• 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
No it doesn't leave many at all. Campaign reform is what we need. Serious campaign reform. It won't happen because most Americans are not that politically aware and are so uninvolved in their own governance that it is almost treasonous. Most Americans are apparently happy with the oligarchy and they will continue voting along party lines because it's much easier for them.

Campaign reform isn't going to happen. They'll pretend it is happening but they'll always leave the loopholes that allow them to continue to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth at our expense.

What has to happen is to bust the federal government back to close to its constitutional roots and not give those in the federal government any ability to extort or bribe all that money from corporate America. Corporate America won't pay it if they are not allowed to benefit from it. And when they can no longer use the government in self-serving ways, we will again elect true public servants to serve instead of the professional permanent political class that controls all the power in government now.
 
I'd love to see Rand Paul elected president. Sadly he won't ever get the blue blood North Eastern Banker crowds money nor will he ever get the Jewish Neo Con factions money which means essentially they'll prevent him financially from making any real progress. That said, I think the future of America politically belongs to charismatic (which Paul is not) Libertarians who will in the future appeal to far more people than both GOP or DNC.

To be frank both the GOP Houston oil and other mineralist oligarchs and blue blood North Eastern finance oligarchs that run the GOP and the West Coast Tech oligarchs and North East Jewish finance oligarchs that run the DNC both viscerally disgust me to no end and I think they should all be tried as the criminal societal suppressor authoritarians they truly are.
 
Yeah he's not making any friends in the MIC and because the MIC hawks who want 1 war after another control the GOP he's not making any friends in the GOP either. Which means he has no chance.

Rand Paul blames Republican hawks for rise of ISIS
By STEVE PEOPLES Associated Press
First Published 50 minutes ago • Updated 48 minutes ago

Washington • Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul is blaming his own party for the rise of the Islamic State group.

The freshman senator from Kentucky said Wednesday that the GOP's foreign policy hawks "created these people." That assertion led potential 2016 rival Bobby Jindal, Louisiana's governor, to say Paul was unqualified to be president.

The Islamic State group, commonly referred to as ISIS, has seized one-third of Iraq and Syria and in recent days made gains in central Iraq.

"ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately," Paul said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." He continued: "They created these people. ISIS is all over Libya because these same hawks in my party loved — they loved Hillary Clinton's war in Libya. They just wanted more of it."

Foreign policy has emerged as a central debate in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

Many of Paul's Republican colleagues have offered aggressive rhetoric, but few specifics when asked about IS.

Paul favors less military intervention abroad, wants a dramatic reduction in U.S. money to foreign governments and stands in opposition to the Patriot Act and the U.S. policy behind drone strikes. It all makes him something of an outlier on foreign policy and national security in the GOP field.

He stood apart from many in his party in opposing U.S. military action in Syria before the ascension of the Islamic State.

Sensitive to being branded an isolationist in the race, he has scaled back some of his positions, no longer calling for deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, for example, and no longer proposing the elimination of foreign aid, including to Israel.

On the Islamic State, he wants coalitions of Arab troops — instead of U.S. troops — to take the lead on the ground.

Paul's comments also underscore the challenge for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, whose brother launched the invasion of Iraq more than a decade ago.

Jeb Bush faced pointed questions recently from a college student in Nevada who said former President George W. Bush "created ISIS."

The younger Bush does not blame his brother, but instead accuses the Obama administration of creating a void by withdrawing American forces, creating a vacuum in Iraq that was ultimately filled by the Islamic State group.

Jindal described Paul's comments as "a perfect example of why Senator Paul is unsuited to be commander in chief."

"We have men and women in the military who are in the field trying to fight ISIS right now, and Senator Paul is taking the weakest, most liberal Democrat position," Jindal said. "We should all be clear that evil and radical Islam are at fault for the rise of ISIS, and people like President Obama and Hillary Clinton exacerbate it."

In his interview earlier, Paul described Iraq as "a failed state" and criticized Republicans who condemn his foreign policy as weak.

