Rand Paul 2016

shikaakwa312

Any other supporters of Mr. Paul? I Stand with Rand.

Amerika

I had bought into the idea that republicans needed to put up a moderate in order to entice some democrat votes, but that wasn’t the case with McCain and Romney. As Rand is the most conservative individual considered at the current time, he has my vote simply as a matter of principle. Can he win? Probably not with the addition of over 10 million new democrats with illegal immigration reform, media bias, and the 47% public assistance driven vote... the republican party doesn’t have much of a chance anyway. Not until the progressive agenda puts America into financial collapse will we see a resurgence of the republican party. And the way things are going, perhaps that will be sooner rather than later.

shikaakwa312

Keep in mind though those 10 million will most likely be placed in Texas/Arizona/California/Oklahoma none of which are swing states. Also, I do not think the Republicans would have backed this bill if they thought it would have such implications. But yeah I think you are right on the money with the progressive track, and unfortunately about the state of the GOP. They have turned into big government advocates because they really do not have a choice anymore which is unfortunate. I also agree with pretty much everything you said, but at the same time I have hope for Rand. I say that because I am young but it seems as though many people my age are libertarians. The media bias is a complete joke, the way they treated Ron Paul was disgusting. The best President that never was. I can watch youtube videos of him for hours on end, he has never once said a stupid thing regarding any issue. One more thing, I think Rand will get a surge with the recent IRS, NSA, Benghazi scandals and the complete mismanagement and potential downfall of our nation. If you go on his website you can sign on for the lawsuit he has pressed as well which I think is great. It should never have gotten to the point where we condone domestic spying, I'm sorry but that is straight out of 1984.

Amerika

The immigration bill is a joke. Only about 8 million of the estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States will obtain legal status. What happens to the other 3.5 million illegal immigrants? Will they be deported? Of course not! And the CBO estimates that the bill will only decrease future illegal immigration by 25%. Therefore we are looking at another 6.5 million illegal immigrants by 2023. So we will have to once again figure out what to do with 10 million illegal immigrants in 10 years.

Rand may be experiencing a surge now, but the IRS, NSA, Benghazi scandals will be long forgotten by the next presidential election, with help from the media. The future here certainly does not look good.

clairefontaine

I think it will be Hillary vs Rand at the end.

As for illegal immigration, people are sick of it at this stage, even the usually liberal college students because their usual summer jobs of mowing lawns and distributing leaflets are all taken by illegal immigrants.

Places like New York and LA secretly like illegal immigrants because they are plantation economies nd they get cheap labor. They pretend to be sympathetic but they like a cheap nanny.

shikaakwa312

Yeah that was my initial thought as well, Hilary and Rand. But I also think Chris Christie will be in the top 3. I think he is Rand's biggest threat to be honest, because he is a centrist and a rather conservative choice for many people. Plus he has shown the ability to work with dems which I think is attractive to many people. I couldnt agree more with the college students part, but they will still vote liberal because the only news they watch is Jon Stewart and Colbert, the latter is atleast funny but they are both extremely slanted and I dont think most people even realize it. I watch BBC news, and independent electronic sources because the media is a joke. People made a big deal about super pacs but I think Obama had a bigger advantage- the entire media (CNN, comedy central, hollywood, yahoo, etc.). Couldnt agree more with the NY and LA part either- plus they know that those people are future dems. But if it comes down to Hilary v Rand I like my chances because Hilary has constantly gone back and forth on her beliefs about every major issue. I just with the US was a more informed electorate, then I would have no worries about our future.

clairefontaine

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Yeah that was my initial thought as well, Hilary and Rand. But I also think Chris Christie will be in the top 3. I think he is Rand's biggest threat to be honest, because he is a centrist and a rather conservative choice for many people. Plus he has shown the ability to work with dems which I think is attractive to many people. I couldnt agree more with the college students part, but they will still vote liberal because the only news they watch is Jon Stewart and Colbert, the latter is atleast funny but they are both extremely slanted and I dont think most people even realize it. I watch BBC news, and independent electronic sources because the media is a joke. People made a big deal about super pacs but I think Obama had a bigger advantage- the entire media (CNN, comedy central, hollywood, yahoo, etc.). Couldnt agree more with the NY and LA part either- plus they know that those people are future dems. But if it comes down to Hilary v Rand I like my chances because Hilary has constantly gone back and forth on her beliefs about every major issue. I just with the US was a more informed electorate, then I would have no worries about our future.

The electorate voted in hopey changey. I'm not holding my breathnforbthem to smarten up anytime soon. The GOP is a mess. If you vote christie you may as well vote in Hilary. Conservatives from the trip state areas are like liberal fruitcakes in a place like Utah. It's all relative to the state you are in.

