Posted on 11/21/2011 6:37:02 PM PST by SLB
A couple of us were kibbitzing at work today and I would like to throw this out for comments (I have thick skin so go ahead). What if the Republican Convention next year is declared to be an open convention and Ron Paul nominates his son Rand? Is this scenario even possible and if so, would he stand a chance of winning a nationwide election?
No, as if none of the candidates have enough delegates.
A brokered convention.
The theory is that Rand would get 100% of Ron’s delegates, and would pick off delegates from other candidates.
Depending on what the numbers are, it could work. Palin could also win in a similar scenario.
Ditto
Sounds good, this current crop has been a disappointment to say the least,
We need someone new in the race (and no that does not include you know who) or Obama is going to wipe the floor with us.
God help us.
A man who on national TV said he would legalize heroine.
Fiscally he makes sense.
The rest of his positions are the ravings of a madman.
Yeah, can’t wait for the knock-down drag out debate with daddy.
heroin the drug, not the brave woman (heroine)
I was afraid to give monetary support to him when he was running for his Senate seat, but I have really been impressed with him since! This guy is the real deal! Forget his father. He seems like a cranky old man that is a conservative at times and total lunatic at others. Anyway, Rand would be a great candidate! I’ve given to his efforts since and sign all his petitions. A good guy!
Yeah, I would like Rand, too, far better than his father. However, didn’t he say he wouldn’t run?
Rand and his father are little difference other than rand has better people skills.
Personally, I love both of them. Ron and rand are national treasures.
Rand Paul is the best political donation I have ever made. I live in NYC and support both him and his father.
Not yet, definitely in 2017. Give him the time in the Senate.
Not yet, definitely in 2016. Give him the time in the Senate.
Did you agree with his decision to boycott Netanyahu's speech to protest the United States support of Israel?
Right. But I think Ryan too young. Now in such a situation in 1880, James Garfield took the prize, with some reluctance. The factions were tied and Garfield, who was well regarded by both, gave a brilliant speech, was nominated and elected. It is one of the great what might have beens if he had lived after being shot by a nut after six months in Office.
” Did you agree with his decision to boycott Netanyahu’s speech to protest the United States support of Israel? “ <<
No, I didn’t hear such a thing from Rand Paul. Now if you ask me if his father, Ron, would say that, I would assure you it’s true, but Rand? Can’t believe it of him.
Hey, a community organizer with a do-nothing State and Federal Senate record got elected. Rand — a physician — is a hell of a lot smarter than Oboza and has the advantage of having been raised by another smart guy who understands how the world actually works.
Oh wait. I forgot to factor the new, improved American electorate into the equation.
never mind.
Scott Walker...it seems Wisconsin may want him out. The guys a fighter.
It was posted right here on FR at the time it happened. I'm surprised you don't believe Rand would do such a thing when you admit dear ol' dad would. I'm sure they disagree on issues occassionally, but the apple doesn't fall far from the tree:
Rand Paul skips Netanyahu address
Rand Paul calls for cutting all U.S. Aid to Israel
He also was one of only five GOP Senators to oppose Paul Ryan's budget. The other 4 were all RINOs: Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, and Scott Brown. Do you agree with Rand Paul on that as well?
I like what I know of Rand. Were he the nominee, I’d even send money! In my primary, though, I’ll be re-registering pubbie to vote for the elder Dr. Paul. In the general, it depends. Two I will NOT vote for are Mittens and the Newtster. Not in this lifetime or any other!!!
Got a flash for you... the original drug war was never based on ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE, not one bit. Even the AMA was AGAINST outlawing drugs. It was done simply to control the lives of those targeted groups with which each drug was associated in the demonizing process. Smokable opium, for example, was linked to the “Yellow Peril,” the Chinese. It was flat out stated that “Chinamen” would lure white women into their opium dens in order to debauch them. Same with blacks and heroin and white women; same with black Jazz Musicians and pot and white women, only originally Mexicans were the pot scapegoats. When Nixon got involved it was to control the dirty anti-war hippies (and their “free love”). It was NEVER ABOUT HEALTH, ONLY CONTROL... and that has not changed one whit to this day.
Ron Paul, a medical doctor (ob/gyn), makes total sense in virtually all his positions if you look, as does he, at the Constitution for the United States as a limitation on GOVERNMENT, not a limitation on We, the People. Which is EXACTLY the position the Founders took. They knew and accepted the price of freedom: some folks are going to push the envelope and do or say things others might find abhorrent. Remember, if everyone agrees and goes along, no protection is needed. When someone, not unreasonably, wants to buck that tide, THAT is when his INHERENT RIGHT to do so needs protection, both from government AND from meddling bluenoses. THAT is why our Constitution was written. And that is what the Pauls, father and son, want protected. And that is what I and every single swinging Richard who ever served in the Marine Corps (and other armed services) swore to protect and defend. (Notice that I am not talking about activities, such as murder, rape, child molesting or any other activity which involves initiating force against some other individual. Such things are evil on their face; these would never merit Constitutional protection for the perps. I say this up front as some alleged “conservatives” want to make this comparison when someone talks seriously about ending their precious, control-freakish war on some drugs. Such control over others should be anathema to conservatives, unless you are using the Churchill [?] definition: A liberal’s job is to make mistakes; a conservative’s job is to prevent their correction,)
But in one thing you are 1,000% correct: We need God to help us. To have a spiritual re-awakening AND to get back to the government He led the Founders to create in this land. I am convinced that Dr. Paul is a redeemed child of God and is the right man to help us do that. No, he’s not perfect, either as man or candidate, but then the only PERFECT Man had to die for my sins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.