GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist

[bryant.coleman]

you know, i like jesse ventura.. even if he does seem a bit looney, a lot of the things he says makes sense. he totally schooled piers morgan, and actually won his crowd over during an interview on CNN 

One of my favorite videos. Right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5IX3TNpFw

Look at his opening statement. “Since the government shut down, that should mean we shouldn't have to pay any taxes, right?”

That was classic.

[beetcoin]

you know, i like jesse ventura.. even if he does seem a bit looney, a lot of the things he says makes sense. he totally schooled piers morgan, and actually won his crowd over during an interview on CNN 

One of my favorite videos. Right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5IX3TNpFw

Look at his opening statement. “Since the government shut down, that should mean we shouldn't have to pay any taxes, right?”

That was classic.

piers morgan is such a pawn, an apologist for the status quo.. any time he says anything, he just says "you're crazy," instead of arguing the point. the best part of the interview was when jesse asked his audience whether they thought HE was right, or piers was.. and piers' own audience turned their back on him.

[Kluge]

you know, i like jesse ventura.. even if he does seem a bit looney, a lot of the things he says makes sense. he totally schooled piers morgan, and actually won his crowd over during an interview on CNN 

I would love to live through a general election where the only two guys on the debate floor are Jim Traficant and Jesse Ventura. The US would have >80% voter turnout and I'd suspect we'd actually bring in tourist dollars to see the two up there. Whether they'll be inspirationally refreshing or constantly brawling (or both), Idunno, but it'd be great fun.

[tvbcof]

you know, i like jesse ventura.. even if he does seem a bit looney, a lot of the things he says makes sense. he totally schooled piers morgan, and actually won his crowd over during an interview on CNN  

One of my favorite videos. Right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS5IX3TNpFw

Look at his opening statement. “Since the government shut down, that should mean we shouldn't have to pay any taxes, right?”

That was classic.

The point Vertura made about being denied a platform for debates and such was a good one.  There is an argument against putting any old joker on the stage, but the fact is that Ventura is a proven state governor and a winner of a pretty notable office.  Warren was effective in the executive administration formulating policy and won a senatorship afterwards (and after being veto'd to head the department she created by the banking interests who had no interest in consumer protection.  One of many examples of spineless-worm-in-chief Obama and his dismal failure as POTUS.)

This rather despicable monopolization of media platforms by the DemPublicans is the basis for my suggestion (different thread) that Ventura and some others (esp, Warren and perhaps Sanders and to be fair about things some of the more serious and less tedious of the Tea Party crowd) just have their own rounds of debates.

The audience reaction indicates to me that there is enough interest that the mainstream media would have a tough time not covering such debates.  And more and more people are willing and able to obtain information via the Internet and turned on to things via social media.

I'm actually surprised that CNN doesn't use virtual people at this point, and if they did, that they would program them to clap.  I would not count on this to continue if Ventura (and/or whoever) get some real traction over the next year-and-a-half.

 -edit:  BTW, I totally love Ventura's statement that if one is being honest one doesn't need prepared speeches and talking point memos and all that crap.  That is exactly my own findings in personal life.  Life is simply less complex,  more enjoyable, and all around better if one doesn't have to keep track of all their lies, deceptions, phony peeves, etc.

[Kluge]

^ to expand on that very legitimate point with some extra quips: the US is extremely biased against anyone not running as a Democrat or Republican. It is effectively a two party system. It favors the establishment to a high level compared to European countries (where there are so many parties that they can form coalition governments, something absolutely foreign to us), and this socioeconomic discrimination is implemented mostly by states interested in maintaining their power structure, not the federal government. You hear about maybe the "Libertarian Party" or "Green Party" fielding a candidate for president, but only on the best of years do they manage to get access to 48 of the 50 US states, while the fourth-largest Green Party made it on 37 states in 2012, up from 25 in 2004. In many states, they can't even get write-in status. Even if you're outside the US, go ahead and subscribe to one of these third party's newsletters. The entire time while the Republicans and Democrats are raising funds for their campaigns, the third-party candidates spend twice as much effort on achieving something so basic as ballot access, and they spend millions on it every other year. It's absolutely unjustified, but they wonder why voter turnout is so low and the youth are actively ignoring the elections "politically apathetic."

