• 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 .
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 marked no because it is highly unlikely. of course if my other choices were something like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, I'd have to consider Paul.
 
He's a wackjob and feeds on the Alex Jones crowd.

Saying stuff like that doesn't deceive anyone anymore, so you can stop with that now.

Rand Paul is a great Senator who actually defends liberty from tyranny and corruption. To think otherwise would mean you must not love America.
 
I would if he were up against Clinton.
 
Here is my prediction.
Most say "no way" and may vote for this or that candidate in the primaries, but come general elections, they'll sing praises to whoever is on the ticket and vote party line and all the negatives will be a distant memory.
 
If he's in the running I would vote in the GOP primaries, I would vote for him in that, and I would vote for him in a general.

If not I would have to evaluate between the LP candidate, the GOP candidate, possibly even the CP candidate, or just not voting for President at all if they all suck.

I viewed neither Mitt Romney nor Gary Johnson as very palatable options... even if either would be at least marginally better than the fail we have now.
 
Especially the way Rand Paul has been caught calling out Dick Cheeney on old tapes.
I give him credit for being the only GOP with the guts to do that.
If he doesn't become a TRUE Libertarian on social issues, like Goldwater, he can kiss the Younger and more independent voters good-bye .

He's already flipped on what he said about the civil rights act, making it sound like he's for it, when he first said he wasn't for the civil rights act in an attempt to cover up his true feelings about it, you gotta keep an eye on those kinds of teabaggers.

If he makes it to the debates, I hope whoever hosts the debates gives him as much speaking time as they gave his racist daddy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html
 
Saying stuff like that doesn't deceive anyone anymore, so you can stop with that now.

Rand Paul is a great Senator who actually defends liberty from tyranny and corruption. To think otherwise would mean you must not love America.

hahaha

Did I bruise your wittle idol?
 
After reading your article, I really don't see much difference between Rand's position on Civil rights and that of Goldwater.

Rand speaks for the entire GOP when saying none of the ACTs of the 1960's are necessary any more,
since there is no longer discrimination in Civil Rights and Voting Rights.

And now Rand has tweeked Jeb Bush's "act of love" comments, clearly setting himself up as THE alternative in the GOP.
He's also up for reelection in 2016, giving him an easier platform to run in 2020 .
He's already flipped on what he said about the civil rights act, making it sound like he's for it, when he first said he wasn't for the civil rights act in an attempt to cover up his true feelings about it, you gotta keep an eye on those kinds of teabaggers.

If he makes it to the debates, I hope whoever hosts the debates gives him as much speaking time as they gave his racist daddy.

Rand Paul comments about civil rights stir controversy
 
Saying stuff like that doesn't deceive anyone anymore, so you can stop with that now.

Rand Paul is a great Senator who actually defends liberty from tyranny and corruption. To think otherwise would mean you must not love America.

And this is the kind of rhetoric that renders the person posting it impossible to take seriously.
 
"I'll carve up that federal deficit, trim the fat from government programs and lop off wasteful federal expenditures!"

BORDEN 2016

Hasn't every candidate since the beginning of mankind said they will do that regardless of their political party?
 
I prefer his father to Rand...Rand seems to compromise too much and he is still too much of a big military/America policing the world guy for my taste.

But he obviously has a much better chance at the W.H. then his Pop did (who had virtually none).

And I think he would be a definite step forward.

WAAAAAAAY better then either of the last two loser POTUS's anyway.
 
To get his father's angry white male supporters, Rand Paul couldn't resist a bigotry campaign - for which his supporters are now spamming white supremacy and demands for racial segregation all over the Internet - and increasingly on this forum. No, I'm not a Southern Confederate who wants racial segregation returned to the USA - so of course no I will not vote for Rand Paul.

It is regrettable that kissing the ass of his father's angry white bigots for their money and fanaticism was something he could not resist. So we'll have to listen to is advocacy of segregation for the next 3 decades.
 
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.

Honestly? I have grave misgivings. I'm a consistent Republican voter (minor exceptions here and there) but I'm deeply worried by his foreign policy platform. He's held his cards closer to his chest on that so I can't say if he's precisely like his father but so far he seems to lean heavily in that direction. At a time when I think we need bold, involved, and assertive foreign policy more than ever I'm deeply concerned about what a Rand administration would look like. I haven't ruled him out completely like I have some others (Cruz, Perry, etc) but I'd need to be convinced. The question really becomes can I overlook what I think is an abysmal foreign policy platform in favor of his better attributes and the answer is I'm not sure. It would depend on his opponent, what the world looked like, and how I felt. Depending on circumstances it might edge me towards Hillary.

I'd much prefer someone like Ryan, Walker, Christie, Bush, etc. I'm just not comfortable with Rand. I suspect I'm not totally atypical if you canvassed your average Northeast suburban Republican.
 


WE're not going to take it - anymore.

 
After reading your article, I really don't see much difference between Rand's position on Civil rights and that of Goldwater.

Rand speaks for the entire GOP when saying none of the ACTs of the 1960's are necessary any more,
since there is no longer discrimination in Civil Rights and Voting Rights.

And now Rand has tweeked Jeb Bush's "act of love" comments, clearly setting himself up as THE alternative in the GOP.
He's also up for reelection in 2016, giving him an easier platform to run in 2020 .

Look around Nimby, it's not the 1960's anymore. People (some) in the GOP and Rand Paul are still stuck in the 60's and earlier by their thoughts and speech, they've not evolved, yet. I'd give the GOP leg humpers another 20 to 30 years before they come around out of the Neanderthal age.
 
At this point, absolutley I'd be willing to vote for Rand
 
I have voted for Republicans in the past, but those were the Republicans who knew how to compromise and work with Democrats to get legislation passed and the nations interests progressed. The Tea Party candidates seem to stand for getting nothing accomplished and value gridlock over compromise. The Congress has never been perfect, but the way it has functioned since the Tea Party has arrived, which is basically non-functional, is a travesty. In addition, Paul wants to lower the US's involvement in the international community and this I cannot agree with, as I find it extremely dangerous.
 
At this point, absolutley I'd be willing to vote for Rand

You know he's a R.I.N.O. don't you?

He's not a true republican, he is a teabagger.

4468908929_f8e9d948b2.jpg
 
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.
 
Look around Nimby, it's not the 1960's anymore. People (some) in the GOP and Rand Paul are still stuck in the 60's and earlier by their thoughts and speech, they've not evolved, yet. I'd give the GOP leg humpers another 20 to 30 years before they come around out of the Neanderthal age.

Rand Paul and his wing aren't the only GOPs that have reverse evolved in Civil Rights and most especially Voting Rights. The USSC decision itself turned back the clocks of time on a VRA once reupped 98-0 in the Senate. Voter limitation laws in WI, OH, NC and the rest will be a huge factor this year .
 
You know he's a R.I.N.O. don't you?

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.

He's not a true republican, he is a teabagger.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom