19 votes

For those of you that can't get on board the Rand 2016 train ...

... May I recommend the Judge Andrew Napolitano / Justin Amash 2016 Ticket

any takers ???

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Nap it is.


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Im With You

I LOVE the Judge. As for Rand..I will NEVER vote for him until I hear a reason I can live with on why he dumped his dad for Mitt The Twit

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

I am absolutely on the Judge

I am absolutely on the Judge Andrew Napolitano train.

Rand Paul can be VP and maybe POTUS after the Judge serves 2 terms.

Of course, Ron Paul & Judge Nap as VP if RP runs again.


I don't think it matters much

I don't think it matters much who holds the office of president of the federal government next.

The whole system has been taken over.

It only seems that way

It only seems that way because we've had presidents who are lock-step with the status quo.
If we had a president who actually used veto power or repealed executive orders of the past instead of writing tons of new ones, which any president can do freely, then it could be a huge change almost overnight in how the government functions.

I definitely do not agree that the president is a powerless office.
They get to be the sole vote on almost every bill before it will pass, they get to speak and be heard by tens of millions of people reliably. People talk about their particular brand of politics daily on every news and political radio station. Everyone around them gains a degree of credibility in public opinion.

If the executive is powerless, how has Obama been so imperialist compared to past presidents and how is the office becoming increasingly more imperialist since the early 1900s? If you look back far enough, Congress used to have a lot more power than it does now. The executive and judicial both had less.

False choices!

WHO should be king? Rand or Nap or Crap....?

It is a false choice! We are fools! There is no curing the US Gov with just electing the right President.

The only worth while cause is called SECCESSION, on the smallest possible level. NOW there you can make a difference.

Texas? New Hamshire? Montana? Or the city/county of.....?

"Split up", get a "divorce", it is your right to opt out and be free!

Gerald Mangold

Oh but they dont pass DPs purity tests!!!

Judge Nap (a man I love and respect) is cozy and buddy buddy with Glenn Beck and says we should support and defend Israel with money and ANYTHING except blood, which is actually more than what Rand said when he said "an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States"! Oh and Amash supported funding and money to Israel which I believe indirectly also supported Iran Sanctions... Oh, but thats OK when it comes to them, but when it comes to Rand, NO WAY! Turn coat traitor!!!

Ron Paul 2012

Even Ron Paul said "Israel is our friend".

And yes, because of our investments, an attack on Israel is like an attack in the USA.

Ron Paul: Israel is “one of our most important friends in the world ...

Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel
Dec 7, 2011 – Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel? Ron Paul: We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy ...

Ron Paul to Obama: Stop Dictating to Israel
May 20, 2011 – Ron Paul's statement, released immediately after the speech, reflected the ... “Israel is our close friend," the
statement reads, "While President ...

Ron Paul on Israel | Mondoweiss
Jan 12, 2012 – Ron Paul: I am the one candidate who would respect Israel's sovereignty ... I believe that Israel is one of our most important friends in the world.

Ron Paul Responds to President Obama's Middle East Speech ...
May 19, 2011 – Ron Paul, a twelve-term U.S. congressman, member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and 2012 Republican ... “Israel is our close friend.

Im OK with Israel...

As a nation and as a friend. I totally have no problem with it. What I despise is the Israel lobby... I was being sarcastic. I actually support Rand. His political style is nauseating, but over all I believe him when he says he is a strict constitutionalist. What he believes outside of that, its not a huge factor. Even Lew Rockwell said to be a Libertarian you can be a constitutionalist, so even though he may not be an anarchist, he is a Constitutionalist and that is good enough for me. He doesnt like the Fed and he believes in a less aggressive foreign policy and believes in the Constitution and whatever his style is, he is alright with me and I will support him fully in 2016.

Ron Paul 2012

She's a manipulator

You can see it in her quote choices.. Dr.Paul's words were NEVER stated as a link to an entangling alliance. She knows this but she use his words against him and for her own agenda.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Hemp used to be my one issue vote

So how could I not like Rand? He's done more for hemp production than any senator in any time in my life.


open to ALL candidates at this time

so sure sounds good.

His name is Edward Snowden

What is Capitalism?

I am on board for Rand in 2016.

That doesn't mean he is his father...and doesn't mean there won't be stuff I won't wince at.

Wait on Amash for 2020 or 2024...if there is still a USA around!

I agree

Rand is not his father, but then again no one is. I don't have to agree with him 100% of the time to support him. Fact is, it looks like he has the best chance to bring liberty to the highest office.

Totally on board with this

Love the Judge.

My #1 choice

Great idea!

Let's throw our earnings and sweat into another ticket that will go nowhere

Judge Nap

I have been thinking the judge would be a top candidate all along. If there is one guy I want to see run, or that at least deserves the title "presidential candidate," it is Judge Nap.

The Judge isn't even a

The Judge isn't even a Republican. He's not running for President.

How about Seccession 2013 plan???

For those who realize JFK was the last person capable to bring real change to DC and they killed him.


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

0% chance of success

0% chance of success unfortunately.

Your Jumping the Gun.

Your Jumping the Gun. Supporting the best person for the Job will not get you anywhere until the way people get their information is changed.

1. Do something about the media
2. Stop voter Fraud
3. Then you can start thinking about who will be on the ticket.
4. Of course if media and voter fraud are handled we will need to make sure our candidate is well protected.

