Judge Napolitano As Best 2020 Candidate

[opal]

What Ron did was spend 40 years in Congress voting No. That was the core of his Presidential run and of his general appeal.

this statement needs to be in half a dozen threads I've just read
+1

 

[erowe1]

So again... who is a stronger option? Or are we not interested in another Ron Paul style presidential campaign?



Elaborate?

Rand is stronger. Amash and Massie are both stronger. Mark Sanford is stronger. Gary Johnson is stronger. And outside of people who have held elected office, there are probably 100's of others who are stronger.

Napolitano is an entertainer. He gets people to watch him by enthusiastically making outrageous claims that, when people scrutinize them they routinely discover them to be wrong. He has tons of fodder for negative campaigning just by making a collage of quotes. He would get crushed in the debates.

He might make a good House of Representatives candidate where the bar would be set lower and the competition not as sophisticated.

 

[TheTexan]

Is he gay though?

 

[idiom]

Maybe people don't remember well. A lot of Ron's supporters disagreed with him on a *majority* of issues. However the guy was the gold fucking standard of integrity. You could go back 40 years and he was saying the same thing. He would tell you to your face your special interest was basically theft and unconstitutional. The thing was you could trust him to say that to every other out-stretched hand equally.

He was also a veteran which helped a lot on the foreign policy front, and an OB/GYN so you couldn't fuck with him on Abortion, even pro-choicers had to respect his deeply thought out positions.

Unfortunately he hated campaigning and was pretty rubbish at selecting sub-ordinates. This made him an excellent message candidate, put maybe not a realistic candidate for the actual honest to God Presidency.

The contribution to his trust-worthiness of his depth of time in congress is deeply under-rated. Even his '88 LP run had basically the same stump speech.


To go beyond what Ron Paul did will take something quite special.

 

[K466]

In terms of optics, Judge Nap is incredibly short... someone as tall as Jeb Bush.

As specsaregood mentioned, he's also not good in contentious debates and interviews.

Height may help but that is the last thing we should care about. See how much good it is doing the Shrub.

Again, I may have missed some of those debate weaknesses... does anyone have a handy link to a video I would like to watch it. Of the many hours of him I have seen he is quite the speaker.

Rand is stronger. Amash and Massie are both stronger. Mark Sanford is stronger. Gary Johnson is stronger. And outside of people who have held elected office, there are probably 100's of others who are stronger.

Rand, Sandford, and Gary are not even an option because they would not use Ron Paul's strategy. Amash and Massie, I will have to look into more, but I don't think they would be ready for a 2020 run.

Napolitano is an entertainer.

So is Trump; it's a plus; and Andrew is much more than that.

The contribution to his trust-worthiness of his depth of time in congress is deeply under-rated. Even his '88 LP run had basically the same stump speech.

To go beyond what Ron Paul did will take something quite special.

Indeed. It's a key feature of his political strategy. That's what I'm looking for - someone who will take that and carry it forward in 2020 or beyond. A lot of us don't seem to understand or care about that strategy, though. I'm hoping that starts to change seeing how far a repudiation of that strategy got us in 2016.

Gee if I say strategy one more time I will sound like Marcobot

 

[fedupinmo]

I would have agreed, until I read how he explains Raffy Junior's eligibility, using only the Harvard Law Review spiel.
I believe someone offered him a job in the Canadian administration... the really sad part is, he seems to have accepted.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/01/...-american-citizenship-settled-and-established

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX2vJVcmqWI

The judge :

"The issue has never come up... the Supreme Court has never ruled on this... "

The Supreme Court, 117 years ago and taught in every law school:

"But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." United States v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

The Congressional Spiel on Why We Need Foreigners For President, 2011 version, recgnizes the SCOTUS acceptance of that by quoting an unnamed SCOTUS case from 1998:
As explained by the Supreme Court in 1998:

"There are “two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” United States
v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898). Within the former category, the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every person “born in the United States,
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs
no naturalization.” 169 U.S. at 702. Persons not born in the United States acquire citizenship
by birth only as provided by Acts of Congress." Id. at 703.135
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

Now, what are the odds that Brother Andy hasn't read either of those?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

If he's our best, there's no point in trying.

Yea, I like the judge a lot, but he's got about the same chance of becoming the next POTUS as I do.

...and I'm not interested in a purely educational campaign, where we know from day 1 that there's no chance of winning.

If there's no realistic prospect of winning in 2020, then forget it and focus on other races: Congress, State, local.

Resources are scarce, we've got to use them prudently.

 

[K466]

I would have agreed, until I read how he explains Raffy Junior's eligibility,

Are we going to let a petty disagreement or two get in the way? If so you won't be able to support anyone ever as a messenger for the cause.

Yea, I like the judge a lot, but he's got about the same chance of becoming the next POTUS as I do.

...and I'm not interested in a purely educational campaign, where we know from day 1 that there's no chance of winning.

If there's no realistic prospect of winning in 2020, then forget it and focus on other races: Congress, State, local.

Resources are scarce, we've got to use them prudently.

I guess you were not interested in the Ron Paul campaigns at all?

 

[Feelgood]

Napolitano / Badnarik 2020

 

[fedupinmo]

Are we going to let a petty disagreement or two get in the way? If so you won't be able to support anyone ever as a messenger for the cause.

That's more than a petty disagreement... pretty close to fraud really...

 

[nasaal]

The guy has many many quotes that would get him destroyed while being vetted, he would look horrible on stage, and is poor at contentious conversation. He would be merced in debates. No thanks.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I guess you were not interested in the Ron Paul campaigns at all?

They didn't have a 0% chance of success.

 

[MelissaCato]

Can we please keep our EYES on the BALL and get a Paul in the White House 2016 !!!!

 

[MelissaCato]

They didn't have a 0% chance of success.

Shit. :/ Rand is a Senator is he not ?

 

[idiom]

Can we please keep our EYES on the BALL and get a Paul in the White House 2016 !!!!

Unless you are talking about Paul Ryan I have some really bad news for you.

 

[K466]

They didn't have a 0% chance of success.

That's a yes or no?

Success is strictly defined as 50.1% of the vote?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

That's a yes or no?

I'm saying that all of the Paul campaigns had a chance of success.

Whereas, I don't think a Judge Nap campaign has any chance of success at all, so I'm not interested.

...also, I don't think it would be all that educational, Nap is not Ron.

 

[K466]

I'm saying that all of the Paul campaigns had a chance of success.

Whereas, I don't think a Judge Nap campaign has any chance of success at all, so I'm not interested.

...also, I don't think it would be all that educational, Nap is not Ron.

Ron Paul had no chance of winning the white House, but a 100% chance of success in awakening, educating, uniting, organizing, and rallying an army for liberty.

I think the Judge can do this as well. A number of you have questioned his ability to carry the message. I don't really understand that. Have you watched his lectures given at the Mises Institute? He is quite a prolific author too. I think there is a good bit of substance in the Judge.

Again, I ask, was not the radical idealism Ron Paul promoted in his presidential runs the most successful event advancing the cause of liberty in recent times? If so, we need to find the next person to replicate it, and who is a better option than Andrew Napolitano for 2020?

I'm not stuck on the judge, I just haven't heard any names that would be more qualified while still sticking to Ron's strategy of radical idealism (vs. watering down the message and compromising).