Rand Paul 2016

Brian?

epluribusunum wrote: »

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.

Approval ratings are the measure of a Presidency? That's ridiculous. It's not an objective measure of anything.

As as I recall Obama had less than a 40% approval rating right up to his re election. He won handily though.

Any idea what Messiah Reagans approval ratings were at the end?

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

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

Chris christie will never win. Stupid choice. Americans will never vote for a fat candidate. Just like Ron Paul would never win because she's too feeble looking. We are too superficial for that.

The GOP base are lost. Utterly clueless.

Both parties suck.

epluribusunum

It is concerning when someone says the following things:


1) Approval ratings are not a measure of a President's performance.
Are you serious or toying with me?

2) Basing something off historical precedent that is about 5 years old.
The tea party movement originated in 2008, and did not gain momentum and become widely known until 2011, so how can you possibly extrapolate that into past or future elections? That is absurd.

3) Polling at a certain point diminishes what people believe in that respective time.
Polling is not inaccurate currently, but it just is not completely indicative of what the feelings will be 3 years from now. However, a poll now is just as accurate now as 3 years from now. The polls currently are a reflection of beliefs currently, but not a reflection of accuracy. Therefore, if Rand Paul is in the lead now then by all accounts he is the favorite for 2016 at the moment, it is really that simple.

4) Believing that Joe Biden even has a chance in 2016.
I don't know where to even begin. Clinton already has that locked up far and away.

5) The GOP will not nominate a libertarian.
I agree with this to an extent. However, Rand is much moderate than his father. The GOP will nominate anybody they can who will win and support their main interests. If you actually researched Rand Paul you would realize that there is a vast difference between your perception of him and reality. I can tell because you are saying the exact information that everybody else says about him being a libertarian. Also, the fact that you did not mention a single thing you disagree with him about when asked to do so.

Also, the GOP recognizes that the young voters associate with the Pauls. They would have no problem putting him in office if they thought he had a reasonable shot at winning, which he clearly does. They want young support because if the GOP remains on its current path then it will become decimated. Libertarianism is why the young voters like him, and why it would be a smart nominee.

epluribusunum

I am going to stop defending the guy, no point at all really.

I just like the guy because he is against domestic spying, domestic drone attacks, wants to decrease the size of our military, diminish foreign aid to nations that hate us, not be a slave to Israel, understands why radical Muslims hate us, still believes in the Constitution, is against evading other nations and then building them up all under a guise of a special interest, and I could continue but you get the point.

Jeb Bush vs. Joe Biden vs. Hilary Clinton vs. Marco Rubio etc. all those politicians at the end of the day are going to carry out more or less the same result for the average tax payer. With a guy like Rand Paul there is hope that he will put the electorate first and protect the Constitution.

I highly suggest anybody even slightly interested in this debate watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX1_yekpHoE

He was in the minority that thought this way in D.C. Why? Because if we stop sending aid to Egypt it is bad for Israel. What about America? Detroit is bankrupt and yet we are sending over money to Egypt without batting an eye while their citizens burn our flag and overthrow their government. What about the problems back home? That is concerning when the Government has that much power with tax revenue and most citizens are unaware. Meanwhile, our national debt just continues to increase. Plus, it was an unlawful act to send Egypt foreign aid. Once a military coup occurs, all foreign aid must stop. Was it not a military coup? Of course it was, it most definitely was an overthrowing of their government.

We need change, and not the Obama kind. Real Change.

Brian?

epluribusunum wrote: »

It is concerning when someone says the following things:

Why is it concerning exactly?

1) Approval ratings are not a measure of a President's performance.
Are you serious or toying with me?

I am completely serious. An approval rating is a completely subjective measure of performance. If you're not willing to be objective there is no point in rating anything, you may as well express your opinion and leave it at that. There's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion, here or anywhere, it's what I'm doing but let's not pretend we're being objective while expressing out opinions.

2) Basing something off historical precedent that is about 5 years old.
The tea party movement originated in 2008, and did not gain momentum and become widely known until 2011, so how can you possibly extrapolate that into past or future elections? That is absurd.

Ha? By historical precedent I mean that the GOP have never nominated a libertarian. Ron Paul never even got close despite his massive fund raising.

3) Polling at a certain point diminishes what people believe in that respective time.
Polling is not inaccurate currently, but it just is not completely indicative of what the feelings will be 3 years from now. However, a poll now is just as accurate now as 3 years from now. The polls currently are a reflection of beliefs currently, but not a reflection of accuracy. Therefore, if Rand Paul is in the lead now then by all accounts he is the favorite for 2016 at the moment, it is really that simple.

I shouldn't have said inaccurate. I meant current polling is a poor indication of the final result.

4) Believing that Joe Biden even has a chance in 2016.
I don't know where to even begin. Clinton already has that locked up far and away.

Again I'll cite historical precedence. Clinton was a lock in 2008 as well. Joe Biden does have a chance, a big chance. I'd worry about how the GOP smear him in the general, but personally I'd rather see him run than Clinton.

I have a feeling I may be more in touch with the feelings of Democrats than you.

5) The GOP will not nominate a libertarian.
I agree with this to an extent. However, Rand is much moderate than his father. The GOP will nominate anybody they can who will win and support their main interests. If you actually researched Rand Paul you would realize that there is a vast difference between your perception of him and reality. I can tell because you are saying the exact information that everybody else says about him being a libertarian. Also, the fact that you did not mention a single thing you disagree with him about when asked to do so.

Look, I'm not going to not pick at Rand Paul about single policy issues. I'm a socialist. I disagree with the basic philosophy of libertanarianism. Hate it in fact.

I realise Rand is more moderate than his father. As I said a weird populist libertarian.

Also, the GOP recognizes that the young voters associate with the Pauls. They would have no problem putting him in office if they thought he had a reasonable shot at winning, which he clearly does. They want young support because if the GOP remains on its current path then it will become decimated. Libertarianism is why the young voters like him, and why it would be a smart nominee.

Young people don't win elections. The GOP know that.

To win the white house in 2016 the GOP need to nominate someone who's conservative enough to bring out the male white vote in huge numbers. But
not be too conservative to alienate women. They will also need to have a decent track record on immigration. A fine balance and not one Rand Paul has.

Bush v Biden.

Amerika

epluribusunum wrote: »

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

This is often regarded as one of the most accurate polling organizations.

Good one there! Sure made me laugh.

Public Policy Polling is a Democratic polling firm, and proved themselves to be a joke with adding George Zimmerman as a possible Republican contender in the 2016 presidential election. Zimmerman is a registered Democrat, voted for Obama, and his age dictates that he constitutionally would not be allowed to become president in 2016. Therefore simply a sham of a poll. But one has to wonder, why not put Zimmerman into the Democratic polling data to see how he would stack up against the list of potential Democratic contenders? But we know why! Only done to make republicans look bad with the fever pitch of hate by so many against Zimmerman’s verdict.

theUbiq

Does it really matter who the President of Amerika is? It's the industrial military complex running the show, isn't it?

Amerika

theUbiq wrote: »

Does it really matter who the President of Amerika is? It's the industrial military complex running the show, isn't it?

Don't know about that, maybe it had been the case in time past. But today it’s now the 47% who vote not with small arms, but with open arms expecting a handout.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Don't know about that, maybe it had been the case in time past. But today it’s now the 47% who vote not with small arms, but with open arms expecting a handout.

Wow.

You're taking Romneys biggest lie and makingit a mantra? That's brilliant.

InTheTrees

Bill Maher on libertarianism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVSUOGBVQko

theUbiq

Amerika wrote: »

Don't know about that, maybe it had been the case in time past. But today it’s now the 47% who vote not with small arms, but with open arms expecting a handout.

Isn't this because successive amerikan administrations have spent more money on offense (it's hardly defense!) instead of job creation and infrastructure... so, as I said, the industrial military complex runs the failed state that is Amerika. The president is a figurehead for a corrupt government. Imagine this, here's 50 million dollars.. now, get that bill passed. Sound familiar?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Wow.

You're taking Romneys biggest lie and makingit a mantra? That's brilliant.

Not a lie. Just becasue it's an unpopular opinion, doesn't make it untrue.

Lets look at ObamaCare as an example. It truly is a train wreck. The only way of saving it, is to early on have people rely on the subsidies they will receive from the government, based on lower incomes, to keep them able to afford healthcare, regardless if it will double and triple the government debt. Then it will be next to impossible to end it as we just can't seem to end costly government provided benefit programs here. And that is exactly what is currently happening.

Amerika

theUbiq wrote: »

Isn't this because successive amerikan administrations have spent more money on offense (it's hardly defense!) instead of job creation and infrastructure... so, as I said, the industrial military complex runs the failed state that is Amerika. The president is a figurehead for a corrupt government. Imagine this, here's 50 million dollars.. now, get that bill passed. Sound familiar?

But wasn’t that what all that stimulus money was supposed to do from the Obama administration… go to job creation and infrastructure. Little money actually went to those areas, and it just didn’t matter… he still got reelected. Yes government is corrupt. Reublicans protect businesses and capitalism. Democrats protect businesses and special interests, while fooling the 47% into thinking they are helping them, and in the process everyone gets screwed IMO.

Karl Stein

theUbiq wrote: »

Isn't this because successive amerikan administrations have spent more money on offense (it's hardly defense!) instead of job creation and infrastructure

The US has had a deep love affair with military Keynesianism.

The US Department of War is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million workforce.

The '47%' is such a convenient 'wedge' number. It just happens to split the US into two halves. I wonder what PR team came up with that propaganda.

InTheTrees

theUbiq wrote: »

Imagine this, here's 50 million dollars.. now, get that bill passed. Sound familiar?

No, it doesnt.

You think you can get a bill passed by paying $50m for it? To who? What bills? Can you name one?

It sounds more like ill thought out anti-us babble from people who dont really understand the process.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Lets look at ObamaCare as an example. It truly is a train wreck.

US "healthcare" is a laughing stock in the world. Its an absolute joke.

And its been an election topic for decades.

However since Obama has proposed reform, suddenly the republicans love the old system and dont want anything to do with changing it. Not only that but they're desperately trying to block reform of any kind at every opportunity. There was an orwellan change of policy from the repubs the moment Obama was elected. First they argued for reform and then they love love love the dysfunctional insurancce company driven system already in place.

Its a large part of the reason the house republicans have the lowest approval rating in history.

They know its a pandoras box because once the public gets a taste for it; the republicans will have to propose repealing it in the next election and that will be very difficult.

InTheTrees

theUbiq wrote: »

Isn't this because successive amerikan administrations have spent more money on offense (it's hardly defense!) instead of job creation and infrastructure...

Where do you think the vast amount of money spent on offense actually goes? I believe the defense (ok...offense) industry is actually the largest employer in Southern Calfornia. A large proportion of the united states depend on the defense industry salaries for their livelihod. And most of the money is spent domestically.

This is the American way. Apart from a few years after Vietnam I believe the united States has been at war almost continuously since... the civil war? The 1880's? Maybe.

SO were any of those wars justified in your opinion?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Not a lie. Just becasue it's an unpopular opinion, doesn't make it untrue.

It is a lie. It's a completely made up figure.

Lets look at ObamaCare as an example. It truly is a train wreck. The only way of saving it, is to early on have people rely on the subsidies they will receive from the government, based on lower incomes, to keep them able to afford healthcare, regardless if it will double and triple the government debt. Then it will be next to impossible to end it as we just can't seem to end costly government provided benefit programs here. And that is exactly what is currently happening.

This has zero to do with the point at hand. You're obfusticating because you threw out a made up statistic like it had some sort of basis in reality.

