Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Waitone on June 12, 2012, 06:41:01 PM
-
I suppose by now most people have learned that Rand Paul has endorsed Mitt for president. Predictably the wookie suiters went into vapor lock. Establishment republicans (aka Rinos) yawned.
What says the APS brain trust.
-
RP for Veep?
-
RP for Veep?
He's more valuable in the Senate. (I think his endorsement was a little premature. Romney is not to the magic number of delegates yet, but he's darn close.)
-
RP for Veep?
Probably....Ron & Mitt may have already cut a deal for Paul's delegates. Rand may have jumped the gun on the endorsement, though....
Politics as usual....
-
I choose c.
Politician.
-
One more example...
The tea party & libertarian candidates are called extremists who don't know how to compromise.
But when an establishment candidate wins the nomination, they seem to set aside their pride and unify with the party leader.
When a tea party or libertarian candidate wins nomination, the establishment republican goes independent like a sore loser.
-
It's about Winning! They are all part of "The Matrix," even Rand Paul.
But, that said, we have a Bystander Republic. Most of us are just along for the ride. We are here to pay taxes and be grateful and shut up.
-
I have the feeling that the endorsement is just what's expected of a politician who hopes to have the support of the party establishment for a presidential nomination in the future. Ya know, be a team player, etc.
-
I hope we all understand Rand will not be the party nominee in 2016. Or 2020.
-
And how did we all reach this conclusion?
-
And how did we all reach this conclusion?
Rand's barber - if he has one. Seriously, just look at the dude's haircut. :facepalm:
No way The Great Unwashed are going to vote for him, no matter how much sense he makes.
. . .Romney is not to the magic number of delegates yet, but he's darn close.
According to The Wall Street Journal on June 6, Romney had 1,398 delgates . . . 1,144 are needed to seal the nomination. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/06/romney-delegate-tally-now-at-1398/
-
I have the feeling that the endorsement is just what's expected of a politician who hopes to have the support of the party establishment for seniority, choice committee appointments, etc. in the future. Ya know, be a team player, etc.
FTFY.
-
The answer to your thread title: Yes. Probably.
-
According to The Wall Street Journal on June 6, Romney had 1,398 delgates . . . 1,144 are needed to seal the nomination. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/06/romney-delegate-tally-now-at-1398/
They're lying. Romney is right at 1100 now (he had less than that on June 6.) Paul has about 240.
-
They're lying. Romney is right at 1100 now (he had less than that on June 6.) Paul has about 240.
Source? ???
-
Bob: how are you arriving at that number? Not counting straw poll states that went Romney but don't officially award delegates til the convention?
-
I hope we all understand Rand will not be the party nominee in 2016. Or 2020.
???
I doubt he'll ever be a serious contender ......
-
I say visionary.
He realizes that B.O is going to seriously fubar this summer and will step up to the plate and rescue the situation.
-
Bob: how are you arriving at that number? Not counting straw poll states that went Romney but don't officially award delegates til the convention?
'Zactly.
-
???
I doubt he'll ever be a serious contender ......
I doubt the Republicans will ever be a serious contender if they keep putting up guys like Romney....
-
I doubt the Republicans will ever be a serious contender if they keep putting up guys like Romney....
Is that why the demos are running around in circles like headless chickens in fear the Annionted One will lose to Romney in November? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ;/
[popcorn]
-
It's politics. It's not a sport.
Having your team carry the odd-shaped ball across the white line is not an objective in and of itself.
-
Is that why the demos are running around in circles like headless chickens in fear the Annionted One will lose to Romney in November? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ;/
[popcorn]
The Big O is doing so bad he would likely lose to anyone this time around. Hopefully, that trend doesn't change.
-
The Big O is doing so bad he would likely lose to anyone this time around. Hopefully, that trend doesn't change.
Let's not make the mistake of thinking people vote for him according to what he is doing instead of according to what he represents. :mad:
DD
-
Let's not make the mistake of thinking people vote for him according to what he is doing instead of according to what he represents. :mad:
DD
Oh, he may very well not be so lucky this time around. In any case, he now represents incompetence, malfeasance and economic decline to many people who voted for him on the last go.
-
Lotta liberals who's white guilt will be overcome by their worries about the economy this go around, I think. Only the R's choosing someone who's A massively unlikeable and B despised by a lot of R's and right leaning independents and C the author of the precursor to Obamacare might be able to give BHO a fighting chance.
-
Only the R's choosing someone who's A massively unlikeable and B despised by a lot of R's and right leaning independents and C the author of the precursor to Obamacare might be able to give BHO a fighting chance.
If only they could find a candidate that bad.... :facepalm:
-
Look how Ron Paul was treated by the leadership of the party. It went so far as to borderline cheat in some state conventions. He was not going to win anyway, but it was important enough to some people that they used every trick in the book to ensure he got 250 delegates - instead of the, say, 400 he would have probably gotten if not for the shenanigans.
