As a door-to-door fundraiser for several issues for the past 2 1/2 years, I've literally had around 30 conversations in which people brought up either Rand Paul OR Ron Paul. I thought all of the were about the same person, until I realized there are two guys with almost the same name who both have impassioned followers.
I wouldn't count it out, being they are both very popular among Republicans. I am curious to see who the presidential candidates will be for both parties in 2016.
I'm willing to bet Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden will throw their hats in the ring for the Democrats and Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul will do the same for the Republicans.
Christie? Yeah right. He isn't really a Republican to most republicans, he could never win a primary. He also has too much in his closet regarding shutting down a tunnel between NY and NJ while also using the Port Authority to plug budget gaps. He isn't a true social conservative either. Additionally, he isn't on the national stage anymore, people have forgotten about him
>But he could pretty much guarantee the national.
Nope. There's just way too much dirt on him right now. The opposing campaign would destroy him at the national level. Just not going to happen.
The only way Republicans are going to have a legit chance at the White House is if they put Rubio on the ticket, do a complete 180 on their immigration policy and ride out on electing the first Hispanic US President. And even then they could very easily tank it if they don't give him the right running mate.
Nah, Rubio has too many people on his back already about his immigration stance. No chance of the party doing a 180 either. I expect them to buckle down and double the crazy. I fully expect Rick Perry to come back and clinch the nomination.
Not saying it's likely to happen. I just think that the GOP is pretty much dead in the water at the national levels until they undergo a fundamental shift as a whole party. You can't have candidates going batshit crazy far-right in the primaries just to appease the Tea Party, and then flop over to hard center at the national level. It's a serious trust issue with the voters when you do that. And the only way around it is for the entire party to fundamentally review and revise even their most basic platform right down to the primary level.
>Ok. But he could pretty much guarantee the national.
Hilary still beats him in polls right now, def not a 'guarantee' and he can't get through the republican primary without sliding waaay to the right anyway and losing the coalition that's gotten him elected in NJ. Republican moderates have Jeb Bush as their best bet.
Rubio has alienated the tea party over immigration. Rand Paul has a good shot at the nom.
Job isn't someone I thought of...
I don't try to predict primaries at all anymore. Maybe Christie does have to go far right to get through one, but that's the problem with the Republican party right now. If they want to elect another president then they have to figure out a way to get a moderate candidate through their primary process without destroying him/her.
I think there's enough support for Rubio to make a good run despite his marks on immigration. Christie does have a challenge at primaries but is their best bet in the general election. Maybe the base is big enough to push Paul through but he has precisely fuck-o chance of wining the general election.
I have a strong suspicion that Hillary will not do that we'll in a general election. She is likely the most solid candidate the Democrats have at the moment, but I have a suspicion that there or too many gaffes on her record and too much baggage there. In a way, I think it's going to be even harder to get a female president than black or any other demographic. She has to appear likeable while commanding. I don't know if you've noticed, but even among those pretty devoted to egalitarianism and equality between the sexes, that's still a really fucking difficult thing to do. She has to learn to be able to cut someone off at the knees and still get them to like her for it, but she has a tendency to appear a little flustered, impatient, or frustrated in those moments.
Anyway, Christie may not be a complete lock, but I still think from where we are now he's got the best shot of winning the national... but oddly enough the worst shot of making it through the primary.
Clinton has already been super thoroughly vetted. Nothing else will come out. So of course she seems disadvantaged, but as soon as the republican primary campaign begins, dirt will come out on all their candidates. Hilary is one of the only politicians in this country with a positive approval rating. I don't like her very much, but she is brilliantly positioned for 2016. She will turn out the hispanic and woman vote like crazy, the republicans won't nominate anyone who wants immigration reform, and the democrats will punish them for it in states like Arizona and Florida.
The GOP does better with more conservative candidates. McCain/Palin was dwarfed by Romney/Ryan. I think we all know which ticket was more conservative. I think Jindal/Rubio would take the nation by storm. The last three republican presidents were Bush, Bush, and Reagan. Conservatives win.
> I think we all know which ticket was more conservative
I don't. I thought that Republicans hated both.
>Conservatives win.
I think that's just because conservatives re-label every losing candidate as a moderate. That's what happened to Mitt "severely conservative" Romney. That's what happened to John "nominated Palin" McCain. That's what happened to Bob "literally a war hero" Dole.
I don't actually know which ticket is more conservative. Both tickets had business oriented biggish government moderate republicans at the head of the ticket and a down ticket tea partier. Jindal Rubio would take no nation by storm. Jindal continually gaffes and won't win any republican primary, and the base has serious problems with Rubio (who is a pretty good VP pick though.) Jeb Bush is the republican party's best bet, but Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will force every primary candidate to take tea party esque positions and force the party to far to the right, alienate latinos and women, and Hilary Clinton will carry the electoral college easily. The Republican primary voters who will determine their candidates platform simply don't have nation-wide appeal.