In some other cases, the political parties, which are effectively government institutions at this point, barred Paul supporters (Republican-affiliated) from attending conferences, partly because Paul committed the highest of treasons by suggesting US foreign policy was partly responsible for 9/11, because terrorists obviously just hate us for our freedoms. This is tantamount to election-fixing.

-And all the US media wants to talk about is a few White guys scared off at polls by "Black Panthers." Hurrdurrrr.

[Charlie Prime]

Clueless Sportsfans just don't get it.

[Davis14]

It is still to early to tell wait tell election year that's when you will get a more accurate picture.

[beetcoin]

^ to expand on that very legitimate point with some extra quips: the US is extremely biased against anyone not running as a Democrat or Republican. It is effectively a two party system. It favors the establishment to a high level compared to European countries (where there are so many parties that they can form coalition governments, something absolutely foreign to us), and this socioeconomic discrimination is implemented mostly by states interested in maintaining their power structure, not the federal government. You hear about maybe the "Libertarian Party" or "Green Party" fielding a candidate for president, but only on the best of years do they manage to get access to 48 of the 50 US states, while the fourth-largest Green Party made it on 37 states in 2012, up from 25 in 2004. In many states, they can't even get write-in status. Even if you're outside the US, go ahead and subscribe to one of these third party's newsletters. The entire time while the Republicans and Democrats are raising funds for their campaigns, the third-party candidates spend twice as much effort on achieving something so basic as ballot access, and they spend millions on it every other year. It's absolutely unjustified, but they wonder why voter turnout is so low and the youth are actively ignoring the elections "politically apathetic."

In some other cases, the political parties, which are effectively government institutions at this point, barred Paul supporters (Republican-affiliated) from attending conferences, partly because Paul committed the highest of treasons by suggesting US foreign policy was partly responsible for 9/11, because terrorists obviously just hate us for our freedoms. This is tantamount to election-fixing.

-And all the US media wants to talk about is a few White guys scared off at polls by "Black Panthers." Hurrdurrrr.

yeah it's become too big of an establishment to take down, in part because people let themselves become ignorant/influenced by the media. it's no wonder that billionaires bought out the cable news networks.

[Ron~Popeil]

I am very hopeful that Rand Paul can get the nomination. I would vote for him in a second. Anyone else from either party loses to the libertarian on my ballot. With Rand we are much more likely to see an audit of the fed and a return to being a constitutional republic.

Of course the last president to take on the fed didn't finish his term. I don't think there is a conspiracy there but it does give one pause.

[Bit_Happy]

BASED ON 287 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 186
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A
TOTAL OF 473 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

May 2-4 2014

Bush 13%
Paul 13%
Ryan 12%
Huckabee 10%
Christie 9%
Perry 8%
Cruz 7%
Walker 7%
Rubio 6%
Santorum 2%
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/No one (vol.) 4%
No opinion 7%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/cnn-2016-poll-bush-and-paul-tied-for-top-spot-in-crowded-gop-field/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/05/06/rel5d.pdf

May 2014 is really early and 473 people is a small sample size, but...
It's exciting to see Rand Paul at the top. 

• Does anyone know if his wife gave a green light, I heard she didn't want Rand to run?

[beetcoin]

BASED ON 287 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 186
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A
TOTAL OF 473 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

May 2-4 2014

Bush 13%
Paul 13%
Ryan 12%
Huckabee 10%
Christie 9%
Perry 8%
Cruz 7%
Walker 7%
Rubio 6%
Santorum 2%
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/No one (vol.) 4%
No opinion 7%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/cnn-2016-poll-bush-and-paul-tied-for-top-spot-in-crowded-gop-field/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/05/06/rel5d.pdf

May 2014 is really early and 473 people is a small sample size, but...
It's exciting to see Rand Paul at the top. 

