If a genie granted me that wish it'd be FbgTxAg in the White House.

But if it couldn't be me, gimmie a back-to-life Calvin Coolidge.

He'd be my #1 choice.

I like my Presidents to be able to beat up their neighbors.

Just kidding... he'd be better than any dem and most Republicans

I prefer candidates that don't go to Canada for healthcare or Russia for the 4th of July.

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

Rand would be my #1 choice (was in 2016 as well).

Unfortunately his ideas of limited govt go over most people's heads.

Grew up with Rand in Lake Jackson. He would be good because he truly understands the role part of a limited government like our fore fathers wanted. Your right people think government needs to run everything.

No he could not. Next question.

I would vote for him over most swamp creatures.

No, but I'm glad we have him involved to keep everyone else in check.

Muy said:

---

Lol no

The guy lacks leadership and could never get people rallied behind him.

Let him keep pretending to be the smartest guy in the room.

---

This.

I love hearing Rand speak. He's brilliant and reasoned. He explains his positions well and isn't afraid to vote his principles.

The problem is he hasn't actually accomplished anything. He's basically the conservative Bernie Sanders. Huge and loyal following. Inspirational. Proposes all kinds of bills that make people cheer. Yet nothing ever actually becomes law. Just read through his Wiki and it's filled with "Paul introduced x Bill" or "Paul was one of X Senators to vote against..." yet in the end he's spent 10 years in the Senate and has nothing to show for it of real substance.

Say what you will about Trump but he is all about RESULTS. He gets stuff done and he isn't afraid to compromise. That's what you need as a President. Paul is simply too much of an idealist. At some point it's about more than making speeches and introducing bills that will never become law or making votes against the grain. If nothing ever happens and you can't build a coalition then there are other jobs better suited for you. Maybe Rand can change but I'm not holding my breath, his father never did.

mazag08 said:

---

No. He makes too much sense, doesn't use emotion when he speaks, and isn't pro-war, pro-big government, and pro-liberal enough.

---

The problem is he isnt antigovernment enough. When SHTF about Snowden and nsa spying he should have been at the forefront, rallying the little-Ls and minarchist Conservatives, instead he spent six months in Missouri trying to persuade anticop blacks to become libertarians. He failed to rally either camp.

He has the political instincts of a potato.

Would be funny to see

No, because there would be mysterious shutdowns to the ballot counting while Democrats manufacturer whatever they need to steal the office.

The Debt said:

---

mazag08 said:

---

No. He makes too much sense, doesn't use emotion when he speaks, and isn't pro-war, pro-big government, and pro-liberal enough.

---

The problem is he isnt antigovernment enough. When SHTF about Snowden and nsa spying he should have been at the forefront, rallying the little-Ls and minarchist Conservatives, instead he spent six months in Missouri trying to persuade anticop blacks to become libertarians. He failed to rally either camp.

He has the political instincts of a potato.

---

You must have either been sleep in 2013/14 or too busy condemning Snowden like the vast majority of conservatives were doing here on forum 16 to notice...because that's exactly what he did.

Conservatives, usually with neocon leanings, always concoct some reason not to accept Rand's bonafides. Your post is an example as is the one about him 'not accomplishing anything' as a legislator and refusal to compromise. Both are inaccurate and presuppose being a legislator is apples to apples with being an executive, or that you can predict how a legislator will act as an executive(Obama did much more than vote present as a president) and that new legislation is needed to be accomplished in Congress.

Much better said than me, exactly my point. I'm not anti-Paul, he just doesn't have the charisma and leadership to get done what needs to get done.

Paul is my #1 choice with Cruz coming in close second.

Those two dudes would carry on the Trump legacy of rhetorically dismantling the left with the same punch but without the crassness and with better verbal polish.

If a genie is involved, I'd probably go with George Washington, Lincoln or one of the founded fathers.

Let them **** all over the interpretation bull**** they've done with the constitution.

svaggie said:

---

Grew up with Rand in Lake Jackson. He would be good because he truly understands the role part of a limited government like our fore fathers wanted. Your right people think government needs to run everything.

---

Would be something to see someone from the City of Enchantment in the WH.

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

---

I disagree.

