Rand Paul

Paleface

Am I right in saying that he's looking increasingly likely to be the GOP candidate for the 2016 election?

I know it's early days and most definitely there is a lot to play for but I was sure it would be Christie and his hopes look dead in the water.

Manach

Well based on the CPAC poll (Guardian link) it would appear he is one of the early front runners. But as a week is a lifetime in politics, tis early days yet.

Paleface

Manach wrote: »

Well based on the CPAC poll (Guardian link) it would appear he is one of the early front runners. But as a week is a lifetime in politics, tis early days yet.

I saw that exact article which is why I started the thread. Hopefully some other boards members with their ears closer to the ground can offer a clearer picture.

At the end if the day CPAC is a hardliner GOP love in. Palin brought the house down with her speech seemingly!

Rubio and Ryan are the other obvious candidates but I just can't see the majority of Americans voting for either when the chips are down for various reasons.

ChicagoJoe

11 percent was a big improvement in the presidential poll, up from 4 percent in last year’s straw poll. However I think he has been walking a fine line trying to bring different groups within the GOP together, like the libertarians, the fiscal conservatives etc

benway

Ears are no closer to the ground than anyone else's, but I'm going to venture my 2¢ anyway.

Personally can't see it working for Randall - he's really whiter than white in a country that's going the other way. Plus he's got the baggage of papa's well documented bigotry to deal with, as per his newsletters. Then there's his own plagiarism, neo-Confederate and civil rights act gaffes. And all the "war on Christianity" stuff (which in fairness might play well in certain quarters), “if there was a war on women, I think they won”.

Not a great look in a country where winning over Angry White Man is no longer sufficient to take the White House.

Plus, he's odd, spiky and prone to mental reservations, can't see him going over particularly well in televised debates or with the level of hive-mind fact checking he's likely to face as a candidate.

Don't see him having a prayer if (big if) the Republicans know what's good for them: not as patently unelectable as his pops, but still not seeing it myself - Ryan and/or Rubio would have to be a better bet.

sin_city

Wonder if the media plan on blacking him out a bit like they did his Dad?

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Wonder if the media plan on blacking him out a bit like they did his Dad?

Explain to me how exactly Ron Paul got "blacked out" by the media. He was never off the TV during the run up to the GOP primaries as far as I remember. Even when Romney became the clear leader a lot of the talk was of whether Paul was going to tow the GOP line or not.

Typical of his hypocrisy he endorsed Romney in the end.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Explain to me how exactly Ron Paul got "blacked out" by the media. He was never off the TV during the run up to the GOP primaries as far as I remember. Even when Romney became the clear leader a lot of the talk was of whether Paul was going to tow the GOP line or not.

Typical of his hypocrisy he endorsed Romney in the end.

Just watch the video....

He never endorsed Romney

You are misinformed.

20Cent

sin_city wrote: »

Just watch the video....

He never endorsed Romney

You are misinformed.

Here's a video of Rand Paul announcing he will be supporting Romney for the presidency.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624.html

sin_city

20Cent wrote: »

Here's a video of Rand Paul announcing he will be supporting Romney for the presidency.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/rand-paul-endorses-romney-125624.html

That's Rand....I was saying Ron never endorsed Romney.

I guess if he plays the game he'll get less blacked out than his Dad.....Do you think his Dad was blacked out?

20Cent

sin_city wrote: »

That's Rand....I was saying Ron never endorsed Romney.

I guess if he plays the game he'll get less blacked out than his Dad.....Do you think his Dad was blacked out?

MMMMMMMMM ok.

I think Ron got an easy time from the press they pretty they pretty much ignored the story of his racist newsletter. Would like to see Rand getting some hardball interviews.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Just watch the video....

He never endorsed Romney

You are misinformed.

I will look into that, I was fairly sure if heard him endorse Romney.

That video is poorly edited BS. if you lived in the US during the run up to the 2012 primaries you'd know Ron Paul received more than his fair share if media coverage.

I was sick of looking at him. Even MSNBC seemed to be obsessed with him.

You go ahead and comfort yourself with libertarian conspiracy theories about media coverage though.

Brian?

Looks like I was wrong.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1831779/

He minced his words on Romney.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

You go ahead and comfort yourself with libertarian conspiracy theories about media coverage though.

I don't think Jon Stewart is libertarian...he agrees with the lack of coverage...you'd see that if you looked at the video.

It's pretty obvious to be honest.

On Rand, I was dissapointed that he endorsed Mitt Romney but perhaps he is playing the game a little....it's not like you will get elected unless you are a republican or democrat.

