Topic: GOP - Rand Paul's Presidential Highlight Reel w/ his Libertarian Twist - page 99. (Read 205816 times)

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

Clueless Sportsfans just don't get it.

^ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 

Ventura is having no chance of gaining more than 5% of the votes, let alone winning the POTUS elections. He will only make Billary's victory margin higher, by taking away votes from the GOP.

from the available pool of candidates, i'd have to guess either rand paul or jeb bush will get the nod.. depends who does the better job of sniffing billionaire ass.


i like hilary more than christie. though she's going to continue on the path we're on, at least she's not playing the game of winning political points.. at least not to the scale of chris christie.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_gubernatorial_election,_1998


He's still out there and making noises about a run.  I'd say it's a long-shot, of course, but not completely beyond possible.  Especially since a lot of Progressives like myself would vote for Santaclaus before Clinton.  And I'll bet that a lot of Conservatives will feel that way about whatever candidate the repubs end up with.

In some interview I saw recently Ventura's answer to the question of his first act as president was 'Pardon Snowden and Manning.'  That was enough to get my vote right there

Christie was unable to do anything significant in New Jersey, and his popularity is sharply eroding. What makes you think that he will be good for the POTUS election? He hasn't tried anything to fix New Jersey's budget for the current fiscal year... instead he is giving media interviews and blaming everyone else for the problem.

sorry, but i think rand is someone who is only posing as a libertarian.. he's in bed with the billionaires and corporations who run the country.


he was looking like the frontrunner until bridgegate and then the coverup... plus how NJ appropriated the funds from the disaster a few years ago. he is the same as every other politician, except he was more effective in fooling us.

Actually pulling away from this hardcore tea party crap would bring in many Regan Democrats.  Many people see Christie as someone who will be able to bridge both sides of the isle and do things that are better for the country than just one party.

I think Christie is the only Republican so far that could actually win. 

Yeah, I won't be voting for the GOP top of the ticket if Rand isn't the nominee, that's for sure. I'm an ancap that stands w/ Rand as he's the only one that would even remotely get us some sort of Constitutional government again and from there, we can tinker it over time towards real laissez faire capitalism. I really like his pitch of Economic Freedom Zones to the inner city folk and it's really resonating business types from all backgrounds making him the go-to guy that can offer a true republican party renaissance away from the neocons.

it was almost certain that hilary would win the primaries in 2008 and eventually go on to defeat the less popular mccain.. but that didn't happen. it's still too early to know what's going to happen.

either way, i tore up my state ballot this year.. and i'm definitely not voting for someone with a (D) or (R) next to their name.