• 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 as President in 2016

Should be Rand Paul the candidate for the Republicans in 2016

  • I'm a right leaning American, yes

    Votes: 12 25.5%
  • I'm a left leaning American, yes

    Votes: 8 17.0%
  • I'm a right leaning American, no

    Votes: 12 25.5%
  • I'm a left leaning American, no

    Votes: 15 31.9%

  • Total voters
    47
It's still State politics. Republicans do fine on the State level, but lately on the national stage not so good. And also obviously there's a whole different set of backers and power brokers in a National election/primary. Many of you Republicans are underestimating the Bush money, backers, and the Bush political machine.

I agree Bush Money shouldn't be underestimated. But here is where the large field disadvantages him. Money is mostly useful (especially for a candidate such as Bush) in defining other candidates - with multiple serious conservative challengers, Bush's money is spread thin.

Nor is it "state politics". It's ability to communicate. We have a President right now who won because he was seen as transformational because he was exceptionally good at giving the right kinds of speeches to the right people. Rubio has that.

In 2012 Romney spiraled down about 1/2 dozen times. He still ended up the GOP nom. It's early.

Romney depended on the self-destruction of the conservative alternatives, something Jeb can't depend on. But we'll see :).
 
I don't think that a Young Earth Creationist has any business with political power, let alone in the white house. If you are so out of touch with reality or so distrustful of facts that you think the world could be thousands instead of billions of years old, you can't be trusted with anything serious.

I agree that we should find a way to filter out ignorance. Let's re-institute poll tests. Basic stuff like "What are the three branches of government" and "Who is the current vice president". You would want to keep it pretty simple and dry so as to avoid controversial topics (no one wants the GOP using their local dominance to ensure that nobody can vote unless they can articulate the policy implications of Hausers' Law), But I think those two and a couple of other basic ones about the structure of our government could do us a world of good at keeping those who are ignorant about the basics from wielding the worlds' only Hyperpower.
 
I put santorum on the No way I'd vote for him list though if the Hildabeast is the candidate I might.

I'm not nuts about Santorum. I don't think he has a chance of getting the nomination. Unfortunately Huckabee has a better chance. This might be a little crazy but I'm interested to see what Trump has to say.
 
I lean to Rubio as VP because he has a direct Hispanic face and American voters are like that--whether folks want to hear that or not.
However, I think Gov. Sandoval of NM would do a much better job as VP, has a much lengthier resume, and would bring along NV, NM, and CO.

Ii's easy to see Walker winning Iowa and Paul running a tie for 2nd.
NH is far different with an open primary--which I believe helps Paul the most.

If Bush was so sure of himself, I think he'd have announced already.
He's down to 10% in the winner-take-all Florida primary which will be a bloodbath .



Well after all are done with Randal. We will see what he can do for Kentucky. As he is a waste of space for the rest of the Nation.

He might want to think about joining the ranks of the Democrats. Where he can be welcomed with open arms and empty wallets.
 
Romney depended on the self-destruction of the conservative alternatives, something Jeb can't depend on.

Why? You don't think that some of Huckabee's or Santorum's or Graham's views on religion and religion in government(them being very much FOR it) will torpedo their campaigns? Or their far right views on social issues?

Jeb and Pataki are the moderates in the GOP field right now. And in spite what the Limbaugh's and Fox says the GOP establishment isn't stupid, they KNOW to win the White House their candidate needs to move to the center during the general election, and Jeb is the only one who can do that.

Richard Nixon once said: For a Republican to win the presidency he had to: "Run hard to the right in the primaries; steer back to the center for the general election."

He was 100% right. I don't see any GOP candidate moving to the center in the ge except Bush, the others are entrenched in the far right policies of the TP.
 
Why? You don't think that some of Huckabee's or Santorum's or Graham's views on religion and religion in government(them being very much FOR it) will torpedo their campaigns? Or their far right views on social issues?

I don't think any of those are his actual opponents.

As for being conservative being a problem - again, no it isn't, any more than being liberal is/was a problem for Obama. The US populace is splitting, and the way you win now is by exciting your base without scaring off the middle, rather than winning the middle without losing your base.

Jeb and Pataki are the moderates in the GOP field right now. And in spite what the Limbaugh's and Fox says the GOP establishment isn't stupid, they KNOW to win the White House their candidate needs to move to the center during the general election, and Jeb is the only one who can do that.

Richard Nixon once said: For a Republican to win the presidency he had to: "Run hard to the right in the primaries; steer back to the center for the general election."

