• 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!

Would you vote for Rand Paul?

Would you vote for Rand Paul in 2016?


  • Total voters
    76
  • Poll closed .
I think RINO is one of the most asinine terms in our political speech today, as if there's unquestionably one specific mold of Republican and any divergence outside of that neatly defined mold...REGARDLESS of whether it's an ideological divergence or simply a policy divergence...suggest they're something out.

Even if he was a "RINO", you mistakenly assume that I vote for people based singularly off their party and not on myraid of reasons from ideological views, level of pragmatism, policy views, experience, trust, etc.



Oh look, another of the asinine words used in political discourse today. Yes, Rand Paul has a Tea Partier mindset on many issues and a libertarian mindset on some issues as well. That's not a negative in my mind. Using 3rd grader level debate by using childish names for the opposition and utilizing cherry picked signage that has no actual tangible purpose in an honest debate and is simply there to belittle and mock a large swatch of people based on the actions of a singular individual hardly changes my views on that.

I can go back to the run up of 2008 I believe where I was suggesting that I'd be estatic to see a "Ron Paul-esque" candidate who was in a more charismatic shell and who tempered their views with a bit more realism and pragmatism than Ron did. Rand, in many ways, fits that bill.

Paul, the latter, is not a true republican, once people understand that, they'll be better informed. In the truest sense of the word, he is a R.I.N.O. because he doesn't have views consistent with the republican party, his views are more to the right of most republicans, more extremist.
 
Of course! Ron Paul 2012!
 
I'll wait until the Illinois primary before making that decision.
Rand Paul is clearly the "alternative" choice in the GOP to the Elite/Neo-Con governors who were invited to the Adelson primary.
Adelson clearly runs the GOP at this moment and wants a governor to run against Mrs. Clinton .
My state of Michigan has an open primary and I would be thrilled to no end to vote for Paul for the GOP nomination in 2016 should that eventually happen. If I can play even a small part in a 2016 Democratic landslide that makes even Goldwater in 64 look minor by comparison I would be very very happy.
 
Paul, the latter, is not a true republican, once people understand that, they'll be better informed. In the truest sense of the word, he is a R.I.N.O. because he doesn't have views consistent with the republican party, his views are more to the right of most republicans, more extremist.

I have never seen anyone refer to someone as a "RINO" because they are too economically rightist.

While it's a term with little meaning enough as is, and frequently misapplied, you are applying it in a manner entirely opposite to its usage.
 
Even if he was a "RINO", you mistakenly assume that I vote for people based singularly off their party and not on myraid of reasons from ideological views, level of pragmatism, policy views, experience, trust, etc.
The latest from the right-wing in denying which party they are and who they vote for.
This started with the GOP during Bush-43's 2nd term when GOP candidates stopped using the word "Republican" on their placards.
And started using BLUE as the color of their placards, those tricky dickies. :lamo



Oh look, another of the asinine words used in political discourse today.
Invented by the asinine teabaggers themselves, with teabags hanging from their hats .
 
I have never seen anyone refer to someone as a "RINO" because they are too economically rightist.

While it's a term with little meaning enough as is, and frequently misapplied, you are applying it in a manner entirely opposite to its usage.

Not at all.
Republican In Name Only

Rand Paul has extremist views on social and economic issues. As witnessed by most Americans who watch MSM.

I don't view the tea party as republicans, which is what Paul represents. Some libertarians like him, some dislike him. I doubt he'll receive a GOP nomination though, his views are too extremist.
 
Not at all.
Republican In Name Only

Rand Paul has extremist views on social and economic issues. As witnessed by most Americans who watch MSM.

I don't view the tea party as republicans, which is what Paul represents. Some libertarians like him, some dislike him. I doubt he'll receive a GOP nomination though, his views are too extremist.

You don't seem to get it.

Tea Party folks are the ones that call the establishment folks RINOs. They're often correct to do so.
 
Except for what is still a slight majority of the GOP, the elitist neo-cons OWNED by Sheldon Adelson and Dick Cheeney.
Rand Paul is far to the left of the Neo-Cons, as evidenced by his support from liberal DEMs on foreign policy/NSA/drone issues.
As we've seen with R. Paul calling out Cheeney on Haliburton.

And then there's Paul tweeking Jeb Bush on Immigration, where most GOPs support R. Paul's position at this time.
The GOPs are all over the place on dozens of issues right now, as Paul promised, reinventing the GOP .
Paul, the latter, is not a true republican, once people understand that, they'll be better informed. In the truest sense of the word, he is a R.I.N.O. because he doesn't have views consistent with the republican party, his views are more to the right of most republicans, more extremist.
 
You don't seem to get it.