Rand is most appropriately categorized as Libertarian-Leaning Conservative...what else would you expect from a Libertarian/Austrian Economics Father?

The problem for him is the GOPe and RINO's dislike Rand because he tells the truth, which those groups do not like to hear. So to, I am willing to bet there are conservative Democrats who would support his policies (that is the most difficult statement to write, because "conservative" and "Democrat" have become anti-thetical words).

But the problem for Rand is those "conservative Dems" may be tempted, but they cannot divorce themselves from allegiance to the "Party". The same goes for GOPe and RINO's and the Repbulican Party.

To support Rand would cause violent wretching and diarrhea, resulting in Bill Kristol type reactions and descent into insanity.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

---

I disagree.

Rand is most appropriately categorized as Libertarian-Leaning Conservative...what else would you expect from a Libertarian/Austrian Economics Father?

The problem for him is the GOPe and RINO's dislike Rand because he tells the truth, which those groups do not like to hear. So to, I am willing to bet there are conservative Democrats who would support his policies (that is the most difficult statement to write, because "conservative" and "Democrat" have become anti-thetical words).

But the problem for Rand is those "conservative Dems" may be tempted, but they cannot divorce themselves from allegiance to the "Party". The same goes for GOPe and RINO's and the Repbulican Party.

To support Rand would cause violent wretching and diarrhea, resulting in Bill Kristol type reactions and descent into insanity.

---

Rand is more than a "libertarian leaning conservative". And the Republican Party is not libertarian.

If Paul was serious, he could have the same impact that Sanders has had to the dems. Bernie's crazy ass has actually caused the dems to lurch leftward as a party. To go from running from the term "liberal" to flip 180 degrees and embrace the mantle of "progressive" and to speak openly about socialism.

But that's going to take more than the occasional "charge of the light brigade" filibuster to make happen.

Coach Jimbo said:

---

If a genie is involved, I'd probably go with George Washington, Lincoln or one of the founded fathers.

Let them **** all over the interpretation bull**** they've done with the constitution.

---

It would be hilarious because they would likely set the military upon domestic enemies. Libertarians would call them fascist by today's standards.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

---

I disagree.

Rand is most appropriately categorized as Libertarian-Leaning Conservative...what else would you expect from a Libertarian/Austrian Economics Father?

The problem for him is the GOPe and RINO's dislike Rand because he tells the truth, which those groups do not like to hear. So to, I am willing to bet there are conservative Democrats who would support his policies (that is the most difficult statement to write, because "conservative" and "Democrat" have become anti-thetical words).

But the problem for Rand is those "conservative Dems" may be tempted, but they cannot divorce themselves from allegiance to the "Party". The same goes for GOPe and RINO's and the Repbulican Party.

To support Rand would cause violent wretching and diarrhea, resulting in Bill Kristol type reactions and descent into insanity.

---

You miss the point but you are almost there.

It's absolutely true that there are crap people in the GOP and far more in the Dem Party. It's absolutely true that they undermine someone like Paul and have no interest in listening to him. The problem is that in order to get anything done you have to get some of those people on your side because as unfortunate as it is Paul represents only a minority of views on most subjects.

The conundrum that Paul has is that his appeal is his principles. He is a hero for standing up to the establishment and for standing by his values. That's great but in the end, he is not persuasive enough to get other people who disagree with him to change their minds (which admittedly is extremely difficult). So the conundrum is in order to accomplish anything he needs to compromise and if he were to do so it would take away from his appeal. He would then be "just another politician".

The issue I have with Paul is he has had 10 years to take just one of his mainline issues and actually get something passed, many of which are broadly popular. For instance, auditing the Fed. On its surface no one really wants to stand up and say the Fed should not be audited or publicly accountable outside of a very small group of people that have an interest in making sure that most Americans don't understand how the Fed works. Pick any of his main issues if you like, he has done very little to make progress on them. Paul is easily distracted and will spend his political capital on things that have zero chance of becoming law, that's great for firing up his base but in the end the result is nothing happens.