• Does anyone know if his wife gave a green light, I heard she didn't want Rand to run?

you guys really think rand paul would make a difference? especially with how the political system works? as in, if he's going to be the republican elect, he's going to have to make huge promises to corporations and billionaires.

it's kind of like the people who thought obama was going to actually do things he said he'd do (i admit, i am one of them).

[Bit_Happy]

BASED ON 287 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 186
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A
TOTAL OF 473 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

May 2-4 2014

Bush 13%
Paul 13%
Ryan 12%
Huckabee 10%
Christie 9%
Perry 8%
Cruz 7%
Walker 7%
Rubio 6%
Santorum 2%
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/No one (vol.) 4%
No opinion 7%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/cnn-2016-poll-bush-and-paul-tied-for-top-spot-in-crowded-gop-field/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/05/06/rel5d.pdf

May 2014 is really early and 473 people is a small sample size, but...
It's exciting to see Rand Paul at the top. 

• Does anyone know if his wife gave a green light, I heard she didn't want Rand to run?

you guys really think rand paul would make a difference? especially with how the political system works? as in, if he's going to be the republican elect, he's going to have to make huge promises to corporations and billionaires.

it's kind of like the people who thought obama was going to actually do things he said he'd do (i admit, i am one of them).

You guys really think rand paul would make a difference?
Have you ever read the articles he wrote for his school paper in college? (they can be found online)
Yes, Rand Paul can make a difference.*
*If nothing else (with some help from Bitcoin), he can get blamed for crashing the economy. 

[beetcoin]

BASED ON 287 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 186
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A
TOTAL OF 473 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

May 2-4 2014

Bush 13%
Paul 13%
Ryan 12%
Huckabee 10%
Christie 9%
Perry 8%
Cruz 7%
Walker 7%
Rubio 6%
Santorum 2%
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/No one (vol.) 4%
No opinion 7%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/cnn-2016-poll-bush-and-paul-tied-for-top-spot-in-crowded-gop-field/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/05/06/rel5d.pdf

May 2014 is really early and 473 people is a small sample size, but...
It's exciting to see Rand Paul at the top.  

• Does anyone know if his wife gave a green light, I heard she didn't want Rand to run?

you guys really think rand paul would make a difference? especially with how the political system works? as in, if he's going to be the republican elect, he's going to have to make huge promises to corporations and billionaires.

it's kind of like the people who thought obama was going to actually do things he said he'd do (i admit, i am one of them).

You guys really think rand paul would make a difference?
Have you ever read the articles he wrote for his school paper in college? (they can be found online)
Yes, Rand Paul can make a difference.*
*If nothing else (with some help from Bitcoin), he can get blamed for crashing the economy.  

how's he going to make a difference when he has to sell himself out to big corporations and billionaires? in our last election cycle, i think obama had something like $700 million to romney's $600. in order for rand paul to be elected president, he'd have to fundraise probably even more than the last election.. a big chunk of it will be from big corporations or billlionaires who will want "favors." that's why i don't need to read his papers; because our political system is rigged so that even if someone truly wanted to make a difference, it'd still be impossible.

edit: they spent, collectively, $2 billion. unprecedented.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2012/11/07/obama_and_romney_collectively_spent_2_billion_this_election_cycle

[bryant.coleman]

Here is more good news for Rand Paul!

Home-court advantage: Ky. voters narrowly prefer Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton for president

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/05/17/3247423/home-court-advantage-ky-voters.html

[Chef Ramsay]

BASED ON 287 RESPONDENTS WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS REPUBLICANS AND 186
WHO DESCRIBE THEMSELVES AS INDEPENDENTS WHO LEAN REPUBLICAN, FOR A
TOTAL OF 473 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.

