Mitt Romney going to pick Rand Paul as running mate?

[Jenni Porshakin]

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/political-pro-con/2012/jun/5/mitt-romney-rand-paul-bad-match-ron-paul/
That's the only snowball's chance in Hell has he at winning.

I want Ron Paul to be the nominee.
The world is...quite unfair :(

[Randomness]

He'd scare off more voters than Palin did. He's a zealot, and that's a bad thing.

[BIG OLAF]

What Randomness said. I already explained in your other thread why Ron Paul is a wackjob and should never, ever, ever be anything even close to President. You can cherrypick all his 'good' ideas if you want, but for every decent thought the man has, he's got 10 batshit insane ones.

Besides, what change would he bring? Obama thought he could "change" the country single-handedly. Admirable, but naive. That's not how it works. It's not that easy to just change shit all willy-nilly, especially with the corporations controlling the country. Ron Paul wouldn't do jack or shit, despite his promises of "restoring America."

TL;DR: Ron Paul is insane, and people need to stop paying attention to him.

[Outrider]

What Randomness said. I already explained in your other thread why Ron Paul is a wackjob and should never, ever, ever be anything even close to President. You can cherrypick all his 'good' ideas if you want, but for every decent thought the man has, he's got 10 batshit insane ones.

Besides, what change would he bring? Obama thought he could "change" the country single-handedly. Admirable, but naive. That's not how it works. It's not that easy to just change shit all willy-nilly, especially with the corporations controlling the country. Ron Paul wouldn't do jack or shit, despite his promises of "restoring America."

TL;DR: Ron Paul is insane, and people need to stop paying attention to him.

They're actually talking about Rand Paul, Ron's formerly-"crazy libertarian", currently-"party line Republican" son.

I still don't think that Romney has gained enough momentum to suggest that he is the likely winner of the election, but from what I've read he's actually been winning out in some polls against Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

Not sure how valid that is, but it's information I only recently learned about.

[Reksanden]

Romney makes me think of the TO dude Ronwey. And those who've played TO know all about him.

[Randomness]

They're actually talking about Rand Paul, Ron's formerly-"crazy libertarian", currently-"party line Republican" son.

I still don't think that Romney has gained enough momentum to suggest that he is the likely winner of the election, but from what I've read he's actually been winning out in some polls against Obama: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html#polls

Not sure how valid that is, but it's information I only recently learned about.

Nah, I was talking about the batshit insane one. The post mentions both.

Not that I care for the son either.

The republican party strikes me as being dangerously focused on ideological purity these days. Not to mention how they're practically in McCarthy mode when it comes to democrats - to the point where I would only be half surprised to hear some freshman congressman had tried to bring impeachment charges for treason against the entirety of the democratic party.

[Sinue_v2]

I don't know who's more batshit insane; Ron Paul or the people who think he'll actually be able to do any of the things he's promoting without the support of the House and Senate. While the president wields some impressive influence over American politics, it's only a soft power which is effectual only when he has the support of one or both parties - or a significant popularity with the wider public (who can put pressure on their representatives). None of which Ron Paul has going for him.

All he'd manage to do in office (if he sticks to his guns) is to gridlock the system even further, as it would be not only the Democrats and Republicans taking contrary hardline roles against each other, but both against the Executive branch as well. At best, he might represent a "common enemy" which would force congressional Reps and Dems to work together (temporarily) to undermine in order to get ANYTHING at all done as a way around his veto power. At worst, Washington would grind to a halt for four years.

As a VP, the situation isn't much better than either situation with or without him. The VP's only real responsibility is to cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate - a job so rarely utilized that often it's differed to a pro temperate (a fill-in). I doubt Paul can exert the kind of influence over Romney that Cheney could on Bush. Further, if something happens to Romney and Paul get the presidency, we're right back into the gridlock I mentioned earlier.

So since either option leads to either impotence or a total breakdown of Washington politics, and a selling out to the Republican party line would defeat the purpose of supporting Ron Paul, I don't see the point in even considering Ron Paul as contender.

[spade88]

Ron paul is to good for him...

[Outrider]

Nah, I was talking about the batshit insane one. The post mentions both.

Not that I care for the son either.

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't somehow completely skip over the line in the OP's post about Ron Paul.

[Chik'Tikka]

inb4 possible massive political Republican VS Democrat flame war+^_^+

[.Rusty.]

Wait did he did he really name his son after ayn rand.

[Jenni Porshakin]

All he'd manage to do in office (if he sticks to his guns) is to gridlock the system even further, as it would be not only the Democrats and Republicans taking contrary hardline roles against each other, but both against the Executive branch as well. At best, he might represent a "common enemy" which would force congressional Reps and Dems to work together (temporarily) to undermine in order to get ANYTHING at all done as a way around his veto power. At worst, Washington would grind to a halt for four years.

