Rand Paul for President

[Peter]

Rand Paul just announced. His speech was quite good, so I first looked to see if anyone had started this topic and they had not. He separated himself from Obama's foreign policy which is some Oh Bee Jay's main dispute with him. He speaks in a Presidential fashion too.

[Selene]

Rand Paul just announced. His speech was quite good, so I first looked to see if anyone had started this topic and they had not. He separated himself from Obama's foreign policy which is some Oh Bee Jay's main dispute with him. He speaks in a Presidential fashion too.

The speech was excellent.

Um, did he not make clear that he had a Reagan concept of foreign policy?

One of his additions was that we should be "...unencumbered by nation building!" as part of the primary function of a Constitutionally limited republic.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm in.

But I'm also in with other libertarian-leaning candidates.

Michael

[Selene]

I'm in.

But I'm also in with other libertarian-leaning candidates.

Michael

Not that I am in favor of the man on top position for national political tickets, however, I am completely comfortable with:

Walker - Fiorina - good balance of Western and Central electoral votes as well as being a great balance to an Evita ticket, if, she happens to stumble into the nomination.

Fiorina - Rubio or Cruz

Cruz - Fiorina

Rubio - Fiorina

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Rand Paul is a lightweight. That he's a US Senator instead of a governor only makes it worse. Ted Cruz is heavier stuff, but not being a governor either is not going to be good for any electoral success. Kennedy had his Dad's money and Obama had his race. Both had the press.

--Brant

Dan Qualye got lightweighted down too, but his running mate was a heavyweight so he made veep

[Selene]

Rand Paul is a lightweight. That he's a US Senator instead of a governor only makes it worse. Ted Cruz is heavier stuff, but not being a governor either is not going to be good for any electoral success. Kennedy had his Dad's money and Obama had his race. Both had the press.

--Brant

Dan Qualye got lightweighted down too, but his running mate was a heavyweight so he made veep

Not sure about the weight classes in this election, however that could be my blind spot believing that this is a watershed election.

[Mark]

He spoke in vague generalities designed to sound good to everyone that could mean anything to anyone. He said nothing particular about the most important issues of our time:

Out of control immigration.
The violation of rights by so-called civil rights laws.
Domestic spying (NSA etc) [correction, he did mention phone records, which understates the problem]
The so-called Patriot Act (TSA etc).

Mark
ARIwatch.com

[Selene]

Domestic spying (NSA etc).

Patriot Act (TSA etc).

Mark:

This is a political speech not a boring litany of programs.

However, I am certain that he was real clear about surveillance by the government.

I will find it in the transcript later.

Additionally, can we not eat our own so quickly?

If you had the choice between Rand Paul and Evita, in this specific election, at this particular time in our history,

you would not vote?

That is not accusatory, just a direct in context question.

A...

[9thdoctor]

Walker - Fiorina - good balance of Western and Central electoral votes as well as being a great balance to an Evita ticket, if, she happens to stumble into the nomination.

Fiorina - Rubio or Cruz

Cruz - Fiorina

Rubio - Fiorina

A...

You're pretty gung-ho on Fiorina, eh? I mostly recall her putting her foot in her mouth during the McCain campaign.

But of interest to Rand-fans: Ed Locke has a lecture series available from ARI called Rational Principles of Management. I didn't find the course very interesting, but in it he talks about Fiorina (very positively), and notes that she was once his student.

[Backlighting]

I'm comfortable with Paul, Walker or Cruz on the top spot w/ Rubio as VP.

What a pleasant contrast to that mentally constipated Hillary.

-J

[Selene]

Walker - Fiorina - good balance of Western and Central electoral votes as well as being a great balance to an Evita ticket, if, she happens to stumble into the nomination.

Fiorina - Rubio or Cruz

Cruz - Fiorina

Rubio - Fiorina

A...

You're pretty gung-ho on Fiorina, eh? I mostly recall her putting her foot in her mouth during the McCain campaign.

But of interest to Rand-fans: Ed Locke has a lecture series available from ARI called Rational Principles of Management. I didn't find the course very interesting, but in it he talks about Fiorina (very positively), and notes that she was once his student.

9th, remember my context which is political.

You are referring to this:

Now, she is on the sidelines: After at least six national TV appearances last week, Fiorina, 54, has stopped granting interviews and has spoken at just one campaign event since her Sept. 16 comment that none of the presidential or vice presidential candidates -- including the ones she is advising -- was qualified to run a major corporation.

