Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard 2020

Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard 2020

It'll act as a major unifying step for the nation. In light of the Rossanne ratings, people clearly want some unity. Especially by 2020, having gone through a period where even Normies began to wonder if we'ld see a reboot of the Civil War before the next Batman reboot.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-13/rand-paul-teams-tulsi-gabbard-stop-us-arming-terrorists

Rand Paul / Tulsi Gabbard 2020

>>It'll act as a major unifying step for the nation. In light of the Rossanne ratings, people clearly want some unity. Especially by 2020, having gone through a period where even Normies began to wonder if we'ld see a reboot of the Civil War before the next Batman reboot.

>Both are anti-Deep State/MIC.

>Both are outcasts of the Establishments of their Parties, proving they aren't afraid to be disliked when it matters.

>But, both are generally viewed favorably by the citizenry at large, with low negatives and active grassroots support potential.

>First native, indigenious, brown, female, Veep, shielding against racism and sexism charges, and making the use of ID Pol by the Left a tenuous proposition.

>Rand was the first Iowa Straw Poll winner for 2016.

>A reliably anti-interventionist, anti-militarism, anti-WW3 ticket.

>Neither is particularly displeasing to the eyes or ears of your average citizen.

>>It will better allow for the job of president to be split in two with Rand taking on the day to day wrangling with the government apparatus, while allowing Tulsi to be the Diplomat in Chief. Each is well suited for said roles, and the roles are well suited for them.

>>Running with a chosen and active VP from the onset will add heft and stability to the campaign. The demonstration of forethought will wash the ticket with an aura of credibility that few, if any, will be able to match at such early stage. This would also attract all sorts of funding, from every level of donor.

>>The seemingly impossible nature of such a ticket would result in an inverse slingshot of support should said ticket's possability manifest. Where what was
once thought impossible, may soon seem inevitable.

>>Gabbard has travelled to Syria and has experience exposing the Syrian gas attack False Flag, making such an administration better immune to being manipulated into war or bad legislation based off future False Flags, if not being able to prevent them outright.

>>By creating an ala carte ticket, this will effectively shatter the establishment 2-Party monopoly in future elections. Whereas now, that monopoly is only fractured, with little promise of shattering anytime soon.

>>We're going to get a female POTUS eventually. If a Paul/Gabbard ticket runs 2 terms, and she pulls an 'H.W.' to Paul's 'Reagan', she'll likely only be a 1 termer. She'd have to be a real solid player to pull off that second election, in which case, all the better. Either way, she still gets to trail-blaze and shatter glass ceilings in what is likely the best opportunity she will ever have to do so, with age on her side to boot.

>That being said, it's a ticket that has the real potential to bear fruits for 3, even 4 presidential election cycles.

>>We would survive a Gabbard stint in the White House infinitely better than that of a Gillibrand, Warren, Oprah or even Chelsea Clinton admin.

>>Paul has principles. This makes him predictable in a good sort of way. Also, not being a complete shit politician is a family tradition with him.

>>If memory serves, he's actually a doctor as well. Lends a strong hand in knowing exactly HOW to un-fuck our medical system, and makes him one of the very few politicians who isn't just a lawyer.

>Likewise, Gabbard is a Veteran, fresh to politics and beyond just another millionaire lawyer.

>>Accusations of Russian collusion towards a Veteran will require substantial evidence being presented in order to guard against the backlash of tarnishing a Veteran's reputation by accusing her of conspiring with a foreign power, aka Treason.

>>Further marginalization of the Democrat Party is only good for America as a whole, regardless where those votes flock to.

>They both have an element of name recognition, Paul more so, making viable the option of running & winning as Independent.

>Having run before, Rand will have a better understanding of what's required going forward, allowing the ticket to bypass first run fumbles.

Iowa and New Hampshire are the states that need to be won first and foremost. Nothing happens without at least one of them. They will need to be thoroughly
canvassed.

Media coverage and political habbenings will begin shifting towards Nov. 2020 during the summer/august of 2019, roughly 9 - 12 months after the Midterms, which are only 7 months away from today.

Having taken the lead in an Iowa Straw Poll, the state is certainly in play for a Paul/Gabbard ticket.

>>One policy shift allowing for the commercial production and distribution of hemp and hemp products would open up a whole new crop for American farmers desired by numerous markets domestically and abroad. Hemp is more profitable than corn, and will allow us to dismantle the very counter-productive ethanol mandates. Federal tax aid to help farmers cover the cost of switching equipment and infrastructure from corn to hemp would better sell the deal.

>>Rand won't be able to fix everything, but we will have one of the foremost critics of the Fed in the position to at least begin uncovering and exposing, via use of the Bully Pulpit, some of their workings.

>>Likely to take on the prison lobby and end overzealous enforcement of bad laws, freeing up prison space & court time for violent offenders.

>>Issues where the two butt heads on are most likely to be state's rights issues. Making a the come back of 10th Amendment culture necessary in order to set the wedge issue argument bait aside and address the meta issues affecting our federal government. Simply having the Federal government better adhere to the 10th will go a long way in fixing the systemic abuse of such a large Power apparatus.