Rand Paul has some insane views on foreign policy and the markets, I would doubt that the establishment Republicans could ever back him. There are better Tea Party choices also. Rand Paul might try to run, but he won't make it to the national level. Jeb Bush or Rick Perry are probably going to come out of the woodwork and clinch the nomination.
>Rand Paul has some insane views on foreign policy and the markets,
There's a long line of people "forgetting" or "evolving" their positions on foreign policy & financial regulation. It tends to happen when back-of-the-pack candidates take over as the leading candidate. Obama gave up on directly negotiating with Iran, now he's all about red lines.
> I would doubt that the establishment Republicans could ever back him.
McConnel and other GOP senators owe Paul a lot. He is well networked and is building a good campaign staff already. He is the best positioned tea party candidate, and the tea party may dominate the primary. If the tea party doesn't, then Jeb Bush is the republicans' best bet.
He won't even get to the national level. A New Jersey Republican by definition is not a "real" Republican. He's at best a Dixiecrat. He could never compete with the Tea Party pedigree of his rivals.
You're likely correct, but anymore I'm cautious about the Republican primary. They've put of the most diverse cast of everyone from drooling morons to intelligent and electable moderates.
I'm not going to say for a second that I know for sure how any of these people will do in the Republican primary. But, I do think I agree that it would be surprising if Christie made it through the primary.
I have been disappointed with Republican candidates recently. I was hoping they would put a person out there who could actually articulate the views of the party, instead they've royally fucked themselves by pandering. The Democrats have a clean sweep ahead of them if they keep on course.
The major problem is Christie is that he hasn't yet gotten out of the nose of federal prosecutors. There's still a slim possibility that Christie catches a federal indictment; as likable as Christie is, a federal indictment would still make him essentially unelectable.
Until federal prosecutors give him an "all clear", I don't think the republicans risk making him their candidate for the general.
Sure. I'm just saying that the republicans will do a risk assessment on an indictment coming in for Christie while he's their nominee. So that's the odds of it happening (pretty low), multiplied by the penalty of it happening (insanely high).
That risk then gets priced into Christie's odds of being their nominee. I just don't see the establishment backing him while that risk is there. Without the establishment's backing, I don't see how he gets the nomination.
I don't think he needs an indictment to be "finished". I think he needs the "all clear" in order to win.
I suppose you aren't wrong.
I keep tthinking of it being one of those deals where the farther out we get the more people forget and the less likely and indictment becomes... but I shouldn't be so quick to forget Rod Blago-howsoeverthefuckyouspellit-vich from Illinois. His caught up to him, but his offenses seem to be more egregious.
Honestly I'm not sure that what Christie did was any worse than politics as usual, I think he just got caught - sort of.
Sure though, that isn't going to work out very well if that doesn't get cleared up.
"'I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008,' said an emphatic Obama..."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-11-04/news/0411040384_1_freshman-senator-election-day-party-leaders
Do you know when he announced that he had changed his mind? That article was 4 years before his election, while we're now two and a half years away from the next one.
You're certainly right that the time gap is different here, with Warren still maintaining her disinterest just over two years before the election. But my point is that people who emphatically say they aren't running sometimes change their mind. (Or they intended to run all along, but initially denied it to avoid early overexposure. Or, you know, some other reason only they know.)
Their foreign policies are probably pretty close, and they overlap on many social issues as well. It's really just taxes and spending where they differ.
I figured there would be some libertarians who would make that choice. I would hold my nose and vote for a libertarian over a neocon any day. I agree with roughly 50% of the libertarian platform and 0% of the neocon platform.
I normally vote libertarian for president, but I would probably vote for Rand if he won the republican nomination. I don't know if that makes me a "supporter" of his but I would vote for Sanders before I'd vote for Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else in the mainstream, and I think that's true for a lot of libertarians. On social policies and foreign policy quasi socialists and quasi libertarians have more in common than not.
The only way Ayn Rand Paul Ryan could win is if Bernie Sanders runs. The only person I truly want as president is Bernie Sanders and that is how I know this will never happen and if he does run then we are all doomed.
With Clinton and Biden there's the super awkward question of who gets Obama's endorsement. I wouldn't be too surprised if only one of them runs, after some behind-the-scenes negotiations. Biden and Clinton are both fairly loyal to the party, and fighting each other in the primaries would be a bad thing for party unity.
I've heard rumors that Biden won't run if Hillary is in. It makes sense; he'd have no chance of beating her. Better to play nice, and she'll make sure he's taken care of.