Compare that to someone like Cruz who has been in the Senate 2 years less than Paul. Cruz has very similar values but is far more of a real politician. He looks at issues and finds the common ground and focuses on that. Often he crosses the aisle and finds Democrat co-sponsors. He understands the Rules of the Senate as well as anyone and he doesn't focus on getting all the credit on some issues because he knows it would harm his goal. An example of the first would be how he got the ability to use 529's for private schools prior to college. A perfectly targeted and effective bit of legislating. An example of the latter is how he has managed to stop Nord Stream so far by reaching across and getting Shaheen on his side and then utilizing his skills at working the rules to stay a step ahead of the varying international interest groups that have tried to keep it going. Cruz also has quietly been one of the main influencers on Judicial picks for Trump making sure he is selecting real conservatives. Cruz wields real power but he understands his limits and he understands the concept of political capital and spends it wisely.

Paul has value in the Senate but I really think the Bernie Sanders comparison is a good one. He would not be a good President because he is terrible at building coalitions and he gets very easily distracted. The idea of him is much more appealing than the reality.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

---

I disagree.

Rand is most appropriately categorized as Libertarian-Leaning Conservative...what else would you expect from a Libertarian/Austrian Economics Father?

The problem for him is the GOPe and RINO's dislike Rand because he tells the truth, which those groups do not like to hear. So to, I am willing to bet there are conservative Democrats who would support his policies (that is the most difficult statement to write, because "conservative" and "Democrat" have become anti-thetical words).

But the problem for Rand is those "conservative Dems" may be tempted, but they cannot divorce themselves from allegiance to the "Party". The same goes for GOPe and RINO's and the Repbulican Party.

To support Rand would cause violent wretching and diarrhea, resulting in Bill Kristol type reactions and descent into insanity.

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

SeMgCo87 said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

---

I disagree.

Rand is most appropriately categorized as Libertarian-Leaning Conservative...what else would you expect from a Libertarian/Austrian Economics Father?

The problem for him is the GOPe and RINO's dislike Rand because he tells the truth, which those groups do not like to hear. So to, I am willing to bet there are conservative Democrats who would support his policies (that is the most difficult statement to write, because "conservative" and "Democrat" have become anti-thetical words).

But the problem for Rand is those "conservative Dems" may be tempted, but they cannot divorce themselves from allegiance to the "Party". The same goes for GOPe and RINO's and the Repbulican Party.

To support Rand would cause violent wretching and diarrhea, resulting in Bill Kristol type reactions and descent into insanity.

---

Rand is more than a "libertarian leaning conservative". And the Republican Party is not libertarian.

If Paul was serious, he could have the same impact that Sanders has had to the dems. Bernie's crazy ass has actually caused the dems to lurch leftward as a party. To go from running from the term "liberal" to flip 180 degrees and embrace the mantle of "progressive" and to speak openly about socialism.

But that's going to take more than the occasional "charge of the light brigade" filibuster to make happen.

---

Good luck winning elections with an even smaller tent.

pagerman @ work said:

---

Pelayo said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

He has no interest in actually doing anything, just like his father.

---

Unless you mean not grow government, how do you figure that?

---

Very simple.

As pointed out above. He's gotten nothing done for the cause. ZERO.

He's a grandstander. He makes these epic gestures expressing his ideological purity and libertarian bona fides that are doomed to failure from the get go, thereby relieving him of the pressure of ever having to actually do anything. But he knows there are a certain number of people that are real suckers for the "doomed gesture" political theater, for the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" one man standing up against the system kibuki theater filibuster, where he gets credit for being "right" without ever having to legislate.

Americans love the image of the captain bravely standing on the deck as the SS Alone in My Principles slips beneath the waves, and Rand is more than happy to give it to people. It's a great way to raise campaign money.

But that's all he does. Everybody has to have an angle, and that's his.

---

So much nonsense

1. You have no way of knowing who on capitol hill/vote he has influenced or not. Hell he's often been the lone voice and brought attention to what otherwise would have been ignored. It is ignorance to claim he has "done nothing - had no effect". If nothing else he's been one less vote for bad legislation that a rhino tends to succumb to.

2. He has coauthored legislation that conservatives are split over and that pleases most libertarians. Want to keep the libertarian wing of your party intact?

3. In the role of legislature, he has done his first duty, do no harm. Something I wish more legislatures would do.