2016: If not Rand, then who?

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't think there's any chance of the Judge running.

 

[Gumba of Liberty]

The emphasis placed on the Presidential Elections is understandable, given the influence of the corporate media on the average voter, but it should not be the major focus of the liberty movement (Listen to me tell the "liberty" movment what to do ). I think the whole idea of waiting another four years for some "leader", in a suit, to come save us is unrealistic, naive, and juvenile. The important thing is that our focus transfer from the dying central government to state and local governments. When the iceberg hits, there's a point when you have to shift from trying to seal the hole to getting people on the life boats. I think 2012 is that game-changing year. Post-2012, the liberty movement needs to co-op state and local governments (or go down with this big, bad ship). It is best to let one group of sociopaths go to war with another because if the states are allowed, by us, to comply with the Feds plans it will make Obama's Presidency look like a picnic. Remember how the Feds operate:

 

[cindy25]

if Romney wins then Rand should run for governor of KY; no risk of the senate seat and as governor he would be better in position for 2020, it seems the base would agree with Rand on domestic issues.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

This sounds very familiar....didn't the media say something very near to that about...Ron Paul?

Yes, Woods is a philosopher and not a politician. That, more than any single attribute, is why I think he is far better suited to be the public face of this movement than any mere politician out there.

Politicians can only change the way people behave. Philosophers change how people think.

Woods isn't a philosopher, he's an educator and historian. That is his role and he loves being in that role. He could be good in an advisor capacity.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

too early to say; depends on how Rand behaves in the senate (behave is intentional, the neo-con votes must be minimal); and Rand would have to be all in, meaning no senate race.

We need our people in place so we can retain Rand's Senate seat if he runs for President. We could run Massie to replace Rand in Senate and we need someone to step up and replace Massie's very valuable and secure House seat in the 4th district.

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't think there's any chance of the Judge running.

I agree. Think about this. Napolitano walked away from a life tenured judgeship because he was bored and wanted to explore other avenues. He enjoys his job in the media and educating people through that forum. The only government position I think he'd even consider doing would be Attorney General.

 

[BenIsForRon]

Thinking outside the box: David Walker, Glenn Greenwald, Johnathan Turley, Bruce Fein.

Is BJ Lawson 35 yet? He would actually be a kickass candidate. Look at how Herman Cain shot up in the polls without government experience.

 

[JasonM]

You guys act like you are going to sit on your thumbs until 2016 rolls around. The likelihood of us winning a presidential election is slim. We have to get liberty-minded people in state government all over the country and in the U.S. Congress. Those are very doable. If we want to make our odds better for a 2016 presidential run, then the more we have gotten elected to leadership positions in the GOP, the easier it is going to be. If we just do nothing until 2016, expect the same results.

^

THIS!!

 

[Dogsoldier]

Which won't do anybody any good. That's where the establishment wants you.

So I guess I should vote for Romney huh.

A line must be drawn here!This far,NO FURTHER!

No more voting for "the lesser of 2 evils".

If you agree with this then the only choice is libertarian.Ron Pauls beliefs are libertarian.

Trust me if the libertarians start getting 30,40,50% of the vote then the Republican party will come to us.That is the whole purpose of voting.If you want to change things then you must change the way you vote.

 

[JasonM]

So I guess I should vote for Romney huh.

A line must be drawn here!This far,NO FURTHER!

No more voting for "the lesser of 2 evils".

If you agree with this then the only choice is libertarian.Ron Pauls beliefs are libertarian.

Trust me if the libertarians start getting 30,40,50% of the vote then the Republican party will come to us.That is the whole purpose of voting.If you want to change things then you must change the way you vote.

Well as long as they just vote I suppose it's ok. It's when they start assuming leadership problems that they'll become a problem in this scenario if they aren't the "right Republicans".

 

[kahless]

Pending more research on my part I am reconsidering my support for Rand due to his plan to raise the SS age.

 

[LawnWake]

Judge Napolitano. He would flat out eviscerate anybody any day in a debate.

