Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Probably not....That smarmy shoe salesman from Utah is still at the top of the ticket.
But I can't speak for all the noobs to the process, who aren't anywhere near as jaded as I am.
Here's a little something to chew on. If Rand got the VP slot, it would give him much needed experience and exposure at the very heart of our political system. That would, in the future, put him in a much stronger position for a shot at POTUS.
That might be a very good thing for the Libertarians generally, because they really do need to get a much deeper understanding of International Relations. They lose huge amounts of support simply because of their dangerously naive stance on Foreign Policy.
I think it's a dangerously naive stance to think that killing and asking questions later makes us safer, makes less people want to attack us, is something we can afford, etc.
Iraq, Libya, and every other part of the middle east and nearby area where we're doing this.
Here's a little something to chew on. If Rand got the VP slot, it would give him much needed experience and exposure at the very heart of our political system. That would, in the future, put him in a much stronger position for a shot at POTUS.
That might be a very good thing for the Libertarians generally, because they really do need to get a much deeper understanding of International Relations. They lose huge amounts of support simply because of their dangerously naive stance on Foreign Policy.
I think it's a dangerously naive stance to think that killing and asking questions later makes us safer, makes less people want to attack us, is something we can afford, etc.
Iraq, Libya, and every other part of the middle east and nearby area where we're doing this.
I don't remember saying we should kill first and ask questions later... and that has never actually been the strategy of the US government... but thanks for the hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational discussion.
Your comment is exactly why Libertarians have the reputation of being dangerously naive about foreign affairs.
I think it's a dangerously naive stance to think that killing and asking questions later makes us safer, makes less people want to attack us, is something we can afford, etc.
Iraq, Libya, and every other part of the middle east and nearby area where we're doing this.
I don't remember saying we should kill first and ask questions later... and that has never actually been the strategy of the US government... but thanks for the hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational discussion.
Your comment is exactly why Libertarians have the reputation of being dangerously naive about foreign affairs.
I didn't say you said that, I said that's what we do.
Our long term strategy in Iraq was to kill 100,000 people in a 7 year war where the end result is a gov't run by Islam who's leader is a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah?
What's our strategy in Afghanistan? All I hear is that the Taliban will be retaking the gov't, which isn't much difference than the druglord family running things now.
What's our strategy in Libya? Was it to arm Al-Qaeda loyalists?
How can a war that's based on a principle, terror, who's goal is to kill terror suspects, ever be won?
I don't remember saying we should kill first and ask questions later... and that has never actually been the strategy of the US government... but thanks for the hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational discussion.
Your comment is exactly why Libertarians have the reputation of being dangerously naive about foreign affairs.
I didn't say you said that, I said that's what we do.
Our long term strategy in Iraq was to kill 100,000 people in a 7 year war where the end result is a gov't run by Islam who's leader is a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah?
What's our strategy in Afghanistan? All I hear is that the Taliban will be retaking the gov't, which isn't much difference than the druglord family running things now.
What's our strategy in Libya? Was it to arm Al-Qaeda loyalists?
How can a war that's based on a principle, terror, who's goal is to kill terror suspects, ever be won?
You keep making my point for me. Your view is naive - and that's being nice about it. Libertarian principles won't keep the US safe... they will just make an unstable world more unstable. We must be a proactive country on the world stage - both with our friends and with our enemies. We cannot just hide within our borders and pretend it's not our business. If we had done that in WWII, the whole world - including our country - would be a much darker place.
So what do real Conservatives do in November? It's a very important & difficult question. Do you just write in a Candidate who you know wont win, or do you just sit out the Election completely? If you do that, you guarantee the Socialists/Progressives will stay in power. That will be the consequence. Or do you compromise?
Here's a little something to chew on. If Rand got the VP slot, it would give him much needed experience and exposure at the very heart of our political system. That would, in the future, put him in a much stronger position for a shot at POTUS.
That might be a very good thing for the Libertarians generally, because they really do need to get a much deeper understanding of International Relations. They lose huge amounts of support simply because of their dangerously naive stance on Foreign Policy.
