Rand Paul 2016

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.

InTheTrees

epluribusunum wrote: »

RAND PAUL WAS A FAVORITE FOR THE GOP BEFORE THE FEUD! EVERYBODY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE KNOWS THIS!

Shouting doesnt make it true.

He was a tea party favourite and thats about it. I bet rove loathes him.

Oh and i guess after his father he was the only other libertarian who managed to get elected.

epluribusunum

You want me to verify things that everybody knows. You are the definition of a moron. Good luck in life pal, you are going to need it. Most people would laugh in your face for the stuff you are saying. Honestly, I do not who you are or how old you are but I seriously hope you get an education. The sooner the better.

It is the equivalent of me providing you with a source that 5 X 5=25. You would probably say "Oh well if you can't provide a source that it is not true" Are you kidding me? I should not have to do that, you should know the answer already. Don't come into a political thread saying idiotic things to well-educated people because you will never win. Never.

AND YES OBAMA HAS THE LOWEST APPROVAL RATING SINCE 1981, AND ONE OF THE WORST SINCE 1933. THAT IS NOT FICTION.

Black Swan

MOD REMINDER:
Some of the recent posts on this thread have gotten too personal. Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

stainluss

Well I never thought I'd see support for dissident Republicans on the boards! :P

I'm socialist but I do like the way that the Paul's have radically different ideas from other candidates; something that stands out from the usual white noise.
Having said that the link between the Tea Party movement and the Koch brothers is incredibly unnerving; it's beginning to seem practically impossible to get anywhere in politics without big business - which will lead us to a least smelly **** contest which can be very hard for the public (esp. the American public IMO) to adjudicate...

clairefontaine

Paul surged after his lengthy filibuster. He's on c span all the time it seems.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

I'm talking about relevance not ideology.

I'm talking practically. If he runs on the republican ticket in the primaries he won't split the vote like Nadar did.

epluribusunum

clairefontaine wrote: »

Paul surged after his lengthy filibuster. He's on c span all the time it seems.

Bingo!

InTheTrees

He may have "surged" but he's still behind Christie and Clinton in the polls.

epluribusunum

InTheTrees wrote: »

He may have "surged" but he's still behind Christie and Clinton in the polls.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_725.pdf

This is often regarded as one of the most accurate polling organizations. It shows Paul in front for the GOP and in many other polls Paul is ahead of Christie. There are others where it is the opposite but the majority have Paul. As well as the general consensus of independent and mainstream media, which is rather rare.

It also has Clinton ahead of both which is the case. However, her stock is falling as it points out and as I said earlier she will be highly associated with Obama.

Plus, Clinton is the only thing Dems have, lets be honest. Once all of the GOP gets behind Paul he will have yet another surge. I like his odds against Hilary in a debate as well. But I am sure you do not watch c-span but get your news from a leftist organization.

Brian?

epluribusunum wrote: »

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.

I'm basing it on historical precedent. The GOP base will not nominate a libertarian . And I mean the real base, not the Tea Party.

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

I disagree with Rand Paul about so much my hand would fall off if I started listing it. What I meant was that libertarian and populist is a very strange mix, weird, but Rand is trying it. Polling at this point is wildly inaccurate.

Chris Christie is far more likely. Although the GOP establishment might owe him something for turning on Romney during hurticane Sandy.

I suppose Rubio is in with a shout. It could be Jeb though.

Jeb Bush v Joe Biden 2016. I'm sticking to that.