2016: If not Rand, then who?
- Thread starter John F Kennedy III
- Start date
kuckfeynes
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2011
- Messages
- 784
Barring a miracle in Tampa, I don't see it happening. Four years is a LONG time at this stage in the game. How many more QE's will be needed by then?
I think we will see some kind of major collapse, if not "the big one" then still something bad enough to REALLY disenfranchise people.
Both parties will continue to lose members to independents and apathetics, eventually creating a dangerous vacuum. I say dangerous because I think we all know, deep down, that even if both parties were down to 1% of the population each, they would still have the power and connections to pull the same crap they are pulling now, and they would, only it would have to be a much more comprehensive crackdown to deal with the much larger opposition.
The GOP will use Rand to try and placate some people, to stave off the tide for as long as possible, but they will NEVER let him or any liberty candidate come close to having real power to dismantle anything.
It's not that I don't believe in our peaceful revolution, but I don't believe that they will let that power go without instigating violence themselves, like we just caught a glimpse of this week. Even if a third party managed to become bigger, without impartial judges and cops, it's a kindling box for violence.
Frankly I'm worried about what's going to go down in Tampa.
I think we will see some kind of major collapse, if not "the big one" then still something bad enough to REALLY disenfranchise people.
Both parties will continue to lose members to independents and apathetics, eventually creating a dangerous vacuum. I say dangerous because I think we all know, deep down, that even if both parties were down to 1% of the population each, they would still have the power and connections to pull the same crap they are pulling now, and they would, only it would have to be a much more comprehensive crackdown to deal with the much larger opposition.
The GOP will use Rand to try and placate some people, to stave off the tide for as long as possible, but they will NEVER let him or any liberty candidate come close to having real power to dismantle anything.
It's not that I don't believe in our peaceful revolution, but I don't believe that they will let that power go without instigating violence themselves, like we just caught a glimpse of this week. Even if a third party managed to become bigger, without impartial judges and cops, it's a kindling box for violence.
Frankly I'm worried about what's going to go down in Tampa.
RonPaulFanInGA
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,749
Lordy, not another campaign with Benton/Collins.
John F Kennedy III
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,839
Bump
RonPaulFanInGA
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,749
GeorgiaAvenger
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 4,945
First off, anybody that says Judge Napolitano, Glen Bradley, or Tom Woods etc. is delusional even though I love those guys. They would get less support that Ron Paul.
Rand Paul is the obvious heir. I only question whether he can shake off the "Ron Paul's son" image because if he doesn't it may be hard to become the frontrunner. Also, keep in mind that Rand is 49. Most of these guys are waiting till their 60's to run, and so if it is possible for another liberty candidate to win, Rand can be the liaison in the Senate and get things done while he waits 8 years. Waiting would also give him a much better chance at dominating the primary, as by that time he would be a senior Senator and have the support of the previous administration. For this reason, all liberty candidates who consider a run need to meet and sort things like this out, and not get personal ambition in the way.
Gary Johnson will not be a viable candidate for President in the Republican party because of his views on immigration, abortion, and drugs. Otherwise, I expect he would do well. This is not to see he isn't a viable VP candidate, and I could see him doing well in that role. He would really bring the independent vote aboard and he has credibility as someone who has been successful and popular among non-Republicans.
Mike Lee is somebody I see as a genuine believer in liberty. He is young and intellectual, and I could see him doing well and I would definitely support him. One issue against him is that yet another Mormon would be running, and I don't know how some would take it. If Rand runs, he won't. If Rand wins, I want this man as his VP.
Justin Amash would be a certain yes; he is trustworthy. Two things going against him-he is very young and just a Congressman. I believe he needs to wait some time, and win election as a Senator or Governor.
Finally I would bring up Mark Sanford. He is a believer in liberty, but obviously his affair tore up his political career. However, perhaps time and the position the country is in could cast that to the side. As we saw this time, three wifer Trump was hugely popular and three wifer Gingrich had a strong chance to win and was the clear frontrunner at one point. Clinton has also maintained popularity, as has JFK.
Rand Paul is the obvious heir. I only question whether he can shake off the "Ron Paul's son" image because if he doesn't it may be hard to become the frontrunner. Also, keep in mind that Rand is 49. Most of these guys are waiting till their 60's to run, and so if it is possible for another liberty candidate to win, Rand can be the liaison in the Senate and get things done while he waits 8 years. Waiting would also give him a much better chance at dominating the primary, as by that time he would be a senior Senator and have the support of the previous administration. For this reason, all liberty candidates who consider a run need to meet and sort things like this out, and not get personal ambition in the way.
