• 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!

Hillary or Paul

Who wins your vote

  • Rand Paul

    Votes: 20 40.0%

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 21 42.0%

  • Wasted third party vote?

    Votes: 9 18.0%
  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
CalGun said:
Hillary is clearly the democrats choice, and Paul has the only available nod from the Republican side. Assuming they are the R and D nominees who wins your vote?
Click to expand...

Assuming they were the nominees? I'm not sure. I'm a registered Republican and I've only ever voted R on the Presidential ticket. I would have to really see what Rand Paul's foreign policy platform looks like. If it's as non-interventionist and unconventional as I fear I may be swayed into backing Hillary. More than ever we need a President who decisively backs the dominating position of the United States in the world, fortifies our alliances and commitments, and prepares the groundwork for the rest of the century. My fear is that a Paul administration would preside over a global US retreat.
 
CalGun said:
Hillary is clearly the democrats choice, and Paul has the only available nod from the Republican side. Assuming they are the R and D nominees who wins your vote?
Click to expand...

I hope you are correct. This would be a very interesting race and a really tough call. A little history lesson: Pretend it is November 2007. Ever heard of a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama? Most of us would have answered no. Another history lesson: Pretend it was 2003 or 2007. Did you ever suspect that Hillary Clinton was guaranteed to be the next president in 2004 or 2008 simply by asking for it? Bill Clinton was a conservative Republican's fantasy president. Hillary wouldn't be any different. Bush was at a severe handicap in 2004. The democrats picked the worse possible candidate to run against him. Hillary is severely hated by the Democratic Party. Don't be surprised if her own side screws her over again. This may sound hillarious but there are enough democrats that hate Hillary so much that they would vote for Biden.

It is unlikely that either of these will be the frontrunner but I wouldn't be surprised if one of these people end up being the frontrunner. I will be shocked if this is how things will look in November 2016. At least one party will throw us a curve ball and somebody will come out of the blue like a certain unknown Senator from Illinois. It will be somebody that wasn't even considered in March 2014.
 
TheNextEra said:
Neither, and it isn't a wasted vote, it is the DNC and RNC putting up wasted candidates. So I refuse to take part in your obviously partisan poll by voting your idiotic third choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah the language for the third option was very biased in my opinion.
 
Lachean said:
I vote Rand, despite my illogical need to get the first female president out of the way (yes I voted for Obama because he was black, despite my political opposition)
Click to expand...

I suspected there were people who did that but I never heard anybody admit it.
 
haymarket said:
Back in 2011 I went on record saying that Obama should be a one termer and Clinton should have been the candidate in 2012.
Click to expand...

The last time that happened was in 1980. Ted Kennedy ran against sitting president Jimmy Carter. Running against a seated president in your own party is a good idea if your intention is to get rid of that person at all cost.

Many people claim that Republicans botched their chances at winning the election because of all the dirt that surfaced against Romney in the primary. Hillary was smart enough to know that if she ran in 2012 she would have lost against Obama and Obama would have lost against Romney. She's a very gifted politician. She has just been extremely unlucky.
 
NIMBY said:
It's still Mrs. Clinton's if she wants it .
Click to expand...

It is 2 years and 8 months before the election. In March 2007 (2 years and 8 months before the 2008 election) Hillary Clinton was guaranteed to be the next president. She had it in the bag. All she had to do was show up. In March 2007 very few people knew who Barrack Obama was.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
It is 2 years and 8 months before the election. In March 2007 (2 years and 8 months before the 2008 election) Hillary Clinton was guaranteed to be the next president. She had it in the bag. All she had to do was show up. In March 2007 very few people knew who Barrack Obama was.
Click to expand...
I think you meant 2006. And, primaries are usually over by July not November. And Obama won the nomination on the power of superdelegates, somethin going on right this moment unofficially .
 
vasuderatorrent said:
The last time that happened was in 1980. Ted Kennedy ran against sitting president Jimmy Carter. Running against a seated president in your own party is a good idea if your intention is to get rid of that person at all cost.

Many people claim that Republicans botched their chances at winning the election because of all the dirt that surfaced against Romney in the primary. Hillary was smart enough to know that if she ran in 2012 she would have lost against Obama and Obama would have lost against Romney. She's a very gifted politician. She has just been extremely unlucky.
Click to expand...

Yes, I fully understand the damage that can do to a sitting president. I was NOT suggesting a primary challenge from Clinton but a voluntary pledge from Obama not to run in 2012 allowing Clinton to have the field relatively to herself. She would have been stronger pulling in down ticket candidates for the party.
 
NIMBY said:
You may want to take some of your own advice and stick to Canadian politics. Candidate Cruz was none too statesmanlike towards Presidents Dole, McCain and Romney. Did Jeb get an invite to CPAC? I did notice Christie there. Have fun splitting OUR GOP vote .
Click to expand...

If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul was usually a big winner at CPAC before he retired and I'm pretty sure Perry did well there at times. By the way, how did Dole, McCain and Romney do on the CPAC straw polls - not sure CPAC was around for Dole, but definitely for McCain and Romney - did CPAC ever pick the eventual Republican nominee?

So again, this lowly Canadian seems to know a little more about US Republican/conservative politics than you, the die-hard supporter of all things liberal/Democrat. It is noted, however, that Democrats like you love to plan out the Republican nomination process and results and yet Republicans never give the Democrat nomination process two minutes of their time. Why's that?
 
pbrauer said:
LMMFAO Have you ever heard of video recordings, they are a reality these days? The stupid things people say to denigrate Rachel Maddow are quite funny. :lamo
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought I was denigrating and making fun of what you posted - slagging Rachel Maddow was just a side benefit.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Actually, I thought I was denigrating and making fun of what you posted - slagging Rachel Maddow was just a side benefit.
Click to expand...

Now you want to dig yourself in deeper? You saying she has only 6 viewers wasn't a shot at her? I think Ron Kessler of the Washington Post would award you with:

FourPinocchios072.jpg
 
pbrauer said:
Now you want to dig yourself in deeper? You saying she has only 6 viewers wasn't a shot at her? I think Ron Kessler of the Washington Post would award you with:

FourPinocchios072.jpg
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't a shot at her - after all, in the post of mine you quoted, did I not say that "slagging Rachel Maddow was just a side benefit"?

But referring to Rachel Maddow's six viewers - likely reported during sweeps week to get such a high number - I was ridiculing your suggestion that anything said on her show would define the chances of a candidate in the Republican primaries. That was hilarious and well worth ridiculing, even if poor Rachel got caught up in the chum too.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I never said it wasn't a shot at her - after all, in the post of mine you quoted, did I not say that "slagging Rachel Maddow was just a side benefit"?

But referring to Rachel Maddow's six viewers - likely reported during sweeps week to get such a high number - I was ridiculing your suggestion that anything said on her show would define the chances of a candidate in the Republican primaries. That was hilarious and well worth ridiculing, even if poor Rachel got caught up in the chum too.
Click to expand...

I'm Sorry, I don't understand why the place where Paul said something makes a difference. It was on her where Rand Paul announced his intention to run for Senator from the state of Kentucky. In the process he revealed he was against the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I could be wrong, but I don't see where anyone in this day and age could be elected President that held that view.
 
pbrauer said:
I'm Sorry, I don't understand why the place where Paul said something makes a difference. It was on her where Rand Paul announced his intention to run for Senator from the state of Kentucky. In the process he revealed he was against the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I could be wrong, but I don't see where anyone in this day and age could be elected President that held that view.
Click to expand...