I'll humour you though. Give me the data that shows how much the affordable healthcare act is costing.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

US "healthcare" is a laughing stock in the world. Its an absolute joke.

And its been an election topic for decades.

However since Obama has proposed reform, suddenly the republicans love the old system and dont want anything to do with changing it. Not only that but they're desperately trying to block reform of any kind at every opportunity. There was an orwellan change of policy from the repubs the moment Obama was elected. First they argued for reform and then they love love love the dysfunctional insurancce company driven system already in place.

Its a large part of the reason the house republicans have the lowest approval rating in history.

They know its a pandoras box because once the public gets a taste for it; the republicans will have to propose repealing it in the next election and that will be very difficult.

Healthcare was affordable before Nixon brought in the HMOs.

My problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't tackle why healthcare is so expensive in the first place. Obamacare will push up the prices because it will work like a subsidy, much like what we've seen happen to college tuition through student loans.

theUbiq

InTheTrees wrote: »

Where do you think the vast amount of money spent on offense actually goes? I believe the defense (ok...offense) industry is actually the largest employer in Southern Calfornia. A large proportion of the united states depend on the defense industry salaries for their livelihod. And most of the money is spent domestically.

This is the American way. Apart from a few years after Vietnam I believe the united States has been at war almost continuously since... the civil war? The 1880's? Maybe.

SO were any of those wars justified in your opinion?

In my opinion; the only justified war they were involved in was WW2 but you're probably expecting that answer...

clairefontaine

theUbiq wrote: »

In my opinion; the only justified war they were involved in was WW2 but you're probably expecting that answer...

Bosnia, maybe.

We should stay out of the Middle East. Bottomless thankless pit.

theUbiq

InTheTrees wrote: »

No, it doesnt.

You think you can get a bill passed by paying $50m for it? To who? What bills? Can you name one?

It sounds more like ill thought out anti-us babble from people who don't really understand the process.

Sure, you keep on believing the lobbying system isn't corrupt in the most corrupt country in the world... next you'll be telling us it's a functioning democracy and not a plutocratic idiocracy. Are you another brainwashed twit from the land of the free?

theUbiq

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bosnia, maybe.

We should stay out of the Middle East. Bottomless thankless pit.

Which side did they back in Bosnia?

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

Healthcare was affordable before Nixon brought in the HMOs.

My problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't tackle why healthcare is so expensive in the first place. Obamacare will push up the prices because it will work like a subsidy, much like what we've seen happen to college tuition through student loans.

The US spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare, a large part of why costs are so high is that US taxpayers have to subsidize emergency care of the uninsured. That will certainly change.

(The libertarian position presumably is to let those who cant afford healthcare die in the street.)

All americans who have employer provided insurance experience the mandatory yearly meetings were the insurance companies detail the cuts to benefits and the raises in premiums for the upcoming year. It was/is a disgrace.

So to be told by congressional republicans (who have their own special health insurance), that its the best we're able to come up with, is so disingenuous its shocking. No wonder mitch macconnel (Senior repub in the senate) is looking like he may lose is seat.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

The US spends more per capita than any other country on healthcare, a large part of why costs are so high is that US taxpayers have to subsidize emergency care of the uninsured. That will certainly change.

(The libertarian position presumably is to let those who cant afford healthcare die in the street.)

All americans who have employer provided insurance experience the mandatory yearly meetings were the insurance companies detail the cuts to benefits and the raises in premiums for the upcoming year. It was/is a disgrace.

So to be told by congressional republicans (who have their own special health insurance), that its the best we're able to come up with, is so disingenuous its shocking. No wonder mitch macconnel (Senior repub in the senate) is looking like he may lose is seat.

Hospitals and doctors are the only places hat don't have to be transparent about their costs. You walk into the ER or the clinic. They do whatever they l,e and send you a bill, often padded.

It's ridiculous that you go to the doctor with a chest infection and come out with a $300 bill. How about the dentist while we are at at? I was quoted $540 for a cleaning, check up, x rays. Jesus Christ. Where do they come up with these numbers?