Meanwhile, the emergence of CEO severance packages as a major issue in the banking-bailout debate has stirred memories of her own eight-figure payout when she was ousted from Hewlett-Packard in 2005.

``Her comments were inappropriate and certainly diminished her credibility,'' said Ed Rollins, former White House political director under President Ronald Reagan. ``That, combined with her history of being asked to leave with a large parachute, and I don't think that's a story you want repeated.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7BaPm66_UCw

And again, let's be upfront, they are all going to say something that can be really foolish.

Unfortunately, today, they will just bring someone forward to flat out lie about it...you know,

like that fetid phony Harry Rude?

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If it ends up coming down to a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, all the libertarian and Objectivist purists are certainly free to vote for Hillary Clinton, or not vote at all and thus help Hillary, because Rand Paul is obviously not pure enough.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Rand Paul is a lightweight. That he's a US Senator instead of a governor only makes it worse. Ted Cruz is heavier stuff, but not being a governor either is not going to be good for any electoral success. Kennedy had his Dad's money and Obama had his race. Both had the press.

--Brant

Dan Qualye got lightweighted down too, but his running mate was a heavyweight so he made veep

Not sure about the weight classes in this election, however that could be my blind spot believing that this is a watershed election.

In the sense we have to get the Democrats out of the Executive Office, it surely is.

--Brant

but we don't want to learn we can get worse less than Obama Zero

[Selene]

Not sure about the weight classes in this election, however that could be my blind spot believing that this is a watershed election.

In the sense we have to get the Democrats out of the Executive Office, it surely is.

--Brant

but we don't want to learn we can get worse less than Obama Zero

Agreed.

That was why I posted the Bill Whittle speech.

He speaks passionately about us always losing because the drive to the collective is always pushing and how it is our duty to ourselves to get up every day and work to maintain freedom by pushing that boulder up the hill again.

His parable about the boulder and the hill is profound.

He literally breaks down at several places towards the end.

Yes, he explains that he is an "entertainer."

However, he believes what he feels and he is clear about it.

A,,,

[galtgulch]

I wonder how any of those in the running would deal with the problems associated with the real national debt. I heard Rand say in his speech today that we have to stop spending more than the revenue that comes in. That is fine to balance the yearly budget but doesn't address the 18 plus trillion dollars being held by US Treasury Bond holders who have to be paid interest each year or when the bonds become due.

Not to mention the growth of promises to be paid to those in the post WWII baby boom cohort which is only beginning to reach their age of eligibility to receive their retirement money and their bills paid through Medicare. That all adds up to another 200 trillion dollars on top of the 18 trillion dollar official national debt. Rand Paul doesn't hint at how that problem will be addressed. It will be larger by the time someone gets elected and takes office just less than two years from now.

When the winner is made aware during his orientation he or she will realize the options include raiding the retirement accounts of those who had the wisdom to contribute to IRAs, 401Ks and 403bs and the like. The raid could be or is being contemplated at present by those in power to simply legislate that all such accounts must hold a certain percentage in Treasury Bonds. That would mean forcing those with such accounts to buy and hold with virtually no interest and no hope of ever being able to sell them.

One other consideration has come to my attention. It is alleged that Obama plans to start a war just before the presidential election in 2016 which would enable him to postpone the election and extending his position as president, which is said to be Constitutional.

I don't remember reading about that in the Constitution but I will take a look. There are still many people who think that Obama is doing a good job, saved us from the Great Recession, reduced unemployment, gave millions of people health insurance, got us out of Iraq, called Yemen a victory, stopped Al Quida with drones causing acceptable collateral damage, etc.

This link is to a cartoon by Michael Ramirez of IBD and is a classic:

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/741517-negociations

I don't know if the link will work. In the first panel Obama says "WE WANT YOU TO STOP ENRICHING URANIUM..." and the head of Iran answers "NO"

Second panel. Obama says "WE WANT YOU TO PROMISE NOT TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON.." answer is "NO."

Third panel. Obama says "WE WANT YOU TO PROMISE YOU WILL EVENTUALLY PROMISE NOT TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON.." answer is No.

Last panel. Obama meekly says "all right DEAL." answer is "OKAY."

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/741517-negociations

I am reminded of Obama telling the Russian ambassador to tell Putin that after the re election he will be able to be "more flexible."

It is amazing that there are so many people who still don't see the president for what he is.

I am reminded of FDR who evidently thought he could charm Stalin at Yalta.

At least Rand Paul is willing to name our enemy. I disagree with whomever had disparaging things to say about him. It does trouble me that he has pushed for a bill that would grant rights of personhood to fertilized ova. If he ever did want to implement that I hope he decides not to.

