Walker is taller than Rand by a huge amount and would tower over him. That's a very bad thing, visually. The running mate should appear submissive/supportive, not threatening.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I'm leaning that way too.  Lots of positives there.


Would you kindly name them? Aside from being governor of a swing state, I can't think of many that set him apart from other better choices.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Watch it again. Walker is very pro libertarian influence in the GOP before Christie starts talking. He only starts talking about balancing national security concerns after Christie made his statement in order not to appear weak. Walker is an opportunist and he can slide into Rand's mold if Rand wishes for him to do so.


You may be right. I haven't entirely written Walker off, but I am very skeptical and will be watching him like a hawk come 2016. Of course, I'm sure the Paul team will be vetting all of their options to an insane extent, so if he does wind up getting picked I'll feel that my worries were unjustified.

Basically, I trust the RP team to make this decision and don't feel like I have a whole lot of valuable insight to add. The same could probably be said of most people discussing the issue here, especially considering the poll options and the names being thrown around as if they were serious.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I know all about the joke.  It's rude.


Posting embarrassing photos of Michele Bachmann is rude too.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Just ten?
> 
> Rand Paul is not going to pick someone who was/is with another party, especially not a progressive.  Not sure the RNC delegates would even confirm such a thing.  So cross off Barr, Johnson, Feingold and Wyden.
> Rand Paul is not going to pick someone who's never won anything.  Cross off Napolitano and Jacobs.
> Rand Paul is not going to pick his 80-year-old father (the idea of a ticket with two people who are closely related would go over like a lead balloon.)
> Rand Paul is not going to pick Mark 'Argentina' Sanford.
> Freshmen legislators such as Lee and Amash seem really unlikely.
> Sarah Palin?  Come on.  Learn from past mistakes.  McCain wishes he had this pick back.
> A 9/11 Truther (Ventura)?  Why go through the effort to win the nomination and just throw it away?
> ...


Would +rep this post if I had any to give.

So many of the poll options are hilariously dumb. I don't think the pick will be Walker, but he is by far the most likely option given. Justin Amash and Mike Lee are the only others I see as having even a non-zero likelihood of getting picked.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> It was not thought out well in the least.
> 
> If you think Barry Goldwater Jr. would be Rand's choice, you are delusional.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I think Sarah Palin is a good possibility. McCain was holding her back in 2008 from saying what she wanted to say, Rand won't hold her back. I know she isn't the ideal choice, but when you are trying to win a popularity contest, it helps to  have someone that is popular on your side, and Sarah is very popular with many conservatives.


The point of a VP pick is to sway moderates and independents though, and Sarah Palin is not popular with those groups.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I didn't include any ineligible Canadian or Cuban candidates.  I'd like to think Rand has more respect for the Constitution than that.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> The point of a VP pick is to sway moderates and independents though, and Sarah Palin is not popular with those groups.


That's a vast understatement.  Sarah Palin is loved by like 5% of the population and most of the other 95% think she's a complete buffoon!

----------


## ManOfSteel

> That's a vast understatement.  Sarah Palin is loved by like 5% of the population and most of the other 95% think she's a complete buffoon!


I have been known to occasionally understate things a bit for one reason or another.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> I have been known to occasionally understate things a bit for one reason or another.


Yep, and I didn't realize cause obviously I have Asperger's, just like the other 99% of the forum that isn't you

----------


## Brett85

> •Freshmen legislators such as Lee and Amash seem really unlikely.


Amash isn't a freshmen legislator.  He'll be in his 3rd term by that time.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Yep, and I didn't realize cause obviously I have Asperger's, just like the other 99% of the forum that isn't you

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No thanks.


We're likely to get a "No thanks" candidate.




> I didn't include any ineligible Canadian or Cuban candidates.  I'd like to think Rand has more respect for the Constitution than that.





> Well you think wrong. Rand has already made a statement about Cruz, Rand is not a birther.


There's nothing "birther" about questioning Cruz's eligibility. He's not eligible.  That won't stop him though, and it may well not stop Rand either.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> There's nothing "birther" about questioning Cruz's eligibility. He's not eligible.  That won't stop him though


If that won't stop him, then what does the word "eligible" even mean here? It sounds like you're saying, "He's not eligible . . . but he's eligible."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If that won't stop him, then what does the word "eligible" even mean here? It sounds like you're saying, "He's not eligible . . . but he's eligible."


I don't believe he's eligible, but I believe they'll let him run anyway.

Kind of like gun control is clearly unconstitutional, yet it still happens.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I don't believe he's eligible, but I believe they'll let him run anyway.


That doesn't answer my question. If they'll let him run, then what does the word "eligible" even mean here?




> Kind of like gun control is clearly unconstitutional, yet it still happens.


If something is "clearly unconstitutional, yet it still happens," then what does "clearly unconstitutional" even mean?

Based on this thread and your comments re: neoconservatives in the other thread, I think we can safely say that you use words in an incredibly bizarre and confusing way. Why do you that?

