Rand Paul SHOULD win 2016, but Paul Ryan corporatist parasite will be selected!!!

It is the repeating pattern of US depravity! The US elite PRE-select the most idiotic corporate pigs for massive speech money dumps which propel them upwards and then force them onto the American people as their only option to pretend to "vote" for.

I can make this prediction now, YEARS BEFORE it will happen, that Rand Paul will see himself chipped away while Paul Ryan the elitist corporatist parasite and betrayer of the people will like a parasite replacing its host will feed his way through the American righteousness and supplant himself at the top of the US abusive tyranny.

BEHOLD THE US DEPRAVITY!!

 

Actually, I think it's going to be Marco Rubio.

Given Mitt's horrifying turnout among Latino voters (30-70% to the President)....I think the RNC has decided their "best chance" is to...."put a brown face on Romneyism".

 

It doesn't take much to make that guess, Marco Rubio topped preliminary polls since before 2012 candidates threw their hats in, and still is topping those polls, though Rand Paul, however, has been nipping at that for a while now and is in 2nd. I only see Rubio losing ground going forward. Rand Paul is a more likely nominee.

I think what's more interesting is that it appears that Biden will seek the nomination, contrary to what most Democrats seemed to have been hoping for. I wonder if Hillary will still seek it and topple him.

- - - Updated - - -

You can make that prediction, but your track record doesn't give any credit to your predictions.

 

How does Rand win over the "Kick 'em all out" anti-"amnesty" Republican primary voters?

 

It's a good thing that GOP voters aren't as monolithic as you think they are.

 

You have just created the shortest run for the US presidency in the entire history of your country. You admitted defeat before the libertarian kook's intentions could even be declared. Quite fitting for a loser like Paul junior.

 

Rand Paul has advocated denial of the inalienable Right of Citizenship based upon jus soli which has always been the foundation for natural born citizenship in the United States.

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/29/paul-opposes-citizenship-for-babies-of-illegals/

Rand Paul just recently showed his ignorance of the US Constitution which does allow the use of the US military against Americans on US soil in extreme cases such as insurrection and his opposition to natural born citizenship based upon jus soli, as established by the criteria in the 14th Amendment reflected his ignorance of the US Constitution back in 2010 (where this story originated) reflects his pattern of opposing the Constitution and the Rights of the People.

Rand Paul only likes the US Constitution when it fits with his myopic political agenda. His message would actually do quite well with social conservatives that also oppose compliance with the US Constitution based upon their extremist (and often racist) political agenda.

 

Rand Paul is NOT a libertarian. Having a few libertarian policies for political gain does not establish a person as a libertarian. His father, Ron Paul, wasn't a libertarian either. Both are Republicans and only use "libertarianism" as a cover for their political agendas. Both have opposed the Rights of the Individual in different situations such as the Right of Natural Born Citizenship and abortion (where both oppose the established Rights of the Person for the Woman).

 

That's why I feel it's about time we allowed more political candidates have a chance to debate hot topics. Why do we only hear from Democrats & Republicans? How about the Libertarian party? Constitution party? Green party? Let more sides be told as most folks don't do their own research. I don't need to see every commercial about some politician to tell me who I'm going to vote for. Debates are normally where most people decide who they're going to vote for.

The system that we have isn't as grand as it should be. It's definitely time for a change. I still have my questions over Rand Paul, but so far he's the only viable option in the Republican party (Maybe years to come for Ted Cruz, still too early for him though). Rubio will only get votes because Republicans want to prop him up to the Latino's so they can get their vote. They might even call out Jeb Bush to help out with that, although I think anything with 'Bush' in it is going to get voted against. Paul Ryan is John Boehner's lap dog. Anything Boehner says, Ryan is jumping up and down chomping at the bit to be in the forefront whenever possible. Chris Christie could be looked at as well but he's far from anything we need as it'll be the same continued re-hashed garbage that we always get.

 

Oh, I'm sorry...was thinking back to....LAST YEAR...when all the GOP Hopefuls were standing up on stage at a Republican Primary debate "yukking it up" over electrified fences and "alligators in moats".

Didn't mean to bring up the "ancient past".

 

Curious...as Rand backpedals or even denies key aspects of libertarianism, even his OWN FATHER, in order to try to win the General Election in 2016.....will his fans simply say "Got to do that" and "ends justify the means"?

Focusing primarily on the fact that Rand WILL distance himself from "Dad" and even his own position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

I wish you success with your attempts to move the Republican party to the right and into full blown baggerism. It will fractionalize the party and cause it's final defeat. Baggerism is an impossible agenda that is supported by a much too diverse a crowd to ever be a cohesive force. The move is already on by the GOP to sideline it and eliminate it.