"Everything that they have talked about in foreign policy, they have been wrong about for 20 years, and yet they have somehow the gall to keep saying and pointing fingers otherwise," Paul said.


Rand Paul blames Republican hawks for rise of ISIS | The Salt Lake Tribune
 
Rand Paul is much better than Jeb Bush.
 
I think he is a really good alternative to Jeb Bush who is not a really good Republican. Should Rand Paul be the candidate for the Republicans in 2016?

I would vote for Rand Paul,Ted Cruz or Scott Walker.Anyone else and I am leaving that part of the ballot blank or I might be tempted to vote for a democrat.My state does not allow write in candidates and it screws 3rd parties, so a third party candidate is out of the question for me.
 
Just another neocon. We have had enough of those.
 
ConsvLiberal said:
Should Rand Paul be the candidate for the Republicans in 2016?

Rand Paul is a shallow grandstander prone to making insane comments.

He would be a bad candidate for the party, which he wouldn't be able to unify, and that makes him a bad candidate for the election.

SenorXM/Sirius said:
Jeb Bush is going to be the GOP nom., all the wishing and calling him 'not a good Republican', whatever that means, won't change the inevitable. He has the name, the money, the backing, and the political machine. Pencil him in now.

Jeb's support among Republicans has collapsed in half since Walker and Rubio entered the race, and among Republicans he has net negatives (and some of the highest negatives), as well as being "acceptable" to only a minority of self-identified Republicans.


Bush, at the same time, has even greater difficulties with personal favorability than Clinton, and a far weaker home base. He’s lost 11 points in support for the nomination among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who are registered to vote, from a front-running 21 percent in March to 10 percent, smack alongside Scott Walker and Rand Paul (11 percent apiece) and Marco Rubio (10 percent). Mike Huckabee has 9 percent support, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, 8 percent each

In December, 63 percent of Republican voters said they could see themselves backing Bush, today it's just 49 percent.
 
What the GOP needs to win is a moderate that they will actually allow to run as a moderate. Of course, that won't happen as even if they get a moderate, they will force them to run so far to the right that they will be unelectable. Then they will claim they need a true conservative to win.

Or the one they do get, will be incredibly unlikable ala Romney (Romney's strongly conservative views on social issues, imo, didn't help either).

Jeb's support among Republicans has collapsed in half since Walker and Rubio entered the race, and among Republicans he has net negatives (and some of the highest negatives), as well as being "acceptable" to only a minority of self-identified Republicans.

Hopefully Jeb's numbers keep dropping, personally I don't like any of the Republican candidates (Pataki I might like, but not like he'd have a chance), but not having a Jeb vs. Hilary general election would be great.
 
Last edited:
Lol...another one of these polls that only sees Americans as left or right leaning.

Hello? There are tens of millions who are neither.

Stop living in the 50's.
 

Sounds like 2012 all over again with Romney and how at 1st it was said he didn't have a chance. There was even a term for the other candidates, they were the Not-Romney candidates. But he was still the nominee in the end.

He was the GOP establishment's pick, he was seen as he most moderate(even though for some reason in the general election he ran waaay to the right, which killed him with the moderate voters), and he was seen to have the best chance to win. You got pretty much the same thing in 2016. Bush will be the GOP's establishment's pick, he's moderate(the difference is IMO Bush will tell the right wing loons to F off and he'll run as a moderate, where as Romney was a wussy and caved to the right wing), and he has the best chance to win.
 
Lol...another one of these polls that only sees Americans as left or right leaning.

Hello? There are tens of millions who are neither.

Stop living in the 50's.

I couldn't respond either as I am independent and an "issues" voter (issues most important to me).

Interesting that the number of burgeoning Independent voters is steadily rising while mainstream media gives independents little attention.
 
Rand Paul is a shallow grandstander prone to making insane comments.

He would be a bad candidate for the party, which he wouldn't be able to unify, and that makes him a bad candidate for the election.