Ron Paul knew he would never get elected but his intention to highlight issues on the Fed and the debt came through and no matter how the media tried to hide him, thank goodness for the internet...we can see he is a consistent polician who has never changed his views and never accepted donations from lobbyists.

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

I don't think Jon Stewart is libertarian...he agrees with the lack of coverage...you'd see that if you looked at the video.

John Stewart loved Ron Paul for reasons I can't quite fathom.

It's pretty obvious to be honest.

It's not obvious at all if you'd sat through the 2012 primary coverage and Ron Paul was always on the TV. It was endless.

On Rand, I was dissapointed that he endorsed Mitt Romney but perhaps he is playing the game a little....it's not like you will get elected unless you are a republican or democrat.

Ron Paul knew he would never get elected but his intention to highlight issues on the Fed and the debt came through and no matter how the media tried to hide him, thank goodness for the internet...we can see he is a consistent polician who has never changed his views and never accepted donations from lobbyists.

Ron Paul pretends to have the solutions while remaining part of the problem. He's happy to remain part of the GOP and sit for them in congress. If he was true to his supposed libertarian beliefs then he would have left the GOP years ago.

Amerika

The GOP field is still wide open. It’s a varied lot with no real standout at this point. Rand Paul is currently leading the pack but he isn’t pulling away. It’s interesting that Jeb Bush’s name remains with the top contenders even though he didn’t attend CPAC. And Mitt Romney is getting renewed attention in the media. Some of the names in the GOP field have already visited Iowa, but there is still no frontrunner. I don't know if that's good or bad. At least it keeps some in the media from launching a preemptive crusade to take down the GOP frontrunner early on as was the case with Christie.

On the other side, the FL 13 special election has scared the hell out of the Dems. I don’t think you will hear much about Hillary Clinton until after the November election. I think the Dems want her to remain relatively silent about a run for president so political donations aren’t siphoned off from Senate candidates with the Senate now likely to go under GOP control.

comongethappy

Do you think Mitt could run again?

I know people may not want to back a twice over loser, but I always found him likeable & intelligent.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

John Stewart loved Ron Paul for reasons I can't quite fathom.

He is loyal to the US constitution and has been ever since he entered into politics. He doesn't change his views. He doesn't take money from lobbyists. He's anti-war.

During the 2012 GOP race he received more donations from the military than all others combined.

He predicted and warned of the crash years and even decades in advance.

Stewart is left wing but I'm sure he respects someone with integrity and intelligence like Ron Paul.

He calls Snowden a patriot while others want him executed.

Brian? wrote: »

It's not obvious at all if you'd sat through the 2012 primary coverage and Ron Paul was always on the TV. It was endless.

Simply not true. No point in debating this with you. I can show you links, videos and so on but you won't change your mind even when evidence stares you in the face.

Brian? wrote: »

Ron Paul pretends to have the solutions while remaining part of the problem.

Ron Paul in 2002 on the housing bubblehttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/

His solution is based on Austrian economics....he has warned and is warning about the dangers of our current system.

Based on history Austrian economics works well.

He was right before....I never heard any other politicians predicting the housing crash in the US in advance in such detail....Did you? Please let me hear more of these people.

Brian? wrote: »

He's happy to remain part of the GOP and sit for them in congress. If he was true to his supposed libertarian beliefs then he would have left the GOP years ago.

He did this to highlight the cause of liberty and he did a good job. You know it is difficult to get exposure without being in one of the major two parties?

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

He is loyal to the US constitution and has been ever since he entered into politics. He doesn't change his views. He doesn't take money from lobbyists. He's anti-war.

During the 2012 GOP race he received more donations from the military than all others combined.

He predicted and warned of the crash years and even decades in advance.

Stewart is left wing but I'm sure he respects someone with integrity and intelligence like Ron Paul.

He calls Snowden a patriot while others want him executed.

Stewart is not left wing. He's liberal by US standards. I don't see the point in admiring Someone's "integrity" when i completely disagree with their philosophy.

Simply not true. No point in debating this with you. I can show you links, videos and so on but you won't change your mind even when evidence stares you in the face.

My point again: the evidence "stared me in the face " in 2012. No terribly edited video years after the fact is going to change that. I sat through the coverage in the US. Did you?

Ron Paul in 2002 on the housing bubblehttp://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/

His solution is based on Austrian economics....he has warned and is warning about the dangers of our current system.

Based on history Austrian economics works well.