----------


## Brett85

> There's nothing "birther" about questioning Cruz's eligibility. He's not eligible.  That won't stop him though, and it may well not stop Rand either.


He's eligible since he's been a U.S citizen since birth.  That's how the Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen.

----------


## eduardo89

> He's eligible since he's been a U.S citizen since birth.  That's how the Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen.


The Supreme Court has actually never fully defined natural born citizen. That's why when people claim that natural born means something like born in the US to two US citizens, they are wrong. SCOTUS has never defined it.

----------


## Brett85

> The Supreme Court has actually never fully defined natural born citizen. That's why when people claim that natural born means something like born in the US to two US citizens, they are wrong. SCOTUS has never defined it.


Then it's certainly legal for Ted Cruz to run for President until the time that the Supreme Court actually defines the term.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He's eligible since he's been a U.S citizen since birth.  That's how the Supreme Court has defined natural born citizen.





> The Supreme Court has actually never fully defined natural born citizen. That's why when people claim that natural born means something like born in the US to two US citizens, they are wrong. SCOTUS has never defined it.


Another case SCOTUS got wrong.  Constitutional History clearly shows that "Natural Born Citizen" actually means what eduardo says is wrong.

Its actually not that big an issue for me: the only reason I use the "birther" argument is because I don't really like Ted Cruz.  If the next Ron Paul weren't born here but could get away with it through a legal loophole, I honestly couldn't care less.  And personally, as I've stated before, I think the only voting citizens should be people who have spent at least 13 of their first 18 years in the country, period.  I'd say any person who fits those criterion SHOULD be able to run for President too, even if they weren't born here.  But that would require a constitutional amendment.

That said, looking at the history makes the Founders intent pretty clear.  And SCOTUS is wrong about that.

----------


## MichaelDavis

Those are some bad poll options. You have two Democrats and a political neophyte, yet you don't list Rand's Senate ally, Ted Cruz, or the first female Hispanic governor in the United States, Susana Martinez.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Those are some bad poll options. You have two Democrats and a political neophyte, yet you don't list Rand's Senate ally, Ted Cruz, or the first female Hispanic governor in the United States, Susana Martinez.


He already said why he didn't list Cruz, because he's not eligible.   Which apparently, Rand doesn't agree with, and neither does the Supreme Court, but he still shouldn't be eligible according to the Constitution.

----------


## Brett85

> He already said why he didn't list Cruz, because he's not eligible.   Which apparently, Rand doesn't agree with, and neither does the Supreme Court, but he still shouldn't be eligible according to the Constitution.


The Constitution doesn't define "natural born citizen."

----------


## Nic

This poll is a complete joke, but for some reason I still read the whole thread anyway. I don't see any way or reason it's not Ted Cruz. Him and Rand have pretty much held the entire GOP hostage since Cruz came into the senate. Nobody except Christie is dumb enough to want to debate either one of them, and together, they've got the old guard against the ropes. I think it would be a mistake to choose anyone else. Amash and Lee are great and I'd be excited to have any of them on the ticket, but Paul and Cruz are definitely the leaders of the Wacko Birds.

----------


## fr33

> This poll is a complete joke, but for some reason I still read the whole thread anyway. *I don't see any way or reason it's not Ted Cruz. Him and Rand have pretty much held the entire GOP hostage since Cruz came into the senate.* Nobody except Christie is dumb enough to want to debate either one of them, and together, they've got the old guard against the ropes. I think it would be a mistake to choose anyone else. Amash and Lee are great and I'd be excited to have any of them on the ticket, but Paul and Cruz are definitely the leaders of the Wacko Birds.


Once a VP is picked it means Rand has already won the nomination. He isn't going to win the general election by only getting the GOP to vote for him.

If he gets to choose a VP candidate, it's going to be a moderate/establishment type. I don't like it but that's how it works.

----------


## PaleoPaul

Susana Martinez from New Mexico.

Latina AND female.  Plus, the Governor of a border state.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Susana Martinez from New Mexico.
> 
> Latina AND female.  Plus, the Governor of a border state.


Yes, this is the correct answer.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Susana Martinez from New Mexico.
> 
> Latina AND female.  Plus, the Governor of a border state.


Has she distinguished herself as a liberty candidate in any way?  Federalism / states' rights?  Patriot Act / Fourth Amendment / NSA?   Wikipedia said she is AGAINST medical marijuana rights in her state, which is a huge black mark.   Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything backing her besides straight-up affirmative action.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Has she distinguished herself as a liberty candidate in any way?  Federalism / states' rights?  Patriot Act / Fourth Amendment / NSA?   Wikipedia said she is AGAINST medical marijuana rights in her state, which is a huge black mark.   Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything backing her besides straight-up affirmative action.


You seem to be laboring under the impression that the VP needs to be a liberty candidate. Why do you think that?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> You seem to be laboring under the impression that the VP needs to be a liberty candidate. Why do you think that?