He's a great public speaker and has great knowledge on freedom and he's mad likable, fuck, don't you just wanna hug the guy? But he's a pretty poor debater.

Anyone can sound smart and indestructable in a speech (and he IS smart) and it's his job on Fox to share his opinion, that he states very well, but when he debated Jon Stewart he was pretty weak.

 

[jbauer]

On what grounds? You like him because he wants to raise it or dislike him because he wants to raise it?

SS, Medicare/aid is unsustainable in its current form. Ignoring this is no better than the special interest groups that get in a tissy about loosing funding. I support going to a life expectancy table for SS & Medicare. Say 15-20 years before expected date of death. That way it doesn't have to be F'ed with again.

If we don't make significant changes to how we spend and how we tax all this is a moot point because the ship is headed to the bottom.

Pending more research on my part I am reconsidering my support for Rand due to his plan to raise the SS age.

 

[kahless]

On what grounds? You like him because he wants to raise it or dislike him because he wants to raise it?

SS, Medicare/aid is unsustainable in its current form. Ignoring this is no better than the special interest groups that get in a tissy about loosing funding. I support going to a life expectancy table for SS & Medicare. Say 15-20 years before expected date of death. That way it doesn't have to be F'ed with again.

If we don't make significant changes to how we spend and how we tax all this is a moot point because the ship is headed to the bottom.

Do you really think it is a winning strategy to go after that program rather than cut military spending, corporate welfare and the rest of the federal government?

I am all for reform, means testing, letting young people opt out and increasing funding until there is a long term transition to privatization plan. But screwing the average Joe that has been paying in all his or her life while Corporate America and the needless empire still gets theirs is bullshit.

The priority should be eliminate corporate welfare to the military offense contractors, eliminate the dam empire, keep our military in a defensive role rather than offensive, end foreign aid, gut the federal government, means test SS, reform it and fund it.

Even if you believe raising the age is the right thing to do, Rand cannot win a general election with that record. I agree that things will get worse with the value of our dollar decreasing because of the spending. But I can guarantee you our money will continue to go to bailout corporate America, Wall street, nation building and defending Germany, Korea which is ridiculous. Meanwhile we get screwed out of SS.

 

[Joshua2585]

Justin Amash?

 

[brandon]

Justin Amash?

Not old enough, and even if he was - he's not experienced enough.

 

[jbauer]

A winning strategy is to tell it like it is. All of it is unsastainable. Military, corporate america, welfare, ss, medicare. Why not own the problems we have admit we have a problem and do whats best to fix it. You are correct that you probably can't run on platform of screw the average joe, but you probably can run on platform of reforming the entire system so that it actually works and is solvent.

Without talking about SS you might as well just toss the rest. You're never going to fix the root of the problem without talking about entitlements.

Do you really think it is a winning strategy to go after that program rather than cut military spending, corporate welfare and the rest of the federal government?

I am all for reform, means testing, letting young people opt out and increasing funding until there is a long term transition to privatization plan. But screwing the average Joe that has been paying in all his or her life while Corporate America and the needless empire still gets theirs is bullshit.

The priority should be eliminate corporate welfare to the military offense contractors, eliminate the dam empire, keep our military in a defensive role rather than offensive, end foreign aid, gut the federal government, means test SS, reform it and fund it.

Even if you believe raising the age is the right thing to do, Rand cannot win a general election with that record. I agree that things will get worse with the value of our dollar decreasing because of the spending. But I can guarantee you our money will continue to go to bailout corporate America, Wall street, nation building and defending Germany, Korea which is ridiculous. Meanwhile we get screwed out of SS.

 

[Joshua2585]

Not old enough, and even if he was - he's not experienced enough.

Yea, after I posted I thought about the age... and you don't need experience to be elected to the highest office in the land. see: Obama

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Andrew Napolitano

 

[realtonygoodwin]

A 9/11 truther won't be the GOP nominee.

Rand is the only viable one that I see on the horizon.