Jeb's support among Republicans has collapsed in half since Walker and Rubio entered the race, and among Republicans he has net negatives (and some of the highest negatives), as well as being "acceptable" to only a minority of self-identified Republicans.


Bush, at the same time, has even greater difficulties with personal favorability than Clinton, and a far weaker home base. He’s lost 11 points in support for the nomination among Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who are registered to vote, from a front-running 21 percent in March to 10 percent, smack alongside Scott Walker and Rand Paul (11 percent apiece) and Marco Rubio (10 percent). Mike Huckabee has 9 percent support, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, 8 percent each

In December, 63 percent of Republican voters said they could see themselves backing Bush, today it's just 49 percent.


I would agree CPW. :2wave: Randal Paul. Wouldn't be one that would unify. Moreover he isn't up on much, where the Big Boys play.

But he would be better than any Demos getting control of the Presidency again.
 
Far be-it for me to vote GOP in their current environment (I did vote Reagan once - it was a mistake), but I'm not at all crazy about HRC either, beyond her dedication to national healthcare.

Of all the GOP, I find Mr. Paul not only the most palatable, and I'm finding I really like a great deal of what he's currently saying - I could vote for him if he softened his Libertarian-right stand on a few social & economic issues (healthcare, predominately). And I'd vote for him DESPITE his being GOP, and I never thought I'd say that today!

I recently was exploring themes where there's some belief that Liberals & Libertarians may have enough common-ground to come together to affect change, particularly at the local & state levels, with perhaps enough common-ground to even attempt a third party. That's a tall order, but the Democratic Party has fallen away from much of the more Classical Liberal thought (not all Dems want cradle-to-grave means-tested entitlements), & the GOP doesn't seem to suit Libertarians that well either - so who knows?

One can hope.
 
Far be-it for me to vote GOP in their current environment (I did vote Reagan once - it was a mistake), but I'm not at all crazy about HRC either, beyond her dedication to national healthcare.

Of all the GOP, I find Mr. Paul not only the most palatable, and I'm finding I really like a great deal of what he's currently saying - I could vote for him if he softened his Libertarian-right stand on a few social & economic issues (healthcare, predominately). And I'd vote for him DESPITE his being GOP, and I never thought I'd say that today!

I recently was exploring themes where there's some belief that Liberals & Libertarians may have enough common-ground to come together to affect change, particularly at the local & state levels, with perhaps enough common-ground to even attempt a third party. That's a tall order, but the Democratic Party has fallen away from much of the more Classical Liberal thought (not all Dems want cradle-to-grave means-tested entitlements), & the GOP doesn't seem to suit Libertarians that well either - so who knows?

One can hope.

I could bring myself to vote of Paul, I believe. But he won't get the nomination, he is not exactly a party player and in today's political climate, only party players have a chance.
 
Jeb Bush is going to be the GOP nom., all the wishing and calling him 'not a good Republican', whatever that means, won't change the inevitable. He has the name, the money, the backing, and the political machine. Pencil him in now.

So the Republican voters, and the Republican voters who call themselves Libertarians but who are really Republicans better find something they like about Jeb. They still defend Jeb's brother's awful presidency, the lies, the useless Iraqi war, the crapping all over our civil rights and liberties, the growing the size of the government like never before. So it shouldn't be too hard for them to find something they like about Jeb.

I like his name. Jeb. Has a good American ring to it.
 
So far Sanders has my attention and interest. I like what I have seen in the past and what I am seeing now. It's refreshing. I'd love to see him push Hillary off the radar.
I'm with you in this.

I'm not at all thrilled with Scy. Clinton, but the only worse scenario I could see, would be voting GOP.

I like Sen. Warren's push for financial fairness & opportunity, but besides that single dimension (and it's a very good one!), I don't see much else - though I suspect that could change if she were to campaign for office.

But now Sen. Sanders - he is really showing some spunk! And the more I see, the more I like. And, I believe he would likely work on financial reform as well as Sen. Warren. I'm most impressed not just width his breadth, but his depth; he's been at this, seemingly unchanged, since the early '70's. And when he gets into office, he continues to champion his electioneering causes! And executes them well!

