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

[TheButterZone]

"Gerrymandering" is a false flag to cover for the Stalin-approved crime of literally not counting enough of the actual votes for the least possible evil, to ensure the worst possible evil wins every election that matters.

[vokain]

"Gerrymandering" is a false flag to cover for the Stalin-approved crime of literally not counting enough of the actual votes for the least possible evil, to ensure the worst possible evil wins every election that matters.

owning the media also makes this easier

[beetcoin]

^^^ Gerrymandering is used by both the main parties (Democrats and the Republicans), to increase their seat count. So no one can just blame any one party for it. Both the parties are responsible.

both are responsible, but one party is much, much more successful at it. they can take more seats with significantly less votes.

[JohnnyLightning]

Looks like I'll be voting Libertarian.   

[JohnnyLightning]

I would like to see Christie vs Clinton.  While RCP still has Clinton in the lead, I think Christie would win.   

Christie is not an ideal candidate for the GOP. I would prefer Rand Paul over Chris Christie anytime. But still, it is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win the elections, given the demographic changes within the general population.

One look at Jersey's gun laws precludes Christie for me...

[beetcoin]

I would like to see Christie vs Clinton.  While RCP still has Clinton in the lead, I think Christie would win.  

Christie is not an ideal candidate for the GOP. I would prefer Rand Paul over Chris Christie anytime. But still, it is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win the elections, given the demographic changes within the general population.

One look at Jersey's gun laws precludes Christie for me...

that's it? what about the other shit he's done, like bridgegate? or pandering to people just to become popular? he's a fake like practically every other politician, it's just that he was pretty good at hiding it.. at least until recently.

[JohnnyLightning]

I would like to see Christie vs Clinton.  While RCP still has Clinton in the lead, I think Christie would win.  

Christie is not an ideal candidate for the GOP. I would prefer Rand Paul over Chris Christie anytime. But still, it is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win the elections, given the demographic changes within the general population.

One look at Jersey's gun laws precludes Christie for me...

that's it? what about the other shit he's done, like bridgegate? or pandering to people just to become popular? he's a fake like practically every other politician, it's just that he was pretty good at hiding it.. at least until recently.

There's all that too, but I always start with the 2nd Amendment when it comes to politicians.  I can rule out most of them with that alone, and if they pass, they get a closer look.

I'm basically a single issue voter - less government.  Christie fails.

[beetcoin]

I would like to see Christie vs Clinton.  While RCP still has Clinton in the lead, I think Christie would win.  

Christie is not an ideal candidate for the GOP. I would prefer Rand Paul over Chris Christie anytime. But still, it is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win the elections, given the demographic changes within the general population.

One look at Jersey's gun laws precludes Christie for me...

that's it? what about the other shit he's done, like bridgegate? or pandering to people just to become popular? he's a fake like practically every other politician, it's just that he was pretty good at hiding it.. at least until recently.

There's all that too, but I always start with the 2nd Amendment when it comes to politicians.  I can rule out most of them with that alone, and if they pass, they get a closer look.

I'm basically a single issue voter - less government.  Christie fails.

if you think gun rights issues = #1 concern in america today, then i don't really know what else to say.

[JohnnyLightning]

I would like to see Christie vs Clinton.  While RCP still has Clinton in the lead, I think Christie would win.  

Christie is not an ideal candidate for the GOP. I would prefer Rand Paul over Chris Christie anytime. But still, it is almost impossible for a GOP candidate to win the elections, given the demographic changes within the general population.

One look at Jersey's gun laws precludes Christie for me...

that's it? what about the other shit he's done, like bridgegate? or pandering to people just to become popular? he's a fake like practically every other politician, it's just that he was pretty good at hiding it.. at least until recently.

There's all that too, but I always start with the 2nd Amendment when it comes to politicians.  I can rule out most of them with that alone, and if they pass, they get a closer look.

I'm basically a single issue voter - less government.  Christie fails.

if you think gun rights issues = #1 concern in america today, then i don't really know what else to say.

Well, without the 2nd you lose the rest.  If that isn't important to you than I guess I don't have much else to say to you either, except perhaps to read a history book and you will find that tyranny commonly starts with disarmament.

[bryant.coleman]

lol... Paul definitely knows how to remain in the media spotlight. 

Rand Paul: Trade Hillary Clinton To The Taliban, Not Guantanamo Detainees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-taliban_n_5462065.html

[Ron~Popeil]

lol... Paul definitely knows how to remain in the media spotlight. 

Rand Paul: Trade Hillary Clinton To The Taliban, Not Guantanamo Detainees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-taliban_n_5462065.html

I think you would see our politicians make smarter moves if it was their skin in the game. Rand is becoming a bit of a firebrand.

[Chef Ramsay]

lol... Paul definitely knows how to remain in the media spotlight. 

Rand Paul: Trade Hillary Clinton To The Taliban, Not Guantanamo Detainees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-taliban_n_5462065.html

He sure as hell does. His squad comes up w/ zingers that rival what Team Palin come up with. Rand is just foaming at the mouth to pick Hillary apart and that's what is quite appealing in him as mainstream donors get to know him.

[tvbcof]

lol... Paul definitely knows how to remain in the media spotlight. 

Rand Paul: Trade Hillary Clinton To The Taliban, Not Guantanamo Detainees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-taliban_n_5462065.html

He sure as hell does. His squad comes up w/ zingers that rival what Team Palin come up with. Rand is just foaming at the mouth to pick Hillary apart and that's what is quite appealing in him as mainstream donors get to know him.