Conservatives could gain traction with the immigrants on family values. South Americans and Mexicans are mostly Catholics and socially conservative. Too bad the GOP are too stupid to tap into that.

shikaakwa312

I agree with the latino part but Id rather have Christie or Rubio than Hilary. Nothing to do with gender, I just think she is too wishy-washy and is not a true republican. If you look at her ideals they are the furthest from what the GOP stands for out of all the candidates. Either way, I do think the GOP will win in 2016. And I also believe Rand Paul will be in the top 4 and have as much of a shot as anybody.

clairefontaine

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

I agree with the latino part but Id rather have Christie or Rubio than Hilary. Nothing to do with gender, I just think she is too wishy-washy and is not a true republican. If you look at her ideals they are the furthest from what the GOP stands for out of all the candidates. Either way, I do think the GOP will win in 2016. And I also believe Rand Paul will be in the top 4 and have as much of a shot as anybody.

Hillary isn't a republican. She's a Clinton. She'll win the democratic primary. I was surprised she didn't last time.

The GOP don't like Rand. He's not as out there as his dad, but he's out there even for them.

shikaakwa312

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/21/republican-super-pac-vows-to-stop-hillary-2016/

I respectfully disagree b/c you cant go anywhere without the respect of your own party and its supporters (see above). She is under qualified as well and only minority GOPs will support her(not too many of those)- I call that the Obama effect when people vote purely due to things that relate to reverse discrimination as a means of "equality".

The GOP is absolutely in support of Rand (as shown below) but they are just skeptical of his chances. His dad wasnt out there, are you in favor of Rand Paul?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-republicans-favor-rand-paul-condi-rice-in-2016/article/2531211

clairefontaine

Hillary is a democrat. Of course the GOP doesn't support her.

Oh no no no no that article says they are favouring Condoleeza Rice along with Rand Paul. Big mistake GOP if that is true.

The GOP thought Ron was out there. They thought his foreign policy was unreal. I agree with a lot of what Ron Paul said, but I think he was making the path for his son in te end.

Jonny7

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/21/republican-super-pac-vows-to-stop-hillary-2016/

I respectfully disagree b/c you cant go anywhere without the respect of your own party and its supporters (see above). She is under qualified as well and only minority GOPs will support her(not too many of those)- I call that the Obama effect when people vote purely due to things that relate to reverse discrimination as a means of "equality".

The GOP is absolutely in support of Rand (as shown below) but they are just skeptical of his chances. His dad wasnt out there, are you in favor of Rand Paul?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/poll-republicans-favor-rand-paul-condi-rice-in-2016/article/2531211

Hilary is a democrat and one of the stronger (future) candidates.

The GOP are suffering Catholic church syndrome - they just seem out-dated, they need to modernise

shikaakwa312

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hilary is a democrat and one of the stronger (future) candidates.

The GOP are suffering Catholic church syndrome - they just seem out-dated, they need to modernise

1) I was referring to the Congressional caucauses, I can see how you were confused though that is my mistake I should have been clearer but I was lazy.

2) I am agnostic and I still support Rand and the GOP because they stand for limited government and supply side economics. What is outdated about low taxes, austerity, privacy, and limited government? Do you honestly think that in the 5 years Obama has been in office he has done anything for the people in inner cities? If liberals truly cared about them they would establish STEM programs and not shut down their schools (ie Rahm Emanuel), but instead they just spend money aimlessly. What do you mean modernization?

Hillary or Rand?

And we think we have it bad on our emerald shores.


I stand with Jesse Ventura.

20Cent

Thought Rand was out of favour in the GOP, even the libertarians don't like him at this stage. Zero chance on nomination as a republican maybe he could run as an independent.

clairefontaine

20Cent wrote: »

Thought Rand was out of favour in the GOP, even the libertarians don't like him at this stage. Zero chance on nomination as a republican maybe he could run as an independent.

He won't run as an independent because he'd split the vote.

Rand has no business running, as he won't get the GOP nomination, and he'll get nowhere as an independent, or third party candidate.

20Cent

clairefontaine wrote: »

He won't run as an independent because he'd split the vote.

Split what vote? The libertarians and independent vote is negligible.

clairefontaine

20Cent wrote: »

Split what vote? The libertarians and independent vote is negligible.

If he runs on an independent ticket hell split the republican vote.

20Cent

clairefontaine wrote: »

If he runs on an independent ticket hell split the republican vote.

I think that is vastly overestimating the influence Rand Paul has. He is less popular than his father and Ron never managed to make a dent or achieve anything in the 40 odd year career.