[Selene]

[9thdoctor]

You're pretty gung-ho on Fiorina, eh? I mostly recall her putting her foot in her mouth during the McCain campaign.

But of interest to Rand-fans: Ed Locke has a lecture series available from ARI called Rational Principles of Management. I didn't find the course very interesting, but in it he talks about Fiorina (very positively), and notes that she was once his student.

Oops, on rereading I'm afraid my post comes across as (at least mildly) snarky, which was unintentional. I really don't have an opinion on Fiorina's qualities or prospects, I was just reporting what came to mind hearing her name again. Mostly I wanted to point out her (admittedly tenuous) Rand connection via Locke, which is not generally known.

[Selene]

I heard no snark. I just did not even know she was a McCain backer.

That is not a plus in my judgment lol.

The folks that I could not vote for if it were against Hillary are:

Jeb, Christie, Santorum, Pitaki,, Jon "Vote More Me I Speak Chinese" Huntsman Lindsey "Gone With The Wind" Graham and Peter King for now.

This list includes folks that I never heard of:

http://2016.republican-candidates.org/

A...

[Brant Gaede]

I wonder how any of those in the running would deal with the problems associated with the real national debt. I heard Rand say in his speech today that we have to stop spending more than the revenue that comes in. That is fine to balance the yearly budget but doesn't address the 18 plus trillion dollars being held by US Treasury Bond holders who have to be paid interest each year or when the bonds become due.

Not to mention the growth of promises to be paid to those in the post WWII baby boom cohort which is only beginning to reach their age of eligibility to receive their retirement money and their bills paid through Medicare. That all adds up to another 200 trillion dollars on top of the 18 trillion dollar official national debt. Rand Paul doesn't hint at how that problem will be addressed. It will be larger by the time someone gets elected and takes office just less than two years from now.

When the winner is made aware during his orientation he or she will realize the options include raiding the retirement accounts of those who had the wisdom to contribute to IRAs, 401Ks and 403bs and the like. The raid could be or is being contemplated at present by those in power to simply legislate that all such accounts must hold a certain percentage in Treasury Bonds. That would mean forcing those with such accounts to buy and hold with virtually no interest and no hope of ever being able to sell them.

One other consideration has come to my attention. It is alleged that Obama plans to start a war just before the presidential election in 2016 which would enable him to postpone the election and extending his position as president, which is said to be Constitutional.

I don't remember reading about that in the Constitution but I will take a look. There are still many people who think that Obama is doing a good job, saved us from the Great Recession, reduced unemployment, gave millions of people health insurance, got us out of Iraq, called Yemen a victory, stopped Al Quida with drones causing acceptable collateral damage, etc.

This link is to a cartoon by Michael Ramirez of IBD and is a classic:

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/741517-negociations

I don't know if the link will work. In the first panel Obama says "WE WANT YOU TO STOP ENRICHING URANIUM..." and the head of Iran answers "NO"

Second panel. Obama says "WE WANT YOU TO PROMISE NOT TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON.." answer is "NO."

Third panel. Obama says "WE WANT YOU TO PROMISE YOU WILL EVENTUALLY PROMISE NOT TO BUILD A NUCLEAR WEAPON.." answer is No.

Last panel. Obama meekly says "all right DEAL." answer is "OKAY."

http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/741517-negociations

I am reminded of Obama telling the Russian ambassador to tell Putin that after the re election he will be able to be "more flexible."

It is amazing that there are so many people who still don't see the president for what he is.

I am reminded of FDR who evidently thought he could charm Stalin at Yalta.

At least Rand Paul is willing to name our enemy. I disagree with whomever had disparaging things to say about him. It does trouble me that he has pushed for a bill that would grant rights of personhood to fertilized ova. If he ever did want to implement that I hope he decides not to.

Our enemy is us.

The only way to effectively reduce the national debt is by devaluing it through inflation or formal default. The latter will never happen for it never has to happen for the easy way is simply to keep rolling over the bonds. To actually pay off the national debt--revenues exceed expenses--would cause a tremendous deflationary-recessionary tidal wave throughout the economy.