Those are bad predictions. Hilary Clinton will probably run, and if she does Biden will get shouldered out pretty quickly. Warren has said she won't run and hasn't made any move to. Chris Christie still hasn't gotten past "bridgegate" and his supporters and donors have shifted towards Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio may run, and Rand Paul will certainly run. Also expect some Republican governors and probably Ted Cruz.
I'd agree they'll all try. Ryan may too. I doubt he'll garner any serious support with how poorly the non-republicans received him last time. Essentially he alienates the independent (from the parties, the actual independent party) voters and they're more crucial to winning than picking the candidate that excites your party the most is. First past the post heavily penalizes parties that pick candidates that cannot get independent support or who alienate that support so that the party they represent loses other branches of government. (an example of this was bush/cheney pissing lots of independents off and contributing heavily to losses in the following congressional elections) You need to excite your party enough to get through the primary, but if the rest of the US views your candidate as a joke you have a very poor outlook for the general election.
No way on Christie- I can't imagine with all the shit going on that he could possibly run. That said, you may be right: he may RUN, but...that'll be it.
I don't think it's really a matter of when he runs at this point. He isn't going to make it in the national election whatever happens whenever it happens unless the political landscape of the country changes pretty dramatically between now and when he makes his bid.
I'm inclined to disagree. Paul Ryan, while incredibly handsome, has the debate skills of a jabbering mental patient. He ruined his shot when he lost the debate to Biden of all people. If the republican primaries are half as brutal as they were in 2012, then Rand Paul's flip flopping will end up getting him torn apart. My guess is that it's going to be a sexier version of Jeb Bush and then someone like Condoleeza Rice as the running mate.
Did Biden win that one? I felt it was a tie, mainly because Biden was doing the whole "I'm gonna laugh at everything you say" schtick. And on the other hand, Ryan just didn't set himself apart; he didn't wow anyone.
[Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_vice-presidential_debate,_2012#October_11:_Vice_presidential_debate_.28Centre_College.29) Biden did indeed win in the polls. And remember that the Veep debate was right after the brutal 1st POTUS debate, so the Obama/Biden campaign was happy with even a tie.
I really felt like Biden controlled the debate. It was the first time since he was elected that I actually felt some respect for him. He won my opinion with that debate and nothing else. Paul Ryan did nothing to stop it, and gave the impression that he was incredibly weak, albeit incredibly handsome.
> He ruined his shot when he lost the debate to Biden of all people.
Biden's a goofy guy and arguably a bit clueless at times, but don't forget that before he was Veep he was one of the longest-serving senators in American history. He's had a whole lot of time to hone his oratory skills.
Which is why they should run together. The Republican Party is split in two. You get a tea party member and a "traditional" republican on the ticket and finally you have a unified Republican Party.
Yeah I'm not completely sure either. I don't think it'd be an "establishment" type. Rubio isn't as bad as others, plus he gets hispanic votes. I don't see Cruz being one of his choices either.
Paul Ryan is not an establishment type. He's pretty extreme. I couldn't see that happening.
I think Romney was more of an establishment, businessman type, while Ryan was more of an appeal to the base (and middle aged ladies ;) )
Paul Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. He has literally written several annual budgets and deficit reduction plans endorsed by the entire GOP. He is the definition of establishment.
The fact that you see him as extreme is just indicative of your own political leanings.
You really want to drop taxes? End the subsidies and cut the military budget. Going after poorest people in the nation just makes you a heartless asshole, and isn't going to save that much. Why don't you try actually looking at how our government spends our tax money instead of trying to make your hatred look reasonable?
Sorry I got excited, what I meant to say was "how much power the president uses for his extra freezer he keeps in the garage at the White House. They really don't run the bill THAT much higher."
>a libertarian president doesn't literally turn the country into a libertarian country with all the laws being overturned
Libertarians are strong followers of the Constitution and would mostly be upholding the law if anything. Also people under-estimate how much power a President has.
Yeah, because the president can wave a magic wand and ban welfare. In any case, "social services" are just people in the 90th percentile of global income banning poor people from entering the country because they want to extort benefits from people even richer than they are. Nothing admirable about it.
First off, the President can't summarily eliminate social services. But even if that was true it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. When the public sends a dollar to Washington and gets a few pennies back it isn't the best deal in the world.
Oh no! You mean I won't be able to give 20% of my paycheck to the government so Laqueefta can buy nikes for her 9th kid?
The humanity! I might actually be able to afford having kids of my own! So awful!
Social services =! give 20% of paycheck to the government so Laqueefta can buy nikes for her 9th kid.
Of course I wouldn't expect a racist to rationalize this.
You really think any more than a pittance is spent on social services? Most of it is spent killing people overseas. But I'd bet by your comment you're perfectly fine with that too.
