T1B

... for the Liberty Movement.

Rand Paul endorses Mitt Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ele ... s_homepage

Many within the movement had hoped that Rand would be as principled as his father, but this endorsement appears to fly in the face of that notion - or does it?
And many in the movement also had hopes for Rand Paul as a presidental candidate down the road somewhere.

Is Rand Paul, a tea party favorite (previously har har), on Romney's short list of VP possibilities?


I'm not terribly surprised by the endorsement, but just think that it is... interesting.

Would you prefer he endorse the easter bunny?

Willard isn't my first pick, but, we have two choices, he and Barry the not so magic neegro.

Some day, we may actually do things the way many countries do and have run-offs in the event no one wins a majority. Until that time, we must work with what we have. Of course, I ain't holding my breath on that one as it would bust up the republicrat monopoly.

I agree with you poptart. I just voted for his dad 3 days ago. I don't consider it a wasted vote. It was MY vote!

Nice job, trev.

Ron Paul is the only person I would consider voting for this time around - but honestly, I wouldn't vote for him, either.



1. Rand Paul is a sell out. He's just another whore, as 88 notes.

2. Rand Paul knows that in order to push a strong liberty agenda at a later time, he simply has no choice but to play the game right now. And perhaps Mittens has already promised him a position in his cabinet - maybe even VP?


Is there another possibility?

trev wrote:I agree with you poptart. I just voted for his dad 3 days ago. I don't consider it a wasted vote. It was MY vote!

And in the primary, it was not a wasted vote. In the general election, it would be.

He makes many interesting points, sort of following my #2 line of thinking.

poptart wrote:2. Rand Paul knows that in order to push a strong liberty agenda at a later time, he simply has no choice but to play the game right now.

88 wrote:The older I get, the more certain I am that the definitions of "politician" and "whore" are about the same.

Why you gotta talk bad about whores like that?

88 wrote:The older I get, the more certain I am that the definitions of "politician" and "whore" are about the same.

If political speech can't be regulted by Congress, why is 11 CFR 110.6 Consitutional? If they are going to be whores shouldn't they get to set their rates?

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:The older I get, the more certain I am that the definitions of "politician" and "whore" are about the same.

If political speech can't be regulted by Congress, why is 11 CFR 110.6 Consitutional? If they are going to be whores shouldn't they get to set their rates?

No idea WTF 11 CFR 110.6 is, but, since when has anyone in Washington worried about anything being constitutional is the last 50 years or so?

smackaholic wrote: No idea WTF 11 CFR 110.6 is...

Because you are a retard that wouldn't know 11CFR110.6 if it sucked your 2 inch dick.