Post: #51

(04-10-2015 02:17 PM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  @The Father... You had respect for Chuck Todd BEFORE you watched that clip?

Quote:Lost all respect for Chuck Todd after watching that clip.

I'll bet any RooshV member a Mexican coke that Rand Paul doesn't get anywhere near the Republican party nomination. Paul regularly breaks a cardinal rule that we have here on the forum: "don't be a dick." You, reading this, may like Paul, and think that was really Alpha the way he acquitted himself with her, but to the blue pill American public, he came across as a dick, and especially to women, who comprise something like 53% of the electorate in presidential elections (I'm not putting a value judgement on this, I'm just saying this is the political reality in America today, and how this particular situation is being covered by the media and thus perceived by the public). To me, red pill starts with the recognition of reality, and, like it or not, that's how he is being perceived, and the (not as liberal as you think, I'll expand on this momentarily) media is going to play this to the end of the earth.

Barack Obama, whether you like him or not, has a great deal of political skill in this regard. He can put reporters in their place, charmingly, disarmingly, with a big smile on his face, and without looking like a dick. This is a very important skill to have in order to win over the media and voters more generally. Rand Paul doesn't have it, and this will become more and more obvious with more time in the spotlight. He's appeared on Fox News something like 120 times since he's been in the senate, but these friendly Fox appearances don't prepare him for the scrutiny he faces now that he's announced his candidacy. He is a political lightweight who has never really faced a serious electoral test, and he will crumble. Mark my words, Rand Paul will be a political memory 15 months from now, if it takes that long (and I would be somewhat surprised if it does).

Unless some sort of dark horse candidate comes out of nowhere (which I doubt, because republicans nominate the guy whose turn it is, and have for a long time, Goldwater 1964 was the last deviation from this) this nomination fight will come down to Jeb Bush versus Scott Walker. You could make the argument that Rubio could be in the mix there, but only under the right circumstances. I personally think that time will reveal Rubio to be a political featherweight as well. Ted Cruz is a dick, and almost no one disagrees about this. The fact of it is, the Republican establishment wants someone that will keep the Security/Military Industrial complex gravy train rolling. That will be called into question if Rand Paul were to get the nomination, and a lot of moderate security/industrial type support will go to Hillary if Paul gets the nomination. The Republican hoi palloi won't let that happen, especially not with 3-4 supreme court nominations at stake in the coming years.

The (not really liberal) mainstream media has a stake in this too. If you look at ownership of news media in this country, you will see that it is inextricably intertwined with ownership of defense contracting companies. The people who own the media and decide how candidates are scrutinized also stand to lose financially if a relative dove like Paul (and you can see he's already moving away from his dovish positions, because he knows he has to politically) gets in there. If Paul were to get the nomination, as I said before, a lot of political opportunists will throw their support behind Clinton; they know her, and they know she won't fuck with their gravy train too much. That is, by the way, a big part of why the mainstream media is inherently conservative: they're trying to conserve things as they are ie: keep their gravy train going. Most of the people you see on TV, including Savannah Guthrie, I'm sure, are multi-millionaires and have bought into this whole status quo. That's why they're there, because they've sold out to that mission. Hillary versus Jeb would be a very satisfying outcome for them. That's a big part of why you keep getting Bush Clinton Bush Clinton Bush Clinton. The reason Obama was able to even get in there, aside from his political skills, is that he was able to convince the powers that be that his getting in there wouldn't change things that much for them, and it hasn't. The last time the Republican party won a presidential election without a Bush on the ticket was 1972. That's not a coincidence either.

The real red pill candidate in this race, if he runs, is Jim Webb. The powers that be would never let this happen for obvious reasons, but Webb would kick the shit out of Rand Paul in a political one on one. Webb came out of nowhere and took out George Allen in 2006, at a time when Allen was largely thought to be W's heir apparent, next in line for the republicans. I'll bet most of you guys under 30 have either never even heard of him or don't know much about him at all. That's how hard Jim Webb deep sixed George Allen's political career. He would do the same thing to Rand Paul in a one on one. Rand Paul is already changing his positions to reflect the reality of the political debate (and pissing off a lot of his Dad's base in the process). Jim Webb would change the political debate. And that makes him dangerous.

The game of politics is just like game, some people are born with it to some degree, some people work on themselves to develop those skills. Rand Paul doesn't have it, and hasn't done the work to get it. This will become glaringly obvious with time, and the media will be only too happy to illuminate that for all to see.

Rand Paul is toast, he just doesn't know it yet. And if you don't either, just watch this whole process unfold. It's already started, and going exactly as I expected.

Webb didn't destroy Allen. Allen lost by .39% of the vote in 2006, and it swung primarily on the macaca incident and changing Northern VA demographics.