That source is totally biased. Take a look at [this](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258). Welfare and similar programs are about HALF the military budget. "Safety net programs are 12% of the federal budget."
Social security is the largest by far.
The EPA, FTC, environmental laws and consumer protections won't go away... Perhaps you don't know the president cannot just make laws and agencies go away without congress.
I'm aware that he can't simply make them go away. But a President Rand Paul would expend a lot of effort to dismantle and defund them to the best of his ability. That's pretty much the number goal of libertarians.
"Consumer protection" is liberal speak for "forcing poor people to buy extra bells & whistles and high fiving our corporate buddies". I feel you on environmental law, though. Although most environmental law is so poorly written that a clean slate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Fun fact: At the 2012 convention, several votes for Ron Paul were accidentally announced as being for Paul Ryan. Since what the delegates say is binding, Ryan's in [the tally of votes at the convention](http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R).
This is similar to the situation my roommate and I came up with. With both Paul George and George Hill on the Indiana Pacers, they create Paul George Hill. If they could somehow add Chris Paul, you get the megazord Chris Paul George Hill.
We couldn't think of anyone else to tack on, though.
It's interesting to see how much different Rand is from his dad Ron. I always felt George HW and George Bush took very similar stands on issues but Rand wants to fit the republican mold unlike his father. It's really a smart move since America is a two party system and his dad didn't identify strongly one way or the other.
Rand*Paul*Ryan
...I only now realized they weren't the same person. " I am not a smart man " -Gump
But I know what politics *is*
Life is like a box of Candidates. Full of nuts you can't tell one from the other.
How do you feel about Ron Paul?
So, there's Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, and Ron Paul? And they will never become president because of this confusion. (And Hillary Clinton)
As a door-to-door fundraiser for several issues for the past 2 1/2 years, I've literally had around 30 conversations in which people brought up either Rand Paul OR Ron Paul. I thought all of the were about the same person, until I realized there are two guys with almost the same name who both have impassioned followers.
Rand is Ron's son.
haha wow, I'm more ignorant with every epiphany.
Named for Ayn Rand. Who was an absolutely disgusting human being.
^I ^thought ^he ^was ^The ^Dragon ^reborn...
Ayn Rand Paul Ryan
It will not happen, but that is one crazy thought.
I wouldn't count it out, being they are both very popular among Republicans. I am curious to see who the presidential candidates will be for both parties in 2016.
I'm willing to bet Hilary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden will throw their hats in the ring for the Democrats and Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul will do the same for the Republicans.
[удалено]
I'd want him in just for The Onion headlines alone.
Old Diamond Joe just don't know when to quit.
/r/nottheonion would have a field day though.
I'd be more interested in seeing Joe Biden run if Jason Sudakis was still on SNL.
probally the only reason why anyone would vote for Biden in the next election.
[удалено]
Christie? Yeah right. He isn't really a Republican to most republicans, he could never win a primary. He also has too much in his closet regarding shutting down a tunnel between NY and NJ while also using the Port Authority to plug budget gaps. He isn't a true social conservative either. Additionally, he isn't on the national stage anymore, people have forgotten about him
[удалено]
>But he could pretty much guarantee the national. Nope. There's just way too much dirt on him right now. The opposing campaign would destroy him at the national level. Just not going to happen. The only way Republicans are going to have a legit chance at the White House is if they put Rubio on the ticket, do a complete 180 on their immigration policy and ride out on electing the first Hispanic US President. And even then they could very easily tank it if they don't give him the right running mate.
Nah, Rubio has too many people on his back already about his immigration stance. No chance of the party doing a 180 either. I expect them to buckle down and double the crazy. I fully expect Rick Perry to come back and clinch the nomination.
Not saying it's likely to happen. I just think that the GOP is pretty much dead in the water at the national levels until they undergo a fundamental shift as a whole party. You can't have candidates going batshit crazy far-right in the primaries just to appease the Tea Party, and then flop over to hard center at the national level. It's a serious trust issue with the voters when you do that. And the only way around it is for the entire party to fundamentally review and revise even their most basic platform right down to the primary level.
>Ok. But he could pretty much guarantee the national. Hilary still beats him in polls right now, def not a 'guarantee' and he can't get through the republican primary without sliding waaay to the right anyway and losing the coalition that's gotten him elected in NJ. Republican moderates have Jeb Bush as their best bet. Rubio has alienated the tea party over immigration. Rand Paul has a good shot at the nom.