Obama doesn't know how to go to war nor is there any constitutional provision I know of for seizing power. A lame-duck President's power dissipates the closer to the election and is almost completely gone come the following January. Obama's real power always came from the ruling media elite. These media players lose their king-making power when a dictator seizes power and they become mere king-sustaining players as in today's Russia. Behind them are their corporate owners who tolerate their ideological bullshit because they are looking at bottom-line numbers and don't care about ideology only that they benefit from US fascism. They are ideologically ignorant and blind. Ayn Rand couldn't understand lack of business response to her magnum opus. They had no need for her ideology or morality except to keep their lips zipped about any usable parts of it for they didn't want to understand or deal with the rest. It's bathtub economics all the way, not moral. This means the media guys (and gals) can keep active on their own playground as long as they don't interfere with profitability. This also requires stability in worldview outlook. Democrat or Republican, keep those drones flying. The last is literally true, but can be turned on and off as long as the switch doesn't disappear. It will be maintained as a metaphorical or neo-con truth as the "Empire" keeps kissing up to war--even embracing it--and the armaments keep flowing out of the factories as all and sundry keep getting their ego charges from sucking at the psychological tit of the world's only remaining "super-power."

Of course, if you keep playing with fire the house could blow up when the flames hit the leaking natural gas. Sin loi.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7BaPm66_UCw

And again, let's be upfront, they are all going to say something that can be really foolish.

Unfortunately, today, they will just bring someone forward to flat out lie about it...you know,

like that fetid phony Harry Rude?

A...

Assume Rand Paul is elected. Is there a Libertarian Congress to go along with his presidency?

[Selene]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7BaPm66_UCw

And again, let's be upfront, they are all going to say something that can be really foolish.

Unfortunately, today, they will just bring someone forward to flat out lie about it...you know,

like that fetid phony Harry Rude?

A...

Assume Rand Paul is elected. Is there a Libertarian Congress to go along with his presidency?

The will be a significant libertarian caucus in the House with close to 30 or 40 members and a strong conservative caucus possibly 60 to 80 members. Some of these two (2) cauci will overlap. Probably 70-80 solid libertarian conservative member of the 435 which is a caucus that can "steer" legislation to abolish, reduce and restrain the administrative sections of the state.

Not sure that answers your question...so that's what that mark is on the end of the sentence!

[Selene]

You're pretty gung-ho on Fiorina, eh? I mostly recall her putting her foot in her mouth during the McCain campaign.

But of interest to Rand-fans: Ed Locke has a lecture series available from ARI called Rational Principles of Management. I didn't find the course very interesting, but in it he talks about Fiorina (very positively), and notes that she was once his student.

Oops, on rereading I'm afraid my post comes across as (at least mildly) snarky, which was unintentional. I really don't have an opinion on Fiorina's qualities or prospects, I was just reporting what came to mind hearing her name again. Mostly I wanted to point out her (admittedly tenuous) Rand connection via Locke, which is not generally known.

The New Republic is like Izvestia.

At any rate their projection of Fiorina is tentatively cautious.

Five years later, it seems the GOP has finally found a new Queen: Carly Fiorina. In 1999, Fiorina became a household name—at least in a certain kind of household—when she was named CEO of Hewlett-Packard, making her the first female head of a Fortune 20 company. (She was fired in 2005 after a series of scandalous leaks.) In 2008, Fiorina was one of McCain’s chief economic advisors, and Palin and Fiorina supported one another over the years: Fiorina defended Palin against “sexist attacks” in 2008; later, in 2010, Palin endorsed Fiorina’s campaign for Barbara Boxer’s California Senate seat.

This intriguing aspect of Carly that scares the crap out of the marxists is that she instantly connects with women,as she did on:

Monday night, during a Center For Strategic & International Studies-hosted “Smart Women, Smart Power” conversation with Carly Fiorina in the District, a sea of young women nodded in agreement at almost everything Fiorina said. They laughed at her jokes and interrupted her to applaud.

Fiorina has said that there’s a “higher than 90 percent” chance she will run for president, and many of last night’s questions pivoted on the topic. One woman was so eager she misspoke: “It’s January 2018 and you’re president-elect—”

“2017,” Fiorina corrected her.

Fiorina, for her part, did not misspeak on Monday night. One of her assets is her ability to stick with the script: It’s likely that Republican missteps—like Palin’s many historic gaffes, not to mention Mitt Romney’s 47 percent comment—have influenced many conservative politicians’ love for the perfectly planned media op.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121480/carly-fiorina-new-sarah-palin

[Reidy]

Has anybody noticed that Paul announced his candidacy at the Galt House hotel?

[Selene]

Has anybody noticed that Paul announced his candidacy at the Galt House hotel?

Thankfully, you did!

Thank you...

[BaalChatzaf]

Has anybody noticed that Paul announced his candidacy at the Galt House hotel?

Thankfully, you did!

Thank you...

Who is Rand Paul?