If Rand has to pick an anti-liberty candidate, it will be someone like Christie or Bush who is forced on the ticket by Kissinger/RNC threats.  It won't be a nobody.

----------


## compromise

> Has she distinguished herself as a liberty candidate in any way?  Federalism / states' rights?  Patriot Act / Fourth Amendment / NSA?   Wikipedia said she is AGAINST medical marijuana rights in her state, which is a huge black mark.   Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything backing her besides straight-up affirmative action.


She allowed Obamacare in her state.

We have lost the Obamacare battle in the Supreme Court and it doesn't seem likely we'll succeed in Congress. The state governments are the last defense against Obamacare.

If Governors permit Obamacare exchanges in their states, they cannot be true believers in liberty & limited government.

----------


## FrankRep

None of the above is winning. 

Ted Cruz.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> If Rand has to pick an anti-liberty candidate, it will be someone like Christie or Bush who is forced on the ticket by Kissinger/RNC threats.  It won't be a nobody.


How much money would you be willing to lose betting on this?

----------


## T.hill

It makes sense that Walker is a self proclaimed libertarian-leaning gov. with all the support hes gotten from the Koch bros. 

Maybe Paul LePage?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> If something is "clearly unconstitutional, yet it still happens," then what does "clearly unconstitutional" even mean?


Are you seriously posting on a Ron Paul forum and purporting not to understand that the federal government does unconstitutional things every day?  Thousands of them?

GTFO.  I call troll.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Are you seriously posting on a Ron Paul forum and purporting not to understand that the federal government does unconstitutional things every day?  Thousands of them?
> 
> GTFO.  I call troll.


Are you seriously replying to a question without even pretending to answer it?

GTFO. I call troll.

----------


## XTreat

It will be someone more moderate, yet at least viewed as still conservative by republican voters from a northern swing state. Scott Walker seems to fit the bill.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> It was not thought out well in the least.
> 
> If you think Barry Goldwater Jr. would be Rand's choice, you are delusional.


1. Goldwater ran as Ron's VP in 2008, so he has experience.

2.  It's not necessarily "Rand's choice."  Rand might nominate Jeb Bush from the dais if Rockefeller threatens him; but grassroots delegates on the floor could nominate anyone they want.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I usually like your posts compromise, but I strongly disagree with this. Why do you think he'd be a good choice for VP? In what way(s) is he better than Susana Martinez, for example?


Probably because Walker has made national headlines fighting the commie labor unions.  Martinez is a nobody.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Didn't find a credible source for that.


There probably isn't one.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> Well you think wrong. Rand has already made a statement about Cruz


Rand made a non-statement.

Rand certainly never said he thought Cruz was Constitutionally eligible to serve as President.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> Probably because Walker has made national headlines fighting the commie labor unions.  Martinez is a nobody.


This thread is about who we think he will choose, not who we want. If The race is close and Rand needs to win, this is who he might choose. Martinez is the first female Hispanic governor in the United States. She is a Republican who is extremely popular in a very Democratic state who can assist him in securing three key demographics: Catholics, women, and Mexican-Americans.

----------


## Havax

> This thread is about who we think he will choose, not who we want. If The race is close and Rand needs to win, this is who he might choose. Martinez is the first female Hispanic governor in the United States. She is a Republican who is extremely popular in a very Democratic state who can assist him in securing three key demographics: Catholics, women, and Mexican-Americans.


Not only is my name also Michael Davis, but I agree with Martinez being the best choice.

----------


## TaftFan

> 1. Goldwater ran as Ron's VP in 2008, so he has experience.
> 
> 2.  It's not necessarily "Rand's choice."  Rand might nominate Jeb Bush from the dais if Rockefeller threatens him; but grassroots delegates on the floor could nominate anyone they want.


What?

Ron didn't have a VP in 2008. You only have VP's if you are on the ticket.

----------


## eduardo89

> What?
> 
> Ron didn't have a VP in 2008. You only have VP's if you are on the ticket.


Ron Paul was on the ballot in Louisiana with Barry Goldwater, Jr. on the Louisiana Taxpayers Party ticket and in Montana with Michael Peroutka on the Constitution Party of Montana ticket. 

He didn't choose to be on the ballot nor did he choose his running mate. It doesn't count as "experience" for Goldwater Jr. either since I don't think he even asked to be on the ballot with Ron nor did he campaign.

----------


## Carlybee

> She allowed Obamacare in her state.
> 
> We have lost the Obamacare battle in the Supreme Court and it doesn't seem likely we'll succeed in Congress. The state governments are the last defense against Obamacare.
> 
> If Governors permit Obamacare exchanges in their states, they cannot be true believers in liberty & li
> mited government.


Not necessarily..Perry wont allow it in Texas but that doesnt make him pro Liberty. He also wanted to force girls to take Gardasil.