That old chestnut again! Highly debatable and this isn't the thread for the debate.

He was right before....I never heard any other politicians predicting the housing crash in the US in advance in such detail....Did you? Please let me hear more of these people.

Well done him. What exactly did he do to effect positive change based on these predictions?

He did this to highlight the cause of liberty and he did a good job. You know it is difficult to get exposure without being in one of the major two parties?

As long as he sits in Congress as a member of a party who's policies don't reflect his own philosophy then he's a hypocrite.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Stewart is not left wing. He's liberal by US standards. I don't see the point in admiring Someone's "integrity" when i completely disagree with their philosophy.

You do understand that liberal in US standards is left wing?

He and sites like the Young Turks are not in favour at all with Ron Paul's message regarding Welfare but they understand that it is his opinion....not that of a lobbyist. Do you understand the difference?

Brian? wrote: »

My point again: the evidence "stared me in the face " in 2012. No terribly edited video years after the fact is going to change that. I sat through the coverage in the US. Did you?

Yes I did. I was staying with my friend in New York for a 2.5 months.

Brian? wrote: »

That old chestnut again! Highly debatable and this isn't the thread for the debate.

Only debatable if you ignore history.

Brian? wrote: »

Well done him. What exactly did he do to effect positive change based on these predictions?

He got me, and many others to understand what is coming regarding fiat currencies and this is allowing us to prepare for the next financial crisis.

Brian? wrote: »

As long as he sits in Congress as a member of a party who's policies don't reflect his own philosophy then he's a hypocrite.

He doesn't sit in Congress now.

Is this all a wind up? It must be....well done mate, you got me

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

You do understand that liberal in US standards is left wing?

It's not a point work worth arguing, the classification of left/right wing is far to arbitrary to debate I suppose. I'll just say I wouldn't consider US liberals left wing by my own standards.

He and sites like the Young Turks are not in favour at all with Ron Paul's message regarding Welfare but they understand that it is his opinion....not that of a lobbyist. Do you understand the difference?

I don't appreciate the tone of this, quite condescending.

I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, Ron Paul's integrity should be admires because he's not swayed by lobbyists. You're wrong. I can't possible admire his integrity when I detest his philosophy. Do you understand me now?

Yes I did. I was staying with my friend in New York for a 2.5 months.

And what was your verdict at the time?

Terribly edited YouTube videos created by Ron Paul supporters are not evidence. Can we at least agree on that?

Only debatable if you ignore history.

Highly debatable if you are a student of history.

He got me, and many others to understand what is coming regarding fiat currencies and this is allowing us to prepare for the next financial crisis.

So essentially nothing.

He doesn't sit in Congress now.

Is this all a wind up? It must be....well done mate, you got me

Ah, you know what? I forgot he wasn't in Congeas anymore. I try to pay as little attention to the man as possible. Mainly because I got sick of seeing him on the news so often in 2012.

I guess he's an ex-hypocrite now, he ended his decades long congressional career on principal?

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

It's not a point work worth arguing, the classification of left/right wing is far to arbitrary to debate I suppose. I'll just say I wouldn't consider US liberals left wing by my own standards.

Ah well this explains a lot. Even though liberals(not classical liberals) are left wing in the US, you consider them not to be...by your standards....that actually explains everything...I thought you were having me on.

Brian? wrote: »

I don't appreciate the tone of this, quite condescending.

I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, Ron Paul's integrity should be admires because he's not swayed by lobbyists. You're wrong. I can't possible admire his integrity when I detest his philosophy. Do you understand me now?

Ah ok, you prefer seedy politicians that take bribes but put through legislation that you agree with?...Yes, I understand

Brian? wrote: »

And what was your verdict at the time?

Terribly edited YouTube videos created by Ron Paul supporters are not evidence. Can we at least agree on that?

As I said Jon Stewart is not a Ron Paul supporter. You can check the time he was allowed to speak on all the debates and see he was given the least in all debates...there are many other ways to show the bias, not my job to show you...not like you're going to call me up on the speaking time during the debates anyway.....right?

Brian? wrote: »

Highly debatable if you are a student of history.

If you base your history on facts as opposed to opinions then no....it is not really

Brian? wrote: »

So essentially nothing.

The same way Churchill did nothing about Hitler when he kept warning everyone about him before WW2....yeah, like that.....Ron Paul did enough for the people of Texas...they kept electing him.

Brian? wrote: »

Ah, you know what? I forgot he wasn't in Congeas anymore. I try to pay as little attention to the man as possible. Mainly because I got sick of seeing him on the news so often in 2012.