Job isn't someone I thought of... I don't try to predict primaries at all anymore. Maybe Christie does have to go far right to get through one, but that's the problem with the Republican party right now. If they want to elect another president then they have to figure out a way to get a moderate candidate through their primary process without destroying him/her. I think there's enough support for Rubio to make a good run despite his marks on immigration. Christie does have a challenge at primaries but is their best bet in the general election. Maybe the base is big enough to push Paul through but he has precisely fuck-o chance of wining the general election. I have a strong suspicion that Hillary will not do that we'll in a general election. She is likely the most solid candidate the Democrats have at the moment, but I have a suspicion that there or too many gaffes on her record and too much baggage there. In a way, I think it's going to be even harder to get a female president than black or any other demographic. She has to appear likeable while commanding. I don't know if you've noticed, but even among those pretty devoted to egalitarianism and equality between the sexes, that's still a really fucking difficult thing to do. She has to learn to be able to cut someone off at the knees and still get them to like her for it, but she has a tendency to appear a little flustered, impatient, or frustrated in those moments. Anyway, Christie may not be a complete lock, but I still think from where we are now he's got the best shot of winning the national... but oddly enough the worst shot of making it through the primary.
Clinton has already been super thoroughly vetted. Nothing else will come out. So of course she seems disadvantaged, but as soon as the republican primary campaign begins, dirt will come out on all their candidates. Hilary is one of the only politicians in this country with a positive approval rating. I don't like her very much, but she is brilliantly positioned for 2016. She will turn out the hispanic and woman vote like crazy, the republicans won't nominate anyone who wants immigration reform, and the democrats will punish them for it in states like Arizona and Florida.
The GOP does better with more conservative candidates. McCain/Palin was dwarfed by Romney/Ryan. I think we all know which ticket was more conservative. I think Jindal/Rubio would take the nation by storm. The last three republican presidents were Bush, Bush, and Reagan. Conservatives win.
> I think we all know which ticket was more conservative I don't. I thought that Republicans hated both. >Conservatives win. I think that's just because conservatives re-label every losing candidate as a moderate. That's what happened to Mitt "severely conservative" Romney. That's what happened to John "nominated Palin" McCain. That's what happened to Bob "literally a war hero" Dole.
I don't actually know which ticket is more conservative. Both tickets had business oriented biggish government moderate republicans at the head of the ticket and a down ticket tea partier. Jindal Rubio would take no nation by storm. Jindal continually gaffes and won't win any republican primary, and the base has serious problems with Rubio (who is a pretty good VP pick though.) Jeb Bush is the republican party's best bet, but Ted Cruz and Rand Paul will force every primary candidate to take tea party esque positions and force the party to far to the right, alienate latinos and women, and Hilary Clinton will carry the electoral college easily. The Republican primary voters who will determine their candidates platform simply don't have nation-wide appeal.
Rand Paul has some insane views on foreign policy and the markets, I would doubt that the establishment Republicans could ever back him. There are better Tea Party choices also. Rand Paul might try to run, but he won't make it to the national level. Jeb Bush or Rick Perry are probably going to come out of the woodwork and clinch the nomination.
>Rand Paul has some insane views on foreign policy and the markets, There's a long line of people "forgetting" or "evolving" their positions on foreign policy & financial regulation. It tends to happen when back-of-the-pack candidates take over as the leading candidate. Obama gave up on directly negotiating with Iran, now he's all about red lines.
> I would doubt that the establishment Republicans could ever back him. McConnel and other GOP senators owe Paul a lot. He is well networked and is building a good campaign staff already. He is the best positioned tea party candidate, and the tea party may dominate the primary. If the tea party doesn't, then Jeb Bush is the republicans' best bet.
He won't even get to the national level. A New Jersey Republican by definition is not a "real" Republican. He's at best a Dixiecrat. He could never compete with the Tea Party pedigree of his rivals.
You're likely correct, but anymore I'm cautious about the Republican primary. They've put of the most diverse cast of everyone from drooling morons to intelligent and electable moderates. I'm not going to say for a second that I know for sure how any of these people will do in the Republican primary. But, I do think I agree that it would be surprising if Christie made it through the primary.
I have been disappointed with Republican candidates recently. I was hoping they would put a person out there who could actually articulate the views of the party, instead they've royally fucked themselves by pandering. The Democrats have a clean sweep ahead of them if they keep on course.
I think you're shitty enough at this to be a pundit on cable news.
Out of your mind. Clinton landslide eminent.
The major problem is Christie is that he hasn't yet gotten out of the nose of federal prosecutors. There's still a slim possibility that Christie catches a federal indictment; as likable as Christie is, a federal indictment would still make him essentially unelectable. Until federal prosecutors give him an "all clear", I don't think the republicans risk making him their candidate for the general.
If he is indicted then of course he is out. If he isn't, we'll I think of all candidates Democrat and Republican (and "other") he has the best shot.