----------


## krugminator

> Ron Paul was on the ballot in Louisiana with Barry Goldwater, Jr. on the Louisiana Taxpayers Party ticket and in Montana with Michael Peroutka on the Constitution Party of Montana ticket. 
> 
> He didn't choose to be on the ballot nor did he choose his running mate. It doesn't count as "experience" for Goldwater Jr. either since I don't think he even asked to be on the ballot with Ron nor did he campaign.


I see the idea of putting Barry Goldwater Jr. is starting to pick up traction. Good idea to shore up those Goldwater voters who otherwise might be on the fence.

----------


## rockandrollsouls

I could see Rand grabbing Cruz for the Hispanic vote or Palin for the female vote, which he needs desperately.

----------


## compromise

> Not necessarily..Perry wont allow it in Texas but that doesnt make him pro Liberty. He also wanted to force girls to take Gardasil.


It makes him a whole lot more pro liberty than Martinez.

I'm just saying that permitting Obamacare in your state is letting the progressives win and making that decision is anti-liberty.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I see the idea of putting Barry Goldwater Jr. is starting to pick up traction. Good idea to shore up those Goldwater voters who otherwise might be on the fence.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I could see Rand grabbing Cruz for the Hispanic vote *or Palin for the female vote*, which he needs desperately.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I'm just saying that permitting Obamacare in your state is letting the progressives win and making that decision is anti-liberty.


I disagree, I think it's irresponsible for a governor to turn down what basically amounts to free money for his or her constituents. Is making the decision to cash a social security check anti-liberty?

----------


## eduardo89

> I disagree, I think it's irresponsible for a governor to turn down what basically amounts to free money for his or her constituents.


Free money? You mean money that was either stolen from them in the first place through taxation or taken from them by inflation? And then putting them on the hook for trillions over the next few decades? Or the millions it will take each year to run an exchange?




> Is making the decision to cash a social security check anti-liberty?


No, getting money back which was stolen from you your entire working life is not anti-liberty.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Free money? You mean money that was either stolen from them in the first place through taxation or taken from them by inflation? And then putting them on the hook for trillions over the next few decades?


Yes, that is the free money I am talking about. Having one state refuse to take it just means there's more left for those who will. It's not like refusing to implement Obamacare allows the citizens of those states to avoid paying the taxes that will be used to fund it. Sort of like how refusing to cash SS checks does not allow you to avoid paying SS taxes all your life.




> Or the millions it will take each year to run an exchange?


They'll be getting more than that in subsidies, so on net it's still beneficial for the states to take it.




> No, getting money back which was stolen from you your entire working life is not anti-liberty.


I agree, that's why I don't think there's anything wrong with a governor electing to let Obamacare go forward in his or her state. The whole thing should be repealed or defunded at the federal level, of course, but I disagree that fighting it at the state level is appropriate.

----------


## krugminator

I'm no political expert. But it does seem like a good idea for a VP choice to be someone who fills in gaps on perceived weaknesses and makes it easier to get elected.

Jeb Bush helped fundraise for Rand and has been complimentary of Rand.  He has access to money. He is not a full blown neocon as far as I can tell, but he will calm some of the Republicans like McCain and Kristol. He was  popular governor of a swing state and successfully appealed to Hispanics.

Or he could pick Justin Amash and try to set the record for biggest percentage loss of the popular vote in presidential history.

----------


## ManOfSteel

Basically, the situation is a prisoner's dilemma. Every state would be better off if they could all agree not to set up the exchanges or allow Obamacare to be implemented, but every individual state is better off defecting and letting it go forward, regardless of what the other states do.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> I'm no political expert. But it does seem like a good idea for a VP choice to be someone who fills in gaps on perceived weaknesses and makes it easier to get elected.





> Jeb Bush helped fundraise for Rand and has been complimentary of Rand.  He has access to money. He is not a full blown neocon as far as I can tell, but he will calm some of the Republicans like McCain and Kristol. He was  popular governor of a swing state and successfully appealed to Hispanics.


Bush may not be a full blown neocon, but he's still pretty damned bad. Rubio is his protege, and you know how we feel about him around here. Also, I just don't think it's a good idea to have a Bush on the ticket in the same election as Clinton. People still like Bill way more than they like George, and the comparison will not be favorable.

Martinez seems to me a much better pick. Also, the fact that she's currently governing is not insignificant. I'm semi-sure that Jeb is just plain done with politics, at least personally. Allying with him/Rubio behind the scenes could pay dividends in terms of fund-raising for the general, but I wouldn't want either of them on the ticket.




> Or he could pick Justin Amash and try to set the record for biggest percentage loss of the popular vote in presidential history.


No way he comes close to James Cox in 1920. If he lost by more than 15 I'd be shocked.

----------


## Carlybee

> I'm no political expert. But it does seem like a good idea for a VP choice to be someone who fills in gaps on perceived weaknesses and makes it easier to get elected.
> 
> Jeb Bush helped fundraise for Rand and has been complimentary of Rand.  He has access to money. He is not a full blown neocon as far as I can tell, but he will calm some of the Republicans like McCain and Kristol. He was  popular governor of a swing state and successfully appealed to Hispanics.
> 
> Or he could pick Justin Amash and try to set the record for biggest percentage loss of the popular vote in presidential history.


