I emailed this to a friend who had these comments about it:
So I thought I’d ask you guys about the VP position… is it “powerful” in any sense that would appeal to Ron Paul? Is it influential? Does the VP make “addresses to the nation” like the President does?
Do the P and VP nominees usually have closely aligned views? If you had a Romney-Paul ticket, would it be open to the charge of “lacking unity” or “being divided”, and be so hampered compared to a more united Democratic pair? Or is diversity better for potentially appealing to more people?
How would VP compare to, say, Treasury Secretary? Which position do you think would be more attractive to Ron Paul should Romney offer him the choice?
What other results could come out of a convention where no one has a majority? When people talk about more delegates giving RP more bargaining power at the convention, what is being bargained FOR? Cabinet positions? Policy promises from the eventual nominee? What?
I would rather Dr. Paul not serve in a hypothetical Romney Administration. I’m pretty sure he’d only offer his support to Romney to give his son a chance in 2016 and because Romney is friends with him.
Dr. Paul has the delegates, and I think this GOP Strategist meant that Dr. Paul will be the Presidential Nominee. A treasury secretary is not on the ticket and maybe he would take VP slot but I don’t think he would.
The only thing I can think of is that if Dr. Paul was vice president they’d be very independent of each other since they both think independently and since they both seem like they will always have different ideologies. Romney would also have to be changed on foreign policy. That would cost Romney votes among a lot of his base that supports imperialism. Dr. Paul needs someone who is principled, a hardcore libertarian, and who loves to be around people. Dr. DiLorenzo seems like he would fit all three. Dr. Block also seems like he would fit all three.
The last time the Republicans tried to hide an upstart in the vice-presidency it backfried. William McKinley was assassinated rather quickly and they had to put up with Teddt Roosevelt.
Notice how the guy said “the name Paul will be on the ticket.” This leaves a few options…one of them being touched on in a previous post…that Rand Paul be the VP.
That would actually be the perfect set up for a presidential run down the road…although it would likely mean anywhere from 8-16 years down the road. That’s actually a strong possibility. It’s the only other possible way to rally Paul supporters behind Romney, and Ron Paul would not have to compromise principle and settle not only for a useless post, but also an incompatible runningmate.
Otherwise, there is a much greater risk of Obama winning. Sure it opens up the field for a Rand campaign in only 4 years, but how much animosity is there going to be when people try to blame Paul supporters for a Republican loss. Either Obama has a second term and there is another two-party race in 2016, or a Republican wins and then runs for re-election in 2016.
And you’re right, it is a useless post. VP does virtually nothing. Lyndon Johnson hated the position and he resented the fact that the younger John Kennedy was calling shots while he basically did nothing.
I also don’t see Ron taking some cabinet position unless it’s near the top. It would have to be Defense or State, maybe Treasury…but I seriously doubt those would be a possibility. If Ron doesn’t get the nomination, I see him “retiring” and passing the torch.
Robert Wenzel goes into the whole “negotiating for positions” here, but I’m not sure how realistic much of that is.
What would seem to make some sense is having Ron be the nominee to guarantee a defeat of Obama, and then him not running for re-election, allowing Romney or someone he cares about make a run in 4 years…but I seriously doubt that kind of senario would get much honest discussion time.
I honestly don’t know what will probably happen if he doesn’t get the nomination, but of course there is at least some comfort in knowing Ron can be trusted to make the best decision.
If Rand Paul is Romney’s running mate, then Rand Paul should make every subtle effort possible to see that Romney loses. This will be the last American election if it’s not Dr. Paul, so what happens in 2016 doesn’t apply. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. I’ll be damn lucky if I survive the chaos and live into the stateless society that eventually replaces it.
So basically what you’re saying is that a second Obama term is preferrable to a Romney term, and that no elections will take place in the United States after 2012 either way. Got it.
What are you asking me for? I’m not the one who literally said Rand Paul should connivingly, dishonestly, and ultimately fraudulently work to sabotage a campaign, should be become a part of it.
Sounds to me like you should be asking No2statism that question.
I’m not going to vote for Obama because he statist but I don’t think he believes in war as much Romney does. Thank you for helping me realize the failed logic in the post you quoted (i.e., if america is going to end, it shouldn’t matter if it’s Romney).
Do you really think the whole America is going to end if Ron Paul is not chosen? I mean, another Great Depression is possible, but really, the end of America?
The debt crisis is coming to a head. The unfunded liabilities at $117 trillion cannot last. There’s either going to be a massive inflation or massive default. With this in mind, Ron Paul’s cutting $1 trillion in the first year is far too timid, which should tell you how dangerous the other candidates are.