Gary Johnson will not be a viable candidate for President in the Republican party because of his views on immigration, abortion, and drugs. Otherwise, I expect he would do well. This is not to see he isn't a viable VP candidate, and I could see him doing well in that role. He would really bring the independent vote aboard and he has credibility as someone who has been successful and popular among non-Republicans.
Mike Lee is somebody I see as a genuine believer in liberty. He is young and intellectual, and I could see him doing well and I would definitely support him. One issue against him is that yet another Mormon would be running, and I don't know how some would take it. If Rand runs, he won't. If Rand wins, I want this man as his VP.
Justin Amash would be a certain yes; he is trustworthy. Two things going against him-he is very young and just a Congressman. I believe he needs to wait some time, and win election as a Senator or Governor.
Finally I would bring up Mark Sanford. He is a believer in liberty, but obviously his affair tore up his political career. However, perhaps time and the position the country is in could cast that to the side. As we saw this time, three wifer Trump was hugely popular and three wifer Gingrich had a strong chance to win and was the clear frontrunner at one point. Clinton has also maintained popularity, as has JFK.
Last edited:
ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
Well, why do you think Party affiliation matters? Why do you think experience as a politician matters?
I'm not going to waste my time supporting someone who voted for sanctions against Iran, an act of war (even after adding a clause that basically said 'this act of war is in no way to be construed as an act of war'...Orwellian doublethink BS).
I'd rather have someone who never won office before who never stuck with BS false paradigm Party politics than a watered down libertarian. Rand has simply lost my support for President (for several things he's done and said, not just the sanctions...as if I needed more reasons). He's fine in the Senate until we end up with a better alternative, but his last name is not a free ride. But for President, you can count my vote out...but I'm sure you'll have no problem replacing it with a neocon vote. Neocons seem to like Rand mostly.
Just remember incrimentalism is how we got here to begin with, and support for it is not going to end any differently this time around. I don't want to vote for someone I can't trust from day one. Sophism is nearly as bad as nationalism and statism.
Judge Nap, Tom Woods, any of the Mises crowd is fine by me.
Last edited:
PatriotOne
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 10,722
Rand is the only one who can inherit nearly 100% of Rons grassroots and our momentum. Anyone else would be several steps backwards. Paul is a recognized brand name now. I like Woods also but he can't compete with the Paul name recognition and I see no reason why we would even contemplate it. Rand's running in 2016. With our momentum and 4 yrs to prep and campaign for him, we have a really good shot to get him in office. 2016 is our year as long as we don't sit on our asses till 2015.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
amash?
PatriotOne
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 10,722
We should definately get Woods in a Senate or Congressman position should he desire it.
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
woods is too fringe to even win a congressional seat. I love the dude but he is a philosopher, not a politician. He would not dumb himself down to the general public.
Obama came out of nowhere. Clinton too. Take a look around. Is Rand the only hope?...look, i like Rand, and if all goes well from now till then then it very well could be Rand i support. New blood is new blood and Rand being a Senator certainly helps his cred but he IS not Ron Paul. If we want another Ron Paul, we need someone with a clean slate, someone from out of nowhere who is not riding on Ron's coattails like Rand, someone like Bradley fits my slate. Veteran, no baggage, local experience, walks the walk, talks the talk, but i realize people are in a hurry and Rand could get there, but there is still some vetting to do with him. Lots of questions. Maybe they get answered in due time.
Meanwhile, i throw Glen Bradley's name out there...why not?
Meanwhile, i throw Glen Bradley's name out there...why not?
Last edited:
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
Southerner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 364
If it wasn't for Senator Jim Demint and HIS superpac, there would be no Senator Rand Paul, nor many of the other new blood anti establishment types.
DeMint/Rand Paul 2016. If Mitt/xxxx loses in 2012, and there is a nation left after a 2nd 0bama term.
DeMint/Rand Paul 2016. If Mitt/xxxx loses in 2012, and there is a nation left after a 2nd 0bama term.
morely webb
Member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 47
DeMint sure helped us in South Carolina.
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
DeMint is a failure. He said Romneycare should be taken nationally, voted for the energy program that brought us Solyndra, and:
http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance285.html
If that's our horse, it's over.
Last edited:
Similar threads