Now, do you think they'd go easier on Rand if he were a candidate? Why?
-
Look how Ron Paul was treated by the leadership of the party. It went so far as to borderline cheat in some state conventions. He was not going to win anyway, but it was important enough to some people that they used every trick in the book to ensure he got 250 delegates - instead of the, say, 400 he would have probably gotten if not for the shenanigans.
It's too bad that Ron has too much class to endorse Gary Johnson at this point. The Republican Party does not want the Ron Paul supporters, let them beat Obama by themselves. (it'll be an embarrassing convention in Tampa if a quarter of the delegates don't show up.)
-
Lotta liberals who's white guilt will be overcome by their worries about the economy this go around, I think. Only the R's choosing someone who's A massively unlikeable and B despised by a lot of R's and right leaning independents and C the author of the precursor to Obamacare might be able to give BHO a fighting chance.
You think Romney is "massively unlikeable"?
-
Well, Rand has never run for president on a third party ticket, he doesn't have legions of obsessive fans who print silver coins with his picture on them, and he doesn't have a reputation as someone who blames America for 9/11 and is supported by the anti-war left.
You can argue Papa Ron shouldn't be judged on those things but he is, like it or not.
-
And yeah, I think Romney is utterly lacking in the charm, grace, and oratorical ability possessed by someone like Reagan, Clinton, or (to many folks) 2008 Obama. Many folks are fairly apolitical and vote for the guy they like the most on a personal level. And not many folks like Romney.
-
I think you're describing "meh," not "massively unlikeable." Not that I have a dog in the fight.
-
There's a scene in Braveheart where Robert The Bruce is being instructed by his (rotting, dying) father in the fine art of betrayal, and the necessities of alliances to accomplish one's ends.
I am reminded of this for no particular reason.
-
Look how Ron Paul was treated by the leadership of the party. It went so far as to borderline cheat in some state conventions. He was not going to win anyway, but it was important enough to some people that they used every trick in the book to ensure he got 250 delegates - instead of the, say, 400 he would have probably gotten if not for the shenanigans.
Now, do you think they'd go easier on Rand if he were a candidate? Why?
Yes.
Rand is younger, less eccentric, more like-able. He is more moderate in his views; for example, he is much less passivist than Ron. He doesn't seem to apologize for the fact that sometimes America must aggressively defend itself. (Clearly this is one of things I don't like about Ron.) At the same time, he is devoted to fiscal conservation and keeping federal gov't out of most social issues.
I would vote for Rand for President in a heart beat. I might even actively support such a campaign, which would be a first for me. Ron, I would vote for him, but would not be that fired up.
-
Rand is a visionary, as he clearly envisioned scoring political points for a very comfy, extended, profitable political career. How very "political" of him... you would almost think that he is a politician...oh wait...
Aw c'mon, Rand was never Ron, and Ron himself is too old to keep on being Ron. Luckily, hope for genuine freedom doesn't depend on the Paul bloodline or any other political "heroes" for that matter... if you want to be free you have got to get moving yourself, with other like minded individuals, to make even more like minded individuals, and not rely on some douchey character in that place called Washington D.C.
Ron did a lot to open people's eyes, and I admire him for that, but the Pauls are no more.
He doesn't seem to apologize for the fact that sometimes America must aggressively defend itself.
Oh, is that what we have been doing continuously "sometimes" for the past decade+ ??? :rofl:
But yeah, really, threatening to slow down the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex gravy train is one of those disqualifying actions when running for President of the US, right up there with infidelity and posting naked pictures of yourself on Facebook.
-
It's about Winning! They are all part of "The Matrix," even Rand Paul.
But, that said, we have a Bystander Republic. Most of us are just along for the ride. We are here to pay taxes and be grateful and shut up.
What about the ungrateful who won't shut up? What should they do? Wait, never mind. I already know the answer.
-
And yeah, I think Romney is utterly lacking in the charm, grace, and oratorical ability possessed by someone like Reagan, Clinton, or (to many folks) 2008 Obama. Many folks are fairly apolitical and vote for the guy they like the most on a personal level. And not many folks like Romney.
Okay, no reason to rewrite history here. Obama never had anything within him remotely like that.
-
Yes.
Rand is younger, less eccentric, more like-able. He is more moderate in his views; for example, he is much less passivist than Ron. He doesn't seem to apologize for the fact that sometimes America must aggressively defend itself. (Clearly this is one of things I don't like about Ron.) At the same time, he is devoted to fiscal conservation and keeping federal gov't out of most social issues.
And yet Goldwater was, too, a non-passivist and was viciously attacked by the usual suspects.
-
And yet Goldwater was, too, a non-passivist and was viciously attacked by the usual suspects.
So what is the connection between Goldwater and Rand Paul?
-
So what is the connection between Goldwater and Rand Paul?
Republicans that don't toe the party line?
-
So what is the connection between Goldwater and Rand Paul?