Webb does not have great political game. In fact he has horrible relationships on the Hill. Webb would win a political one-on-one with Rand because Webb would allow for more 'gibmedats'.

Not sure why you would consider Webb red-pill - his economic platform certainly isn't so.

Post: #52

Here are a couple of pieces from Politico that support some of my points above. Huckleberry Graham is talking about running for president. Nobody, save perhaps Huckleberry actually believes he can win, so perhaps his ostensible play here is being Jeb's VP (or more likely) secretary of defense. In that vein, here's the tee up on the article linked above:

Quote:South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham may still be weighing whether to run for president, but he already has a strategy — distancing himself from fellow senator Rand Paul.
In TV appearances, on the campaign trail, and even in private fundraisers, Graham, an Air Force reservist and one of his party’s most prominent defense hawks, has gone after Paul repeatedly and by name, casting him as weak-kneed and unwilling to protect the country from aggressors.

You're going to be seeing a lot of this, and it will work well to plant seeds of doubt in Rand Paul's thin national security credentials. Further down in the article, the tack becomes even clearer:

Quote:“It’s nothing personal, not at all,” Graham insisted in a telephone interview on Wednesday, one day before Paul stumped in his home state, pointing out that the two had once played golf together. “My problem with Rand Paul is foreign policy. He’s a libertarian and I come from a more traditional Republican perspective.”

The Kentucky senator, he said, “in many ways is to the left of Barack Obama.” To defeat Hillary Clinton, Graham argued, Republicans would need a nominee with robust national defense strategy. “Sen. Paul isn’t in a good position to do that,” he said.

It's no coincidence that Lindsey Graham is on the Sunday political TV shows every other week; he represents the prevailing view of the Security/Military Industrial Complex, as well as that of the Republican establishment (there is a lot of overlap). And his point, whether you agree with his views on national security or not, is well taken and well made. He is applying for a job, and to that end, you will often seeing him delineating the differences between Rand Paul and more establishment viewpoints. The "very serious people" on TV are going to be doing a lot of this in the coming months, and Rand Paul doesn't have the political and national security chops to answer his critics in a convincing way.


The other article is another example of how the mainstream media is going to frame Paul as a douchebag. A couple of highlights:

Quote:Sen. Rand Paul walked out of a Guardian U.S. interview being conducted via the live streaming app Periscope on Friday.

Quote:"One more question for you, sorry we have to sometimes be a bit forceful, when you stand for president you get pressed and questioned and you understand that," Lewis said, before mentioning that at Paul's campaign launch on Tuesday he got an enthusiastic response to his calls for criminal justice reform.

"You're standing for the Republican nomination, all the research shows that Republicans, white Republicans who will determine the outcome of this race, don't think criminal law is applied in an unfair way, so how are you going to win the nomination with this..." Lewis asked before being cut off by Paul.

"I think your premise is incorrect," Paul said. "I think I can take that message into a white Evangelical church anywhere in Iowa and give the exact same speech and be received well."

Lewis then tried to quote a recent Washington Post and ABC poll, before Paul pointed at him, looked at his staff, said something unintelligible and walked out.

Quote:The incident is the latest in a string of testy interviews Paul has had with the media. Earlier this week he clashed with "Today" show co-host Savannah Guthrie, accusing her of editorializing her questions. As we reported earlier this week, Paul is well known among members of the media for being an accessible candidate, but one with a particularly prickly demeanor that could continue to cause him trouble as the campaign continues.

For the politically uninitiated, "particularly prickly demeanor" is douchebag in political parlance. Look carefully at not only what is being discussed in these articles, which is instructive in itself, but also how the issues are being FRAMED. Just in that last paragraph alone, you have "a string of testy interviews Paul has had with the media. Earlier this week he clashed with...SAVANNAH GUTHRIE!!! (don't think they're going to beat that one to death yet?) accusing her of editorializing... and particularly prickly (douchebag) demeanor that could (will, and we're going to be endlessly streaming it into your consciousness to make sure) cause him trouble as the campaign continues. You think?

All previous emphasis mine. If you haven't figured out that the knives are coming out for Rand Paul already, you will soon enough. And by the standards of the American political system, he is defenseless. He will be politically destroyed through this process, and the democrats won't have to fire the shots.

Post: #53

Quote:I don't see any way possible that today's Democratic party would even let Webb have a shot.

Of course not, because he would be too inclined to call shit what it is, and the powers that be don't want that, which is why the republicans would never give him a shot either. They would go after Webb in some of the same ways they're going after Paul, with buzzwords like particularly prickly demeanor. We will see if Webb even goes for it. If he does, he will make things much more interesting than Rand Paul, because he will say what's really on his mind, and not calibrate his positions to reflect his political reality, which is what Paul is doing (and it isn't going to work anyway).