Tea Party folks are the ones that call the establishment folks RINOs. They're often correct to do so.

And the establishment GOPs like Boehner call traitors like Snowden "traitors", who Rand Paulites defend .
 
Paul, the latter, is not a true republican, once people understand that, they'll be better informed. In the truest sense of the word, he is a R.I.N.O. because he doesn't have views consistent with the republican party, his views are more to the right of most republicans, more extremist.

The reality is that there are two major parties in this nation that have any legitimate chance of succeeding on a national stage; The Democratic Party and the Republican party. The democratic party leans left in terms of the scope of the american political spectrum and the republican party leans right. Those who lean decidingly more right than left make more sense as a part of the Republican party, and vise versa for those leaning left. Rand absolutely leans right, and at times far right on certain issues as it relates to the american spectrum. But that doesn't suggest he is ill suited for being a part of the Republican Party any more than an individual like Olympia Snowe or John McCain leaning right, and at times extremely moderately right, is ill suited to be part of the party.

Again, don't presume that my support from Paul is born out of ignorance of his views, beliefs, or ideological lean. Such a notion is hardly the case. While I definitely disagree with Paul on certain issues, the reality is there's very few politicians out there that I agree exactly with 75% of the time let alone 100%. However, I do agree on a large number of issues with Paul and I do agree on a large number of ideological view points with Paul. Addition7ally, I have a decent trust in him in regards to pragmatism and realism as it comes to actually actively persuing various policies. I believe Paul to be an academic of sorts and someone who is prone to speak at length on a political issue in a way similar to how a professor may discuss it; but that hypothetical/theoritical views on politics don't always materialize into actual tangible, realistic policy.

Take for example legalization of drugs. This is something that I can easily see him acting like many individuals on this forum; discussing it and debating it from an ideological stand point that drugs should all be legalized. However, debating something from an ideological stand point of a theoritical situation and debating about actual tangible policies you would actively want to see are two different things. Ideologically, I can absolutely see an argument (and even in engage in such) that all drug use should be legalized. However, realistically, I'd never support or suggest a need for an utter reversal of all of our drug laws partially because we don't live in a theoritical word and realistic deference to the realities of our society need to be taken into account with law.

Too often, people mistake ideology with policy. Ideology can DRIVE policy, but they are not one in the same. And sometimes something that is ideologically correct is not necessarily the best POLICY, at least to the purest of ideological degree. This is because ideology functions in a sort of vacuum or at best in a generalized concept of the world where as policy needs to accurately weight the realities of the situation present at that moment in the general public.

As was the case with Ron Paul, many of the more problematic view points that I may have with Rand are things that I think he either speaks of more from an academic ideological perspective rather than tangible policy agendas or are items that would never have a realistic chance of passing and as such are of little true worry other than as a means of attempting to play on peoples fears. Perhaps if the POTUS had dictatorial powers to simply act or not act in any way it wishes I would be more worried, but that is not the case in our system of government.
 
And the establishment GOPs like Boehner call traitors like Snowden "traitors", who Rand Paulites defend .

Never seen anything about Snowden that indicates traitorous behavior - breaking his word, yes, but it's hard to decide what's more lawful, keeping government secrets for the sake of keeping that confidentiality promise, or letting the public know when the government itself is breaking the law?

The public should know, because the government should stop. We should make them stop. We can't make them stop if we don't even know they're doing it.
 
Last edited:
Never seen anything about Snowden that indicates traitorous behavior - breaking his word, yes, but it's hard to decide what's more lawful, keeping government secrets for the sake of keeping that confidentiality promise, or letting the public know when the government itself is breaking the law?

The public should know, because the government should stop. We should make them stop. We can't make them stop if we don't even now they're doing it.

Do you think Putin knows any of Snowden's secrets?

When one supports a certain view on the USA government breaking the law every time, which is SOP for libertarians from the get go,
one has a double-standard on being a traitor.

The USA's POTUS has both hands tied behind his back with an impotent Congress on Ukraine and elsewhere .
 
The latest from the right-wing in denying which party they are and who they vote for.

I don't know what you're talking about here.

I identify with the Republican party. Typically, I vote Republican. Occasionally, I vote Libertarian. I'm open to voting for whatever individual most closely matches my views AND who I feel comfortable saying is unlikely to act in a way I STRONGLY feel is harmful to the state/country. However, being a conservative, I roundly acknowledge that the most likely situation in such instances is that I'd be voting Republican.

Invented by the asinine teabaggers themselves, with teabags hanging from their hats .

The notion they invented it is unequivocably false, and I've documented it plenty of times in this forum. I can go dig up the information as well. The first known instances of individuals referring to Tea Party members as "teabaggers" were by liberal commentators.

