• 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!

Rand Paul or any Democrat

Rand Paul or any Democrat.


  • Total voters
    15

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
For 2016, if your choice for POTUS was Rand Paul or any Democrat of your choice, Who would get your vote?
 
I like Rand Paul personally so I would choose him. I may not agree with everything, but I think it would do the country good overall.
 
For 2016, if your choice for POTUS was Rand Paul or any Democrat of your choice, Who would get your vote?

If the choice was Ron Paul, I would have selected him.
 
For 2016, if your choice for POTUS was Rand Paul or any Democrat of your choice, Who would get your vote?

Any Democrat. The Extreme right has ruined this country.
 
Rand Paul versus Hillary Clinton. That's a very tough choice.

Flip a coin.
 
For 2016, if your choice for POTUS was Rand Paul or any Democrat of your choice, Who would get your vote?
If Paul or "any democrat" manage to gain their respective party's nominations, their viewpoints will be so vanilla-fied that they'll be virtually the same candidate.
Anyone, such as yourself, possibly, who would have voted for Rand, will be completely disgusted by RP's machinations and backtracking.
Alienated RP supporters would be forced to vote for a 3rd party candidate.;)
 
Here's a better question. People who think that the world is ten thousand years old (including Rand Paul) or people who actually follow evidence and science (most Democrats)?

I don't think that anyone who seriously believes in magic and is unable to understand reality has a place in elected offices. Not when you're making decisions with a large effect on reality. The only factors you consider ought to be real ones.
 
I'd take Rand over most other republicans because the man has...ya no never mind
 
for the purposes of this thread, i'd have to choose Rand.

IRL, i'll most likely vote LP candidate.. or Jim Webb(D) if he makes it to the General.
 
Here's a better question. People who think that the world is ten thousand years old (including Rand Paul) or people who actually follow evidence and science (most Democrats)?

I don't think that anyone who seriously believes in magic and is unable to understand reality has a place in elected offices. Not when you're making decisions with a large effect on reality. The only factors you consider ought to be real ones.

I hate to break this to you.....but, there won't be any atheists in the race...
 
I hate to break this to you.....but, there won't be any atheists in the race...

There's plenty of room between atheism and creationism.
 
Here's a better question. People who think that the world is ten thousand years old (including Rand Paul) or people who actually follow evidence and science (most Democrats)?

I don't think that anyone who seriously believes in magic and is unable to understand reality has a place in elected offices. Not when you're making decisions with a large effect on reality. The only factors you consider ought to be real ones.
I've never heard that he believes that...
 
Punxsutawney Phil over Rand Paul unless it's a long lasting winter.
The big day is only three weeks away.
I predict Phil and Rand will split the rodent vote, thereby enabling a Hillary victory.
 
I hate to break this to you.....but, there won't be any atheists in the race...

There probably are quite a few, but they have to pretend not to be. Don't forget, religious adherence drops sharply when someone becomes more educated, and most political figures are quite well educated. It's likely we have a lot more atheists in elective office than you think. It's also likely that many who make a lot of pro-religious noise are also just pandering and don't mean a lot of it. Unfortunately, far too many of them actually do.

I've never heard that he believes that...

He endorses the viewpoints of young earth creationists and then refuses to say how old he thinks the earth is. There is only one answer. It's as old as the evidence shows. It's not a matter of opinion. So take your pick. He's either lying and waffling and pandering to those who do think that we should make decisions based on magic, or he is one of them. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is honest.

Either way, not someone who can be trusted to make rational decisions based on the facts with any kind of significant power.
 
Rand Paul would be the lesser of two evils, but odds are I'd vote 3rd party.
 
Assuming third parties are not an option...

Rand Paul over Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden

Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders/Jim Webb over Rand Paul.

But if anyone other than Sanders or Webb gets the Dem nomination, I'm going with Gary Johnson again. Not perfect by any means, however he is pretty good (IMO) once you step away from economics.
 
There probably are quite a few, but they have to pretend not to be. Don't forget, religious adherence drops sharply when someone becomes more educated, and most political figures are quite well educated. It's likely we have a lot more atheists in elective office than you think. It's also likely that many who make a lot of pro-religious noise are also just pandering and don't mean a lot of it. Unfortunately, far too many of them actually do.



He endorses the viewpoints of young earth creationists and then refuses to say how old he thinks the earth is. There is only one answer. It's as old as the evidence shows. It's not a matter of opinion. So take your pick. He's either lying and waffling and pandering to those who do think that we should make decisions based on magic, or he is one of them. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he is honest.

Either way, not someone who can be trusted to make rational decisions based on the facts with any kind of significant power.
I don't know of a politician that doesn't fluff to get the base to accept him. Obama did the same in many instances... He claims he is Christian and claimed he was against gay marriage when he ran for office... I bet those were both because of political purposes. I think he is Atheist/agnostic. Obama would not be able to run as an Atheist, hasn't been done before in America on that scale.

Since a decent part of the republican base is evangelical, Paul probably purposely made it ambiguous. Here is one quote from him “My faith has never been easy for me. Never been easy to talk about and never been without obstacles.” Paul said he struggled to understand “how tragedy could occur in a world that has purpose and design.” Which sounds agnostic...

Welcoming freedom of religion and letting Evangelicals think what they want is fine... Having them change text books and such is silly... I don't think Rand Paul has ever advocated that.

It's impossible to fit the whole country into two sides... Both sides stand next to crazies and both sides have to become leaders of the vast amount of different groups of people.
 
If the choice was Ron Paul, I would have selected him.

Me as well.

Rand Paul is looking more and more like a very poor facsimile of his father.

He seems to stand for little except compromise.
 
Here's a better question. People who think that the world is ten thousand years old (including Rand Paul) or people who actually follow evidence and science (most Democrats)?

I don't think that anyone who seriously believes in magic and is unable to understand reality has a place in elected offices. Not when you're making decisions with a large effect on reality. The only factors you consider ought to be real ones.

Truth be told I care little about a man's position on the age of the earth. I know many such persons that still have a better grasp of the necessity for the basic structures of modern America.

Senator Paul is one of the few voices arguing against the Civil Rights Act and largely stands opposed to most of the existing government programs and Departments.
 
Truth be told I care little about a man's position on the age of the earth. I know many such persons that still have a better grasp of the necessity for the basic structures of modern America.

Senator Paul is one of the few voices arguing against the Civil Rights Act and largely stands opposed to most of the existing government programs and Departments.

The bolded is a plus for you? Yikes.
 
The bolded is a plus for you? Yikes.

Absolutely not. It's one of the cornerstones for my opposition to Senator Paul. Besides my belief in its virtues for the commonwealth, I and many others like me are the beneficiaries of the precedent that legislation established.

One of the main reasons why I and many others are where they are today is because of those protections.
 
Back
Top Bottom