Who will be on Rand's ticket for VP?

[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?

Walker is the only decent pick on this list.

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."