Tell em Rand...
 

This is one of the best responses to a Presidential address I can recall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTBgNlojYyc

Based on that speech means that there is a politician I could vote for. :Kaleun_Applaud: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Absolutely. I hope he does not change and is who he appears to be.Assuming he is like his father, he is the real deal.Definitely more polished than the elder Paul but that is needed to across the certain voters.

Rand Paul for president in 2016?

I'll take Howdy Doody at this point.

And whoever that's going to be your president in 2016, you probably going to hate him too. Just because he/she isn't what you had been expecting.

Markus

I'm hoping for another D. I've gotten hooked on this stuff.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f2...ular/rtcan.jpg

We should call that the Obammy can.

Great when you open it, but turns flat nearly instantly.

Another 4 years of Democrats would make for great trollery. :)

I saved that pic, and will use it in other forums, thank you sir. :D

I would vote for Rand, hopefully he could beat Hillary. I think Rand could beat Hillary. Hillary should suffer from the Obama effect.

Well, the hardcore right had their chance, and failed. The hardcore left, is proving to be an equally spectacular failure in their own right. Currently i can't tell the difference between the two except the left likes to play the violin more then the right. Now, It's my understanding that Libertarians are aligned with the republican's because they have no other place to go in the two-faced monstrosity that is our two party system. In any event, i think we need a president that leans a bit towards Libertarianism and leans heavily towards non-interventionism, and it's long overdue we had such a president.

The Fuhrer-cult about politicians and presidents shall come to an end. They are products of the system, and if elected, they have to deal with the same harsh reality like anyone else. With debts and interests like these, with dependencies on lobbies and on certain industry leaders like these, any US president has extremely limited freedom to act, if any. The louder the call for the right man at the top, the more certain it becomes that afterwards the disappointment again will be great.

The whole system - in the West, not just the US - is foul, and smells rotten. An occasional sober speech here and there does not change that. yes, in this 5 minutes-speech, Rand gives a sober impression, and I agree with what he says on the issue.

But that does not make me forgetting that he is just another politician. And by defintion that means he tries to tell people what he thinks increases his chances to get lifted by them, and will not tell them grim truths that would make sure he is not elected if speaking them out.

Democracy is voter bribery. People want to get bribed and betrayed. And sometimes the bribery lies not fin cial payments and tax gifts, but in giving a certain appearance: Kennedy on mind, or Reagan. So again: this younger Rand is just a politician, like his colleagues. Never forget that.

The media would portray Rand as a right wing lunatic with a touch of bigot.

Something about this post made me agree, yet cringe at the same time.
Just how divisive we are, and how destructive it is.


My team will do this to your team, no one really listens to what they say, and anything they say is told to them by bosses.


A president, being told what to do by party bosses, or face ruination.

The problem is with politicians making this a lifelong occupation, rather than going back to their farms like Washington and Cincinattus did when their term was over.

Politician means public service, most of the a-holes think we should serve them, which is why we kicked Britain to the curb a few hundred years ago.

The idea of congressional term limits would be a fantastic start. We really do need to do away with career politicians. Until such time, I don't think much will change.

You are preachinig to the choir, right or left, you are screwed, as the same monetary backers fund both parties.

I hate to be so Nihilistic, but anything we do is meaningless, unless you net millions a year.

Buffalo Bob will pull his strings. I wonder who is pulling the strings on the current puppet?

One thing is for sure, he can't sneak up and punch Assad in the mouth if we all get between them.

No fun in that, they will only understand a nuke, or being left alone and ignored on the world stage.

Assad wants to keep his country, Putin wants to keep selling him weapons, why else would he "take care of it"

He lost Iraq and Afghanistan as weapon buyers, and is feeling the pinch.

All he has left is N korea and China to sell crap to kill Americans with.

Putin is as much a jihadist as Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden. He just smiles rather than spouting ALLAHU AKHBAR.

Maybe him and Mahmoud Ahma-need-a-job from Iran can conspire against us, while taking our money and goodwill.

The current string puller, well the main one, is GEORGE SOROS.

Our system has a lot of problems that need to and will be addressed but the core of it is a beautiful thing.I have noticed you critical of western political systems, democracies(US is a constitutional republic by the way or used to be) what other system do you propose? The others certainly do not work.The core of our system is a beautiful thing, just involves humans so it gets messy but can be fixed.

My optimism for Rand Paul is of cautious nature.One has to be careful and not let cynicism take over that they don't realize a good thing when its there and give it a chance. Ron Paul is one of the few principles politicians not controlled by special interests /The one thing Paul lacked was stage presence, he had and has the right message, principles, etc but lacks the delivery and unfortunately, half of the country are idiots who need the "stage presence" in order to get the message, they are just not intellectual enough to digest it.Rand Paul is much more polished and so far he has stuck to the principles and far as I no is not in bed with the interests and could see him staying the course. Paul knows what he is up against, sabotage from the "establishment GOP", the media, the democratic alinskyite machine and probably running against a woman who suck a lot of votes from women just because she is a woman, much as obma did the black vote.However, the country has dem fatigue and will have even more by 2016.Sure the loyal band of ignorant followers won't leave the "democratic plantation" (always loved the line by Herman Cain) but many of the middle of the road voters will be in play.Paul just has to tread carefully and not play into the narrative the media will try to push of him.More speeches like his response last night, he should be able to pull it off.I could see him trouncing Hillary in a debate.

Like I said, cautious optimism and also, you said we had a hard right government before obama? No we did not, we had NEOCON's which are just as bad as liberals/progressives, maybe a little less on certain issues.Reagan was as close as we have had to a conservative president and he turned things around. However, Paul would be a real conservative president but need a conservative libertarian/senate and house.Hopefully, Dem fatigue will give a President Paul(if it happens) a super majority as obama had for a couple of years and get some things done, The key is to make sure no more Democratic "living constitution" radicals end up on the Supreme Court, this country will not survive another "progressive" court. Really, we are still feeling the effects made by the cowards on the court in the 30's and 50/70's, although the warren court made a few good decisions.

They will, but he knows this and if can be the guy he was in that response in each of his speeches, debates etc, they will be just talking heads that they are.

Paul opposes the civil rights act or part of it? Then launch a blitz and explain why that law was wrong or a large part of it.The uninformed hear someone opposes that, it triggers emotion, but ensure it gets out what part and WHY.Explain why affirm action is WRONG in today's society.Most reasonable people will side with that when it is properly explained.That was Ron Paul's problem, he would start talking about the federal reserve etc.Well, I understood it, and a lot did, but sooo many people watching have no earthly idea how terrible the federal reserve is, what a sham it is.They don't know about the fight in the 1800's over the national bank, they don't understand the big picture.