 

And you may very well be correct, I am not ready to predict this far out. I wilkl give Rubio this much he is one of the few Repubs I have every heard state the truth that the Government Does Not Create Jobs, plus he is a Texan. Paul Jr. is not even up to his own dads level and I couldn't vote for dad because of some his ideas, which in my opinion would weaken the USA. Rand is another GOP favorite so who knows what the GOP will do in 2016, but if they pick him the GOP will lose again, he has already alienated many moderates, but using common sense has not been a hallmark of the GOP over the last decade. We shall see, too soon to tell where we will be in four years.

 

Thank you. Republicans hide behind 'libertarianism' to make it more appealing to the younger crowd. Those who are much smarter and believe in honest, true capitalism that isn't tailored towards the rich & filthy rich, and believe in TRUE 'libertarianism', we can smell bs a mile away.

Rand Paul has some serious question marks. I won't label him as a 'libertarian' because he's not. Gary Johnson is continuing to look better and better as neither potential candidates out of the Democrat or Republican party look worth a damn. Then again, neither does most of the Senate, Representatives, Governors, Mayors, or any other local/state political position.

 

That's why I said he's the only viable option in the 'Republican' party. Did I say he was the candidate of choice? Absolutely not. Ron & Rand take the extremist measures of 'libertarianism' and try to make it their own. The problem is that the society & system that has been constructed around us needs to be broken down in a steady pace but still needs government to intervene when things hit the fan.

Look, I agree with the overall opinion of Ron & Rand on the Civil Rights Act. ONLY because I feel folks should have already be respected for their rights, regardless of race, gender, or background, and no law should have been enacted to make it so, it should just already be so because that's whats in the Constitution. Where I disagree with them is getting rid of it or any other legislation that is built around it. That's because this country is full of racism & hatred. If we abolished any of those rights, we'll never progress forward. To me, it's mind boggling that such laws even needed to be enacted because women should have rights just like everyone else. Why does it take for a law to be enacted in order for it to become a reality? Completely idiotic if you ask me.

It ultimately comes down to moral principles. People will purposely spite others and it's ultimately just not right.

 

Hahaha! Listen to you! LOLOL!

You are hoping Rand Paul becomes POTUS perhaps because of his dad's (and maybe his own) intention to return America to a pre-WWII isolationist foreign policy which would clear the way for increased Russian adventurism around the world unchastened by a strong and vigilant US Navy.

Yeah, Rand Paul has done some great things to show himself a potential national leader. But, until he proposes a more reasonable foreign policy, in my book he'll remain tainted by your endorsement.

 

Why do you feel like if we have an 'isolationist foreign policy' that Russia (And assuming you'd believe other countries/nations) would venture around the world unchastened? What do you feel as though we're doing by having a presence in those countries? I ask you these questions because I want to see what you're seeing because I see this in a different view. Allow me to share my point of view.

I don't see how our presence around the world is doing anything other than creating more evil in the world. Either the Syrian Rebels or the Syrian government is using chemical warfare in their civil war. Of which, we've supplying 'aid' to the Syrian Rebels that are known to have ties to the "terrorist" organization, Al Qaeda. If we look further into Israel and Hamas, we've been providing Israel with arms to be able to bomb Hamas in a brutal and reckless way. Continuing with Turkey, Taiwan, and the many other drug cartels through 'Fast & Furious', I don't think our presence is doing anything but creating more of the evil that we are all trying to get away from. If our presence is meant to help fund and prop up the US governments military-industrial complex syndrome, I'll agree that their foreign policy is horrible. If it's to stop these sense wars and propping up nations to fight a never ending war among themselves and others, then I'll say I 100% agree with their foreign policy.

We don't need to have some form or presence in this nations to ensure resolve & peace is among nations. By us trying to prevent things, we're only stirring up more hatred against us. If we look at the intelligence reports from 9/11, Bin Laden even stated his hatred for the US because of our presence in their 'holy land'. Am I saying that he wouldn't have attacked us anyway? Of course not. However, by continuing to ensue our presence in their backyards, this only continues to spur up more hatred among other nations towards us. Then war comes on our door step because of it. How about we get out of these nations, setup shop at home, and if someone messes with us, then we go after them. If they don't mess with us, I don't see why we need to mess with them.

 

That's fine, if that's what you believe. But I'm more interested in how it will play out when Rand starts to contradict Ron (or even himself) on the Civil Rights Act....in order to try to win an election where minority voters will be vital?

Is it "he's selling out, go 3rd party"....or more of the typical libertarian move...i.e. "He's GOT to do that to win...once in office, he can move back to the Right"?

 

you mean that the GOP candidates ARE the GOP voters? You're even further gone than I thought.

