Rand Paul 2016

InTheTrees · 06-08-2013 1:34am

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 · 06-08-2013 1:36am

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 · 06-08-2013 2:03am

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 · 06-08-2013 2:37am

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 · 06-08-2013 2:39am

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

clairefontaine · 06-08-2013 2:40am

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 · 06-08-2013 2:51am

clairefontaine wrote: »

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

Bingo!

InTheTrees · 06-08-2013 6:18am

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

epluribusunum · 06-08-2013 6:46am

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? · 06-08-2013 7:29am

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.

Brian? · 06-08-2013 7:33am

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 · 06-08-2013 7:38am

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 · 06-08-2013 8:06am

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 · 06-08-2013 8:34am

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? · 06-08-2013 9:01am

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 · 06-08-2013 1:30pm

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 · 06-08-2013 1:32pm

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

Amerika · 06-08-2013 1:39pm

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? · 06-08-2013 2:13pm

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 · 06-08-2013 2:36pm

Bill Maher on libertarianism:

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

theUbiq · 06-08-2013 2:52pm

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 · 06-08-2013 3:18pm

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 · 06-08-2013 3:25pm

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 · 06-08-2013 3:33pm

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 · 06-08-2013 3:37pm

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 · 06-08-2013 3:47pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:01pm

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? · 06-08-2013 4:04pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:11pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:24pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:27pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:30pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:31pm

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bosnia, maybe.

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

Which side did they back in Bosnia?

InTheTrees · 06-08-2013 4:31pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:37pm

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 · 06-08-2013 4:58pm

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 · 06-08-2013 5:02pm

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? · 06-08-2013 6:44pm

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 · 06-08-2013 7:05pm

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?

Rand Paul 2016

Comments