Paul is not a threat to anyone.
Well let's see; if he were to run third party he'd GUARANTEE the GOP's defeat. How exactly do you define threat?
Paul is not a threat to anyone.
Well let's see; if he were to run third party he'd GUARANTEE the GOP's defeat. How exactly do you define threat?
If he was the GOP nominee he would aso guarantee the GOP's defeat. More so than if he ran third party.
Paulbots might be enough to tip the election in a very close race. The goal should be to not have a close election in the first place.
Well let's see; if he were to run third party he'd GUARANTEE the GOP's defeat. How exactly do you define threat?
If he was the GOP nominee he would aso guarantee the GOP's defeat. More so than if he ran third party.
Paulbots might be enough to tip the election in a very close race. The goal should be to not have a close election in the first place.
The only Republican who polls better against Obama is Romney, and when it comes to independents nobody does better than Ron Paul. So this is just inaccurate.
If he was the GOP nominee he would aso guarantee the GOP's defeat. More so than if he ran third party.
Paulbots might be enough to tip the election in a very close race. The goal should be to not have a close election in the first place.
The only Republican who polls better against Obama is Romney, and when it comes to independents nobody does better than Ron Paul. So this is just inaccurate.
Ohhh so that's why Paul did his usual 6% of the vote! I knew it was something. All those independents.
If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee, there aren't enough Paul leaning independents to make up for the droves of Republicans who would vote third party or just not vote at all.
At 6%, Paul's influence would be felt only in the closest of races. 6% could put someone polling with a 4% spread over the top, but not with a 12% spread.
The only Republican who polls better against Obama is Romney, and when it comes to independents nobody does better than Ron Paul. So this is just inaccurate.
Ohhh so that's why Paul did his usual 6% of the vote! I knew it was something. All those independents.
If Ron Paul were the GOP nominee, there aren't enough Paul leaning independents to make up for the droves of Republicans who would vote third party or just not vote at all.
At 6%, Paul's influence would be felt only in the closest of races. 6% could put someone polling with a 4% spread over the top, but not with a 12% spread.
You're focusing on one state rather than head to head match ups against Obama. If you want to do that then I can point to Iowa and New Hampshire where he had strong performances, not to mention Nevada where he's polling in second place.
Gubmint can't keep you safe any better than they've run the post office, ameliorated poverty, wiped out recreational drug use, or run the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security & Medicare.I don't remember saying we should kill first and ask questions later... and that has never actually been the strategy of the US government... but thanks for the hyperbolic bullshit instead of rational discussion.
Your comment is exactly why Libertarians have the reputation of being dangerously naive about foreign affairs.
I didn't say you said that, I said that's what we do.
Our long term strategy in Iraq was to kill 100,000 people in a 7 year war where the end result is a gov't run by Islam who's leader is a dear friend to Iran and Hezbollah?
What's our strategy in Afghanistan? All I hear is that the Taliban will be retaking the gov't, which isn't much difference than the druglord family running things now.
What's our strategy in Libya? Was it to arm Al-Qaeda loyalists?
How can a war that's based on a principle, terror, who's goal is to kill terror suspects, ever be won?
You keep making my point for me. Your view is naive - and that's being nice about it. Libertarian principles won't keep the US safe... they will just make an unstable world more unstable. We must be a proactive country on the world stage - both with our friends and with our enemies. We cannot just hide within our borders and pretend it's not our business. If we had done that in WWII, the whole world - including our country - would be a much darker place.
IOW, you don't know what the fuck you're babbling about and just used the occasion to post "paulbot" yet again.You're a fool to think that snubbing him would have any effect other than bad upon the GOP.Paul is not a threat to anyone.
Are you really so short-sighted as to want to run off all those potential voters?
They are already gone. A paulbot isn't going to vote for someone else. If you think that paul would get a vp slot, well, we survived Biden as a vp! We could survive paul. However, Romney needs all the credibility he can get and choosing Ron Paul as VP would cut into that credibility in a big way.