And for the time he was correct. Now he would be wrong

PP-2014-06-12-polarization-0-01.png


Being a moderate / centrist didn't work for Romney, it didn't work for McCain, and it won't work for Jeb.
 
again, no it isn't, any more than being liberal is/was a problem for Obama.

Obama is NOT liberal. He's pretty middle of the road, hell on foreign policy he's probably to the right. I know nowadays it's a very popular conservative talking point to say Obama is a liberal, Muslim, socialist, communist.. But he's none of those

without scaring off the middle

Yes, I agree. But IMO talking about religion, and them wanting more religion in the government, them attacking abortion, and nowadays the constant fight against gays(even polls show younger Republicans views have changed dramatically towards gays) is going to turn off, yes scare the middle. Most of the GOP candidates are still pandering to the older, white voters, their base. That's not the way to go anymore.

And for the time he was correct. Now he would be wrong..........Being a moderate / centrist didn't work for Romney, it didn't work for McCain, and it won't work for Jeb.

Again Romney DID NOT move to the center. He showed no balls at all, he moved to the right during the primaries and but he stayed there during the General Election. He let the far right part of the GOP manipulate him. He was a moderate, but he NEVER moved to the center. Just look how he flip flopped during the GE, espeically on social issues. IMO I think Jeb will have a set of balls, he'll move to the center, he won't let the far right pushed him around. IMO that's a big plus for him.

As for 2008 because of the economic collapse in August and September no Republican would have won in November. The voters were going to punish the party who was in the WH when the collapse happened, and that was the GOP.
 
Obama is NOT liberal. He's pretty middle of the road, hell on foreign policy he's probably to the right. I know nowadays it's a very popular conservative talking point to say Obama is a liberal, Muslim, socialist, communist.. But he's none of those

Obama is indeed quite liberal, especially when you compare him to the leadership that he replaced in the Democrat Party, which was deliberately centrist in orientation. I have noticed that liberals sometimes tend to confuse "what he has been able to get accomplished" with "what he would like to have accomplished" when grading him ideologically.

Yes, I agree. But IMO talking about religion, and them wanting more religion in the government, them attacking abortion, and nowadays the constant fight against gays(even polls show younger Republicans views have changed dramatically towards gays) is going to turn off, yes scare the middle. Most of the GOP candidates are still pandering to the older, white voters, their base. That's not the way to go anymore.

Actually women and latino's are more likely to favor restricting abortion than whites and men :) As for the "wanting more religion in government", that's a lefty talking point that appeals perhaps to other liberals/atheists who share it as an assumption rather than an actual description of their position. I haven't seen Rubio or Walker advocate for "more religion in government", but I'm betting you are using social conservatism as a proxy.

Again Romney DID NOT move to the center. He showed no balls at all, he moved to the right during the primaries and but he stayed there during the General Election. He let the far right part of the GOP manipulate him. He was a moderate, but he NEVER moved to the center. Just look how he flip flopped during the GE, espeically on social issues. IMO I think Jeb will have a set of balls, he'll move to the center, he won't let the far right pushed him around. IMO that's a big plus for him.

:shrug: sure, and his flops were part of the major reason why conservatives didn't really turn out for him. We knew he was a moderate. For that reason we will also not turn out for Jeb.

As for 2008 because of the economic collapse in August and September no Republican would have won in November. The voters were going to punish the party who was in the WH when the collapse happened, and that was the GOP.

That's very likely as well.
 
Obama is indeed quite liberal, especially when you compare him to the leadership that he replaced in the Democrat Party, which was deliberately centrist in orientation. I have noticed that liberals sometimes tend to confuse "what he has been able to get accomplished" with "what he would like to have accomplished" when grading him ideologically.



Actually women and latino's are more likely to favor restricting abortion than whites and men :) As for the "wanting more religion in government", that's a lefty talking point that appeals perhaps to other liberals/atheists who share it as an assumption rather than an actual description of their position. I haven't seen Rubio or Walker advocate for "more religion in government", but I'm betting you are using social conservatism as a proxy.



:shrug: sure, and his flops were part of the major reason why conservatives didn't really turn out for him. We knew he was a moderate. For that reason we will also not turn out for Jeb.



That's very likely as well.