 

To me, as I don't want to generalize for all, it becomes another re-hash of the old, same politics that we always get. In the sense that, they have to say one thing, do another, and then we can get back to doing what we wanted to do. If we continue along those lines, we'll never know what the person is going to do. It becomes a moving target and isn't that what the issue with Obama, Romney, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, and a magnitude of other Presidents before them have done as well?

Some folks in the Libertarian party will hold firm that it has to be a 'purist'. I wouldn't necessarily go along with that but I do believe someone has to stand firm on what they believe in. If they disagree with the 'Civil Rights Act', then stand by it. It might not be right, but don't say one thing, do something else, and expect everyone to know what you're going to do. I just don't agree with that philosophy because that's what is occurring today. With Rand Paul's filibuster, all he got was a bunch of YAL (Young American for Liberty) folks jumping up and down for non-sense. They'll run with this, put their blinders on, and won't care what others say. In yet, I have to contend with that because of my beliefs. Then they get to the rhetoric of what you've described (He's GOT to do that to win...once in office, he can move back to the Right). I don't agree with it. While the filibuster isn't really doing anything other than getting people's attention (Nothing wrong with that), it comes to the point of issues (Like the Civil Rights Act) that you begin to wonder where his thoughts lay. That's when I point out 'he's a Republican candidate, not a Libertarian, there's a reason behind that'.

If I could be a politician (Say if because A, I don't have enough money to cover expenses while I don't make money being a public servant and B, I'm highly against going from rags to riches as a politician), I would start with looking at the tax system, things that effect society as a whole (IE: War on drugs), give the private sector less burdens to create more jobs while still having regulations on them (IE: Lower corporate tax while ensuring companies that effect the environment have clear, concise, and valid regulations), and a few other things (IE: Reforming the entitlement programs so they don't go bankrupt but, in yet, still provide help folks need). The problem is that most politicians, who want to run on the 'libertarianism' platform, take the extreme measures and it just makes libertarianism look bad as a whole. As I've stated many times, I believe government has a vital role in our society. There is far too much greed & corruption to simply go the route of anarchy. The problem is, the folks in the fore-front, who lean mostly towards 'libertarian' (IE: Ron & Rand Paul), take the extreme measures. Everybody knows it won't work, our system sucks and needs some form of regulation. To say we'll never see something that occur (Politician that will protect civil liberties while enforcing regulations on big corporations), I'd rather not place a vote on someone I know is just going to continue to bend me over either. In my eyes, what difference does it make which way I vote then?

To answer your last question, if they sell out, figure out who is the best candidate (Vote Constitutional or Green party, whoever the person feels is the best candidate for the job). I voted for Gary Johnson in the 2012 election. I'm waiting to hear who the next Presidential & VP candidate for the Libertarian party will be. I've been following Gary Johnson, as he garnered the most votes within the Libertarian party to date (More information can be found here on his current initiative: http://ouramericainitiative.com/). I'm tired of the flip-flopping. You never know who you are going to get. Will I ever see someone who holds my exact views? Probably not. However, I will ensure that my opinions are voiced in hopes that they do make sense and I can help all of us prosper because of it. I'm like everyone else, I'm tired of being pushed into the ground by the wealthiest where they are all fighting to see who has the longest boat/yacht versus whether we should buy our prescription drugs or food for the month.

In other words, if the Democrat & Republican candidates stink, I'd suggest looking at the 3rd party candidates. Even if they won't garner more than a fraction of the total votes, would you rather be apart of the masses that voted for the same garbage as always? I'd rather know that I voted for REAL CHANGE than for the same bs we always get from Democrat and/or Republican candidates.

 

After reading the first half of your post I suddenly recalled a terrific documentary I'd seen (and I think it's available on Netflix) called, "The World Without US."

This is one reviewer's thoughts on the film.

 

I don't have a Netflix account, however on the website, you can rent it for $3 bucks. I'll give it a watch tonight. Thanks for providing this film to me, I didn't even know this was out there.

 

Here's a trailer for the film, "The World Without US."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLUQgIsJMPc

The presidential candidate doesn't look like Ron or Rand but we can all probably agree Ron's foreign policy stance inspired the film.

- - - Updated - - -

You're very welcome. And anyone else who wants to watch it can get a 30 day free Netflix membership and start watching immediately.

 

I've been reading some reviews on it, I wanted to see exactly what this movie entailed. I watched both trailers, and I think this excerpt is about what I expect to stick after I finish watching it:

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. (More information found here: http://rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm)

In other words, it's more to the benefit of the fat cats than it is of the country we're involved with.

 

Smedly Butler is a Marine Corps icon but what he said in your text block quote kinda puzzled me.

Would he say that going to war to insure the continued flow of oil to the free world was also a racket?

Would you?