I guess he's an ex-hypocrite now, he ended his decades long congressional career on principal?

You forgot?...More like you did not know....you don't know a lot ....even by your standards

Amerika

comongethappy wrote: »

Do you think Mitt could run again?

I know people may not want to back a twice over loser, but I always found him likeable & intelligent.

Sure! Generally speaking, America is all about getting second chances. The bigger question is does Mitt Romney want it at this point? I think unless there is an overwhelming demand by the people for him to run, he wouldn’t be interested. And there looms the biggest question, at least in my eyes, is do we elect the next president simply based on the idea that "it’s her turn," or do we go for the best person to improve the lot of the general population still suffering from the jobless recovery?

The people are slowly catching on that they have been subjected to the biggest Ponzi scheme in US history perpetrated on an entire population by the Democrats and their leader. It was estimated that 50 million didn’t have medical insurance in the US before ObamaCare. We’ve got 12 more days until the deadline when everyone was to have insurance. Around 5 million lost their insurance because of ObamaCare, and only 5 million have "signed up." And of those who "signed up," it is the biggest mystery of the universe as to who actually "paid their premiums." It’s estimated that the number is 1 out of 5 that didn’t pay, but I doubt we will actually know until after the November election. And the experience numbers and mix of applicants doesn’t make ObamaCare work financially. So what have we gained in the last 6+ years from ObamaCare? You do the math. What I do know is ObamaCare has torn the country apart, it impacts everyone overwhelmingly in bad ways, has made insurance and health care more expensive, and has forced doctors to be less willing to take on new patients, and done very little to get any more net people insured, and was sold to us based on lies, unrealistic goals, and sleezy economics. President Obama, because of his signature achievement to secure his legacy will be toxic in the November election and the remainder of his term. I think Hillary Clinton, if she is healthy enough to run, or even will run, will avoid his help like the plague as he’s wasted 6 years, and will most probably waste another 2.

In these tough economic times, the question must be asked going into 2016... What does Hillary Clinton really have to offer? What does Rand Paul really have to offer?

Mitt Romney has much to offer.

All this is just my opinion of course.

benway

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton

Not a chance if the Dems know what's good for them (again, not a given). A candidate with a prefabricated repertoire of attack material ready to run against her before she's even announced?

Mittens has got a similar problem, the perception of a rich white guy's candidate that he cemented with the 47% comments isn't going to get any better. Nor are the demographics.

Small digression, my favourite example of Paul family hypocrisy has to be the Pater Familius invoking the Evil New World Order UN while going after his own fanbase over ronpaul.com.

Amerika wrote: »

the biggest Ponzi scheme in US history perpetrated on an entire population by the Democrats and their leader.

Ummmm.....

ChicagoJoe

comongethappy wrote: »

Do you think Mitt could run again?

I know people may not want to back a twice over loser, but I always found him likeable & intelligent.

Appearently Romney campaign has raised over a billion -

" The Romney campaign, along with the Republican National Committee, teamed up to raise $1 billion in 2012, and the former GOP nominee's donor list is still considered a premiere donor list, reports Politico.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/mitt-romney-2016-fundraising-operation/2014/02/09/id/551730#ixzz2wbXBE61k

Black Swan

Just glancing over the 2016 polls by several organisations, it would appear that Rand Paul may have a slight lead over other GOP contenders for the presidential nomination today. It's still very early in the US election cycle, with the November 2014 mid-terms drawing most of the national attention.**

If the GOP wins, maintains, or loses seats in the 2014 mid-terms may be one of many indicators regarding the mood of the American voter towards Republican leadership in the House, and perhaps the Executive for 2016.

**Cautions: Polling by various organisations with different methodologies may be misleading.

sin_city

It'll be tough to beat the democrats with the huge success of Obamacare and the rapidly improving economy.

Amerika

sin_city wrote: »

It'll be tough to beat the democrats with the huge success of Obamacare and the rapidly improving economy.

I guess it would depend if the American people buy into the president and his party's wold view that the problems don't exist because they shouldn't exist.

sin_city

Amerika wrote: »

I guess it would depend if the American people buy into the president and his party's wold view that the problems don't exist because they shouldn't exist.

Obama has acted strongly on Syria and Ukraine. Steps like highering the minimum wage can only improve the economy.

Obamacare has been a huge success for both employers and workers.