But that's not just for the presidency. Everybody needs to work on getting these things worked out from the city to the state to the federal Government. The Presidency is just one of many positions that need to be attained.

If we don't address voter fraud and media corruption, we are all doomed.

I hear you, Blueshift but I have an honest question:

how do we get rid of the media? I've thought about this in a legal context but since the Supreme Court has ruled that news agencies don't have to tell the truth, what do you do?

And then there's Diebold to talk about....AAArrrgghhh so frustrating.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

1 technique

to get rid of the main stream media, go to any of their web sites that has a comment thread on a regular basis. Post a comment to somebody pointing out that the MSM is pure propaganda. Be sincere and have a few good example prepared in advance and you'll be convincing. Point out how unreliable the media is and their viewership will continue to drop as it has been doing.

http://riseforliberty.com/ For May 17 Money Bomb!

Stop watching...

...that simple.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!


My preference

Ron Paul > Andrew Napolitano > Tom Woods > James Grant > Peter Schiff > Justin Amash > Jesse Ventura > Rand Paul > Dennis Kucinich

I'd vote for any one of them over probably anyone else(might be forgetting someone), but in that order against each other if they ran.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that the establishment would let any of them get close. Until we do something about the MSM it's pretty hopeless.

Just to Illustrate An Important Point...

...I must say that the fact that you state that you would vote or support someone like Dennis Kucinich, tells me that you have ZERO allegiance to the principles of Liberty or Constitutional governance.

Kucinich advocates much that is anti-liberty and anti-constitutional.

This is but one of a slew of examples that this 'purported' liberty-movement is peopled in large part by anything but.

There is nothing related to Liberty that will be corrected by a 'movement' built on rotten garbage and quicksand, e.g. lack of ethic and principle.

Then I'm not part of 'your'

Then I'm not part of 'your' movement.
I would vote for Dennis Kucinich over a typical candidate like the last many presidents we've had. I have overlap with him on a number of issues, and he cares about those issues passionately enough to earn my support. Kucinich has strengths that I respect and desire in a candidate for major office. I don't see him as the voice for a movement, I see him as a great improvement over the lack of integrity present in Washington currently, and to the extent that I find him to be worth mention.

It's sad that some people are so quick, with so little information, to discredit a person. I have ZERO allegiance to the principles of Liberty? You have zero allegiance to the principles of truth, silly absolutist.


...you support a man who would ban guns and shit on the most fundamental natural right that was enumerated in the Bill of Rights, via a statist's ethic and approach.


As to your 'silly absolutist' comment, considering it comes from a person who would support a known constitution-shitter, well, I appreciate the comment....it indicates that I am on the correct side of things.

Oh, and by the way, your support for this turd indicates that you do not have allegiance for liberty, otherwise you'd not be able to support him.

Just so you know.

I don't support his position

I don't support his position on gun control and never indicated that I did. I don't believe that I have to in order to support him over the hordes of anti-liberty politicians out there. He's far more pro-liberty than most, excluding those I placed in front of him and many other figures who didn't make my list because I don't see them as political figures capable of even running for office.

If you want my opinion on guns I've written plenty on it here. I believe that guns should not be registered or restricted to any degree.

Not everyone is an absolutist and must have every policy align with their own preferences in order to support a politician. I don't agree with Ron Paul on every issue. Does that mean I should disparage him and forget about him as an option, because he's not perfect on every issue from my standpoint? Sorry, but the pool of people I would support is already small enough. I am capable of seeing degree, and those people who agree with me to a greater extent are more appropriately granted my approval. I believe Kucinich crosses a threshold beyond which his presence in high office would be at least preferable to many other candidates.

This whole 'have my exact opinion on everything or else you're my enemy' mentality doesn't help anything. It's very likely that I agree with you on more than 90% of your positions, yet I have to be your enemy because I would support Kucinich over someone like Obama, Romney, McCain, Hillary or Bush?

You would have to be blind to disagree that he's far better on many issues than the status quo. Either you don't see that or you don't care at all about degree, which is fine, but again I'm not your enemy. I would bet we agree on almost everything.

Another Rabbit Trail

If you would support or vote for 'the man', you subsequently support what he is known to advocate and what he believes.

Funny how that works when you get right down to it, huh?

We 'silly absolutists' never state that one has to support 'every policy' of a candidate prior to voting for them or lending support.

We do, however, hold rock-solid on liberty-principle and on knowing about and rejecting anyone who stands opposed to or who advocates contrary to fundamental constitutionally-enumerated liberties, which by the way, the right to keep and bear arms, is one.

Differences on whether to fund a project, build a road, spend on an authorized Article 1 Section 8 issue, or other such 'policy', is to be expected and is part of the process. You see, there is a distinct difference in 'policy' and in adhering to one's Oath to support and defend the Constitution.

It seems, regularly, that you 'compromisers', 'rationalizers & justifiers' generally try to mix the two, I strongly suspect in an effort to find cover for what you support and believe, yourselves.

This, then, is the distinct difference between 'you guys' and 'silly absolutists', like me. I would reject without a second thought a man who would attempt or advocate denying me my fundamental liberty, whilst you and your ilk would rationalize & justify it and support them, in a prime example of the 'Paradigm of The Lesser Turd'.

Congratulations. I merely call them as they are.