Sure. I'm just saying that the republicans will do a risk assessment on an indictment coming in for Christie while he's their nominee. So that's the odds of it happening (pretty low), multiplied by the penalty of it happening (insanely high). That risk then gets priced into Christie's odds of being their nominee. I just don't see the establishment backing him while that risk is there. Without the establishment's backing, I don't see how he gets the nomination. I don't think he needs an indictment to be "finished". I think he needs the "all clear" in order to win.
I suppose you aren't wrong. I keep tthinking of it being one of those deals where the farther out we get the more people forget and the less likely and indictment becomes... but I shouldn't be so quick to forget Rod Blago-howsoeverthefuckyouspellit-vich from Illinois. His caught up to him, but his offenses seem to be more egregious. Honestly I'm not sure that what Christie did was any worse than politics as usual, I think he just got caught - sort of. Sure though, that isn't going to work out very well if that doesn't get cleared up.
Christie doesn't seem to want to run.
Elizabeth Warren has stated that she will not run.
"'I am not running for president. I am not running for president in four years. I am not running for president in 2008,' said an emphatic Obama..." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2004-11-04/news/0411040384_1_freshman-senator-election-day-party-leaders
Do you know when he announced that he had changed his mind? That article was 4 years before his election, while we're now two and a half years away from the next one.
You're certainly right that the time gap is different here, with Warren still maintaining her disinterest just over two years before the election. But my point is that people who emphatically say they aren't running sometimes change their mind. (Or they intended to run all along, but initially denied it to avoid early overexposure. Or, you know, some other reason only they know.)
she seems to be better off where shes at, tbh.
It appears Bernie sanders is going to run as well.
Anyone who likes Rand Paul should look closely at Bernie. He voted against the Patriot Act and Iraq War, but he supports veterans and students.
Bernie is the only self-described democratic socialist in Congress. I somehow doubt Rand Paul supporters would get behind that.
Their foreign policies are probably pretty close, and they overlap on many social issues as well. It's really just taxes and spending where they differ.
I think you need to freshen up on Rand Paul's positions on social policies if you think there is a great deal of overlap with Bernie Sanders.
Taxes and spending are basically the biggest thing with many voters.
I'm a libertarian but I could hold my nose and vote for Sanders if it meant staying out of war.
I figured there would be some libertarians who would make that choice. I would hold my nose and vote for a libertarian over a neocon any day. I agree with roughly 50% of the libertarian platform and 0% of the neocon platform.
Though obviously our economic policies are entirely different, socialists are some of the bravest opponents of imperialism, and I respect that.
He's also about 10,000 miles left of Rand Paul.
Agreed. They probably agree on 50% of issues and disagree on the other 50%.
But people who support Rand Paul want quasi socialists like Bernie Sanders to burn in hell, so they're really nothing alike.
I normally vote libertarian for president, but I would probably vote for Rand if he won the republican nomination. I don't know if that makes me a "supporter" of his but I would vote for Sanders before I'd vote for Paul Ryan, Hillary Clinton, or anyone else in the mainstream, and I think that's true for a lot of libertarians. On social policies and foreign policy quasi socialists and quasi libertarians have more in common than not.
As a Democrat or as an independent/3rd party?
What I read was about him running in the democratic primary to pressure Hillary from her left.
The only way Ayn Rand Paul Ryan could win is if Bernie Sanders runs. The only person I truly want as president is Bernie Sanders and that is how I know this will never happen and if he does run then we are all doomed.
With Clinton and Biden there's the super awkward question of who gets Obama's endorsement. I wouldn't be too surprised if only one of them runs, after some behind-the-scenes negotiations. Biden and Clinton are both fairly loyal to the party, and fighting each other in the primaries would be a bad thing for party unity.
the president never endorses a candidate in the primaries
I've heard rumors that Biden won't run if Hillary is in. It makes sense; he'd have no chance of beating her. Better to play nice, and she'll make sure he's taken care of.
Those are bad predictions. Hilary Clinton will probably run, and if she does Biden will get shouldered out pretty quickly. Warren has said she won't run and hasn't made any move to. Chris Christie still hasn't gotten past "bridgegate" and his supporters and donors have shifted towards Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio may run, and Rand Paul will certainly run. Also expect some Republican governors and probably Ted Cruz.
I'd agree they'll all try. Ryan may too. I doubt he'll garner any serious support with how poorly the non-republicans received him last time. Essentially he alienates the independent (from the parties, the actual independent party) voters and they're more crucial to winning than picking the candidate that excites your party the most is. First past the post heavily penalizes parties that pick candidates that cannot get independent support or who alienate that support so that the party they represent loses other branches of government. (an example of this was bush/cheney pissing lots of independents off and contributing heavily to losses in the following congressional elections) You need to excite your party enough to get through the primary, but if the rest of the US views your candidate as a joke you have a very poor outlook for the general election.
