This gives me an idea, we need to form a good old fashioned american secret society conspiracy the object of which is to secure the presidency of the united states for ron paul or one of his direct descendants whoever is the most representative of liberty. It's looking like Ron, Rand, or one of Rand's boys. Rand needs to sit those boys down and say, look, i'm sorry, but you're part of a multi-generational conspiracy, like the royal family of england, and one of you is going to be president, or your kids. So start training.
Rand Paul VP rumor
- Thread starter capsicum
- Start date
And expanding on my previous post, we know how to deal with the few people who are capable of perceiving multi-generational conspiracies, we label them conspiracy theorists and laugh at them. We can pretty much do this in the open and no one will believe it, cause most people's time frame is what's on TV in the next 48 hours. We can be the Knights of Liberty. It'll be fun. We can have esoteric meetings and stuff. Let's do it.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but let me give you the counter-arguments.
The vice-president has relatively little mandated influence in our government. With Rand, it makes even less sense, as he may have more real political influence in the Senate than he does as Vice President.
I grant that he would be more in the public eye, but there would be a very difficult tension with Romney (let alone Gingrich!) when their views are so different. I grant that Rand could do this more successfully than Ron.
In return for Rand becoming the VP, most Ron Paul fans would vote Republican instead of Libertarian, and basically skip over our efforts to work on other projects to break the 2 party duopoly.
Even if Romney was a disaster, but we helped him win, he would be the Republican nominee in 2016. So, no Rand Paul presidential run at that time.
There are counter-arguments to this, especially when concessions are more inclusive, like who will be the next Fed Chairman. But I'm not sold on that either, and here is an important reason why:
The Fed Chairman can precipitate a boatload of pain on the economy. If this is not done at the same time that the government is cutting spending and regulations and easing over our relations with creditors like China and so forth by stepping back from being the world's policeman, it will make the process much worse.
Paul Volcker was the most hated Fed Chairman in history back in the early 1980s, and there were moves to impeach him. The same could easily happen with Ron. Frankly, Ron as Fed Chairman could be the most hated individual in America, because he would be in control of only part of the process of fixing things.
In a lot of ways, I would frankly rather build up the movement, let the economy collapse in say 2014 or 2015 during Obama's second term, then be ready to move in and fix it.
Last edited:
First: "independent" isn't a party, it's no party. (hence the term)
Second: the Libertarian party is (and has been for almost 2 decades) larger than all the other minor parties combined.(including greens, reform, etc.) That's a big part why the media ignores them like they do Ron. (by bigger I mean both more members and more people in office.) They are also on the ballot in all 50, every time around.
third: contrary to the teachings of media and the wonderful gov edu system, the true political scale isn't left-right, it's Libertarian-Authoritarian, with left-right as a secondary concern.
Fourth: Ron said straight up in an interview a month ago that he would not pick Mitt, Newt, or Rick as a VP.
Second: the Libertarian party is (and has been for almost 2 decades) larger than all the other minor parties combined.(including greens, reform, etc.) That's a big part why the media ignores them like they do Ron. (by bigger I mean both more members and more people in office.) They are also on the ballot in all 50, every time around.
third: contrary to the teachings of media and the wonderful gov edu system, the true political scale isn't left-right, it's Libertarian-Authoritarian, with left-right as a secondary concern.
Fourth: Ron said straight up in an interview a month ago that he would not pick Mitt, Newt, or Rick as a VP.
I hope it is not true, because it would make no difference to me, I would still vote for Ron Paul for President. If his son sells out to be Mitt's VP, then he is finished.
Same here, I just think the rumor was started to get some Paul supporters to vote Mitt, and it should be put to rest
As someone who has been actively engaged in politics for 40 years I can tell you, the idea of a "new party" is a boat ready to sink. Just about the time you get enough people on board, it overwhelms the platform and to Davy Jones locker it goes. Forming a new party is probably the hardest thing a society can do. The intricate balance needed to keep the thing altogether is only 1 atom more than the energy trying to rip it apart.
Now as to your crack about the Libertarian Party being a party of crackpots, I rebuke that statement. The Libertarian Party came about in the 70's when we realized there was a group of people not being fully represented by the Ds and Rs. To illustrate just how real, and legitimate the LP party is, I point to permanent ballot position in all 50 states. For someone like yourself, you probably have no idea how much work it took to get and how long and how important it is. But about the time you started eating solid food, people were in the streets filling up petition forms to get the LP included on every ballot of every state. It took 20 years to get that accomplished.
And if you think the LP is "crackpot" you probably don't have much respect (or knowledge) of our founding fathers. Because if they were alive today, they would almost all certainly be on the LP ticket.
CaptainAmerica
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,468
Lulz.
bluesc
Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,644
Bumping this old thread? I guess it's official then. Time to start having the theme of your moneybombs as "NO ONE BUT PAUL!...... UNLESS IT'S ROMNEY WITH RAND AS VP!"
In fact, you shouldn't hold moneybombs in the future at all. I'm guessing a lot of the people who have donated had no interest in having their money spent on securing the VP spot for Rand.
Wrong on many levels.
ZanZibar
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,872
No, not at all. I just bumped it because it's relevant to the current discussion. This really isn't anything other than media speculation and obvious politics (it would be to Romney's advantage to have Rand on the ticket if he gets the nomination).
bluesc
Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,644
Yes it would be to Romney's advantage.
You know what things are like with the media. Things are similar here. Someone like you bumps a thread like this for no apparent reason, and it makes people think "Well shit. I just spent the last 24 hours telling everyone that this Romney-Paul agreement is a media fabrication. Now look"
If people want to believe it's a media fabrication, let them. I guess it helps them with enthusiasm or something.
I know the VP slow is an angle, but it shouldn't be the angle. People here have come way too far for that just yet.
Last edited:
ZanZibar
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,872
Don't read anything into me bumping the thread other than it's just something I do when older threads become relevant again. If there was something more to it than that, then I would've said so or been snarky about it or something.
bluesc
Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,644
No, you're usually as cryptic as possible.
I'm not sure this thread is relevant again though. There are about a million threads on the subject already full of speculation. It's a stretch to still consider it a "rumor".
ZanZibar
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2011
- Messages
- 3,872
Just because everyone says something doesn't make it true.
So wrong.