I'm pretty sure Obama will tackle the $17 trillion debt too....the man means business....it will be impossible for voters not to see the democrats means business as well

benway

Black Swan wrote: »

Just glancing over the 2016 polls by several organisations

Quite surprised to see that Hills comfortably edges out each/all of the Republican candidates at this point according to every one of the polls.

Still, as you say, it's early days - given the 80% disapproval rating for Congress, you'd expect to see some kind of reaction in the mid-terms, though I wouldn't necessarily be holding my breath on that.

One thing I'd be willing to bet on, though, even now, is that if Hills does take the Democratic nomination, it'll be one of the dirtiest campaigns of all time.

Amerika

Seems Jeb Bush is making some moves from behind the scene. If he decides to run I wouldn’t expect an announcement until early 2015. And it would make sense... why give the media extra time in their coordinated attacks on him to defend his brother’s policies. And if JB runs, I think he will put Rand and Christie into the category of "also ran" in short order. And what a hoot if our choice in the next election will be between another Bush and another Clinton. Battle of the Big Spenders.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Seems Jeb Bush is making some moves from behind the scene. If he decides to run I wouldn’t expect an announcement until early 2015. And it would make sense... why give the media extra time in their coordinated attacks on him to defend his brother’s policies. And if JB runs, I think he will put Rand and Christie into the category of "also ran" in short order. And what a hoot if our choice in the next election will be between another Bush and another Clinton. Battle of the Big Spenders.

Lulz.

Bush wouldn't be able to avoid the rather spectacular skeletons in his closet.

They're the reason he's not been very visible, politically, for quite some time.

sin_city

Mjollnir wrote: »

Lulz.

Bush wouldn't be able to avoid the rather spectacular skeletons in his closet.

I don't know about that. Prescott Bush attempted a coup and also funded Hitler...this didn't seem to be an issue in electing his son and grandson.

UNI4MER

Rand went to UC Berkeley and made a speech about the NSA spying and hit a home run in the liberal college crowd...that word will spread. He is a different conservative and knows not to have the same viewpoint on isolationism his father had. Charisma I don't know but very convincingly smart and I think he is setting himself up for a run. He is not afraid to take on the Serial Liar n Chief diplomatically. He needs to tap what Romney and McCain did not and that is the conservative base which did not turn out the last 2 pres cycles which, if they did, would have reversed both outcomes. Until the Republican party gets conservatives to lead it the democrat party will remain in control furthering the dismantling of my country for the sake of staying in power. Their continuing allies in the mainstream press are on their side and continue to protect at all cost that party's interests.

Brian?

UNI4MER wrote: »

Rand went to UC Berkeley and made a speech about the NSA spying and hit a home run in the liberal college crowd...that word will spread. He is a different conservative and knows not to have the same viewpoint on isolationism his father had. Charisma I don't know but very convincingly smart and I think he is setting himself up for a run. He is not afraid to take on the Serial Liar n Chief diplomatically. He needs to tap what Romney and McCain did not and that is the conservative base which did not turn out the last 2 pres cycles which, if they did, would have reversed both outcomes. Until the Republican party gets conservatives to lead it the democrat party will remain in control furthering the dismantling of my country for the sake of staying in power. Their continuing allies in the mainstream press are on their side and continue to protect at all cost that party's interests.

Do you have any proof of that? I don't think it's actually true.

sin_city

Brian? wrote: »

Do you have any proof of that? I don't think it's actually true.

Very quick to call someone up on possible errors…..not very quick to acknowledge anything on the Ukraine thread regarding the Russian economy where you liked a post that contained information contrary to fact.

I guess if it doesn’t suit your agenda you walk away from the discussion.

Rand Paul represents a lot of the disenchanted republicans, true conservatives.

People in general are not voting as much for the two parties as many are losing faith in the system.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2012/11/2012-election-turnout-dips-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible

Brian?

sin_city wrote: »

Very quick to call someone up on possible errors…..not very quick to acknowledge anything on the Ukraine thread regarding the Russian economy where you liked a post that contained information contrary to fact.

I guess if it doesn’t suit your agenda you walk away from the discussion.

I'm not responding to this, it's puerile.

Rand Paul represents a lot of the disenchanted republicans, true conservatives.

Is it your contention that Rand Paul is a "true conservative"?

People in general are not voting as much for the two parties as many are losing faith in the system.

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2012/11/2012-election-turnout-dips-below-2008-and-2004-levels-number-eligible

Overall turnout was down. Democrat voter turnout was down 4.2% and GOP by 1.2%. Am I missing something?

Brian?

Also

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/23/gop-turnout-myths-and-reality/