This is why Rand Paul will be President come 2016

The 19th century (the time when all those 3 examples you choose live in) was quite a different political environnement than today. I think that it was much easier back then to live a life and not concern itself with the governement, especially if you had a fair amount of money.
What does that matter? If you take as your premise that the state should be resisted, then its expansion simply dictates the nature of your resistance. There's no point in that, as far as I can see, where you flip to trying to take it over.

Also, there are a subset of libertarian that often refuse to be involved in politics : the anarcho-capitalists. However, the libertarians that we often heard about today aren’t part of that movement.
Anarcho-capitalism isn't really a "movement". It's a thought-experiment that some people took too seriously, and have tricked themselves to believing is a Thing.
 
This is a totally unfair criticism against Rand Paul, but it will have an effect with some. He simply does not -look- Presidential.
Stronger subconscious reservations might take over in case he runs against Clinton.
 
I wouldn't say GW Bush looked very presidential either. By the time he was running for re-election he was also widely seen as somewhat less than intelligent.



Rand Paul still looks a lot more presidential than that.
 
Stronger subconscious reservations might take over in case he runs against Clinton.

I cannot believe I am saying this, but if Hillary got the nomination AND depending on the GOP challenger, I may seriously look at 3rd parties or voting for Hillary... :eek:

I'm sure I'll dispense with any silliness by the time 2016 actually rolls around, though.
 
You, voting for Clinton? Again?
 
I've expressed my admiration for Hillary and the job she did as SecState on numerous occasions. But yeah... not sure if my family would ever forgive me a SECOND time for doing that.
 
I hope you will find better reasons not to vote for her than that ;)
 
Man, you don't know the crap I went through with my family for doing that. I might as well have told them I was a commie atheist.
 
So the message I'm getting is that the video isn't worth watching. And CS is apparently Nostradamus.
 
Man, you don't know the crap I went through with my family for doing that. I might as well have told them I was a commie atheist.

That's why we have private voting. :)

Besides, we're non-Trinitarians - isn't that just half a step from atheism, as it is? :p
 
He received a perfect score from the Gun Owners of America, National Right to Life Committee, and the American Conservative Union. National Journal gave him a 100% conservative record in 2011.


This man has no libertarian leanings, and isn't going to lure anyone who cares about liberty from the Democratic party.
 
Man, you don't know the crap I went through with my family for doing that. I might as well have told them I was a commie atheist.
It's pretty funny to imagine you as the leftie of your social circle.

Actually, it's not that unfamiliar because I'm easily one of the more right-leaning people among my friends.

Besides, we're non-Trinitarians - isn't that just half a step from atheism, as it is? :p
One third a step, to be precise.
 
This is a totally unfair criticism against Rand Paul, but it will have an effect with some. He simply does not -look- Presidential.
I like his poor-man Matthew Mcconaughey's curl look.

That said, as noted, RuPaul has as much a chance of becoming president.
 
Having watched the video (30 minute speech, by the way): some high points and low points:

Highs:
- Talk of conserving oil, and quoting Joel Salatin
- revealing how rushed Congress is to pass bills without reading them
- emphasis on small, local, citizen legislators, strict term limits
- stresses need for more inclusion and outreach to people not regarded as sympathetic to republicans, like NAACP.
- in the Q&A acknowledged that concern over civil liberties can be addressed from both sides of the aisle

Lows:
- Promotion of fracking, which doesn't have a long-run future.
- "Democrat Deficits". I'm personally adverse to politicians who use attack labels. Obama's spending is manic, but what about W? He refers to the Democratic bailout, which...again, began with W.
- Possibly because he's speaking to an audience of Republicans, he spends far too much time attacking Democrats in general. Republicans should focus on making themselves better, not by comparison to anyone else but better by any standards. Excellence should be the objective, not 'marginally-better-than-the-other-guy'. (Democrats should strive for the same goal, in my opinion.)
- "There's nothing wrong with us, we need to Convince People We're Right". No.
- Pointing out that arming Syrian rebels means arming Muslims against Christians. That's...er, problematic.

I agree with nearly all of your points that are pro/con [Didn't watch the vid still :p], but a question, why are you against fracking and what exactly do you mean it doesn't have a "long-term" future?
 
RaPaul's chances of becoming President are better than RoPaul's but worse than RuPaul's.

I demand this be how all future presidential elections are decided:

[YOUTUBE-OLD]BfrSNia5gYU[/YOUTUBE-OLD]
 
RaPaul's chances of becoming President are better than RoPaul's but worse than RuPaul's.

He could quite possibly win the primaries. IA, NH, SC, and NV are all within his grasp. With a divided enough field, even MI would be possible.

When it comes to the general, Hillary is coming down just a tad. I think her popularity (as well as Biden's) is going to be tied to Obama's terms. If the scandals become a big problem*, then she is going to limp into the general election or even lose the primaries. It would not be the first time she crash and burned.

*This is not exclusively tied to when she was SoS, but the scandals happening during her time would be more impactful
 
I hope the GOP is dumb enough to nominate Randian.

That reminds me of when people were hoping Obama would beat Clinton, because he would be a push over in the general.
 
I don't think its the same thing though. Sure Clinton probably would have had an even larger margin of victory than Obama, but the polls pretty much showed it was a Democratic year no matter who was put up by the Democratic Party.

Rand is... well, to put it bluntly, has no name [A last name that matters in politics...], pretty much no ability to reach bi-partisan appeal, associated with some fringes that the party would rather not deal with in the general. I wouldn't say Rand Paul is Barry Goldwater 2.0, since hes not... but it wouldn't be a competitive pick compared to other potentials.

I think he could theoretically win the primary, don't see him winning a general unless there is a substantial Republican shift that would make it impossible for him to lose.
 
Top Bottom