Jeb Bush is a Bush and a PNAC mission stmt signer.  That is taking two steps backward, but keep acquiescing and pandering and you will see a big loss with liberty and constitutionalist voters.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> keep acquiescing and pandering and you will see a big loss with liberty and constitutionalist voters.


This is impossible, there aren't enough liberty voters and constitutionalists to constitute a "big" loss. We found that out in 2008 and 2012 when Ron Paul got his ass kicked at the polls.

It'd be nice if liberty voters and constitutionalists supported Rand, of course, but we can do without them. We _cannot_ do without moderates/independents who support people like Jeb Bush, Susana Martinez, and even Barack Obama. Winning over these people requires tactics and taking positions that LV/Cs don't like, but doing so is an absolute necessity if we are to take power.

----------


## Rudeman

I would not trust Jeb Bush to be Rand's VP, that's just asking for an assassination attempt against him (Reagan).

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I could see Rand grabbing Cruz for the Hispanic vote or Palin for the female vote, which he needs desperately.


It won't be Palin.  I can assure you of that.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

It will either be Cruz or Dr. Ben Carson.....or maybe a governor.  It's a rather short list of viable VPs.

----------


## Carlybee

> This is impossible, there aren't enough liberty voters and constitutionalists to constitute a "big" loss. We found that out in 2008 and 2012 when Ron Paul got his ass kicked at the polls.
> 
> It'd be nice if liberty voters and constitutionalists supported Rand, of course, but we can do without them. We _cannot_ do without moderates/independents who support people like Jeb Bush, Susana Martinez, and even Barack Obama. Winning over these people requires tactics and taking positions that LV/Cs don't like, but doing so is an absolute necessity if we are to take power.


 
Interesting you just signed up this month. Sock puppet?   That's fine and dandy if you think you can do without our support and wish to pander to the likes of people who would support Jeb Bush....I do not see that as any kind of move toward liberty so you might as well stop using the liberty movement moniker if that is to be the case.

----------


## fr33

I think Carson would be an excellent choice, politically speaking. He's a great speech giver even though he's not a libertarian. From a marketing standpoint I can't think of anyone better.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I would not trust Jeb Bush to be Rand's VP, that's just asking for an assassination attempt against him (Reagan).


Hinckley is out of prison these days!  Wonder if the Hinckleys still have dinner with the Bushes?

----------


## Brett85

> Or he could pick Justin Amash and try to set the record for biggest percentage loss of the popular vote in presidential history.


Are you kidding me?  Why would Amash as VP hurt Rand's chances to win?  He has everything going for him; he's young, he's a minority, he's from a swing state, he's a fresh face in the GOP, he's good looking and would be popular with women and young people, etc.  But yeah, picking the brother of a guy who left office with a 25% approval rating would be a brilliant move.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Who will be on Rand's ticket for VP?


No one.  He will lose the primary by a landslide as so few of his supporters appear to remember it actually has to be worked on and won before talking about who's going to be VP, what tie he's going to wear to the inauguration, and whether he'll win a second term.

----------


## Brett85

> No one.  He will lose the primary by a landslide as so few of his supporters appear to remember it actually has to be worked on and won before talking about who's going to be VP, what tie he's going to wear to the inauguration, and whether he'll win a second term.


This is a thread that's just for fun.  No one assumes that Rand is going to have an easy path to win the GOP nomination.

----------


## krugminator

> Are you kidding me?  Why would Amash as VP hurt Rand's chances to win?  He has everything going for him; he's young, he's a minority, he's from a swing state, he's a fresh face in the GOP, he's good looking and would be popular with women and young people, etc.  But yeah, picking the brother of a guy who left office with a 25% approval rating would be a brilliant move.


Amash wouldn't be helpful at all raising money, which is going to be a huge weakness for Rand.  There is basically no voting constituency that Amash would help with.

And I don't think anyone is getting ahead of themselves. I think most people get that Rand is a big underdog to get the nomination. But so what? He still has a real chance to win, which is pretty exciting.

----------


## eduardo89

> Amash wouldn't be helpful at all raising money, which is going to be a huge weakness for Rand.  There is basically no voting constituency that Amash would help with.
> 
> And I don't think anyone is getting ahead of themselves. I think most people get that Rand is a big underdog to get the nomination. But so what? He still has a real chance to win, which is pretty exciting.


I agree with this. Picking Amash is just "preaching to the choir." He brings in no new demographic that Rand doesn't already have in the bag nor does he bring executive experience or large donors.

----------


## Brett85

> Amash wouldn't be helpful at all raising money, which is going to be a huge weakness for Rand.  There is basically no voting constituency that Amash would help with.
> 
> And I don't think anyone is getting ahead of themselves. I think most people get that Rand is a big underdog to get the nomination. But so what? He still has a real chance to win, which is pretty exciting.