Liberals have a problem with accepting Obama as a liberal. They then falsely accuse him of being a centrist. Of course, if they actually talked to centrist Democrats or Republicans they would quickly discover that there is a wide gulf between them and Obama. On the Dem side We are in orientation with Joe Lieberman, Heitkamp, Manchin, John Diulio, and so on. Our starting points are significantly different. We also have few qualms with working with the other Party as staffers. We may even prefer it. Obama Democrats tend to not have that as an ideological starting point.
 
Obama's not a liberal. Anyway the clown car continues. And please can someone tell these guys that OBAMA is NOT running in 2016. That's all any of these guys got. Criticize Obama. BTW Rick the glasses don't make you smarter.

Rick Perry, Shrugging Off 2012, Announces He Will Run Again for President
By MANNY FERNANDEZJUNE 4, 2015

ADDISON, Tex. — Rick Perry, the former Texas governor whose 2012 campaign for the White House turned into a political disaster that humbled and weakened the most powerful Republican in the state, announced Thursday that he will run for president again in 2016.

Mr. Perry is the latest candidate to officially enter a crowded field of Republican presidential contenders, declared and undeclared, several of whom have Texas ties and have overshadowed him in recent months, including Senator Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, Mr. Perry’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion.

“We will make it through the Obama years,” he told a cheering crowd at a small municipal airport here in Addison, a northern suburb of downtown Dallas. Saying “It’s time,” he declared, ”I am running for the presidency of the United States of America.”

cont..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/rick-perry-republican-nomination-for-president.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
 
Obama's not a liberal. Anyway the clown car continues. And please can someone tell these guys that OBAMA is NOT running in 2016. That's all any of these guys got. Criticize Obama. BTW Rick the glasses don't make you smarter.

Rick Perry, Shrugging Off 2012, Announces He Will Run Again for President
By MANNY FERNANDEZJUNE 4, 2015

ADDISON, Tex. — Rick Perry, the former Texas governor whose 2012 campaign for the White House turned into a political disaster that humbled and weakened the most powerful Republican in the state, announced Thursday that he will run for president again in 2016.

Mr. Perry is the latest candidate to officially enter a crowded field of Republican presidential contenders, declared and undeclared, several of whom have Texas ties and have overshadowed him in recent months, including Senator Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush, the brother of former President George W. Bush, Mr. Perry’s predecessor in the governor’s mansion.

“We will make it through the Obama years,” he told a cheering crowd at a small municipal airport here in Addison, a northern suburb of downtown Dallas. Saying “It’s time,” he declared, ”I am running for the presidency of the United States of America.”

cont..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/politics/rick-perry-republican-nomination-for-president.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Alright Obama isn't a liberal. Fine. Then don't call him a centrist or a moderate. He's not one of us.
 
One of Us? You're label says you're a Neoconservative? I wouldn't call him that either.

Neoconservatives were/are a moderate/centrist string of Democrats and Republicans.
 
Rand Paul is a disgrace to his fathers political legacy in my opinion. He is nothing but an ultra conservative with a streak of libertarianism. I will give him credit though, I really appreciated his leadership when it came to the Patriot Act. I just wish his fellow Senators would have listened more regarding the USA Freedom Act.
 
NeoCons are moderate? John Bolton is a moderate?

We're going to have to disagree about that.

John Bolton isn't a neoconservative, but rather an ally of foreign policy neoconservatives.

Become more familiar with the history of neoconservatism, especially in terms of domestic policy. It's a centrist orientation and has been since 1965.
 
John Bolton isn't a neoconservative, but rather an ally of foreign policy neoconservatives.

Become more familiar with the history of neoconservatism, especially in terms of domestic policy. It's a centrist orientation and has been since 1965.

Bolton's not a neocon huh? I guess you can label anyone anything then. On this site alone every day a dozen conservatives will label Obama a communist appeaser, which would put him far to the left.. And another dozen conservatives will call him a him a fascist dictator, which will put him firmly on the right. Call Bolton whatever you want, be my guest.

Anyway there is NOTHING moderate about neocon foreign policy.. Even their economic policy is pretty far right.

But that's another topic for another thread.
 
Bolton's not a neocon huh? I guess you can label anyone anything then. On this site alone every day a dozen conservatives will label Obama a communist appeaser, which would put him far to the left.. And another dozen conservatives will call him a him a fascist dictator, which will put him firmly on the right. Call Bolton whatever you want, be my guest.

Anyway there is NOTHING moderate about neocon foreign policy.. Even their economic policy is pretty far right.

But that's another topic for another thread.