He gets my vote hands-down in the primary, and obviously all-the-way if he makes it to the Presidential.

Otherwise, I'll begrudgingly vote for Secy. Clinton based primarily on her dedication to national healthcare. But it will be a vote of GOP opposition, not one of HRC support.
 
I like his name. Jeb. Has a good American ring to it.
Fair enough south of the Mason-Dixon - but up here something like 'Joe' (or 'Jim' or 'Jack') flies a lot better.

Jeb still has that 'Clampett' thing going on to some of us Northerners ... (probably because he's the only 'Jeb' we've known)
 
I would agree CPW. :2wave: Randal Paul. Wouldn't be one that would unify. Moreover he isn't up on much, where the Big Boys play.

But he would be better than any Demos getting control of the Presidency again.

Exactly. I have to grit my teeth when I hear people say that if so-and-so is not the candidate or if so-and-so is the candidate I won't vote or I'll vote Democrat or whatever. At some point Americans have to put the country ahead of ideology, and need to stop putting their sacred cows ahead of the greater good. It is important to elect the person most closely aligned with the right values, the strength of his or her convictions, and a willingness to accomplish the greater good. And for those of us who think less government and more liberty will always accomplish the greater good, that means no Democrat currently in the running should be elected since all see more government and more federal spending as the solution to everything.
 
Fair enough south of the Mason-Dixon - but up here something like 'Joe' (or 'Jim' or 'Jack') flies a lot better.

Jeb still has that 'Clampett' thing going on to some of us Northerners ... (probably because he's the only 'Jeb' we've known)

I live in Texas and I've never met anyone named Jeb. Still like it though.
 
Exactly. I have to grit my teeth when I hear people say that if so-and-so is not the candidate or if so-and-so is the candidate I won't vote or I'll vote Democrat or whatever. At some point Americans have to put the country ahead of ideology, and need to stop putting their sacred cows ahead of the greater good. It is important to elect the person most closely aligned with the right values, the strength of his or her convictions, and a willingness to accomplish the greater good. And for those of us who think less government and more liberty will always accomplish the greater good, that means no Democrat currently in the running should be elected since all see more government and more federal spending as the solution to everything.


Heya AO.
hat.gif
If anything this last presidency has taught those on the Right.....this time, come out and vote. Don't stay home talking about The Repub Nominee doesn't reflect all of the parties values.

Look what happened.....now its going to take someone from the Right their entire first term to clean up BO peep and the Demos mess.
 
Exactly. I have to grit my teeth when I hear people say that if so-and-so is not the candidate or if so-and-so is the candidate I won't vote or I'll vote Democrat or whatever. At some point Americans have to put the country ahead of ideology, and need to stop putting their sacred cows ahead of the greater good.

That doesn't sound like something we'd do. The parties love the polarization, the more they polarize the easier they can ensure Repbulocrat dominance.
 
I'm with you in this.

I'm not at all thrilled with Scy. Clinton, but the only worse scenario I could see, would be voting GOP.

I like Sen. Warren's push for financial fairness & opportunity, but besides that single dimension (and it's a very good one!), I don't see much else - though I suspect that could change if she were to campaign for office.

But now Sen. Sanders - he is really showing some spunk! And the more I see, the more I like. And, I believe he would likely work on financial reform as well as Sen. Warren. I'm most impressed not just width his breadth, but his depth; he's been at this, seemingly unchanged, since the early '70's. And when he gets into office, he continues to champion his electioneering causes! And executes them well!

He gets my vote hands-down in the primary, and obviously all-the-way if he makes it to the Presidential.

Otherwise, I'll begrudgingly vote for Secy. Clinton based primarily on her dedication to national healthcare. But it will be a vote of GOP opposition, not one of HRC support.