1) He would help raise all kinds of money, as a lot of conservatives would finally be excited about the Republican ticket for once.  There would be a surge of donations to Rand's campaign.

2)  Amash would help with women, young people, Muslims, other minorities, people who previously had given up on politics, etc.  There probably wouldn't be a voting constituency that Amash wouldn't help with.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't really care about political pragmatism.  Heck, I'd be fine with picking Napolitano.  It doesn't matter.  

I don't agree with Sola_Fide on everything, but his signature is absolutely excellent.  To stick to principle, educate, and lose should be the goal.  If we win, great.

----------


## Uriah

After the 2014 elections we will have a much clearer view of who will be a strong pick. And also who will be running for president. We will surely see some presidential contenders campaigning for candidates in places like Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina etc.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't really care about political pragmatism.  Heck, I'd be fine with picking Napolitano.  It doesn't matter.  
> 
> I don't agree with Sola_Fide on everything, but his signature is absolutely excellent.  To stick to principle, educate, and lose should be the goal.  If we win, great.


"Lose" should be the goal?  You can't implement your policies and your ideals if you never gain the power that's necessary to do so.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Lose" should be the goal?  You can't implement your policies and your ideals if you never gain the power that's necessary to do so.


The point is to stick to principle and educate, regardless of if you actually win.

I fail to see the point in fighting for half-baked solutions, IMO.

I'm not sure if a Paul/Amash ticket would be as politically successful as a Paul/Christie ticket, but at the end of the day, I'd rather fight for something actually worthwhile rather than more of the same.

----------


## Brett85

> The point is to stick to principle and educate, regardless of if you actually win.
> 
> I fail to see the point in fighting for half-baked solutions, IMO.
> 
> I'm not sure if a Paul/Amash ticket would be as politically successful as a Paul/Christie ticket, but at the end of the day, I'd rather fight for something actually worthwhile rather than more of the same.


Well, personally I believe that a Paul/Amash ticket would be more successful than a Paul/establishment Republican ticket.  If Rand picked an establishment Republican, it would just kill his fundraising and kill any excitement that there had once been for his campaign.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, personally I believe that a Paul/Amash ticket would be more successful than a Paul/establishment Republican ticket.  If Rand picked an establishment Republican, it would just kill his fundraising and kill any excitement that there had once been for his campaign.


I honestly think God would be more likely to bless a Paul/Amash ticket than a Paul/establishment ticket.  Call that stupid or naive, but I honestly do believe that.

I don't think God is going to bless our movement if we compromise on our principles.

----------


## fr33

> I honestly think God would be more likely to bless a Paul/Amash ticket than a Paul/establishment ticket.  Call that stupid or naive, but I honestly do believe that.
> 
> I don't think God is going to bless our movement if we compromise on our principles.


LOL if god were blessing anything that has to do with liberty we wouldn't be in the state we are in. Manifest Destiny much?

----------


## ManOfSteel

> That's fine and dandy if you think you can do without our support and  wish to pander to the likes of people who would support Jeb Bush....I do  not see that as any kind of move toward liberty so you might as well  stop using the liberty movement moniker if that is to be the case.


If people who would support Jeb Bush won't support Rand Paul, then we are 100% dead in the water, and I don't believe the liberty movement moniker should be reserved for candidates who are guaranteed to lose. Why are you such a masochist?

----------


## ManOfSteel

> To stick to principle, educate, and lose should be the goal.  If we win, great.


If losing is the goal, then how can winning be great? Winning would mean failing at your goal. Isn't failing at your goal kind of bad by definition?

----------


## Carlybee

> If people who would support Jeb Bush won't support Rand Paul, then we are 100% dead in the water, and I don't believe the liberty movement moniker should be reserved for candidates who are guaranteed to lose. Why are you such a masochist?


I believe the liberty moniker should be reserved for anyone who actually supports the true concepts of liberty not used as a label that means absolutely nothing. The thought of a Bush as a VP makes me throw up in my mouth...and not just a Bush but a  neocon who signed the PNAC mission statement that helped form the blueprint for a path of global military intervention.  If you don't see a problem with that then you are the masochist because you apparently have learned nothing from history.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians


Is this _your_ study?  I have some comments on flawed methodologies and inherent biases developing predeterminate outcomes, but I don't want to defecate directly into someone's Wheaties.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Is this _your_ study?  I have some comments on flawed methodologies and inherent biases developing predeterminate outcomes, but I don't want to defecate directly into someone's Wheaties.


No, I had no direct involvement with it, but even if I did I wouldn't mind constructive criticism. I'd appreciate hearing any comments you care to make. In what ways were their methodologies flawed, and how could they have done better? How did their biases influence the outcome of the study, and how could they have prevented this?

----------


## rockandrollsouls

Palin was a governor, recall? Long story short it has to be someone that helps with the Hispanic vote, female vote, or influences a huge swing state. I don't think Carson fits the bill.