I don't label Obama a socialist, but I don't label him a moderate. He's a comfortable liberal, but what many liberals are wanting right now is a return to McGovernism, which was the Democratic Party's liberal apex. In this sense, liberals have started to label McGovernism as the starting point for liberalism and everyone not in that circle is a centrist. By defining liberalism down, liberals have now started to make a democratic socialist like Sanders an honorary liberal or progressive. The Party is wanting to move Left like the Tea Party moved the Republic Party Right (if you accept the belief that the Tea Party are "far right"-I just call them populists).

Neoconservative foreign policy varied by generations. First it was the more realist strand mixed with hawkishness and the flair for human rights plank before Carter. Then it turned into hawkishness, democratic nation building, and human rights plank. I'm not among the latter, and find myself more aligned with Kissinger than either the earlier Scoop Jackson neocons or the Neo-Reaganite neocons you know today.

Neoconservative domestic policy is still quite moderate. But that's okay. I don't exactly expect you to think so, because you haven't exactly weighed a Ted Cruz, a Rand Paul, or even a Walker against the proposals they have tended to have.
 
Last edited:
John Bolton isn't a neoconservative, but rather an ally of foreign policy neoconservatives.

Become more familiar with the history of neoconservatism, especially in terms of domestic policy. It's a centrist orientation and has been since 1965.

Hey! Stop stealing my posts!

SenorXm/Sirius said:
Anyway there is NOTHING moderate about neocon foreign policy.. Even their economic policy is pretty far right.

:lamo
 
Update on Randal Paul. Seems things just aren't going so well for him. Like I had mention a couple weeks ago. He isn't even pulling his fathers people.



Rand Paul's Struggling Presidential Campaign.....

If anyone ought to be well positioned in the current, fractured Republican field, it’s Rand Paul. The Kentucky senator’s libertarian stances make him stand out from the pack, and his supporters were supposed to give him a solid base that he could expand by appealing to more traditional Republicans. But instead, Paul seems to be flailing, and fighting for space in the crowded GOP landscape. He’s tied for fourth place in the average of national polls, fifth in Iowa, third in New Hampshire. His fundraising isn’t going well—he’s even been frozen out by the top donor to his father, the former Texas congressman Ron Paul. He’s struggling to earn the backing of his father’s rank and file supporters, as well. And while Rand Paul’s recent maneuvers in the Senate succeeded in derailing renewal of the Patriot Act, they also served to highlight the unpopularity of his national-security positions within his party—and the stunt got far less buzz than the 2013 filibuster that made him a hero to many conservatives.

Inside and around the campaign, there is a sense that things are not going as well as hoped for Paul, multiple sources told me. “They are in a challenging spot right now,” said one Republican operative with knowledge of the campaign. “They are having a hard time reaching out to new constituencies while keeping the base happy.” The problem, the operative said, is that Paul’s flip-flopping and triangulation have damaged his reputation for ideological purity. “Senator Paul appears, in the minds of Republicans, to have gone from a guy who was standing on principle, who wanted to do things, to a politician who wants to be something,” the operative said.

A different GOP strategist put it more succinctly to National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, calling the Paul campaign “a disaster.”.....snip~

Rand Paul's Struggling Presidential Campaign
 
I think he'll find it even more difficult in today's climate to get any traction since he's doesn't blindly toe the party line.

Is it a "disaster?" How many people are polling under him, because there are many candidates. Do they call those doing worse a "disaster"? I think even more because he won't toe the line, that his party and mainstream media are more willing to go after him and to paint him as a candidate without a chance. They have to, because if by some ridiculous miracle of sorts, he got the nomination; it wouldn't be good for the GOP. They'd have a candidate they couldn't control. That's not good for party power.
 
I think he'll find it even more difficult in today's climate to get any traction since he's doesn't blindly toe the party line.

Is it a "disaster?" How many people are polling under him, because there are many candidates. Do they call those doing worse a "disaster"? I think even more because he won't toe the line, that his party and mainstream media are more willing to go after him and to paint him as a candidate without a chance. They have to, because if by some ridiculous miracle of sorts, he got the nomination; it wouldn't be good for the GOP. They'd have a candidate they couldn't control. That's not good for party power.

National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, calling the Paul campaign “a disaster.”.....snip~


Oh, kind of like how things are now with BO Peep, huh?
 
National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar, calling the Paul campaign “a disaster.”.....snip~


Oh, kind of like how things are now with BO Peep, huh?

BO is completely controllable, he's doing everything the Status Quo Republocrats love.
 
Back
Top Bottom