So since either option leads to either impotence or a total breakdown of Washington politics, and a selling out to the Republican party line would defeat the purpose of supporting Ron Paul, I don't see the point in even considering Ron Paul as contender.
And in all honesty, I do not see the above as a bad thing.
Americans are tired.
They're tired of the bull ****.
They're tired of the corporate money.
They're tired of the National debt.
They want a functional government, because that's what makes a functional country.
I see very dark days ahead for America unless they fix their Congress "problems" called the Democrat and Republican parties. Soon.

[spade88]

It all comes down to the money.....loosing our triple credit rating was a thorn in our paw.


I see more americans leaving for Canada these days, not such a bad idea to be honest....(go back to my roots and just blend in like everything is all right...lol)

[Outrider]

Wait did he did he really name his son after ayn rand.

Damn, I somehow never put two and two together on that one. That is dedication.

[Sinue_v2]

And in all honesty, I do not see the above as a bad thing.

Of course not; you're insane.


Americans are tired.

We've had a long history of hardships. How is today's fatigue on the American people any more substantial than it was in the 40's, 20's, 1850's, etc?


They're tired of the corporate money.

You realize, of course, that the Constitution freely allows for lobbying and petitioning of the government - with perhaps the biggest departure in form here is from the ruling that corporations can be considered people and granted a degree of the same rights and protections as individuals. However, even that precedent dates back to the early 19th century, just a few decades after the ratification of the Constitution. Lobbying has been a part of American politics pretty much since the very beginning.

This doesn't necessarily mean I agree with, or am advocating the continuation of the status quo. I just don't consider our generation in any way privileged, or extraordinarily burdened by them in contrast to previous generations. There's a common perception that this is an issue that arose in the mid 20th century, when it fact, it's been there all along and has only moved from the state/local level to the federal level. It's consolidated into a more visible arena, and had the light of modern media technologies shone on it.

Secondly, corporations aren't the only source of lobbyist money coming into Washington. According to OpenSecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=c), (ran by the Center for Responsive politics research group), substantial lobbyist funds come also from non-profit citizen groups, civil rights advocacy groups, science and technology/education groups... etc. Groups that you, or at least, citizens like you join up and contribute to. The National Cancer Centers of America, AARP, the Tax Reform Coalition, the National Wildlife Association, the Knights of Columbus, and National Center for Science Education. One group of lobbyists my family has been long supportive of is the Union lobby, specifically within the automotive manufacturing industry. Union members, average American blue collar workers, paying in a part of their dues to lobby for issues important to the labor movement.

While I wouldn't mind seeing reform in this area, I can't rail against lobbyists in good conscience when I myself have, and am, utilizing their service to leverage issues I think are important. Personally, I'm far more concerned with the legitimization of Super-Pacs which can raise unlimited funds for campaign advertising with little to no oversight or accountability... as well as carte-blanche authority as private organizations (protected by free speech) with no affiliation to a particular campaign to spread misinformation and mudsling.


They're tired of the National debt.

The debt is a problem, but it's not nearly as big a problem as it's being made out to be. The myth of the national budget being analogous to a family budget is just wrong. We're not going to default, and the primary holders of US debt are US citizens. Foreign nations are similarly lending to the US, but the nature of a globalized economy and the position America holds in it prohibits the selling off of US assets since most world economies (for the time being) rely on American prosperity in order to sustain their own growing economies.


They want a functional government, because that's what makes a functional country.

And yet, you just advocated for Ron Paul even if his presidency would "grind Washington to a halt for 4 years". You want a functional government, so you want to elect someone who will completely and utterly break it. That makes no sense.


I see very dark days ahead for America unless they fix their Congress "problems" called the Democrat and Republican parties.

You're missing the forest through the trees. The problem isn't "Republican and Democratic parties", the problem is the rise in fundamentalist political ideologies preventing meaningful deliberation of the issues and real compromise - and your solution is then to elect a fundamentalist ideologue.

[Randomness]

as well as carte-blanche authority as private organizations (protected by free speech) with no affiliation to a particular campaign to spread misinformation and mudsling.


No affiliation? I thought the rules for that had loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. I know Colbert did several segments based on it, with an actual (At least, I'm 99% certain) lawyer commenting on it. Mostly along the lines of Colbert doing things that seem like they should violate the rules and then asking the lawyer if he'd technically broken any. While I'd normally be wary of trusting a comedy show to get fine points of law right, the entire point of the segment was getting the law right (Admittedly, he may have slightly gone over the line at some point, and the regulators just didn't care enough to do anything about it, but even so)

And ultimately, the no affiliation to a campaign bit is kind of meaningless when the campaign and the super PAC are both just echoing the party line.

[Sinue_v2]

No affiliation? I thought the rules for that had loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

And ultimately, the no affiliation to a campaign bit is kind of meaningless when the campaign and the super PAC are both just echoing the party line.

No affiliation with a candidate's political campaign in the same sense that Fox News has no affiliation with the Republican party. In practicality, however, it seems some of the SuperPAC organizers are working closely with the campaign advisers and politicians they're supporting.