• 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 .
WTF are leftwingers even responding??? We know you won't vote for him. :doh:
 
He is a wackjob. All the crazies like him. What does that have to do with MSNBC (and whatever heroes dwell there) or Fox?

That's not true. Not all the crazies like him, because leftwingers don't. :mrgreen:
 
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.

Really?

He's more to the right than the Republican base on gay marriage?
He's more to the right than the Republican base on immigration?
He's more to the right on drug laws?
He's more to the right on our military spending?
He's more to the right on security issues?
 
The GOPs are all over the place on dozens of issues right now.

That is what happens when a Party needs to change to remain relevant. Some will resist it while others will embrace it. Since the GOP is the 'conservative party', change is especially difficult and contentious.
 
And the establishment GOPs like Boehner call traitors like Snowden "traitors", who Rand Paulites defend .

One man's traitor is another man's whistleblower.
 
Really?

He's more to the right than the Republican base on gay marriage?
He's more to the right than the Republican base on immigration?
He's more to the right on drug laws?
He's more to the right on our military spending?
He's more to the right on security issues?

You just lined out why he won't receive the nomination, too hard right. You think mainstream voters want someone more hard right after people like him supported a gov't shutdown? tsk, tsk.
 
That's not true. Not all the crazies like him, because leftwingers don't. :mrgreen:

He combines two of America's least favorite things: congress and frivolous lawsuits. Lefties are very fond of the latter.
 
He's a creepy religious nut who buys into the whole "poor people are moochers" nonsense. He gets points for actually caring about the 4th amendment and doesn't want to war for profit, but any decent liberal has the same stance. There's nothing that a Paul would bring that Elizabeth Warren or Burnie Sanders wouldn't, and they'd do the right thing by more than just the wealthiest Americans.
 
We realize the first amendment is in the eyes of the beholders !
WTF are leftwingers even responding??? We know you won't vote for him. :doh:
 
So you are saying that all leftwingers are crazy.
Xy doesn't cotton to that kind of talk from the other side, even about Ted Nugent with his subhuman mongrel insults at your President .
That's not true. Not all the crazies like him, because leftwingers don't. :mrgreen:
 
Really?

He's more to the right than the Republican base on gay marriage?
He's more to the right than the Republican base on immigration?
He's more to the right on drug laws?
He's more to the right on our military spending?
He's more to the right on security issues?

Thank you for admitting all that. But the one issue which will simply kill him and all the ticket under him is when he steps up to explain his opposition to civil rights laws. America will simply not stand for that and he will quickly and accurately be tagged as a type of racist who is simply fifty years out of time. And that will destroy him and his ticket.

Which is why he will never get the GOP nomination no matter how much I would like to see him imitate the captain of the TITANIC.
 
Especially Putin's ongoing traitor .

You are being silly. Russia was not Snowden's first choice for asylum. He was unable to leave because the US govt would have picked him up immediately if he did. Ever heard that old expression, "between a rock and a hard place?"
 
Thank you for admitting all that. But the one issue which will simply kill him and all the ticket under him is when he steps up to explain his opposition to civil rights laws. America will simply not stand for that and he will quickly and accurately be tagged as a type of racist who is simply fifty years out of time. And that will destroy him and his ticket.

Which is why he will never get the GOP nomination no matter how much I would like to see him imitate the captain of the TITANIC.

I also don't believe he will receive the GOP nomination, at least anytime soon.

The CRA comment will definitely draw continued attention and criticism. It was a dumb comment to make because such an opinion on such a sensitive topic can be easily misinterpreted. Of course, every politician makes at least one dumb comment, and most (like Paul) are able to carry on.
 
I also don't believe he will receive the GOP nomination, at least anytime soon.

The CRA comment will definitely draw continued attention and criticism. It was a dumb comment to make because such an opinion on such a sensitive topic can be easily misinterpreted. Of course, every politician makes at least one dumb comment, and most (like Paul) are able to carry on.

Except that the Paul comment about civil rights laws would become front and center in his campaign starting the day after the convention selects him. Before I retired I gave political advice for a living (after my teaching career) and my advice to anybody running against Rand Paul would be to hammer that again and again and again day after day after day after day and paint him as a person badly out of time and very bad fit for 2016 America and its diverse population.

Let him try the same nuanced arguments we have seen on the internet on sites just like this which pretty much boil down to 'yes my position sounds racist and is not liked by other races and would negatively impact other races besides white folks-but really folks and I am not a racist'. Let him try that in a national campaign with 15 second sound bites and see what it garners him besides the worlds largest headache until election day where he makes Barry Goldwater look like a winner by comparison.

Again - I would love to see him as the nominee because it would sink his party all over the nation with the exception of a small handful of states. But we all know the people who run the GOP are simply not that stupid nor do they have a death wish.
 
You are being silly. Russia was not Snowden's first choice for asylum. He was unable to leave because the US govt would have picked him up immediately if he did. Ever heard that old expression, "between a rock and a hard place?"

Between a rock and a hard place is where Rand Paul finds himself today after his 2009 comments on Cheney surfaced. All the usuals in the Conservative written press have trashed Paul, including saying that Paul has "deReaganized" himself. Those are GOP writers !
 
I will fully admit that from a political strategy stand point, due to the sound bite voting public we have in America today, that previous statements and views of Paul on civil rights would be a substantial hurdle to over come.

It wouldn't cause ME to not vote for him, which was the question asked in this thread. However, it would make him a difficult candidate to win the general. It's not an impossible hurdle to over come, but it absolutely would be a difficult one.
 
Except that the Paul comment about civil rights laws would become front and center in his campaign starting the day after the convention selects him. Before I retired I gave political advice for a living (after my teaching career) and my advice to anybody running against Rand Paul would be to hammer that again and again and again day after day after day after day and paint him as a person badly out of time and very bad fit for 2016 America and its diverse population.

Let him try the same nuanced arguments we have seen on the internet on sites just like this which pretty much boil down to 'yes my position sounds racist and is not liked by other races and would negatively impact other races besides white folks-but really folks and I am not a racist'. Let him try that in a national campaign with 15 second sound bites and see what it garners him besides the worlds largest headache until election day where he makes Barry Goldwater look like a winner by comparison.

Again - I would love to see him as the nominee because it would sink his party all over the nation with the exception of a small handful of states. But we all know the people who run the GOP are simply not that stupid nor do they have a death wish.

I agree. I think the only way he could possibly have a prayer for the nomination is if he stated simply and sincerely, "I was wrong."
 
I think today a lot of people think more worse about Rand Paul.
 
Back
Top Bottom