Clearly, the priorities you feel are important in choosing a nominee for the Republican party are different than mine. I don't think that pronouncement, even if never properly explained, would be relevant to one tenth of one percent of the voting public. I think people would be much more interested in what Hillary Clinton was doing while four Americans were being murdered in Benghazi.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Clearly, the priorities you feel are important in choosing a nominee for the Republican party are different than mine. I don't think that pronouncement, even if never properly explained, would be relevant to one tenth of one percent of the voting public. I think people would be much more interested in what Hillary Clinton was doing while four Americans were being murdered in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

And...yours are different than mine, that's kinda the point. While there might be no possibility of Hillary getting my vote, the same goes for Rand. After watching my senator for years, I find him completely inacceptable.

My reasons for Hillary's unacceptance have nothing to do with the Benghazi BS...as the SOS could not have prevented it without psychic ability.
 
tecoyah said:
And...yours are different than mine, that's kinda the point. While there might be no possibility of Hillary getting my vote, the same goes for Rand. After watching my senator for years, I find him completely inacceptable.

My reasons for Hillary's unacceptance have nothing to do with the Benghazi BS...as the SOS could not have prevented it without psychic ability.
Click to expand...

That's all fair - I don't think Paul has a chance in hell of being the Republican nominee - I was just pointing out it won't have anything to do with obscure constitutional law questions.
 
I would, with some reservation, vote for Ms Clinton.

Mr Paul is, despite his very conservative economic views I disagree with, been very consistent on the issues of government surveillance, the winding down of America's entanglements overseas, the ending of the Drug War, and ending the Patriot Act/NSA/Drone War-footing that has existed since 9-11. Just the fact that he is consistent (let alone, in my view, correct) about something in the modern GOP gives me enough respect for him that, while I won't vote for him, I would not be aghast at his nomination or election. For instance, him putting aside the fundamental differences he has with the Attorney General to work on the common goal of reforming mandatory minimum sentencing for drug possession is a sign that at least he is willing to work with the other side to make some progress (as opposed to blind opposition) and honestly changed my opinion of him.

Actually, on all of these issues (NSA, Drones, War on Drugs, Prison Reform), I believe I am more in line with Senator Paul than with Ms Clinton.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Clearly, the priorities you feel are important in choosing a nominee for the Republican party are different than mine. I don't think that pronouncement, even if never properly explained, would be relevant to one tenth of one percent of the voting public. I think people would be much more interested in what Hillary Clinton was doing while four Americans were being murdered in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Interesting word choice. There were roughly 4500 troops who died in a needless war in Iraq, but there were 4 Americans who were murdered in Benghazi. Sick
 
CanadaJohn said:
Clearly, the priorities you feel are important in choosing a nominee for the Republican party are different than mine. I don't think that pronouncement, even if never properly explained, would be relevant to one tenth of one percent of the voting public. I think people would be much more interested in what Hillary Clinton was doing while four Americans were being murdered in Benghazi.
Click to expand...

We KNOW what Hillary Clinton was doing during the Benghazi incident.

Benghazi Timeline: Hillary Clinton Gives Her Timeline of Events at Benghazi Testimony - PolicyMic

The constant search for some smoking gun that will prove that Obama and Hillary were playing Call of Duty or something during the Benghazi attack is simply laughable.
 
APACHERAT said:
That was before the left labeled Cain an Oreo Cookie.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't remember that, I just introduced myself into politics at the time and I was a Republican. Though I'm pretty sure he dropped out of the race due to all the accusation of employee harassment.
 
CalGun said:
Hillary is clearly the democrats choice, and Paul has the only available nod from the Republican side. Assuming they are the R and D nominees who wins your vote?
Click to expand...

I don't think we have a hope either way just pick the name you like. Hell, the last election we picked the color we like best.
 
Robbie Loucks said:
I wouldn't remember that, I just introduced myself into politics at the time and I was a Republican. Though I'm pretty sure he dropped out of the race due to all the accusation of employee harassment.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't remember it because it didn't happen. APACHERAT is lying. Again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom