• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has Rand Paul raised 2016 prospects with Ferguson response?

I haven't seen any polls lately, but Chris Christie's name just popped into my head.

I like Christie, I don't like Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, or Scott Walker.

Chris Christie's got that whole Bridge-gate that's going to dog him..

I could understand your beef with Walker, especially if you're a union person, and for Jeb Bush... he may be a fine president, problem is his last name. Paul Ryan though I don't see where the hang up is, not to say I'd vote him (not to say he's my first choice). Even if you disagree with his ideas, at least he has some that are at least thought out.
 
Chris Christie's got that whole Bridge-gate that's going to dog him..

I could understand your beef with Walker, especially if you're a union person, and for Jeb Bush... he may be a fine president, problem is his last name.
Paul Ryan though I don't see where the hang up is, not to say I'd vote him (not to say he's my first choice). Even if you disagree with his ideas, at least he has some that are at least thought out.




My biggest problem with Paul Ryan is that he's an Ayn Rand ditto-head. (Ayn Rand in a nutshell: The world would be a wonderful place if I owned everything and everyone worked for me.)





Jeb Bush's last name is Bush.





I wouldn't vote for either one of those guys if they were the only choice.
 
Oh really? Know that for sure? Predict the future can you? Then what are we still doing here? You and I are going to Vegas to get rich.

Though a Republican presidential win is not impossible, its highly improbable. If you look at the solid blue states, the electoral count is 241 (with 270 needed to win). If you add in Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada, states that lean heavy blue, the count is 267. For the Republicons to win, they have to run the table. To date, they are making to effort to key voters in their other swing states, but rather have tacted even further right since the last election. It will be very hard sledding for the Cons in 2016, and they know it, which is why so much effort right now is to reverse the notion of the Imperial Presidency in favor of the Impotent Presidency....

As to my predictions... in my 5 years of posting here, I have nailed every election prediction I have posted (its a matter of public record)... and most of my other predictions. I don't make wildass predictions; I deal in projections on facts. The Cons have put the presidency nearly out of reach....
 
Though a Republican presidential win is not impossible, its highly improbable. If you look at the solid blue states, the electoral count is 241 (with 270 needed to win). If you add in Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada, states that lean heavy blue, the count is 267. For the Republicons to win, they have to run the table. To date, they are making to effort to key voters in their other swing states, but rather have tacted even further right since the last election. It will be very hard sledding for the Cons in 2016, and they know it, which is why so much effort right now is to reverse the notion of the Imperial Presidency in favor of the Impotent Presidency....

As to my predictions... in my 5 years of posting here, I have nailed every election prediction I have posted (its a matter of public record)... and most of my other predictions. I don't make wildass predictions; I deal in projections on facts. The Cons have put the presidency nearly out of reach....

Uh, it didn't rocket scientist to predict Obama would win his first election. And most were predicting Obama would win as well. Do you have a link of what states you deem as solid blue? I don't mean to discount your views, just thought it be quicker than listing is all..
 
Though a Republican presidential win is not impossible, its highly improbable. If you look at the solid blue states, the electoral count is 241 (with 270 needed to win). If you add in Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada, states that lean heavy blue, the count is 267. For the Republicons to win, they have to run the table. To date, they are making to effort to key voters in their other swing states, but rather have tacted even further right since the last election. It will be very hard sledding for the Cons in 2016, and they know it, which is why so much effort right now is to reverse the notion of the Imperial Presidency in favor of the Impotent Presidency....

As to my predictions... in my 5 years of posting here, I have nailed every election prediction I have posted (its a matter of public record)... and most of my other predictions. I don't make wildass predictions; I deal in projections on facts. The Cons have put the presidency nearly out of reach....

Predicting 2008 and 2012 wasn't exactly a challenge.

Well, unless you were a Republican who bought into that whole "unskewed polls" thing.
 
As long as he sticks mostly to the Libertarianesque side of the Republican party (however small), he will get my vote, and I've never voted for a Republican.

I think the government has committed a lot of overreach in the past few decades and it's time for an adjustment. The more Paul sells himself as anti-statist and pro-liberty, the better off I think he, and we will be.

That's where I'm at, and agree with your caveat, too.
 
Predicting 2008 and 2012 wasn't exactly a challenge.

Well, unless you were a Republican who bought into that whole "unskewed polls" thing.

...of course it wasn't nor is my current prediction "exactly a challenge"... because its not a predication; its an analysis of the prevailing facts.

Nonetheless, there were a several people on this board that believed all kinds of things during the 2012 election (including various primary scenarios...even though it was obvious from the getgo it was Romney's to loss) ... and others that got indignant with me when I declared Obama the winner the day before the election in a post that I asked for post-election analysis...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/141741-did-mitt-go-wrong.html

I agree it was obvious, for the same reasons 2016 is pretty predictable... the math no longer works for the Republicans (just as it does not work for Dems to win back the house for the forseeable future). *

* - either subject to a RADICAL unforeseen set of circumstances of 9/11, economic crash or the Republicans actually filling articles of impeachment magnitude. The latter of course, would kill their meager chances for the White House and would like turn the House in 2016.
 
Sen. Rand Paul said that police moves in Ferguson 'resemble war' and that anyone who thinks that race, even inadvertently, doesn't 'skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention'.

Read the article here: Has Rand Paul raised 2016 prospects with fiery Ferguson response? - CSMonitor.com




Well I'd like to hear others opinions, But Sen. Rand Paul has certainly got my attention with his spot-on comments.

Rand Paul has always had strong Libertarian leanings, especially in the area that concerns abuse of power by the government, including police officers.
 
Rand Paul has always had strong Libertarian leanings, especially in the area that concerns abuse of power by the government, including police officers.

Hey dana :2wave:

I don't like to play the purist card. I think libertarianism is a broad philosophy with many different ideas and approaches. However, when someone calls Rand Paul a libertarian or libertarian-leaning I feel like beating my head against a brick wall. The man is not libertarian, he has even said as much. I guess everyone assumed he was going to be like his father, he was not...he is not. He is a self-described constitutional and social conservative. He does not support the legalization of marijuana or any other drugs for that matter. He is opposed to same-sex marriage. He is pro-life. He supports economic sanctions. He wants to fund/aid/ally Israel. He wants to close the borders. He supports the use of drones by local law enforcement. He wants Snowden in jail. Etc. etc. etc.

He's a Tea Partier, a conservative. Not a libertarian.
 
Hey dana :2wave:

I don't like to play the purist card. I think libertarianism is a broad philosophy with many different ideas and approaches. However, when someone calls Rand Paul a libertarian or libertarian-leaning I feel like beating my head against a brick wall. The man is not libertarian, he has even said as much. I guess everyone assumed he was going to be like his father, he was not...he is not. He is a self-described constitutional and social conservative. He does not support the legalization of marijuana or any other drugs for that matter. He is opposed to same-sex marriage. He is pro-life. He supports economic sanctions. He wants to fund/aid/ally Israel. He wants to close the borders. He supports the use of drones by local law enforcement. He wants Snowden in jail. Etc. etc. etc.

He's a Tea Partier, a conservative. Not a libertarian.

Everyone seems to have just assumed Rand Paul takes after his father (who, as far as I'm concerned, was the bad kind of libertarian).
 
Everyone seems to have just assumed Rand Paul takes after his father (who, as far as I'm concerned, was the bad kind of libertarian).

It's a last ditch attempt by the dying GOP to retain what little bit of legitimacy it has left. :shrug:
 
Don't know, don't really care.

Rand Paul is too wishy washy for my tastes.

I had hopes for him, but they have faded.

If he came back to the Republican Party I would want Gary Johnson by a mile (Ron Paul would be my first choice, but he has retired).
 
If he came back to the Republican Party I would want Gary Johnson by a mile .

Why does he have to have an (R) next to his name for you to vote for him?
 
Why does he have to have an (R) next to his name for you to vote for him?

I wasn't talking about me voting.

I was talking about who I thought would be the best Republican leader.
 
[...] Nevertheless, if he doesn't just go full-retard I might still vote for him. If not, I'll vote libertarian again and be sadly disappointed once more.
He went full-retard long ago, when he abandoned the nationally-recognized ophthalmology accreditation group that he belonged to and started his own self-run accreditation group (which has since been dissolved) in a temper tantrum over periodic recertification[SUP][1][/SUP].

He confirmed his full-retardedness when he went on a rant about the dysfunctional water saving toilets in his home during an official Senate committee meeting:

“I can’t buy a toilet that works,” he [Paul] replied.

“I can help you find a toilet that works,” she [Kathleen Hogan, the deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Department of Energy] offered.

“Are you going to pay for it?” quipped Paul

Rand Paul’s Toilet Tirade - ABC News

All the above was more or less behind the scenes -- the real Rand, no posturing for the cameras, no pandering to potential voters. Coo-coo for Coca Puffs.


______________________________________________________________________
1. Rand Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Sen. Rand Paul said that police moves in Ferguson 'resemble war' and that anyone who thinks that race, even inadvertently, doesn't 'skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention'.

Read the article here: Has Rand Paul raised 2016 prospects with fiery Ferguson response? - CSMonitor.com




Well I'd like to hear others opinions, But Sen. Rand Paul has certainly got my attention with his spot-on comments.
Weather he is right or wrong on this issue, if he runs for president in 2016, he is my first choice so far.
 
Weather he is right or wrong on this issue, if he runs for president in 2016, he is my first choice so far.
If he wins, I hope he likes the toilets :lamo
 
Rand Paul is a good guy and I don't say that lightly.



He's not a thug like Cruz or a joke like Perry or a pseudo Communist like Jeb.
 
Weather he is right or wrong on this issue, if he runs for president in 2016, he is my first choice so far.




I don't have any real idea if Sen.Rand Paul will be a 2016 candidate, but I do have a sneaking suspicion that he just might me the guy who's going to save the GOP.

Right now, I kinda like what he's sayin'
 
Uh, it didn't rocket scientist to predict Obama would win his first election. And most were predicting Obama would win as well. Do you have a link of what states you deem as solid blue? I don't mean to discount your views, just thought it be quicker than listing is all..

18 states have voted "blue" in 6 consecutive presidential elections. The total electoral vote value of these states is 242. While there are a couple of those states that some consider "competitive" (like PA, that the Republicans think is in play, but never really is)... there are others that are increasingly competitive that are traditional "red" states, including Georgia, Arizona and Texas.

18 states have voted Democratic in six consecutive elections with 242 electoral votes, George Will says | PunditFact

For the most part, a presidential race begins with 242 votes in the Democratic camp and 102 in the Republican camp, with 270 needed to win

The list does not include Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, which have trended blue over the last dozen years. Those three states are worth an additional 20 votes. Throw in Virginia and New Hampshire in the mix and the party could be over before it begins.
 
Back
Top Bottom