What makes anyone think Rand will do any better?

clairefontaine

20Cent wrote: »

I think that is vastly overestimating the influence Rand Paul has. He is less popular than his father and Ron never managed to make a dent or achieve anything in the 40 odd year career.

What makes anyone think Rand will do any better?

His filibuster put him in the spotlight. He has drawn lots of kudos for that.

Some say Hilary hasn't got a chance either, due to Benghazi.

20Cent

clairefontaine wrote: »

His filibuster put him in the spotlight. He has drawn lots of kudos for that.

Saw that even I was impressed and I'm far from a fan. He did mess it up two month later when he said.

“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

clairefontaine wrote: »

Some say Hilary hasn't got a chance either, due to Benghazi.

No one cares about Benghazi its a made up "scandal" by the republicans, most of them don't even care about it.

epluribusunum

Benghazi is no longer looking like a phony scandal. Given that the operatives are being polygraphed consistently, the U.S. is afraid of other embassy attacks this week, there were dozen of cia agents on the ground, and that Hilary is staying quiet while the press is getting the answers and not the administration.

"Whatever they were doing, the agency will like it to remain a secret."

http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-dozens-of-cia-operatives-on-the-ground-during-benghazi-attack/

Meanwhile, Rand Paul is on the up and becoming a favorite for 2016 and Hilary is sliding. Long ways away, but Rand v. Hilary is a possibility. I like Rand Paul's chances though because people realize he is way more moderate than his father and his father was too much for some people. Plus, people will associate Hilary with Obama and unless there is a drastic turnaround that will hurt her. Also, I think there will be less of a minority turnout who tend to vote democrat which would help Rand Paul. That is just a hypothesis of course.

RP 2016!

Jesse Ventura 2016.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Not until the progressive agenda puts America into financial collapse will we see a resurgence of the republican party. And the way things are going, perhaps that will be sooner rather than later.

Except the reality is that the republicans are working feverishly to make sure America financially collapses so they can blame it on the "progressive agenda" which has resulted in the republican congress being the most unpopular in decades and will most likely be decimated in the next election.

InTheTrees

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

2) I am agnostic and I still support Rand and the GOP because they stand for limited government and supply side economics.

Huh? They say they do but they're lying to you.

Rand pauls state of Kentucky is on of the largest "taker" states. I believe they get about $1.50 back for every $1 they send to washington in tax.

You just have to dig a little deeper than their rhetoric.

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except the reality is that the republicans are working feverishly to make sure America financially collapses so they can blame it on the "progressive agenda" which has resulted in the republican congress being the most unpopular in decades and will most likely be decimated in the next election.

I have rarely, if ever, heard anyone from either side of the aisle use the phrase "progressive agenda," you must be from overseas. Wow, so the Republicans are making sure America financially collapses? Then what would they do with all of their financial assets? (Because let's remember, Republicans have all the money, right?) A conspiracy theory from overseas, nice. Just because Obama has had one of the worst Presidencies in a long time does not mean it is okay to somehow blame the Republican Party. America has a 2 party system for a reason. I suggest you research that. And you are sorely mistaken if you believe that his terms will work against the Republicans because of Congress (friction in D.C. is nothing new), I think most people (~99.5%) will look to the President and his Administration before State Representatives. It is the role of the President to mediate and find solutions in D.C., but yet somehow this falls on Republican State Representatives? Beyond me.

I could discuss how bad Obama has been all day, but I would rather focus on the future because that is really all we have at the moment. And currently, Rand Paul is our best option in 2016 for all of America.

Lastly, you are not contributing anything but just making false allegations against other posters. Why is this?

Brian?

Rand Paul will not get nominated by the GOP. Not a hope in hell of it.

It's a pity he won't get the nomination. I'd
Have faith in him running a clean issues based campaign which would be refreshing. I hate his politics though, he's a weird sort of populist libertarian.

Karl Stein

Brian? wrote: »

he's a weird sort of populist libertarian.

Unsurprisingly, he's a pseudo-libertarian hypocrite.

I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I support a Human Life Amendment and have co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

In other words 'Big government is evil... unless it's acting in my interests'.

epluribusunum

Brian? wrote: »

Rand Paul will not get nominated by the GOP. Not a hope in hell of it.

It's a pity he won't get the nomination. I'd
Have faith in him running a clean issues based campaign which would be refreshing. I hate his politics though, he's a weird sort of populist libertarian.

May I ask what you are basing this off of? Because as of right now, by almost all accounts and outlets, he is a competitive front-runner. I agree it is not certain but there is clearly a chance, and a relatively high chance at that.