Honestly, both republicans and Obama are going to have to come up with something better, because it won't work. It will just drive the costs up even more. Obama,a forcing people through IRS enforcement is so unacceptable I don't even know where to start with my objections there are so many.

InTheTrees

theUbiq wrote: »

In my opinion; the only justified war they were involved in was WW2 but you're probably expecting that answer...

Try not to be so belligerent(!). You said they should spend money on jobs instead and I was just pointing out the War funding provides a huge amount of jobs.

I've never said anything about agreeing or disagreeing with it. You're filling all that in with your ingrained attitude.

What about Korea? or WWW1?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

It is a lie. It's a completely made up figure.

Is it not true that only about half of the 138 million tax filers in the US actually pay any federal income tax? Sorta sounds close to the 47% number to me.

I'll humour you though. Give me the data that shows how much the affordable healthcare act is costing.

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) now projects that Obamacare will cost $1.8 (that’s $1,800,000,000,000) trillion over the next 10 years. And since only about half of the 138 million tax filers in the US actually pay any federal income tax (from above)…. That comes out to $26,000 for each of us to pay for someone else… WHAT A DEAL!
　
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf

But to keep things on topic, Rand Paul had a humorous solution to ObamaCare he gave on a recent radio show: "I’m thinking about lobbying to become an illegal immigrant so I wouldn’t have to participate in Obamacare"

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Is it not true that only about half of the 138 million tax filers in the US actually pay any federal income tax? Sorta sounds close to the 47% number to me.

So you're supporting increased taxation now?

But no it's another side step isn't it. How many of that 138 million live in red states and vote republican I wonder. Which states pay the least tax? Romney said that 47% of people would vote for Obama because they were getting hand outs. Yet the states that give the least and recieve the most from the federal government are all red states.

This 47% number you love is an unquantifiable myth. Have the decency to admit that.

The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) now projects that Obamacare will cost $1.8 (that’s $1,800,000,000,000) trillion over the next 10 years. And since only about half of the 138 million tax filers in the US actually pay any federal income tax (from above)…. That comes out to $26,000 for each of us to pay for someone else… WHAT A DEAL!
　
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf

I said show me some data on what it is costing. Not projections. Can you do that? I'm not being smart, can you show me those numbers?

But to keep things on topic, Rand Paul had a humorous solution to ObamaCare he gave on a recent radio show: "I’m thinking about lobbying to become an illegal immigrant so I wouldn’t have to participate in Obamacare"

Good man Rand. You're hilarious.

I'm delighted that's all it takes to energise you and your tea party friends. A quick witted slightly charismatic man who had never been elected to any office before 2010. Not a hope of him being nominated.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

So you're supporting increased taxation now?

But no it's another side step isn't it. How many of that 138 million live in red states and vote republican I wonder. Which states pay the least tax? Romney said that 47% of people would vote for Obama because they were getting hand outs. Yet the states that give the least and recieve the most from the federal government are all red states.

This 47% number you love is an unquantifiable myth. Have the decency to admit that.

Moving the goalposts now are we?

I said show me some data on what it is costing. Not projections. Can you do that? I'm not being smart, can you show me those numbers?

So you have a way of knowing figures before they happen other than quantifiable expert predictions. Wow, and if so, the Powerball drawing is $400 million tomorrow. Get back to me with those 6 winning numbers ASAP (before the drawing that is) and I’ll be happy to split it with you. (and I am being smart )

Good man Rand. You're hilarious.

I'm delighted that's all it takes to energise you and your tea party friends. A quick witted slightly charismatic man who had never been elected to any office before 2010. Not a hope of him being nominated.

I agree Rand Paul is a long shot at best. Better to make a point of humor to get across the boondoggle that is ObamaCare, then be one of the Democrats who bought into the lies and thought they were achieving a political triumph free of any cost…. Which now might just cost them the mid-term elections?