Quote:Webb didn't destroy Allen. Allen lost by .39% of the vote in 2006, and it swung primarily on the macaca incident and changing Northern VA demographics.

Webb does not have great political game. In fact he has horrible relationships on the Hill. Webb would win a political one-on-one with Rand because Webb would allow for more 'gibmedats'.

Not sure why you would consider Webb red-pill - his economic platform certainly isn't so.

Webb didn't destroy Allen electorally (as you noted, the election was very close, and it wasn't until the late returns from *northern VA with its changing demographics* came in that we even knew he was going to win) he destroyed him politically (with Allen's help, as you mentioned, dude was a dumb fuck) and exposed George Allen for the not very bright political clown that he was. Good politicians exploit these kinds of weaknesses; that's how they win. For anyone who wants to see the video of this incident, here you go. This is George Allen calling a south Asian Indian guy who is working for the opposition's campaign, filming him to find weaknesses to exploit, Macaca, which is a type of monkey. What a dumb fuck.





As I mentioned before this incident, and Webb's very adept exploitation of it, ended Allen's political career. If you've heard of him at all, he's just some political guy or the son of the great football coach, not a former serious contender for the presidency. That was the political equivalent of Appalachian State beating the University of Michigan in football. It didn't matter that they didn't win by six touchdowns; it mattered that they won. Like I said, I doubt most of the guys under 30 here would even know who he was or much about him. That's how fast he faded into political obscurity.

As for Webb's relationships with people on the Hill, well he's prickly. Webb would win a political one on one with Rand Paul because he is a much tougher, stronger man with better character and better political game. Rand Paul is a creature for somebody's amusement. When it's time for him to go away, he will.

And as for Jim Webb being red pill or not, refer to the thread in my post up above. I don't think I commented on it, but some of the guys said shit that is similar to my thinking on Jim Webb. Some guys will say Webb is red pill, some won't. My point is we, on this forum, should be having that debate. And Jim Webb doesn't stand a chance of an ice cube in hell of winning, but he would make the debate better than it would be without him.

Post: #54

It's hilarious that having a "prickly demeanor" is grounds to disqualify someone from office today. Some interesting things about former presidents below:

Quote:John Quincy Adams (6th President, 1825-1829) enjoyed skinny-dipping. When he was president, the Federal City was mostly woods and fields without a lot of people. President Adams loved to go for a refreshing swim in the Potomac River every morning if the weather was good. Since there weren’t really bathing suits back then, he’d strip off his clothes and leave them on the riverbank while he took his morning dip. One morning a reporter followed him to the river and sat on his clothes. The president had no choice but to answer her questions!

Andrew Jackson (7th President, 1829-1837) often misspelled and misused words. Jackson was born poor in a log cabin. His informal education was cut short at age 13 when he fought in the Revolutionary War. He was captured and survived being a prisoner of war. Despite his lack of education, he became a teacher for a short time and later a lawyer. He valued education and sought out the finest schools for his adopted nephew and the other children he took into his home.

Andrew Johnson (17th President, 1865-1869) grew up extremely poor and was not able to read or write until he was an adult. He never attended a day of school. His father died when he was three. Although he chopped wood and helped his mother with chores, they could barely survive. So when Johnson was 13, his mother apprenticed him to the town tailor. By law, he had to work long hours for his master in exchange for food and lodging. Under the arrangement, Johnson would be free at age 21. He loved listening to books and speeches while he was busy at work. With some help from others, he taught himself to read, and eventually his wife taught him how to write and do arithmetic.

http://www.ourwhitehouse.org/presidentspeople.html

We need thinkers and leaders, not actors and television personalities.

Post: #55

I'd like to see the republicans this year run against the MSM as a wing of the democratic party. For example, I would consider it a positive point to mention in ads that they were not endorsed by the NY Times. Cast endorsement and positive editorials by liberal media figures as an actual mark against their opponents, and make it a point of pride to be opposed by the MSM.

Also, refuse to do a debate with a MSM moderator.

Go over the heads of the MSM with internet, blogs, and direct contact between the local campaign organizations and the voters.

Post: #56

Paul will have to concede the majority of his foreign policy to a pro-Israel/anti-Iran strategy to gain widespread Republican support and donors. There's really no way around it. His dad was absolutely eviscerated and outright shunned by the Republican party as well as their mouthpiece Fox News for his foreign policy stance. It's simple pragmatism that Rand pays lip service to interventionist foreign policy lest he suffer a similar political outcome to his dad. Some call him a sell-out for this, but it's absolutely necessary if he has any chance of getting out of the primaries.