Victims of the Rockefeller Republicans in charge.....
-
Republicans that don't toe the party line?
Like Mitt Romney? Or John McCain? You guys realize that Goldwater was selected by the Republican Party to run for the presidency, right?
-
Like Mitt Romney? Or John McCain? You guys realize that Goldwater was selected by the Republican Party to run for the presidency, right?
I would remark that it was a different Republican Party that selected Goldwater.
I'm confident that todays GOP would not make that same selection.
-
I would remark that it was a different Republican Party that selected Goldwater.
I'm confident that todays GOP would not make that same selection.
Then Micro's comparison is meaningless.
The point is that Micro alleges Rand Paul would not be nominated by the party to run for president, then substantiates his claim by comparing him to someone who was nominated by the party to run for president.
I could easily be missing his point about Goldwater, since I know almost nothing about the man. All the more reason why I ask for clarification.
-
Goldwater, I remind you, faced an incredibly uphill battle for the nomination - specifically because he was opposed by many in the traditional Party leadership. He ended up pulling it off, only to have most of the said leadership fail to support him during the general election (unlike the way in which Rand is endorsing Romney), and some even endorsed his opponent.
In this way Ron Paul is like Goldwater - he also was opposed by much the same people, who used every clean and dirty trick in the book to oppose him. Would he have won if they had treated him fairly - almost certainly not (although had he won Iowa early on...) - but the point is they had not played fair.
I think Rand Paul will encounter the same opposition, and will be basically suppressed.
There's no point expecting anything else.
-
Goldwater, I remind you, faced an incredibly uphill battle for the nomination - specifically because he was opposed by many in the traditional Party leadership. He ended up pulling it off, only to have most of the said leadership fail to support him during the general election (unlike the way in which Rand is endorsing Romney), and some even endorsed his opponent.
Oh, OK, I did not know those things. Your point is more clear to me, now.
-
Still seems kind of silly to say 'X will never get POTUS nomination, cause he's just like Y!" where Y is someone who did in fact get a POTUS nomination.
It's also surprisingly pessimistic take for someone who's pretty consistent in viewing the future as being bright.
-
Still seems kind of silly to say 'X will never get POTUS nomination, cause he's just like Y!" where Y is someone who did in fact get a POTUS nomination.
It's also surprisingly pessimistic take for someone who's pretty consistent in viewing the future as being bright.
Goldwater lived in an era where most of the presidential primary process hinged on caucuses and conventions, and the popular vote mattered very little. This allowed for small groups of well-trained, dedicated activists to punch well above their electoral weight.
The primary process has been altered in many states since that period. While activists can - as exemplified by the Ron Paul movement - punch above their weight, they can't punch that far above their weight.
-
You don't see a shift in GOP party power away from some of the entrenched interests? As badly as the establishment wanted Romney to get the nod it took forever for the field of losers competing with him to drop off precisely because folks so much want someone who isn't establishment.
-
I think you're describing "meh," not "massively unlikeable." Not that I have a dog in the fight.
Well, lotta liberals will hate him because he's a rich white guy. A lotta conservatives will hate him for Romneycare, abortion flipflops etc. And the dude presents like a cyborg so not too many folks will find a personality driven likeability as I mentioned before.
-
You don't see a shift in GOP party power away from some of the entrenched interests? As badly as the establishment wanted Romney to get the nod it took forever for the field of losers competing with him to drop off precisely because folks so much want someone who isn't establishment.
For Rand Paul to be nominated in 2016 it would take a very rapid shift to occur in merely four years.
Mind, I expect improvements, I just don't expect them to be a) This rapid and b) in this specific shape.
It's also a bit outlandish to expect to be able to predict who the nominee is four years out.
-
For Rand Paul to be nominated in 2016 it would take a very rapid shift to occur in merely four years.
Mind, I expect improvements, I just don't expect them to be a) This rapid and b) in this specific shape.
It's also a bit outlandish to expect to be able to predict who the nominee is four years out.
This discussion started when you made a confident prediction about the nominee... ;)
I'm certainly not saying he will, just that it's certainly seems within the realms of reasonable possibility.
-
THere'll be a dozen or more candidates. Even if they were evenly balanced against each other the odds are against any given one - and Rand Paul will be playing on a very tilted playing field.
...that is, unless Romney somehow pulls off 2012. Then this will become a non-issue.
-
THere'll be a dozen or more candidates. Even if they were evenly balanced against each other the odds are against any given one - and Rand Paul will be playing on a very tilted playing field.
...that is, unless Romney somehow pulls off 2012. Then this will become a non-issue.
Economy the way it is, I find it tough to picture Obama winning.
-
Another reason to think Rand Paul won't run in 2016.
-
Rand Paul, '020!! ;)
-
Economy the way it is, I find it tough to picture Obama winning.
Don't underestimate the illegal alien, prisoners and felons, and dead votes. In some precincts he may get well over 100% of the vote.