@ Cheydnous (sorry for the misspelling): I can’t say with absolute certainty that America is going to collapse before 2016, but it seems likely that America will be defunct by 2024.
As Tony said, the National Debt is too high and that does lead to hyperinflation. I don’t see the logic in the prediction that Romney will pay down the debt unless he distorts the market like it’s never been done before (i.e., regulating the fuck out the things while reducing redistribution). Then it will be totally worthless unless it’s done really quickly and then those regulations and inflations ended and the Obama-level redistribution not re-instated.
Inflation was high when he was governor, MA doesn’t have a military, and he raised taxes. Spending cuts came last with his balanced budgets. We already know he’s going to raise taxes as president (a 25% tariff on all China made imports) and it seems like he won’t stop inflation because he thinks it necessary to adjust the min wage for it.
If there is to not be a collapse, then what needs to happen is 1/2 of the national debt distributed to the States by population and the other half paid for by selling Federal lands and the military’s weapons, expenditures slashed, the 17th Amendment repealed, and all federal taxes repealed. The federal government could simply borrow and then distribute the debt to the states based upon population every year. While that’s not ideal for an anarchocapitalist like most of us here, it would reduce the size of tyranny. I don’t know how realistic it is to expect a stateless society in the land occupied by this country.
Many countries have faced the hyperinflation and they still exist. Many countries have defaulted their debts and they still exist. It doesn’t mean the end for America. Of course times will be tough, but it won’t mean the end.
The worry is that our Constitution will not last through it. That piece of paper is the only thing holding back “democracy” like we’ve never seen it before.
This is where ignorance really comes to a head. That may very well be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Pardon my French, but an f-ing piece of paper has never stopped anyone from doing anything. It’s a piece of paper for crissake. A two year old would put up a better fight than a piece of paper. And I don’t know about you, but I could beat the shit out of thousands of two year olds. All day. They wouldn’t even gang up on me; they suck.
And you’re trying to convince me a piece of fucking paper is the only thing preventing tyranny? Either you haven’t really thought this through, or you’re insane.
The reality is people are what determine everything. Sure a piece of paper can help because it allows consolidation of ideas into a single place and it’s something people can point to and reference. But again people are what prevent things or allow things to happen. If a piece of paper was so good at all this, why the hell was the President able to assassinate an American citizen a few months ago? Why the hell can’t some people own guns? Why the hell can’t I get on a plane without getting exposed to abnormal concentrations of radiation or getting molested?
The only thing that matters is what the people allow. And I have no idea where you’re getting this idea that the world is going to end, and there will be not a single election after 2012 and we might as well all commit suicide if Ron Paul isn’t elected President.
What matters is 50% of voters under 30 are voting for Ron Paul. That is the future of this country. Whether Ron Paul is President in 2012 or not…the United States will be inherited by the people who voted for him. And these kids have kids of their own. They’ll be raised on An Island Called Liberty and The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible. They’ll be treated with anti-indoctrination from day 1…and if possible, not even put in government schools.
I don’t think you realize the depth of what has happened over the last few years.
John James, you need to stand back and see how much of a dick you come across as. Every thread you post in is condescension one way or another justified or not. No wonder you are always on these forums, obviously no one in the real world will spend any time around you.
The Constitution certainly doesn’tprevent tyranny, but it slows it down and curbbs its direction, that much is all my point was intended.
Smoke a bowl and realize you aren’t right about things in which you cannot know others context…
You skim my reasoning here, but instead of asking if that was the extent of my comment, you use my sentence as a spring board for your rant at my expense. There are so many examples where the Constitutions has delayed something that TPTB have wanted to do. To use the language you did to disparage my opinion on the matter is way overkill. (There are plenty of “nots” as well I get your point, no need in responding)
You can. It is in the Constitution or you probably wouldn’t anymore…
I have no problems with schizophrenics and violent criminals not being sold guns. If I owned a gun store I wouldn’t sell them weapons.
So as you bash the Constitution (or my opinion more likely) keep plugging away for a politician that talks constantly about it knowing the same things you and I do… Not to mention the flurry of wild assumptions that you make as you are caught up in your moment.
Most of those same young people voted for Obama last go around and in four years when most of them have forgotten about Paul (because Rand is a shill) you’ll realize you aren’t alwys right. Especially when you make assumptions like that. Or the assumption that most of those people will grow up and not send their kids to govenment schools. That is realistic, surely..
Do you have any idea who you are talking to? To be so preachy and arrogant? Exactly. None.