What I would be more concerned about for the Jim Webb guys on the forum, is how much of his soul he's going to have to sell to win the Democratic primary. To get the nod, you have to bow down to your base in some form, which is problematic considering the base on the left is comprised of people and groups that we rail against on these forums everyday. Forget a Webb/Paul showdown, Webb's biggest competition is Hillary, and there is no way he gets the nod from the Democrats unless he pays homage to the systematic victim complex that the Democrats thrive upon to win elections.

Post: #57

(04-10-2015 02:17 PM)Capitán Peligroso Wrote:  @The Father... You had respect for Chuck Todd BEFORE you watched that clip?

Quote:Lost all respect for Chuck Todd after watching that clip.

Heh. Fair point! I gave him the benefit of the doubt because I was SO happy he replaced that smug David Gregory. David Gregory was like that not-so-smart but know-it-all kid who sat in the back of chemistry class in sophomore year of high school, making snarky comments and getting sent to the principals office 3x that week. 30 years later, he's an equally-smug liberal elite. TOTALLY the wrong guy to succeed a great reporter like Tim Russert, who really did achieve some balance in the role (despite being a former aide to liberal governor Mario Cuomo). Chuck Todd is an improvement in demeanor over David Gregory, but he hasn't attempted to hide his bias lately, so FUCK HIM, FUCK THAT SHOW, and FUCK NBC!

Post: #58

"Running for president" game recognized.

Post: #59

(04-10-2015 10:51 AM)Dusty Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:17 AM)Renzy Wrote:  This might be too far back, but does anyone else remember the interview between Bush Senior and Dan Rather back in the 80s, when Rather tried to bully Bush and Bush wouldn't put up with his shit? And he stopped Dan Rather in his tracks with the line:

Quote:'I want to talk about why I want to be President,'' Mr. Bush said, his voice rising. ''It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?''

You want to see a caustic interview between men, here's one.





Ironically, this interview actually helped Bush in the polls at the time. It made him look strong, like he wouldn't shrink from confrontation, which was important at the time because he was perceived as a wimp by the public.

Of course it doesn't work this way with women, does it? When you won't put up with their bullshit, the public doesn't say you look stronger, instead they say you look like a bully.

I'm old enough to remember when Bush debated Geraldine Ferraro in the VP debate. Bush was called a bully and "patronizing" because he had the temerity to debate Geraldine in you know - a debate. If he disagreed with her the feminist at the time and the manginas got their panties in a twist. He didn't realize his role was not to debate her but instead marvel at her historic position as the first female vp candidate.

Here's a little excerpt of the VP debate between Ferraro and Bush. Ferraro was a total lightweight and Bush at the time was thought to be a leading expert on foreign policy. Bush dominated the debate, which made Ferraro [and the lib media] whine about her feelings being hurt.





Women demand to be included in the professions and in leadership positions, but at the same time demand to be treated with kid gloves.

Post: #60

You guys better be prepared if Hillary gets the presidency, there'll be streams and streams of column inches spewed out by the left wing media decrying her detractors as misogynists.

Post: #61

Quote:You guys better be prepared if Hillary gets the presidency, there'll be streams and streams of column inches spewed out by the left wing media decrying her detractors as misogynists.

If she gets that far.

"A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate each other."

The Michelle Bachmann's and Ann Coulter's will do all the work before she's even nominated. Sit back and enjoy, the coming catfight should be entertaining.

Post: #62

Rand was on Face the Nation this morning. He did well.

He also outlined something about Hillary that was great and undermines the feminist narrative pussy pass she's running on: for someone to claim she stands for the rights of women, it is very telling that her foundation accepts money from places like Saudi Arabia and Brunei which treat women terribly. We should spread this fact around as much as our sphere of influence allows - certainly at Return of Kings.

Maybe this should be turned into the official Rand thread.

Post: #63

People who think Rand Paul is the last great hope for Americans are way off base.

The last great hope for Americans is one of two things. Option 1 is a stockpile of gold and guns, to prepare for the coming civil war/revolution. Option 2 is a one way ticket to SEA/Latin America/Eastern Europe.

At this stage, the only possible reason for wanting the Republicans is if you haven't quite saved up your "fuck you money" for Option 2 yet and need a few more years before the ship goes down, and believe me, it is going down. Otherwise, if you're bracing for Option 1, you should fully endorse Harpy Clinton in order to bring things to a head ASAP, because the longer you wait, the more the numbers (demographic and economic) are against you.

Conservatives will keep thinking that this time is different, however, because that's what they do and that's why the mess exists in the first place.

Post: #64

33:05

Rand addresses child support and comes out in favor of ending, as he rightly calls them, debtors' prisons.

Important thing to be said. Bumped up my support for him.