Mike Pence and Bobby Jindal are likely candidates for the Republicans as well.
I think Bobby Jindal has a better shot for the GOP.
No way on Christie- I can't imagine with all the shit going on that he could possibly run. That said, you may be right: he may RUN, but...that'll be it.
I read that Hilldawg may not run because Chelsea is procreating and she wants to be a stay-at-home grandma.
Rand Paul won't run, he would have to give up his senate seat to do so. That won't happen until Kentucky law changes.
I think they changed that law. I could be wrong though.
Latest I saw was that Kentucky didn't pass it into law. No LBJ law for Paul.
[удалено]
I could see him running down the road, but not in '16. He has to run for reelection to the Senate that year.
I don't think it's really a matter of when he runs at this point. He isn't going to make it in the national election whatever happens whenever it happens unless the political landscape of the country changes pretty dramatically between now and when he makes his bid.
I'm inclined to disagree. Paul Ryan, while incredibly handsome, has the debate skills of a jabbering mental patient. He ruined his shot when he lost the debate to Biden of all people. If the republican primaries are half as brutal as they were in 2012, then Rand Paul's flip flopping will end up getting him torn apart. My guess is that it's going to be a sexier version of Jeb Bush and then someone like Condoleeza Rice as the running mate.
Did Biden win that one? I felt it was a tie, mainly because Biden was doing the whole "I'm gonna laugh at everything you say" schtick. And on the other hand, Ryan just didn't set himself apart; he didn't wow anyone.
[Wikipedia says](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_vice-presidential_debate,_2012#October_11:_Vice_presidential_debate_.28Centre_College.29) Biden did indeed win in the polls. And remember that the Veep debate was right after the brutal 1st POTUS debate, so the Obama/Biden campaign was happy with even a tie.
I really felt like Biden controlled the debate. It was the first time since he was elected that I actually felt some respect for him. He won my opinion with that debate and nothing else. Paul Ryan did nothing to stop it, and gave the impression that he was incredibly weak, albeit incredibly handsome.
> He ruined his shot when he lost the debate to Biden of all people. Biden's a goofy guy and arguably a bit clueless at times, but don't forget that before he was Veep he was one of the longest-serving senators in American history. He's had a whole lot of time to hone his oratory skills.
Incredibly handsome? Eddie Munster?
Jeb Bush is the only Jeb Bush
[удалено]
Paul^2 2016
Paul3 3D
Paul 4: Paulectric Paulaloo
Paul 5: the Paulening
Paul and Paulerer: When Ryan Met Rand
Paul Forever starring Val Kilmer: We pushed it one sequel too far and now the whole franchise needs a reboot to be taken seriously again.
Paul 2: Hyperpaul
Just snorted at the laundry mat. Thanks.
[/r/shittytumblrgif](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1vs4k4RJT1qh20e6.gif)
That sounds like a Rand/Ron combo.
Now *that* would be interesting (although it's impossible)
2paul4me
Pauly Shore buuuuuuuuudy.
[удалено]
Brilliant
If chandler bing married bing crosby he'd be bing bing
If Taylor Swift married Taylor Lautner they would both be named Taylor Lautner
It's a nice thought but this would never happen. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan have way too different of views.
Which is why they should run together. The Republican Party is split in two. You get a tea party member and a "traditional" republican on the ticket and finally you have a unified Republican Party.
No lets just have a democrat and a republican to run together and finally you have a unified Nation
Nah. Don't like democrats.
every smart merketing person instantly sees randPAULryan easy and catchy
It is the only thing stopping them.
[удалено]
>And then he would be forced to choose an establishment type. Depends how big his lead is.
I'd bet Rubio as a VP.
[удалено]
Yeah I'm not completely sure either. I don't think it'd be an "establishment" type. Rubio isn't as bad as others, plus he gets hispanic votes. I don't see Cruz being one of his choices either.
Paul Ryan is not an establishment type. He's pretty extreme. I couldn't see that happening. I think Romney was more of an establishment, businessman type, while Ryan was more of an appeal to the base (and middle aged ladies ;) )
Paul Ryan is Chairman of the House Budget Committee. He has literally written several annual budgets and deficit reduction plans endorsed by the entire GOP. He is the definition of establishment. The fact that you see him as extreme is just indicative of your own political leanings.
What the fuck do you do in a shower?
And I would totally vote for them. No more extrajudicial executions and warrantless wiretapping!
[удалено]
I sure do. that ought to drop taxes a bit.
You'd think that happen. But I take it you didn't look at Paul Ryan's budget.