May 2-4 2014

Bush 13%
Paul 13%
Ryan 12%
Huckabee 10%
Christie 9%
Perry 8%
Cruz 7%
Walker 7%
Rubio 6%
Santorum 2%
Someone else (vol.) 4%
None/No one (vol.) 4%
No opinion 7%

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/cnn-2016-poll-bush-and-paul-tied-for-top-spot-in-crowded-gop-field/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/05/06/rel5d.pdf

May 2014 is really early and 473 people is a small sample size, but...
It's exciting to see Rand Paul at the top.  

• Does anyone know if his wife gave a green light, I heard she didn't want Rand to run?

you guys really think rand paul would make a difference? especially with how the political system works? as in, if he's going to be the republican elect, he's going to have to make huge promises to corporations and billionaires.

it's kind of like the people who thought obama was going to actually do things he said he'd do (i admit, i am one of them).

You guys really think rand paul would make a difference?
Have you ever read the articles he wrote for his school paper in college? (they can be found online)
Yes, Rand Paul can make a difference.*
*If nothing else (with some help from Bitcoin), he can get blamed for crashing the economy.  

how's he going to make a difference when he has to sell himself out to big corporations and billionaires? in our last election cycle, i think obama had something like $700 million to romney's $600. in order for rand paul to be elected president, he'd have to fundraise probably even more than the last election.. a big chunk of it will be from big corporations or billlionaires who will want "favors." that's why i don't need to read his papers; because our political system is rigged so that even if someone truly wanted to make a difference, it'd still be impossible.

edit: they spent, collectively, $2 billion. unprecedented.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2012/11/07/obama_and_romney_collectively_spent_2_billion_this_election_cycle

It's in the primary where one can see what interests are lining up where. Billionaire Sheldon Adelson is casino magnet in Vegas and his main issues are keeping online gambling illegal and constant warfare and military-industrial complex money being spent and burned on behalf of Israel. In other words, an extreme interventionist foreign policy that the likes of prospective presidential candidates Bush, Santorum, Christie, Romney, Rubio, et al. would toe the slab for. There was some republican jewish conference last month and the main topic on the table w/o mentioning it was the rise of Rand Paul. So, the war hawks and the govt-subsidized big business folk would back the former types while Rand is trying to appeal to people like us, fiscal hawks, privacy advocates and true freer market business types. He's just not trying to be hated by the war hawks so he's threading the needle when framing foreign policy arguments.

Rand has his own chest of rich folk that he's lining up and I'm sure many of us here will be able to max out to his campaign in addition to perhaps starting a pro-Crypto/BTC PAC w/ excess funds to help him in key states if needed to counteract the FUD and nonsense that will undoubtedly be spewed by the corporatists and war hawks. All that said, if he makes it as the GOP nominee you'll see the former Bush-Christie folks swing over back to their hawks in the Democratic party and support their nominee be it Hillary (if she runs), Biden or whoever they get the media to manufacture support for.

Rand is already in General Election mode and you can see it be his constant meetings w/ and appeals to blacks by pushing sentencing reform, charter schools (school choice) and economic freedom zones for depressed areas; privacy issues such as pushing back at the NSA which resonates hugely w/ the youth demo that the Dems have owned for so long; and women on issues such as toughening penalties on sexual assault in the military. His major obstacle, in my eyes, is not being too libertarian on social issues such as abortion cause you don't want to alienate the single-issue Evangelical voters in playing to the woman vote as woman typically vote democrat and you probably can't outdo the dems on pro-abortion issues.

[bryant.coleman]

Encouraging news for Rand Paul....

Rand Paul’s Getting a Lot of Votes in a Very Interesting Poll

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/19/rand-pauls-getting-a-lot-of-votes-in-a-very-interesting-poll/

Rand Paul, Jeb Bush tied for lead in 2016, poll says

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/politics-blog/2014/05/07/paul-and-bush-bare-favorites-in-spread-gop-field/8813565/

[tvbcof]

Here is more good news for Rand Paul!