Bernie is exciting. Yesterday he said that he'd like GOP and Democratic candidates to debate now! I love that. Sanders contents that such a debate would force all. Candidates to focus on the real issues so that Americans could have a better understanding of the candidates' actual positions instead of the platitudinous drivel we are likely to hear. That's a hell of an idea. One that probably all other candidates would hate to have happen, including Hillary. Who would benefit? All Americans would. That's why no other candidate is going to jump on that idea.

Sanders also said that as president he in interviewing Supreme Court candidates he will only consider those who promise him that they will vote to overturn Citizens United if given the opportunity. Hell, yes! A candidate with balls.

I won't vote for Hillary, no matter what. She a Big Money player, prone to call for military action, and as dishonest as the day is long. Hopefully it won't be a choice. Go Bernie!
 
That doesn't sound like something we'd do. The parties love the polarization, the more they polarize the easier they can ensure Repbulocrat dominance.

Yep. Someone mentioned earlier that there's more and more Independents but the media doesn't give the Independents a mention or air time. The reason is what you said, it's better for ratings when they report about the polarization. The moderates and Indy's just go about their business everyday, no drama, no screaming. The Dems and the GOP fights and insults sells. It's the political version of a reality show. The media knows this, as do the GOP and the Dems. Keep us at each others throats, it keeps the 24/7 news channels going and keeps the GOP and Dem dominance alive and well.
 
Yep. Someone mentioned earlier that there's more and more Independents but the media doesn't give the Independents a mention or air time. The reason is what you said, it's better for ratings when they report about the polarization. The moderates and Indy's just go about their business everyday, no drama, no screaming. The Dems and the GOP fights and insults sells. It's the political version of a reality show. The media knows this, as do the GOP and the Dems. Keep us at each others throats, it keeps the 24/7 news channels going and keeps the GOP and Dem dominance alive and well.

Yeah, Ross Perot put an end to that. That crazy bastard got so much of the popular vote, it scared the Republocrats. If a crazy guy could get over 10% the popular vote, what would happen if they included other candidates from other parties that weren't quite as crazy? So the League of Women Voters lost control over the Presidential Debates, they made campaign finance reform to help dissuade political competition, the press stopped talking about anything other than Republocrats, and we have our nice little rigged puppet show where the R and the D polarize while saying and doing noting new.
 
Heya AO.
hat.gif
If anything this last presidency has taught those on the Right.....this time, come out and vote. Don't stay home talking about The Repub Nominee doesn't reflect all of the parties values.

Look what happened.....now its going to take someone from the Right their entire first term to clean up BO peep and the Demos mess.

That is the problem. All Presidents have to clean up any messes left over from the previous administration and there is always a mess or two to clean up no matter who is or was President. The thing is, if he does a good job of that, he looks good. Even though he had some rocky economic times, Reagan looked really good in comparison to Carter because he was able to improve on Carter's far more disastrous economy. A really good presidency is a tough act to follow because the next president may or may not have as fortunate a situation as his predecessor.

George W. Bush for instance had to follow Bill Clinton who was a competent administrator and who had one of the best congresses to work with, at least in my lifetime. Clinton also had no major crises to deal with except for the dot.com bubble burst. And because there was a forward looking Congress in place at that time and because Clinton didn't resist them all that much, we recovered from that crisis fairly quickly--though the Nasdaq has yet to reach its former heights. Bush, in comparison, had the old guard GOP back in power for his first six years and the most left leaning Democratic congress ever in power the last two years plus he had to contend with 9/11, Katrina, and the housing bubble burst. He could have been the best President in the world--which he wasn't--and he wouldn't have looked good in comparison to Clinton, at least to those who don't look below the surface for their facts.

Obama had the best of all scenarios--inherited a miserable economy and all manner of crises when he took office, and had he been competent to deal with it, he could have really shone and been the hero. But alas, not being up the job, he simply has mostly bungled that opportunity. The more the pity.

Whoever takes over in 2017 has a golden opportunity to shine. Let's try to elect somebody who can capitalize on that opportunity in a way that is for the greater good of us all.
 
Back
Top Bottom