> It will either be Cruz or Dr. Ben Carson.....or maybe a governor.  It's a rather short list of viable VPs.

----------


## Uriah

> Palin was a governor, recall? Long story short it has to be someone that helps with the Hispanic vote, female vote, or influences a huge swing state. I don't think Carson fits the bill.


Carson has also declined to run for office. Unless he changes his mind it won't happen.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> No, I had no direct involvement with it, but even if I did I wouldn't mind constructive criticism. I'd appreciate hearing any comments you care to make. In what ways were their methodologies flawed, and how could they have done better? How did their biases influence the outcome of the study, and how could they have prevented this?


Well, from memory without pulling it back up, they did a lot of "here is a standard test, but we are going to replace these data-points with those data-points that will make libertarian philosophies score more subjectively moral than objectively moral.  Now here are the test results.  Hey look!  Libertarians are more subjectively moral!  Imagine that."

That's the primary in-your-face issue I saw.  A deliberate (and openly stated) manipulation of test questions to contrive a predetermined outcome.  If they are willing to do that openly and disclose that they did it, then how much did that same bias effect other areas where they may not have even been aware of the effect of their bias?

I would have to go re-review the study to pull up more specifics, but there is a definite confirmation bias at work there, and while it was in several places I specifically remember the section on subjective vs objective morality where they discussed the alteration of specific questions that clearly put libertarian philosophies into the subjective end.

----------


## ManOfSteel

> Well, from memory without pulling it back up, they did a lot of "here is a standard test, but we are going to replace these data-points with those data-points that will make libertarian philosophies score more subjectively moral than objectively moral.  Now here are the test results.  Hey look!  Libertarians are more subjectively moral!  Imagine that."


Which part of the publication are you referring to here? I just re-read it and didn't find anything like what you are describing.




> That's the primary in-your-face issue I saw.  A deliberate (and openly stated) manipulation of test questions to contrive a predetermined outcome.  If they are willing to do that openly and disclose that they did it, then how much did that same bias effect other areas where they may not have even been aware of the effect of their bias?


Same question as above, I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about.




> I would have to go re-review the study to pull up more specifics, but there is a definite confirmation bias at work there, and while it was in several places I specifically remember the section on subjective vs objective morality where they discussed the alteration of specific questions that clearly put libertarian philosophies into the subjective end.


You have yet to reference anything specific at all, so "more" specifics would certainly be nice. I am open to the idea that there's a confirmation bias at work, but I'd need to see at least a single scrap of evidence before agreeing with that conclusion.

To be honest, it sounds to me like you read the paper under the influence of an enormous amount of bias yourself. Do you have a negative opinion of psychiatrists and bristle at the thought of being psycho-analyzed? Amusingly, the paper predicts that libertarians will be prone to just those sorts of biases - as you can see from Figure 3,



libertarians score higher on psychological reactance than other political groups, indicating that they are more emotionally resistant to the advice and influence of others.

_The high levels of reactance expressed by libertarians fit well with the  value they place on liberty as a moral foundation. It is of course  possible that libertarians' responses to the scale are primarily  expressions of their current political beliefs, but it is also possible  that people who have the strongest visceral reactions to interference  from others are also the people most drawn to the ideals and identity of  libertarianism. Reactance may in fact function as a moral emotion that  draws individuals toward the ideal of negative liberty. Reactance scores  were negatively correlated with measures of empathy (Big Five  Agreeableness: r = −.38, Baron-Cohen Empathizer: r = −.32, IRI Empathic  Concern: r = −.15; p<.001 in all cases) that are most associated with  conceptions of positive liberty [18],  which perhaps suggests why, in the US, libertarianism is more commonly  associated with conservative, as opposed to liberal policies._

----------


## EBounding

I think Tom McClintock would be a reasonable and awesome pick.   I don't know if they have any relationship though or if McClintock would even be interested.

----------


## compromise

> Why the personal attack, compromise?


It's not a personal attack. I completely understand and respect her hobby.

----------


## TonySutton

cart before the horse?

----------


## Meritocrat

I don't see any hispanic names on this list.  None of the above.

----------


## Carlybee

> It means get a maggot, and then gag it.
> 
> It's what CarlyBee likes to do in her spare time.


Piss off

----------


## Carlybee

> It's not a personal attack. I completely understand and respect her hobby.


Piss off part deaux

----------


## eduardo89

> Piss off





> Piss off part deaux


Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

----------


## Carlybee

> I can't think of any event in recent American politics world history that is as saddening. 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean?


It means that's pretty disgusting if you find Sarah Palin's abandoning her job as the saddest day in history. I'm sure there are real tragedies that warrant more concern.

----------


## Carlybee

> Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.


Nope...just giving the snark it's rightful due. I know some of you man boys think you are clever but meh..not so much.

----------


## mosquitobite

> I don't see any hispanic names on this list.  None of the above.


