It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul will endorse Trump; Ron Paul hints at possible Secretary of State?

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

If either of these things happen, I might consider changing my tune on Trump. MIGHT.




posted on May, 8 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: MrSpad


Very clever, and it may work to some extent. But it's bull#. Ron is not on the side of Trump.


You are right on this. Ron Paul is never going to vote for Trump, let alone endorse him.
This was 4 days ago:



posted on May, 8 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
The better ticket would be the two populists of opposing parties (not really as both are Libertarian in principle) running together. A Trump/Sanders mash up might be the runaway election of the century. Imagine; 60 to 70% of the 'popular vote' then challenges the rigged system of dedicated delegates and the electoral college.


In what universe are Bernie's MOAR GOVERNMENT GUD plans even remotely libertarian?
Sure he's got a lot of followers, but not because he promotes less government intrusion into our lives.

Am I to understand you in this way: if you have a better idea; state it.
edit on 8-5-2016 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   


IMO I think the GOP getting the ethnic groups is not worth pandering too. The odds are too great for the GOP to overcome. Rand and Ron Paul have a very strong following and I can see where even many Bernie sanders supporters might jump ship to Ron Paul side for being against the establishment and for how she and the DNC have overlooked Sanders from the start. Ron would also have a good chance of bringing in the libertarians and independents who would normally vote third party or not vote at all.


That's some sound thinking right there.

Picking a female VP or ethnic one would completely be seen as the pandering it is.

I'd respect him more if he added either (or both) of the Pauls to his cabinet picks. While I don't think Rand would have gotten votes, I do think he'd make a great VP or other cabinet member, and while others campaign, he's been fighting for the Constitution repeatedly in Congress the whole time.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok



IMO I think the GOP getting the ethnic groups is not worth pandering too. The odds are too great for the GOP to overcome. Rand and Ron Paul have a very strong following and I can see where even many Bernie sanders supporters might jump ship to Ron Paul side for being against the establishment and for how she and the DNC have overlooked Sanders from the start. Ron would also have a good chance of bringing in the libertarians and independents who would normally vote third party or not vote at all.


That's some sound thinking right there.

Picking a female VP or ethnic one would completely be seen as the pandering it is.

I'd respect him more if he added either (or both) of the Pauls to his cabinet picks. While I don't think Rand would have gotten votes, I do think he'd make a great VP or other cabinet member, and while others campaign, he's been fighting for the Constitution repeatedly in Congress the whole time.


Ron Paul seems to be on the war path against Trump. More today where he trashes him, using the same language as Cruz putting Hillary and Trump in the same pot.



posted on May, 10 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Ron has pretty much been anti-Trump from the start of this campaign, so I doubt he'd be considered, let alone take, a cabinet position from Trump, but would still be nice.

Rand, on the other hand....I could see him in Trump's cabinet.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Hi Konduit. Thank you for stopping and saying hello in my introduction thread. I figured I would pay some respect by reading some of your threads and trying to comment on something.

On topic, I have a question. Please know I am not asking this in a flippant way, and furthermore I'm a bit of a dolt when it comes to politics. The thing that stood out to me from the OP is that both Pauls flip-flopped on supporting Trump, and this is seen as a gain, where other politicians are crucified for flip-flopping. Do you have any problem with their changes of heart, or does the election year dynamic make it okay for a politician to go back on his/her word? (Ron Paul said he'd never support Trump, according to OP. I am a reformed drunk and for people like me, when the line of "never" has been crossed, there are always consequences. This might be a grumpy outlook on things and a cold way to make judgments of people, but I am who I am.)

Alternatively, is it different in situations where allegiances, particularly where there was either coldness or open hostility, happen at the cabinet level?

Like I said, I'm really not tuned in with politics very much. I hope these aren't totally ignorant questions. They're just based on my loose observation that under different circumstances, the Paul's would be eaten alive by their party. Perhaps this is happening. At any rate, cheers to you.



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   


The thing that stood out to me from the OP is that both Pauls flip-flopped on supporting Trump, and this is seen as a gain, where other politicians are crucified for flip-flopping


No, they didn't.

Early on, when the GOP wanted to hold Trump to supporting the GOP candidate (vs. running independent), even if not him, the GOP held ALL of the candidates to the same agreement.

Rand also made that agreement, and has consistently said that while he'll honor the agreement he made, that is different than an endorsement. It's important to note that many other candidates (such as Bush and Cruz), have completely reneged on this agreement, basically making it an outright lie they can always be called on.

Ron Paul has softened a little on Trump, but still attacks his policy almost weekly.

Neither has flip-flopped.

Not to mention, it's a rather broad term. For example, both Trump and Hillary have flip-flopped on gay marriage. In 2008, when she ran, Hillary was staunchly opposed to it. Trump basically was more personally against it than actively opposed, but both now support it (but then, it is the law of the land, so as the key member of the Executive Branch, a candidate for the office should support the law).
edit on 13-5-2016 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gazrok

Thanks for schooling me.



posted on Sep, 21 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Senator-Physician Rand Paul said today that in his medical opinion, Hillary Clinton has "significant health problems".

Source: www.westernjournalism.com...



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I could see Ron as Secy of State walking the walk on the non-intervention platform which i'm sure Trump espouses.

a reply to: Gazrok



posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   
rumor has it she's gonna die before the election


a reply to: carewemust




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join