• 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 for president?

Would you vote for Rand Paul for president?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 37.1%
  • No

    Votes: 56 62.9%

  • Total voters
    89
I think so. I also think we're a little naive to not realize that many of the more draconian Chinese laws are an unspoken acknowledgement of the failure of other draconian policies , ie "one child"...........................

Without a doubt.
 
you cannot vote in American elections so who cares?

I would vote for Rand Paul over any of the likely dems because Rand Paul is pro gun owner and pro tax payer

However, I Hope Rob Portman is the GOP candidate

David Broder-soon before he died, predicted Portman as the most likely next president if Obama won re-election

Why do you hate people stating their opinions so much?
 
Why do you hate people stating their opinions so much?

what gives you the silly Idea I hate you. Hate suggests you have done something that really bothers me and you did it out of spite. Benign neglect is what I feel towards people whose opinions have no relevance to the subject matter.

It would be like me saying I'd never vote for Candidate X in your elections. who cares-I am not a canadian citizen
 
what gives you the silly Idea I hate you. Hate suggests you have done something that really bothers me and you did it out of spite. Benign neglect is what I feel towards people whose opinions have no relevance to the subject matter.

It would be like me saying I'd never vote for Candidate X in your elections. who cares-I am not a canadian citizen

I care, your another view on the subject, you bring a different view point.
 
Yup, because they are violation of property rights. You already knew that though. :D



He sure is. I'm not sure how I feel about that really.

yes im aware of the opinions and philosophies you hold.
 
Do you wear a ribbon expressing you care:mrgreen:

As usual, one finds you needlessly harassing the less cruel than yourself............................
 
As usual, one finds you needlessly harassing the less cruel than yourself............................

ribbons are signs that liberals care. One of the few funny things the fat man did was sport dozens of ribbons one day on his cancelled show

1) one was for breast cancer
2) another for AIDS
3) another for the homeless
4) another for animal rights etc


WE CARE MORE THAN YOU!!
 
ribbons are signs that liberals care. One of the few funny things the fat man did was sport dozens of ribbons one day on his cancelled show

1) one was for breast cancer
2) another for AIDS
3) another for the homeless
4) another for animal rights etc


WE CARE MORE THAN YOU!!

If you respected others you might be respected....................just saying........................
 
No, California is a liberal wasteland, nobody but the most wingnut liberals will ever carry California.

That's not true at all. If the GOP ran a true reasonable moderate Republican, California actually could be in play. California isn't as liberal as a lot of people think. I wish it were more liberal than it is. If you take away Los Angeles and the Bay area...the state is fairly conservative. But not "Conservative" in the wacked out right-wing evangelical "conservative" that represents today's GOP. But Conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan sense.

Like I said...Ronald Reagan couldn't even get nominated in today's GOP.
 
You are probably right but the good thing is most othe conserveatives judges are younger.......Hope fully we can hold out until Rand Paul is president in 2016;)

What about President Fred Thompson?
 
That's not true at all. If the GOP ran a true reasonable moderate Republican, California actually could be in play. California isn't as liberal as a lot of people think. I wish it were more liberal than it is. If you take away Los Angeles and the Bay area...the state is fairly conservative. But not "Conservative" in the wacked out right-wing evangelical "conservative" that represents today's GOP. But Conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan sense.

Like I said...Ronald Reagan couldn't even get nominated in today's GOP.

Like Washington all the major cities where the population is are Liberal and like Washington Conservatives live in the rural areas.
 
Yes and will be actively campaigning for him.
 
Like Washington all the major cities where the population is are Liberal and like Washington Conservatives live in the rural areas.

Close...but not exactly. Orange County and San Diego are both big moderate Republican areas as is Ventura County which has a fairly large population. Even LA County, which is pretty liberal has a pretty large moderate population...much more than the Bay area. I wish California were a lot more liberal than it is. We have elected a slew of Moderate Republican Governors so that should give you a pretty good idea. Even in the last election, the Governor's race was pretty close. The difference is....the national GOP is much more right-wing than California Republicans are. The National GOP candidates are never going to sell in California because we reject their hard core evangelical big brother social agenda. Run a fiscal conservative/social moderate and California would be do-able for the GOP. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
 
That's not true at all. If the GOP ran a true reasonable moderate Republican, California actually could be in play. California isn't as liberal as a lot of people think. I wish it were more liberal than it is. If you take away Los Angeles and the Bay area...the state is fairly conservative. But not "Conservative" in the wacked out right-wing evangelical "conservative" that represents today's GOP. But Conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan sense.

Unfortunately, there aren't many people in power in the Republican Party that are conservative in the Goldwater/Reagan sense. I wish there were. The only really conservative part of California is Orange County, the rest is absurdly "gimme gimme gimme" liberal. They never met free public money projects they didn't like.

Like I said...Ronald Reagan couldn't even get nominated in today's GOP.

No, Reagan didn't drink the neo-con koolaid, he just knew what to say to make them give him money and votes. Today, unless you're a fanatic, you can't get any traction in the party.
 
No. I support a robust and dominating American presence on the world stage, and believe in an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy to safeguard our position in the 21st Century in an effort to boost the continuing good prospects brought about by Democratic Empire and Hegemony. Rand Paul would be a decisive step in the opposite direction, as a Republican I'd be compelled to vote for Hillary Clinton or whomever the Democratic candidate is in 2016.
 
There is a good chance he is running in 2016. Would you vote for him?

I'm voting for the Green candidate in 2016!

Oh, wait, Oklahoma has archaic, borderline-fascist ballot access laws...

Well, damn, looks like Hillary in 2016. :|
 
I believe the statement was a Republican could never carry California.

No, the statement was a Republican will never carry California - as in the future, you know. You're the only one living in the past. Ronald Reagan is your proof that in the 21st century the Republicans can win California.:lamo
 
Yes depending on the democrat and if he got the GOP nomination. If Rand were to stick by his ideas when it comes to military and his real ideas on social spending, which is to say its a necessary evil, then if the dem was someone i couldn't get behind I would get behind him. At this point he is the only republican that may interest me. Then again I'm regionally biased.
 
No. I support a robust and dominating American presence on the world stage, and believe in an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy to safeguard our position in the 21st Century in an effort to boost the continuing good prospects brought about by Democratic Empire and Hegemony. Rand Paul would be a decisive step in the opposite direction, as a Republican I'd be compelled to vote for Hillary Clinton or whomever the Democratic candidate is in 2016.

What has invading Afghanistan and Iraq brought us other than skyrocketing military budgets and instability in an already tense region?
 
What has invading Afghanistan and Iraq brought us other than skyrocketing military budgets and instability in an already tense region?

Yeah. Pretty much. The idealistic notions that the Bush administration played out for Iraq from school vouchers to breaking OPEC have all basically failed to materialize. And Iran is now stronger because of it.

That said, Isolationism is not the answer, but wild adventures into foreign lands that last for years is clearly worse.
 
No. I support a robust and dominating American presence on the world stage, and believe in an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy to safeguard our position in the 21st Century in an effort to boost the continuing good prospects brought about by Democratic Empire and Hegemony. Rand Paul would be a decisive step in the opposite direction, as a Republican I'd be compelled to vote for Hillary Clinton or whomever the Democratic candidate is in 2016.

Agressive and interventionist foreign policy? Man, I bet you have just been LOVING the past decade. I feel safer already.
 
Back
Top Bottom