I don't play the affirmative action game.

Next!

----------


## Carlybee

> I don't see any hispanic names on this list.  None of the above.


Debra Medina

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Debra Medina


Great suggestion, but he'd never do it.

----------


## compromise

> Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed.


She seems to be on the wrong side of most things.

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I don't see any hispanic names on this list.  None of the above.


A lot of people want this Gov. Martinez.  I would put her in the (hypothetical) next poll if someone would show me either:

1. Something pro-liberty she has done to make Rand WANT her as VP

or 

2. Proof the NWO would want to force *her* as the ticket as their cutthroat enforcer.  Does she have a trail of dead "friends" and opponents? Is she connected to 9/11?

----------


## RonPaulGeorge&Ringo

> I didn't include any ineligible Canadian or Cuban candidates.  I'd like to think Rand has more respect for the Constitution than that.


Did I inadvertantly include an ineligible Palestinian candidate?  When did Atallah Amash naturalize as an American?

----------


## eduardo89

> Debra Medina


She's Hispanic? I know the name Medina is of Spanish origin, but that's her husband's name, not hers.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why the personal attack, compromise?


Same reason he calls me a terrorist?

----------


## whoisjohngalt

After the shutdown and the evolution of Ted Cruz, I'm pretty sure his pick will be Susana Martinez.  She is relatively establishment, female, Hispanic, from the Southwest, and from a blue state (though it only has what 4 electoral votes?).  She favors a balanced budget and has largely only been a show pony on social issues (when asked about her position on marijuana, she said she opposes the medical marijuana law but it's not a priority to change).

She was a district attorney and is married to a cop, I believe, which might cause a tendency to a more hawkish foreign policy.  That's the big question mark at this point.

No way would I say I want her as the VP or that she is an ideal pick, but if you put yourself in Rand's shoes, it seems the obvious choice.

----------


## Varin

Mitch Daniels? Governor and Establishment

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

I think Cruz damaged himself for any VP chances.  It will likely be a governor or Ben Carson.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I think Cruz damaged himself for any VP chances.  It will likely be a governor or Ben Carson.


Carson is an interesting choice, and I'm sure Rand would prefer a doctor to a lawyer, but I think he just enjoys having a voice and is not interested in becoming a politician.  Also, he tends to use hyperbole like comparing Obamacare to slavery.

Plus, the first black President has already happened so the shallow will be clamoring for the first female or Hispanic Vice President.  If it's Hillary or Warren, I'd bet a lot on Martinez.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

Rand should pick his father Ron. Then nobody will assassinate Rand, and Ron could run the Adminstration the way Cheney did while in charge of G.W. Bush's.

----------


## TaftFan

> Rand should pick his father Ron. Then nobody will assassinate Rand, and Ron could run the Adminstration the way Cheney did while in charge of G.W. Bush's.


And you wonder if Greg Brannon is electable. SMH.

----------


## GopBlackList

y'all are aware that the role of the VP is to be a conduit between the White House and Congress? So folks like Sarah Palin, Ventura, etc. wouldn't be great candidates.

----------


## idiom

> Poll is absurd...Nutcase Jesse Ventura? Judge Napolitano? Gary Marijuana Johnson? Russ Feingold? A WWE wrestler? Bob Barr?
> 
> I thought this was supposed to be serious...


Might be getting a weee bit ahead of ourselves there.

----------


## cindy25

I would prefer Justin Amash, but realistically it has to be Hispanic.  That leaves Cruz, Rubio, Martinez and Raul Labrador.  Rubio is too neo-con so that leaves the other 3.

----------


## MRK

There's really no slam-dunk option that is apparent, unfortunately.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I would prefer Justin Amash, but realistically it has to be Hispanic.  That leaves Cruz, Rubio, Martinez and Raul Labrador.  Rubio is too neo-con so that leaves the other 3.


Cruz is too incendiary and is much less appealing to Hispanics then Martinez or Labrador, largely because of their respective stances on immigration.  If it's Hillary, you don't think the added allure of a female Hispanic will overpower the campaign's thought process?  Heck even if it isn't Hillary.

New Mexico is blue, Idaho is red.  
Martinez is an executive, Labrador is a legislator.

Labrador is more philosophically in-line with Rand but not by nearly enough to trump all those other factors.  I think it will be an easy decision.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Might be getting a weee bit ahead of ourselves there.


This.

----------


## Uriah

> Cruz is too incendiary and is much less appealing to Hispanics then Martinez or Labrador, largely because of their respective stances on immigration.  If it's Hillary, you don't think the added allure of a female Hispanic will overpower the campaign's thought process?  Heck even if it isn't Hillary.
> 
> New Mexico is blue, Idaho is red.  
> Martinez is an executive, Labrador is a legislator.
> 
> Labrador is more philosophically in-line with Rand but not by nearly enough to trump all those other factors.  I think it will be an easy decision.


VP's also get a leg up to become the next president. You'll need to factor that in as well.

----------