Home-court advantage: Ky. voters narrowly prefer Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton for president

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/05/17/3247423/home-court-advantage-ky-voters.html

Although Rand Paul has some of the right kinds of instincts on some issues, he strikes me as someone who doesn't see things coming and doesn't really know what to do about things after they happen.  He seems kind of insulated and isolated in an Aspergers-ish sort of way.  After on of his aids tried to head-stomp some woman and Paul's reaction to it (or lack thereof) I feel that he just does not really have the kind of attention span or awareness or spine to be much of a leader.  I'm concerned that he would be immediately surrounded by fairly nasty people and would not have the capability of recognizing it or controlling them.  Just the opposite most likely.

[bryant.coleman]

Although Rand Paul has some of the right kinds of instincts on some issues, he strikes me as someone who doesn't see things coming and doesn't really know what to do about things after they happen.  He seems kind of insulated and isolated in an Aspergers-ish sort of way.  After on of his aids tried to head-stomp some woman and Paul's reaction to it (or lack thereof) I feel that he just does not really have the kind of attention span or awareness or spine to be much of a leader.  I'm concerned that he would be immediately surrounded by fairly nasty people and would not have the capability of recognizing it or controlling them.  Just the opposite most likely.

I am not saying that Rand Paul is the ideal candidate for the POTUS. I would love to see someone like Jesse Ventura elected to the office. But we have to be realistic. Right now, Rand Paul is the lesser one among the evils.

[beetcoin]

Although Rand Paul has some of the right kinds of instincts on some issues, he strikes me as someone who doesn't see things coming and doesn't really know what to do about things after they happen.  He seems kind of insulated and isolated in an Aspergers-ish sort of way.  After on of his aids tried to head-stomp some woman and Paul's reaction to it (or lack thereof) I feel that he just does not really have the kind of attention span or awareness or spine to be much of a leader.  I'm concerned that he would be immediately surrounded by fairly nasty people and would not have the capability of recognizing it or controlling them.  Just the opposite most likely.

I am not saying that Rand Paul is the ideal candidate for the POTUS. I would love to see someone like Jesse Ventura elected to the office. But we have to be realistic. Right now, Rand Paul is the lesser one among the evils.

that's what i said about obama. you don't know how they'll be until they are in office.

it would be cool if there were some rich billionaire who died and decided to donate all of his money to starting a 3rd party...

[tvbcof]

I am not saying that Rand Paul is the ideal candidate for the POTUS. I would love to see someone like Jesse Ventura elected to the office. But we have to be realistic. Right now, Rand Paul is the lesser one among the evils.

that's what i said about obama. you don't know how they'll be until they are in office.

it would be cool if there were some rich billionaire who died and decided to donate all of his money to starting a 3rd party...

OTOH, you also don't know about the person who didn't win either.  I personally think that Al Gore would have been one of the better and more effective presidents in recent memory.  At the end of the day, though, I'm glad that Bush 'won' even though I detested the guy and his (or actually Cheney's) policies.  I think that there is a very good chance that Gore would have had an unfortunate accident leading to a President Lieberman and within a few years would have nuked all of Israel's enemies and lost way more troops in the Middle East.  Dick Cheney was at least an America-firster though he used a lot of the other Israel-firsters as bitches which made him look like more of one himself than he probably was.

I didn't support Clinton in 2008 for the same reason I won't support her in 2016.  I had her pegged as either a Neocon or hopelessly beholden to them.  Six years later, I now consider her a straight up Neocon.

In 2012 it would not have broken my heart to see Romney.  As you say, one never really knows.  We already knew for sure that Obama was an unmitigated disaster.  Of course it was possible that in his final term he'd turn out to be a little bit better, but I thought the possibility remote.  Sure enough...he's as much of a loser in his second term as he was in the first.  If not more!