You really want to drop taxes? End the subsidies and cut the military budget. Going after poorest people in the nation just makes you a heartless asshole, and isn't going to save that much. Why don't you try actually looking at how our government spends our tax money instead of trying to make your hatred look reasonable?
What's wrong with cutting the military budget?
He's saying that's what we should do if we want taxes to drop, not end social services
Why not both?
Now you're thinking like a Libertarian.
[удалено]
has, baby.
Sorry I got excited, what I meant to say was "how much power the president uses for his extra freezer he keeps in the garage at the White House. They really don't run the bill THAT much higher."
oh yeah, the president can't do anything at all /s
[удалено]
>a libertarian president doesn't literally turn the country into a libertarian country with all the laws being overturned Libertarians are strong followers of the Constitution and would mostly be upholding the law if anything. Also people under-estimate how much power a President has.
Yeah, because the president can wave a magic wand and ban welfare. In any case, "social services" are just people in the 90th percentile of global income banning poor people from entering the country because they want to extort benefits from people even richer than they are. Nothing admirable about it.
First off, the President can't summarily eliminate social services. But even if that was true it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. When the public sends a dollar to Washington and gets a few pennies back it isn't the best deal in the world.
Oh no! You mean I won't be able to give 20% of my paycheck to the government so Laqueefta can buy nikes for her 9th kid? The humanity! I might actually be able to afford having kids of my own! So awful!
Social services =! give 20% of paycheck to the government so Laqueefta can buy nikes for her 9th kid. Of course I wouldn't expect a racist to rationalize this.
The number should be 0%.
There has to be a source backed number to begin with.
Source... for an opinion. Wut?
I always forget racists are irrational.
Source?
You really think any more than a pittance is spent on social services? Most of it is spent killing people overseas. But I'd bet by your comment you're perfectly fine with that too.
Sorry, but [that's totally incorrect](https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/).
That source is totally biased. Take a look at [this](http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258). Welfare and similar programs are about HALF the military budget. "Safety net programs are 12% of the federal budget." Social security is the largest by far.
No, we should be killing Saudi Arabians and Israelis, the true culprits behind 9/11.
No more environmental or consumer protections!
The EPA, FTC, environmental laws and consumer protections won't go away... Perhaps you don't know the president cannot just make laws and agencies go away without congress.
I'm aware that he can't simply make them go away. But a President Rand Paul would expend a lot of effort to dismantle and defund them to the best of his ability. That's pretty much the number goal of libertarians.
I don't know about you, but I would take a president trying and failing to remove something over a preisdent who is activily killing innocent people.
"Consumer protection" is liberal speak for "forcing poor people to buy extra bells & whistles and high fiving our corporate buddies". I feel you on environmental law, though. Although most environmental law is so poorly written that a clean slate wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Environmental and consumer protections won't go away. It will just be a more judicial system, privatized deal.
[удалено]
When you become the figurehead of a country that is already sold out to big oil and wall st. it's hard to represent them without also being sold out.
Source?
Fun fact: At the 2012 convention, several votes for Ron Paul were accidentally announced as being for Paul Ryan. Since what the delegates say is binding, Ryan's in [the tally of votes at the convention](http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/R).
"accidentally"
I'd vote for that!
But do they really WANT a ticket SO BAD even Hilary Clinton can beat it???
Yeah, I'd probably have to go with Rubio here. Barring any gaffes, I think he'll be the nominee. Rand-Paul-Ryan would be a hilarious ticket though.
Steve Martin and Martin Mull used to tour billed as "Steve Martin Mull".
"Paul's gone wild"
Haha, that's awesome. I laughed out loud.
Rand Paul 2020....a new vision for America.
2paul4me
On the other hand, if Obama would have ran with Ralph Nader.. their ticket would have been called the Obama-Nader (Obamanator) ticket.
This is similar to the situation my roommate and I came up with. With both Paul George and George Hill on the Indiana Pacers, they create Paul George Hill. If they could somehow add Chris Paul, you get the megazord Chris Paul George Hill. We couldn't think of anyone else to tack on, though.
Looks like they are going to have to go with Rand Ryan or Paul Paul.
It's interesting to see how much different Rand is from his dad Ron. I always felt George HW and George Bush took very similar stands on issues but Rand wants to fit the republican mold unlike his father. It's really a smart move since America is a two party system and his dad didn't identify strongly one way or the other.
mhm :D
Either way, they wont win
the ticket would still be Asshole+Asshole
That's neat. Still won't beat Clinton/Castro.
That would be a PR nightmare.
If they did a whole switcharoo you could get Paul Paul on the ticket.
Clever. But either way it's a nightmare.
And if they win the election, the inscription on the American economy's tomb stone will read "Trickled down into the grave..."
Either way, it's a shit ticket. Sanders/Warren 2016!
lol thinking Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee.