• 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 .
I just find it very amusing your post calls out partisanship.

:roll:

Yes, calling out right-wing lies for what they are is just being "partisan." What a joke.
 
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?

It would really depend on Paul's platform. Off hand, I'd say I'd likely vote 3rd party again. But if it were Hillary vs. Paul and Paul put together a cohesive and intelligent platform that played to some libertarian values...I may be persuaded to vote for him instead. But it's too early to tell for sure.
 
Still nothing on the thread topic?
Please stay focused.

Who is an alternative to Rand Paul besides Chris Christie?
Who would each candidate have to take to 'balance the ticket' ?
I just find it very amusing your post calls out partisanship.
 
Since you seem anti-NSA excesses in your posts, R. Paul is your man.
He would be the leader of the Amash 4th amendment coalition, which includes DEM socialists/liberals like Sen. Sanders .
It would really depend on Paul's platform. Off hand, I'd say I'd likely vote 3rd party again. But if it were Hillary vs. Paul and Paul put together a cohesive and intelligent platform that played to some libertarian values...I may be persuaded to vote for him instead. But it's too early to tell for sure.
 
And what left-wing lies am I peddling? Go ahead, show me what you got.

That's a nice strawman - I think YOU were the one claiming I'm peddling lies. I'm stating your hypocrisy as claiming to defend the "right wing lies" but not pointing out "left wing lies" which there are many on DP. My other claim was your posts have been claiming some sort of moderate stance, when in reality, you outed yourself as nothing more than another poster with far left wing claims, disparaging with zero fact or logical argument, over an hour of video which you claimed was "crafted". Why? Because Cashill contributes to the hated WND, of which I wasn't aware. You're slanderous posts based on nothing but association, was enough. The argument Cashill makes is valid - that upset you. Now you post wanting to pick a fight what... so I get an infraction? :roll:

Such tactics won't work on me. So please... please... go ahead an ignore me. Yet you keep coming back for more. That says volumes. Anyway, have a nice night.
 
That's a nice strawman - I think YOU were the one claiming I'm peddling lies. I'm stating your hypocrisy as claiming to defend the "right wing lies" but not pointing out "left wing lies" which there are many on DP. My other claim was your posts have been claiming some sort of moderate stance, when in reality, you outed yourself as nothing more than another poster with far left wing claims, disparaging with zero fact or logical argument, over an hour of video which you claimed was "crafted". Why? Because Cashill contributes to the hated WND, of which I wasn't aware. You're slanderous posts based on nothing but association, was enough. The argument Cashill makes is valid - that upset you. Now you post wanting to pick a fight what... so I get an infraction? :roll:

Such tactics won't work on me. So please... please... go ahead an ignore me. Yet you keep coming back for more. That says volumes. Anyway, have a nice night.

The argument that Cashill makes is NOT valid. THAT'S MY POINT.

So now I'm under obligation to root out and call out any and all "left wing lies," or I'm a loony. Of course, the fact that I HAVE called out lies from the left is ignored.

And now we're done.
 
Since you seem anti-NSA excesses in your posts, R. Paul is your man.
He would be the leader of the Amash 4th amendment coalition, which includes DEM socialists/liberals like Sen. Sanders .

The NSA should probably just be Waco-ed. But I'd need a bit more than one issue if I were to vote for a Republocrat.
 
There are clearly several issues where new coalitions have formed between the two parties.
We just saw a weaker form of female protection from rape pass 97-0.
Sen. Paul supported Sen. Gillibrand's version which would have taken jurisdiction from the Generals.

As Sen. Cruz tries to pick up the Reagan mantle, the rest of the GOP snickers as Paul smacked him around the last few days.
Sen. Paul is more seasoned in regards to not mocking "presidents" Dole, McCain and Romney, with Cruz adding they didn't have principle.

Coming out of CPAC with his ground forces winning 31-11 over Cruz, Paul is the clear GOP favorite.
His VP choice would make the difference with me, as it would Hillary, though I'd prefer a DEM governor .
The NSA should probably just be Waco-ed. But I'd need a bit more than one issue if I were to vote for a Republocrat.
 
There are clearly several issues where new coalitions have formed between the two parties.
We just saw a weaker form of female protection from rape pass 97-0.
Sen. Paul supported Sen. Gillibrand's version which would have taken jurisdiction from the Generals.

As Sen. Cruz tries to pick up the Reagan mantle, the rest of the GOP snickers as Paul smacked him around the last few days.
Sen. Paul is more seasoned in regards to not mocking "presidents" Dole, McCain and Romney, with Cruz adding they didn't have principle.

Coming out of CPAC with his ground forces winning 31-11 over Cruz, Paul is the clear GOP favorite.
His VP choice would make the difference with me, as it would Hillary, though I'd prefer a DEM governor .

We'll see. I'll need a complete platform and evidence that he's working towards it before I can vote for him. I don't discount voting for a Republocrat, but they're going to have to go above and beyond to capture my vote.
 
I understand your frustration when you use the term Republocrat.
I maintain the USA had entered a new regional/issue-oriented coalition of overlap between the two parties
on several issues even before the 2012s.

1. Amash amendment I mentioned once before.
2. Isolationist creep in both parties versus neo-cons in both parties.
3. Gun coalition with blue dogs that defeated by filibuster the Toomey/Manchin bill.
4. Keystone XL tearing apart Dems into energy/enviros.
5. Fast track has strong pro/con groups in each party.
6. Immigration/Sen. Rubio's clan has made strange bedfellows.
7. GOP Chairman Camp's Tax reform, which McConnell promptly shelved.
8. The GOP certainly has a greater split with GLBT issues.

These and oh so many more are why I believe we have a more malleable 2-party system than in 2011 .
We'll see. I'll need a complete platform and evidence that he's working towards it before I can vote for him. I don't discount voting for a Republocrat, but they're going to have to go above and beyond to capture my vote.
 
I understand your frustration when you use the term Republocrat.
I maintain the USA had entered a new regional/issue-oriented coalition of overlap between the two parties
on several issues even before the 2012s.

1. Amash amendment I mentioned once before.
2. Isolationist creep in both parties versus neo-cons in both parties.
3. Gun coalition with blue dogs that defeated by filibuster the Toomey/Manchin bill.
4. Keystone XL tearing apart Dems into energy/enviros.
5. Fast track has strong pro/con groups in each party.
6. Immigration/Sen. Rubio's clan has made strange bedfellows.
7. GOP Chairman Camp's Tax reform, which McConnell promptly shelved.
8. The GOP certainly has a greater split with GLBT issues.

These and oh so many more are why I believe we have a more malleable 2-party system than in 2011 .

I think it's all just standard politics. Trying to make it seem like there is a difference, pointing the finger at the other guy in condemnation. But really, what do they actually do that's so different? Not much. Functionally, while they try to maintain these propaganda talking points to pretend there's a difference, they enact that same types of policies and laws and government growing crap against the People. I don't see a real difference and that's why I don't trust these little factions that claim X, but play party ball whenever it's required.
 
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?

I think your signature line sort of explains my feelings if it boils down to those two. I will be honest, in five of the last six elections I voted third party. I will not vote for someone I feel is the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate. Regardless of who wins, you still end up with a very bad winner. I vote for whom I think is the best candidate, if that candidate belongs to a third party or is an independent, so be it. At least I know I have voted for the best, not the least worst or the lesser of two evils. Evil is evil.
 
I'm absolutely shocked we agree ;)

Honestly though, I'd be very happy with this. While I don't agree 100% with Paul, IF he managed to win the ticket he'd be the first person in memory on the biggest stage that I could see myself happy with enough to actively WANT to get involved. Huntsman would've caused that for me as well, but alas that abysmal primary stategy had him going no where.

The smears going off against Paul would definitely come in full force, but I think he's seemingly got enough "new blood" in him to embrace some of the changing realities of politics and hopefully get some people on board who know how to message and manage public perception in the 21st century to combat it. If he could leverage some of what worked with his father with the younger people in creating an '08 Obama-esque "socially trendy" feeling to his campaign, I could see him surprising some folks.

I'm shocked we managed to find some common ground. ;)

But yes, I'm at the same place. I don't agree with Rand on everything, just like I didn't agree with his dad on everything, but I line up more with Rand Paul than I do any other major candidate in my memory and that's enough to make me want to get involved on a personal level. My one concern about Rand is that is relatively new and inexperienced. Part of me would almost like him to run a strong campaign, fall short of the nomination, and come back in 2020 or 2024 depending on how 2016 goes. But, since none of the other "major" possible Republican nominees look acceptable to me, I'll happily put that one reservation aside. Plus, you never know how things will develop in 4 or 8 years, so if Paul has a good chance at capturing the nomination, then he should go for it now.
 
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?

The only wasted vote is an unprincipled one. My vote will be with neither.
 
Paul has and excellent chance if he gets the nomination to beat the "Wicked witch from the East"......Young voters love him and will comes out in masses for him.
 
Paul has and excellent chance if he gets the nomination to beat the "Wicked witch from the East"......Young voters love him and will comes out in masses for him.

You are talking about the wrong Paul. The Young voters don't care for the son.
 
You are talking about the wrong Paul. The Young voters don't care for the son.

Really Disney...do you have some evidence to back up your sentiment, or are you just spouting off opinion as fact? Have any polling data to sugggest youth voters don't like Rand Paul?

He's definitely seemingly popular with young conservatives. He just soundly won the CPAC straw poll, where 46% of attendees were between 18 and 25 (SOURCE). He won 52% of the 18-24 year old vote in his 2010 election win (Source).

While it may be too early to say that "young voters lov him and will come out in masses", it's also rather early and baseless to state that "The Young Voters don't care" for him without something to back up that assertion.
 
Really Disney...do you have some evidence to back up your sentiment, or are you just spouting off opinion as fact? Have any polling data to sugggest youth voters don't like Rand Paul?

He's definitely seemingly popular with young conservatives. He just soundly won the CPAC straw poll, where 46% of attendees were between 18 and 25 (SOURCE). He won 52% of the 18-24 year old vote in his 2010 election win (Source).

While it may be too early to say that "young voters lov him and will come out in masses", it's also rather early and baseless to state that "The Young Voters don't care" for him without something to back up that assertion.

Not talking about young CPAC conservative voters. Talking about young voters in general which NP was referencing. Rand Paul has yet to win over the young college Ron Paul voters.
 
I have no interest in more "government needs to get out of the way" rhetoric that actually only means that "government needs to get out of rich people's way". That's all Paul really stands for. That and enforcing his personal religious mores on everyone else. He's everything this country doesn't need.
 
Really Disney...do you have some evidence to back up your sentiment, or are you just spouting off opinion as fact? Have any polling data to sugggest youth voters don't like Rand Paul?

He's definitely seemingly popular with young conservatives. He just soundly won the CPAC straw poll, where 46% of attendees were between 18 and 25 (SOURCE). He won 52% of the 18-24 year old vote in his 2010 election win (Source).

While it may be too early to say that "young voters lov him and will come out in masses", it's also rather early and baseless to state that "The Young Voters don't care" for him without something to back up that assertion.

This illustrates a divide in the GOP. Can Mr Paul win over a party that almost nominated Rick Santorum with libertarian views?

Let's face it, in order to win the GOP nomination he's going to have to say some pretty stupid stuff. By the time he's done bringing in the Christians, will the young people still recognize their candidate? His dad wasn't really serious about winning so he could say things like "The War on Drugs is a horribly failed policy that needs to end today" or "The embargo on Cuba has done nothing to help the Cuban people." If Rand is for real about winning he can't be so honest. And when he goes down that path, then he will be seen by his young supporters the way Mitt Romney looks to the people of Massachusetts: A man of no principle who will assume any caricature to take the nomination.

Just wait until he has to start stating exactly how pro-life, anti-gay he is on the campaign trail to assuage the doubts of the GOP faithful.

Either way, we all know he is going to say something about social security and/or medicare and/or 47% of Americans who are dependent on the Government...and then Hillary is going to accept the Presidency of the United States.
 
Not talking about young CPAC conservative voters. Talking about young voters in general which NP was referencing. Rand Paul has yet to win over the young college Ron Paul voters.

Last I checked, young conservatives represent a portion of the young voters in general.

Additionally, you'll note I actually provided evidence of at least one instance where Rand Paul absolutely DID win over the young college vote....52% in his 2010 election.

You've provided.....well, zero to back up your claim other than just restating it again.

Exactly how is your assertion any different than Navy's again?
 
Back
Top Bottom