Although I didn't see the context, that particular comment seems kind of juvenile and not all that clever.  That is to say, there doesn't seem to be much rational logic behind it making it's appeal seems of the school-yard taunt variety.

If Paul ended up making Ventura appear the voice of reason (where Ventura is at a long self-cultivated disadvantage), that could siphon some of the more cerebral of right-wing away.  This could be highly important because from what I've seen of Ventura, his actual policy positions are not going to be very aligned with traditional Republican ones.

[beetcoin]

lol... Paul definitely knows how to remain in the media spotlight. 

Rand Paul: Trade Hillary Clinton To The Taliban, Not Guantanamo Detainees

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/06/rand-paul-taliban_n_5462065.html

He sure as hell does. His squad comes up w/ zingers that rival what Team Palin come up with. Rand is just foaming at the mouth to pick Hillary apart and that's what is quite appealing in him as mainstream donors get to know him.

eh i wish this didn't happen, from either side... but seems like republicans do it more. they turn it into some media circus.. sometimes i feel the crazy shit politicians say is just for entertainment/distraction.

[Benjig]

It will take a strong fiscal conservative to save our country from it's impending economic demise and eventual financial neutering. We need what we used to have that enabled us to prosper and made us attractive to those coming from other countries: a frontiersman's strength to do whatever it takes to succeed and a culture of limitless opportunity based on your own initiative.

[tvbcof]

It will take a strong fiscal conservative to save our country from it's impending economic demise and eventual financial neutering. We need what we used to have that enabled us to prosper and made us attractive to those coming from other countries: a frontiersman's strength to do whatever it takes to succeed and a culture of limitless opportunity based on your own initiative.

What a laughable crock of century old propaganda bullshit!

When we lost the ability to intimidate the rest of the world by force, there will be a change and it won't be to almost any living American's liking.  A 'strong fiscal conservative' would simply trigger this event more quickly than otherwise (which would be OK with me to be honest.)

That said, one of the most refreshingly honest and prescient (and detestable) documents in recent memory is the PNAC one by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et-al.  The C stands for Century and the plan was a strategy which would preserve the present state of dominance for that period of time.  It is not inconceivable to me that it could be successful for the duration of my natural life (hopefully into the middle of the century.)  OTOH, it is also not inconceivable that it could collapse tomorrow.  For selfish reasons I'd rather see it happen soon while I still have the vigor to deal with things, or after I'm dead of natural causes.  Not in between.

[Ron~Popeil]

It will take a strong fiscal conservative to save our country from it's impending economic demise and eventual financial neutering. We need what we used to have that enabled us to prosper and made us attractive to those coming from other countries: a frontiersman's strength to do whatever it takes to succeed and a culture of limitless opportunity based on your own initiative.

What a laughable crock of century old propaganda bullshit!

When we lost the ability to intimidate the rest of the world by force, there will be a change and it won't be to almost any living American's liking.  A 'strong fiscal conservative' would simply trigger this event more quickly than otherwise (which would be OK with me to be honest.)

That said, one of the most refreshingly honest and prescient (and detestable) documents in recent memory is the PNAC one by Cheney, Rumsfeld, et-al.  The C stands for Century and the plan was a strategy which would preserve the present state of dominance for that period of time.  It is not inconceivable to me that it could be successful for the duration of my natural life (hopefully into the middle of the century.)  OTOH, it is also not inconceivable that it could collapse tomorrow.  For selfish reasons I'd rather see it happen soon while I still have the vigor to deal with things, or after I'm dead of natural causes.  Not in between.

Our ability to affect the world with good economic policy would be far more powerful than our armed forces. Ruling with fear is a short term solution and ultimately costs us a lot more than it accomplishes.

[tvbcof]

What a laughable crock of century old propaganda bullshit!

When we lost the ability to intimidate the rest of the world by force, there will be a change and it won't be to almost any living American's liking.  A 'strong fiscal conservative' would simply trigger this event more quickly than otherwise (which would be OK with me to be honest.)

Our ability to affect the world with good economic policy would be far more powerful than our armed forces. Ruling with fear is a short term solution and ultimately costs us a lot more than it accomplishes.

Ruling in this way is typically workable for a couple hundred years based on a read of history.  Depending on the quality of leadership and such.  We've been dedicated about it since the end of WW-II so I could see it persisting for some time.  Dynastic rule seems like a common downfall since by the laws of chance there will be a generation of losers eventually.

'Good economic policy' is to arrange a situation where one can write checks that the recipient won't cash.  Threat of force(*) is the most realistic way to achieve this.

* 'Threat of force' has various manifestations.  In Saudi Arabia, to use a common example, it can take the form of propping up a dynasty which is reliant on one to maintain power.

[beetcoin]

it's kind of a catch 22.. i dont' really want our government meddling with every other nation, acting as some sort of world police. but if we don't do it, then someone else will.. and either way, shit will be fucked up.

[Benjig]

Seriously, These politicians do not have the type of knowledge base that is required to fix the problems we have. And with that, all the reasoning and logic in the world won't make them any wiser. If even one of them had any idea what so ever, the discussion would be about directed finance and fair distribution and the causal effect of hybridized manufacturing and its effect on production, growth, and influence though out world markets.