While it is true that some Tea Partiers had tea bags on their hats prior to that, and did send Tea Bags as a form of protest, there is no record of any tea partier referring to themselves or the collective group in that fashion prior to those commentators referring to them as "tea baggers".

While one could argue that it's reasonable to call someone who sends tea bags to people a "tea bagger", that is not the same as suggesting they invented the specific term as a name referencing themselves. It simply suggets they took an action that potentially invited the word.

This would be like me calling all Democrats Jackasses, and claiming they invented the term for themselves because they choose to use a Donkey as their parties icon and thus invited the term "jackass" as a means of referencing them.

Which, of course, would be asinine. In reality, the Democrats would not have invented the term "jackass" as a means of describing them but rather me, acting like a juvenile 7 year old out back on recess, deciding to mock and belittle them by taking something they did and using it as a basis for calling them an insulting and mocking name.
 
Do you think Putin knows any of Snowden's secrets?

It's a fair question. How would we know the answer, though?

He's shared a lot of what he found out with everyone, quite publicly.
 
I don't view the tea party as republicans

While you're absolutely free to have that opinion, understand it's just a factually incorrect opinion.

There are members of the Tea Party movement that are registered as Republicans. They are, factually and unquestionably, "republicans". The members of the tea party caucus are individuals who won elections as a Republican, are endorsed by the Republican party, are in congress as "Republicans". They are absolutely Republicans.

You're free to have the opinion they aren't Republicans, but that opinion is actually factually incorrect.

Now, an opinion that they're Republican's in name only is not necessarily factually incorrect, but that is basically a subjective notion as opposed to an objective one like "they're not republicans". However, I'd be interesting to know what the exact criteria is to be a "Republican" as I would think it'd be rather difficult to deem someone a Republican in name only unless there was some kind of clear definition as to what a Republican is.
 
I'll wait until the Illinois primary before making that decision.
Rand Paul is clearly the "alternative" choice in the GOP to the Elite/Neo-Con governors who were invited to the Adelson primary.
Adelson clearly runs the GOP at this moment and wants a governor to run against Mrs. Clinton .

I suspect Ted Cruz would also see himself as the same type of alternative. And I suspect there will be others from the far right wing who see themselves as personally appointed and anointed by God to carry His Sword into battle for the Soul and Heart of Freedom.
 
The reality is that there are two major parties in this nation that have any legitimate chance of succeeding on a national stage;
I appreciate the time and effort you put into your posts, including the first one to me I've not responded to yet.
More specific examples such as yours on drugs show that Paul is intriguing.
The "Amash" coalition remains intact, with liberal DEMs opposing NSA/foreign wars/drones.
BTW, Amash does have a RINO-primary in MI.

Paul tweeking Jeb Bush on his "act of love" comments shows another fissure in the GOP, with Paul opposing Bush/Rubio.
I see more than these two views in the GOP on immigration,
giving us the ZERO movement in the House we see after the Senate passed Rubio's bill, which still gives him trouble with TEAs.

Paul's words on the Civil Rights Act are still closer to Goldwater's, who voted no.
This is where his honesty about his libertarianism gets him in trouble.
Paul is certainly in denial that the problems with Civil Rights and Voting Rights still exist.

Paul's unholy alliance with McConnell in McC's Senate race after McC was against Paul in 2010 is multi-faceted.
Paul plays bad cop by bashing Bill Clinton when he comes to Kentucky--McC will owe him big time.
With Paul up for reelection in 2016 and still being young, he can run in 2020 or 2024 or after.

Paul remains the best hope for non-DEM voters tired of the old GOP and war-mongering Neo-cons .
 
The only thing Ted Cruz is capable of doing is screwing up a wet dream.
If he gets into the Iowa through Florida primaries, he splits the TEA/Libertarian vote with Paul and whichever others from that ilk run.
I suspect Ted Cruz would also see himself as the same type of alternative. And I suspect there will be others from the far right wing who see themselves as personally appointed and anointed by God to carry His Sword into battle for the Soul and Heart of Freedom.
Meanwhile. can Adelson get all the candidates to coalesce around one elite/neo-con.
My pick at this time is Gov. Kasich, but these things change daily .
 
The only thing Ted Cruz is capable of doing is screwing up a wet dream.
If he gets into the Iowa through Florida primaries, he splits the TEA/Libertarian vote with Paul and whichever others from that ilk run.

Meanwhile. can Adelson get all the candidates to coalesce around one elite/neo-con.
My pick at this time is Gov. Kasich, but these things change daily .

I do not think Adelson has a prayer of containing the next batch of GOP candidates. I foresee the next GOP presidential primary highlighting the split in the Republican party and I think it will be a bloodbath of Tea Party versus establishment Republicans. It should be very interesting to watch.
 
While you're absolutely free to have that opinion, understand it's just a factually incorrect opinion.

There are members of the Tea Party movement that are registered as Republicans. They are, factually and unquestionably, "republicans". The members of the tea party caucus are individuals who won elections as a Republican, are endorsed by the Republican party, are in congress as "Republicans". They are absolutely Republicans.

You're free to have the opinion they aren't Republicans, but that opinion is actually factually incorrect.

Now, an opinion that they're Republican's in name only is not necessarily factually incorrect, but that is basically a subjective notion as opposed to an objective one like "they're not republicans". However, I'd be interesting to know what the exact criteria is to be a "Republican" as I would think it'd be rather difficult to deem someone a Republican in name only unless there was some kind of clear definition as to what a Republican is.

Well, okay, then there's two types of republicans, one is considered moderate, the other is considered hard right.

I would call someone who is willing to negotiate with the left as a RINO, because they're not hard right enough on conservative issues. But, by the same token, Paul could be considered as a RINO too because of his extremist beliefs. Not all republicans, libertarians or tea party people wish to tow his line. Saying that Paul is not an establishment republican is like saying the sun will not rise tomorrow.

I believe what most people are looking for in a republican candidate is someone who has great negotiating skills, one who is willing to be flexible.

Participating in a proposal to shut the government down is not my idea of a person I'd like to see as a president.
 
It seems the Kochs have taken the lead to win the Senate.
And adelson has taken the lead to keep out the TEAs from the POTUS nomination.

I do not think Adelson has a prayer of containing the next batch of GOP candidates. I foresee the next GOP presidential primary highlighting the split in the Republican party and I think it will be a bloodbath of Tea Party versus establishment Republicans. It should be very interesting to watch.

We're getting more and more folks on here from your state lately it seems.
The epicenter of the ACA debate with a DEM Southern governor and six states with conservative regions surrounding your west, north and east.
McC up in 2014 and Paul in 2016 and Beshear term-limited next year.

I still don't see Grimes beating the wily McC, which means Paul will have a strong platform to run on for 2016 if the GOPs take the Senate .
 
A lot of people want to see him on the GOP ticket in 2016. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat - just wondering how everyone else leans in regards to Paul...

Poll soon to follow.

I don't agree with him on all the issues but I would vote for him in a NY minute if I thought he could beat Hillary.
 
A lot of people want to see him on the GOP ticket in 2016. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat - just wondering how everyone else leans in regards to Paul...

Poll soon to follow.


I wouldn't vote for Paul for the same reasons I didn't vote for Obama. Today's politicians seem to be vying for the best combination of the most electable positions on issues, rather than passionate explanations for why their stance is one that leads to the most equitable solution. They play on emotions, division and impossible promises- instead of compromise and bipartisan rational answers. Otherwords, they just want to win at any costs and have no clue how to really fix anything, nor do they probably care.
 
The nature of how the Tea Party movement works likely precludes a "Tea Party candidate" from winning the nomination for the Presidency unless said individual has cross-over appeal to other constituents within the Republican Party. This is because the Tea Party movement's messages that are actually consistently unifying across the entire movement cover a very limited scope of the actual issues that are relevant to an actual election and political parties platform. On a local level, or in more localized national elections like that for the House, this works wonderfully as you have the potential for multiple candidates that share a common view on certain core issues but whose surrounding issues can be tailored to the region in question. On a national election however, it's far harder to mobilize the entire movement in support of a singular individual. This is because in a Republican Primary for president there are likely MULTIPLE individuals who fit the bill of the Tea Parties views on those narrow "core" issues, and thus individuals are more likely to throw their support behind people based on their views on the more varied list of secondary issues.

For example, Michelle Bachman, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, and Huntsman all could've made a legitimate argument in 2012 that regarding the core views of the Tea Party movement they all fit the bill. However, none would've recieved a significant majority of the "Tea Party" vote because voters in different regions would be more likely to vote on those secondary issues (or other things, like electability, tone, etc) that are important to them because there's a level of comfort across the board with them all when it comes to the core Tea Party message.

So if someone is spending big money to try to keep Tea Partiers from getting someone nominated for POTUS, I think they're pretty much wasting their money on something that will play itself on it's own UNLESS an individual has the ability to both appeal to a wide range of the Tea Party base AND to other constituents within the Republican voting base. On top of that, spending money to stop such a candidate would be fool hearty as such a candidate would likely provide the best option for an actual Presidential Run.
 
Back
Top Bottom