And I am unsure at what you mean by weird, does this mean you disagree with certain issues? If so, which ones?

epluribusunum

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, he's a pseudo-libertarian hypocrite.



In other words 'Big government is evil... unless it's acting in my interests'.

The easiest thing to do in life is to falsely label someone. Like others, you have not brought forth any reasoning, logic, facts, etc. to support your argument. Furthermore, why would you contribute to a thread in support of a candidate if you are not in support of the candidate?

You are probably just pro-abortion, and that is why you brought up 1 quote, which does not even correspond to what you replied with (Big Government What??)...

I get it, you were oppressed by religion and now in a thunderstorm of backlash the progressives in Ireland are trying to push abortion, I get it. But, are you seriously going to bash a candidate because he differs on abortion views?

The guy is a M.D., did you ever think of that? His father delivered 4,000 babies, maybe he feels that way because of that...

And I am unsure as to how he is a hypocrite because you did not bring forth anything to support that...

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

I have rarely, if ever, heard anyone from either side of the aisle use the phrase "progressive agenda," you must be from overseas.

Huh??

Overseas? Wtf? This is an Irish forum. What do you expect???

And anyway I'm in Seattle. Not that it matters.

If you'd taken a second to read my post you would see that I was quoting another poster who used the phrase "progressive agenda". I even made it Bold type in the quote so you wouldnt miss it. But you did.

A poster who's login name is "Amerika" so maybe the misspelling means he's "overseas" perhaps? That would explain it huh?

Given that you never read the entire post. Or at least understood it. There's not much point in commenting on anything else you wrote...

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

Furthermore, why would you contribute to a thread in support of a candidate if you are not in support of the candidate?

To point out the futility of pauls candidacy perhaps?

:eek:

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

Just because Obama has had one of the worst Presidencies in a long time does not mean it is okay to somehow blame the Republican Party.

ha ha ha

Nonsense. By what measure does Obama have one of the worst presidencies in a long time?

Right wing talk radio is about all.

The republican party is in disarray right now. The inexplicable assault on womens rights and the ignorance of minority needs has almost guaranteed a Democrat win in 2016 and we're still years away.

That paul is in the lead (what poll puts him in the lead anyway? Link??) is just because of the lack of candidates.

Remember the 2007 primaries?

InTheTrees

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, he's a pseudo-libertarian hypocrite.

In other words 'Big government is evil... unless it's acting in my interests'.

Really.

How many "libertarians" have ever been elected to congress? Two, a father and then his son.

That gives some idea of the widespread appeal of the "party" doesnt it? Only a little more relevant than ralph nader was.

InTheTrees

Really I think the only reason paul is getting press right now is his very public feud with gov Chris Christie of New Jersey.

From Politico:

"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the “hottest” political figure in the country, according to a new temperature poll.
Voters were asked to give politicians a number from 0-100 representing how they feel about that figure, with 0 being least favorable, or coldest, and 100 being most favorable, or warmest, in the new Quinnipiac survey on Monday."

"Christie’s mean score was 53.1, topping the heap. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in a close second, at 52.1 degrees, and third was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), at 49.2 degrees, although 51 percent of voters did not know enough about her to make a judgment."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/poll-gov-christie-the-hottest-95183.html#ixzz2b8iBQTWM

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh??

Overseas? Wtf? This is an Irish forum. What do you expect???

And anyway I'm in Seattle. Not that it matters.

If you'd taken a second to read my post you would see that I was quoting another poster who used the phrase "progressive agenda". I even made it Bold type in the quote so you wouldnt miss it. But you did.

A poster who's login name is "Amerika" so maybe the misspelling means he's "overseas" perhaps? That would explain it huh?

Given that you never read the entire post. Or at least understood it. There's not much point in commenting on anything else you wrote...

I expect people who can contribute information in an intelligent manner. It may be an Irish forum, but that does not mean a thing. It is an American based thread about a future American Presidential candidate. Again, you relayed nothing factual about anything related to politics but instead went back to nitpicking other posters...

Plus, your current location has nothing to do with your nationality. FYI.

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

ha ha ha

Nonsense. By what measure does Obama have one of the worst presidencies in a long time?

Right wing talk radio is about all.

The republican party is in disarray right now. The inexplicable assault on womens rights and the ignorance of minority needs has almost guaranteed a Democrat win in 2016 and we're still years away.

That paul is in the lead (what poll puts him in the lead anyway? Link??) is just because of the lack of candidates.

Remember the 2007 primaries?

Of the 13 Presidents since FDR, he has a worse average approval rating than 9 of them, and only better than 3 of them. His average approval rating thus far is a mere 49.0%, the lowest since Jimmy Carter who has not been President since 1981. The only ones lower than Obama since 1933
are Truman at 45.4%, Carter 45.5%, and Ford 47.2%. All 3 of which are in the discussion of worst President ever, so Obama should be in the discussion as well if we are being fair.

So he has the lowest approval rating since 1981, and among the worst since the 1930s...

Most people would agree that currently Rand Paul is in the lead or top 2 for 2016. There is not 1 poll that matters, but a bunch of separate polls but the vast majority would agree about his standing. The fact that you are unaware of this and yet still commenting on this thread is simply irresponsible.

Go to bed.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really.

How many "libertarians" have ever been elected to congress? Two, a father and then his son.

That gives some idea of the widespread appeal of the "party" doesnt it? Only a little more relevant than ralph nader was.

Yes but hes running on the republican ticket. Nadar ran as an independent.

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really I think the only reason paul is getting press right now is his very public feud with gov Chris Christie of New Jersey.

From Politico:

"New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the “hottest” political figure in the country, according to a new temperature poll.
Voters were asked to give politicians a number from 0-100 representing how they feel about that figure, with 0 being least favorable, or coldest, and 100 being most favorable, or warmest, in the new Quinnipiac survey on Monday."

"Christie’s mean score was 53.1, topping the heap. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in a close second, at 52.1 degrees, and third was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), at 49.2 degrees, although 51 percent of voters did not know enough about her to make a judgment."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/poll-gov-christie-the-hottest-95183.html#ixzz2b8iBQTWM

Well actually Paul's surge occurred before this feud. You either have a hard time grasping the facts or relaying them.

epluribusunum

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes but hes running on the republican ticket. Nadar ran as an independent.

I don't think this person understands the difference yet...

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes but hes running on the republican ticket. Nadar ran as an independent.

I'm talking about relevance not ideology.

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well actually Paul's surge occurred before this feud. You either have a hard time grasping the facts or relaying them.

But you're ujst asking us to believe your "facts"? You arent backing up your assertions with any kind of evidence therefore presumably it is mere supposition right?

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

The fact that you are unaware of this and yet still commenting on this thread is simply irresponsible.

Go to bed.

So agree with you or leave?

Seriously?

This is libertarian debate huh? "Shut up and go away!!"

:pac:

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

But you're ujst asking us to believe your "facts"? You arent backing up your assertions with any kind of evidence therefore presumably it is mere supposition right?

You either are not politically informed or have an awful memory. I think we all know which is one is the case.

Nobody is stopping you from looking up my so called "facts", as if they are not true. Most people informed wouldn't need a source for something that is as current as this exaggerated feud. It literally just happened lol, you do know this right?

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

So agree with you or leave?

Seriously?

This is libertarian debate huh? "Shut up and go away!!"

:pac:

So you don't want to respond to the lowest approval ratings since Jimmy Carter? You avoided that completely. I am beginning to think you are a troll.

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

Well actually Paul's surge occurred before this feud.

SO he surged before?

And now people get to compare him to Christie he's lost the lead.

hmmm.

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

Nobody is stopping you from looking up my so called "facts", as if they are not true.

Ah... so you can make some grand pronouncement and then expect us to verify it?

Get real kid. Thats not debating. Thats just silly.

You need to back up the "facts" you are presenting as truth with something other than your imagination. Which I admit is active.

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

So you don't want to respond to the lowest approval ratings since Jimmy Carter?

Unverified fiction.

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

Most people informed wouldn't need a source for something that is as current as this exaggerated feud. It literally just happened lol, you do know this right?

BS.

You cant just sprout nonsense as truth and then expect us to prove you wrong.

You have to back up your claims. Its called debating.

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

Ah... so you can make some grand pronouncement and then expect us to verify it?

Get real kid. Thats not debating. Thats just silly.

You need to back up the "facts" you are presenting as truth with something other than your imagination. Which I admit is active.

THE FEUD JUST OCCURRED THIS PAST WEEK. DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW TIME WORKS? PLEASE TELL ME I DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN TIME TO YOU TOO. JESUS CHRIST.

RAND PAUL WAS A FAVORITE FOR THE GOP BEFORE THE FEUD! EVERYBODY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE KNOWS THIS! THAT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT IT, BECAUSE IT IS THE 2 TOP GUYS!

I bet you do not even know what the feud was about. Not really a feud to begin with. Considering how Rand asked him to grab a beer with him immediately after, and the content of the words were not really bad. Nothing was really sad, but just posturing. It was just something the media blew up for ratings, and liberals like it because it makes the GOP look weaker than it really is.